Counterculture Con HQ

November 13, 2011

Liberal moderator argues with Newt Gingrich on targeted assassinations

At one of the GOP debates, Liberal media rep Scott Pelley forgets he’s just a moderator and tries to argue with Newt Gingrich about the rule of law as applied to enemy combatants (why are Liberals moderating GOP debates?  That is insane).  Mr. Pelley argues these targeted assassinations are “outside of the law” because they are “extra-judicial” and not approved by a judge or jury.  Essentially the same old moral posturing disguised as “constitutional analysis” we’ve come to expect from these Libs for the last ten years.  Mind you, Pelley’s job is to ask questions, not argue with the candidates, but he just can’t help himself.  But this isn’t Herman Cain he’s arguing with, who like most political neophytes isn’t yet sure why/what he believes and has to make it up on the fly.  This is Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest and most experienced players in American politics, and there’s nothing the likes of Pelley can do to intimidate him.  Here Newt reminds Pelley what is (or should be) common sense to the rest of us.  If you want the protections of the U.S. Constitution and civilian courts of law, then you must SUBMIT YOURSELF to them.  Otherwise you are off the reservation and deserve what’s coming to you.

“If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United States.

June 4, 2011

East Jerusalem and the Fiction of the 1967 borders

Jerusalem, undivided capital of Israel.

Just as we would expect from him, President Obama has thrown his lot in with the Arabs and is demanding Israel to withdraw to the 1967 “borders” as part of his new Middle East peace plan curtain raising.  I use the scare quotes because they were never actually historical borders, not in any genuine sense of the word, but merely an armistice line resulting from Israel’s war of independence in 1948.  There is nothing about those armistice lines upon which the Palestinians can lay any objective claim– Israel might have acquired more than that in ’48, or less.  No matter.  Those “borders” are as fictitious and impermanent as is the 48th Parallel in Korea.  Yet the real goal of pushing Israel back to pre-1967 lines isn’t about restoring “historical borders” or gaining the Palestinians a few extra acres of rocky soil on which to raise some goats.  If mere acreage were the issue, Palestinians would accept the proposed land swaps allowing Israel some semblance of defensible borders.  But they don’t.  No, CCHQ believes the real object of Obama’s and the Palestinian’s 1967 initiative is to split Jerusalem down the center, as it was pre-1967, and establish a Palestinian capital there.  Make no mistake about it, returning to ’67 is all about East Jerusalem.

What you won’t hear from President Obama, however, is that when it comes to the issue of those borders, the current Arab residents of Jerusalem don’t see eye to eye with him nor their palestinian brethren.

Arabs of Jerusalem ask Israel to remain in control

The Israeli Knesset’s Interior Committee met on Monday to discuss future control of Jerusalem as pressure mounts for Israel to surrender the city’s eastern half to the Palestinian Authority.  Among those slated to address the committee were Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem who want to continue living under Israeli sovereignty.

That these Arabs would risk their lives to come forward and request to remain part of Israel debunks the international misconception most recently enunciated by US President Barack Obama that the Palestinian Arabs cannot reach their full potential or live dignified lives while under “Israeli occupation.”

It also provides further evidence for the conclusion of Israel Today’s recent cover story revealing that many Palestinian Arabs do not want an independent state, and already live in peace and prosperity with their Jewish neighbors.  Monday’s Knesset gathering was called by lawmakers who are growing increasingly concerned over how parts of eastern Jerusalem are slowly falling under the de facto control of the Palestinian regime.

“Signs of Israeli sovereignty are disappearing in parts of Jerusalem that are behind the partition fence and their place is being taken by hostile elements,” wrote the lawmakers. “This, despite the lack of any decision by the Knesset or the government on the matter.”

They warned that this “impotence leads to the de facto division of Jerusalem.”


December 25, 2010

North Korea Threatens War on Christmas

The Norks hate Christmas trees too!  Remind you of somebody? lol

SOUTH Korea says a giant Christmas tree near the North Korean border will stay lit up till January 8 – a move likely to anger Pyongyang since the date marks the birthday of its heir apparent. The communist North sees the tree topped with a glowing cross as a provocative propaganda symbol.

The tree – a 29-metre metal tower strung with light bulbs – was lit up on Tuesday for the first time in seven years as marines stood guard against any cross-border attack on it.  The tree, atop a military-controlled hill near the tense land border, was due to be switched off on December 26.

”However, we have decided to keep it until early January 8, in consideration of requests from religious groups,” defence ministry spokesman Kim Min-Seok told a briefing.  ”At first, we planned to keep the lighting on only briefly because of (military) burdens but we had second thoughts as it may send a message of peace to the North.”


December 12, 2010

AP: “Terrorist” attack in Sweden

Police forensics expert at scene in Stockholm

Apparently Sweden isn’t Leftwing enough to stave off Islamic “blowback.”  Did you think you would be spared, Libs?  Do you actually believe your Liberalism and “openess” immunizes you from this?  This was supposed to end once the neocons of the Bush administration were expelled from office and Obama began to heal the planet.  And Sweden’s crime is what exactly?  Apparently they have 500 troops in Afghanistan as members of NATO (none engaged in combat), and their official “silence” regarding the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons.

The first thing you will notice about this article are the scare quotes the Associated Press uses for the word ‘terrorism.’  You see, everybody–even Swedish officials– acknowledge this attack was an act of terrorism, but I guess the AP isn’t yet convinced.  The perception shapers in the mainstream media would have you believe that calling acts of violence such as this ‘terrorism’ is mere supposition on the part of racists and fearmongers, while the AP only deals in “cold hard facts.”

The next thing you will notice is the sound of dislocating vertebrae as Swedish officials bend over backwards to minimize the public perception fallout lest it threaten their multicultural project.

Officials condemn “terrorist” attack in Sweden

STOCKHOLM – Two blasts that shook a busy shopping street in central Stockholm were an act of terrorism, officials said Sunday. If confirmed as a suicide bombing, it would be the first such attack in the Nordic country.  Police would not comment on a motive for the attack Saturday that killed the apparent bomber and wounded two other people. But a Swedish news agency said it received an e-mail threat just before the blast in which the writer claimed to have visited the Middle East “for jihad,” and referred to Sweden’s soldiers in Afghanistan and a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad that outraged the Muslim world.

The terror threat alert is not being raised from its current elevated level, although security police are investigating the attacks as “a crime of terror,” spokesman Anders Thornberg told reporters.  “When we go through the existing criteria and the series of events that occurred, it fits well within the description of a terror crime,” Thornberg said.  He declined to elaborate and gave no information about the dead man.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt condemned the attack.  The attack “is unacceptable because Sweden is an open society and an open society which has stated a wish that people should be able to have different backgrounds, believe in different gods or not believe in any at all, and live side by side in our open society,” Reinfeldt said at a news conference.

He warned against speculation that “could lead to conclusions that create tension which paints pictures that are then difficult to change.” Carl Bildt, the foreign minister, said it was “a most worrying attempt at a terrorist attack.” Bildt commented in a Twitter message that it “failed — but could have been truly catastrophic.”

Thornberg did not confirm local media reports that the man who died had explosives strapped to his body. He also would not say if the man was a suspected suicide bomber as widely reported by Swedish media, saying police have “a totally clear picture about that” but were not sharing the information.


December 1, 2010

SkyNet: “Like an F-35 Appearing on a WWI battlefield”

Filed under: Foreign Policy, Iran, U.S. Military — Tags: — Jesusland @ 15:54

Bush’s fault!  This was an enthralling read.  And frightening.  Because if we can use this to shut down rogue state nuclear weapons programs, somebody else (the Chinese or Russians) can use one just like this to shut down our own grids– with unimaginable consequences.  And we can’t stop it.

Stuxnet “Cyber Missile” Cripples Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

In the 20th century, this would have been a job for James Bond.  The mission: Infiltrate the highly advanced, securely guarded enemy headquarters where scientists in the clutches of an evil master are secretly building a weapon that can destroy the world. Then render that weapon harmless and escape undetected.

But in the 21st century, Bond doesn’t get the call. Instead, the job is handled by a suave and very sophisticated secret computer worm, a jumble of code called Stuxnet, which in the last year has not only crippled Iran’s nuclear program but has caused a major rethinking of computer security around the globe.

Simply put, Stuxnet is an incredibly advanced, undetectable computer worm that took years to construct and was designed to jump from computer to computer until it found the specific, protected control system that it aimed to destroy: Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Intelligence agencies, computer security companies and the nuclear industry have been trying to analyze the worm since it was discovered in June by a Belarus-based company that was doing business in Iran. And what they’ve all found, says Sean McGurk, the Homeland Security Department’s acting director of national cyber security and communications integration, is a “game changer.”The construction of the worm was so advanced, it was “like the arrival of an F-35 into a World War I battlefield,” says Ralph Langner, the computer expert who was the first to sound the alarm about Stuxnet. Others have called it the first “weaponized” computer virus.

The target was seemingly impenetrable; for security reasons, it lay several stories underground and was not connected to the World Wide Web. And that meant Stuxnet had to act as sort of a computer cruise missile: As it made its passage through a set of unconnected computers, it had to grow and adapt to security measures and other changes until it reached one that could bring it into the nuclear facility.

Read the rest.

November 16, 2010

American Empire: Afghan Mineral Rights go to Japan

That’s some empire.  More proof that the democracies installed by American military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t “puppets”, but sovereign countries exercising control over their own resources.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said this week that Japan — not the U.S. — takes priority over other nations when it comes to mining his country’s vast mineral deposits.

Karzai made his proclamation during a five-day visit to Japan. Over that same time period, news reports surfaced that Afghanistan and Pakistan planned to negotiate with U.S.-NATO enemies, the U.N. reported that insurgent violence is surging, and Reuters tried to parse the Pentagon’s mixed messages over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

During an appearance at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Karzai focused on his country’s mineral deposits. He pointed to Japan’s status as Afghanistan’s second-biggest donor, and reasoned that Japan should enjoy special access to Afghan resources with estimated values that range from $1-3 trillion dollars.

“Morally, Afghanistan should give access as a priority to those countries that have helped Afghanistan massively in the past few years,” Karzai told the institute.  “What . . . we have to reciprocate with is this opportunity of mineral resources, that we must return at the goodwill of the Japanese people by giving Japan priority to come and explore and extract,” Karzai said.

Looking to the future, Karzai echoed an internal Pentagon memo and said that the mining will define Afghanistan, “Whereas Saudi Arabia is the oil capital of the world, Afghanistan will be the lithium capital of the world…. And Japan is welcome to participate in the lithium exploration in Afghanistan.”

An analysis by The New York Times would suggest that the vast majority of Afghans should not share Karzai’s optimism about the deposits:


First, Iraqi oil rights that go to China, France, and Norway instead of to us.  Now Afghan mineral rights that go to Japan.   So where is all that cheap oil from Iraq we were promised by the anti-war Left, anyway?  Where are the Afghan oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea?  And now they tell us we have to buy our lithium from frikin Japan?  That is outrageous.  Where are my spoils of war?  Where is my loot?  Where are my barbarian sex slaves?  What kind of an empire is this anyway?  Will those Leftists so fond of branding America an “empire” modify their narrative in the face of so many inconvenient truths?  Not in the slightest.  That’s their anti-American story, and they’re sticking to it.

November 14, 2010

The Post-American President

Shellacked and shellshocked.

I am a JFK Liberal– what today we call “conservative.”  This was American Liberalism before the Frankfurt School sunk its moral and cultural relativist hooks into it and transformed the Liberalism of our youth into an ideology of decline, mired in self-loathing and doubt after the Great Wars shattered any further illusions that modernity would usher in an era of Earthly paradise.  They would avoid another apocalypse by “not taking sides.”  To a question about American exceptionalism, President Obama uncomfortably and awkwardly answered that he believes in American exceptionalism the way the Greeks and Brits believe in their own exceptionalism (except the Greeks don’t believe in their exceptionalism unless they’re speaking about the ancient Greeks).  By equating it with mere “national pride,” this was a roundabout way of telling his European audience that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.  An answer you’d expect from a detached college professor, not our nation’s leader.  That’s why I believe the Obama presidency will fail.  Notwithstanding his own self-serving autobiographies, the book has not yet been written on the Age of Obama.  Nevertheless, it’s not looking very good at this point– and not because he is less than innately brilliant as a human being (though modern Liberalism certainly does make you more stupid). But because, well– as a child of the Left–  he can’t and won’t embrace Americanism. He won’t take sides.

No Camelot 2.0: The decline of liberal idealism

For the now aging partisans of Camelot, November is a month of anniversaries. It was 50 years ago last week when John F. Kennedy was elected to the presidency as the sophisticated champion of the new liberalism. And it was 47 years ago next week that the dreams of Camelot were cruelly snuffed out on the streets of Dallas.

The dual anniversaries signify the extreme emotions of hope and despair that recollections of the Kennedy years still provoke among those whose political outlooks were shaped during that era. They are one reason why we have yet to find closure as to the meaning of the Kennedy presidency. Still viewed from extreme and shifting perspectives, JFK’s administration has yet to come into clear focus. Nor, according to some, is Camelot yet a thing of the past. For nearly 50 years it has inspired hopes in many that Kennedy’s spirit eventually will be renewed in the person of some new champion.

Thus it was that Barack Obama came to the presidency two years ago amid breathless expectations that he would restore the spirit of Camelot and revive the fortunes of liberalism. Much as happened with JFK, Obama’s admirers showered him with superlatives out of proportion to his actual accomplishments. The Camelot legend, if it had been studied and its lessons taken to heart, might have proved a cautionary tale about the consequences of excessive ambition and of successes gained too early and without effort. The Arthurian tale, after all, does not have a “lived happily ever after” ending.

Nor, as things are beginning to look, will the Obama presidency. The “shellacking” his party took in the midterm elections has killed off all hopes that he will preside over a renewal of any kind, unless it is a renewal of conservatism in response to his missteps and miscalculations. Rarely in the past has a president been so sharply rebuked by the voters in a midterm election. Nor has a president ever squandered so quickly the kinds of political advantages that Obama carried with him into office. Understandably, then, the references to Camelot and to JFK are not much heard these days.

Obama might have learned a thing or two from the real JFK as opposed to the idealized image of the man that took shape after his death. The posthumous references to Kennedy’s idealism have obscured the fact that he was a politician of exceptional skill for whom persuasion and compromise were keys to success. He never wanted to get too far ahead of public opinion, nor did he try to ram through controversial legislation on partisan votes. Though elected by a razor-thin margin in 1960, Kennedy managed to gain a stalemate for his party in the 1962 midterm elections. He was still widely popular in late 1963 when he embarked on that visit to Texas. Had he lived, he undoubtedly would have won reelection by a comfortable margin.

In truth, the Camelot ideal never fit Obama, who brought to the presidency a sense of ambivalence about the American future and America’s role in the world. It is hard to play the role of inspiring leader while counseling one’s citizens to scale back their expectations. While President Obama is capable of eloquence, his attempts often fall short because they are accompanied by an undertow of caution and pessimism.

It is hard to imagine Obama saying, as Kennedy did, that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Such bold calls to arms were perfectly consistent with the Liberalism of Kennedy’s time, but for many reasons are at odds with the Liberalism of today. For better or worse, Obama’s ambitions do not approach the high ideals of Camelot—and he and his admirers might be better off if they acknowledged that.

Read the rest.

October 28, 2010

Modern Liberalism’s “bad faith in America”

Black Teabbager Shelby Steel

President Obama as the Redeemer of a fallen nation, not the leader of a great one.  I wish I’d thought of that line.  It encapsulates the Left’s inherent “bad faith in America” (another great line).  This is the elitism you sense even though you can’t always put your finger on it or describe to others.  It results not in merely a desire to improve the country, but for  “fundamental transformation.”  And not gradually and organically, but rapidly and cataclysmically.


Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the “transformative” aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to “change” us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the “no” in the “party of no” even more formidable, if not definitive.

But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.

How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?

The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don’t know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.

All this would be enough to explain the disillusionment with this president—and with the Democratic Party that he leads. But there is also a deeper disjunction. There is an “otherness” about Mr. Obama, the sense that he is somehow not truly American. “Birthers” doubt that he was born on American soil. Others believe that he is secretly a Muslim, or in quiet simpatico with his old friends, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, now icons of American radicalism.

But Barack Obama is not an “other” so much as he is a child of the 1960s. His coming of age paralleled exactly the unfolding of a new “counterculture” American identity. And this new American identity—and the post-1960s liberalism it spawned—is grounded in a remarkable irony: bad faith in America as virtue itself, bad faith in the classic American identity of constitutional freedom and capitalism as the way to a better America. So Mr. Obama is very definitely an American, and he has a broad American constituency. He is simply the first president we have seen grounded in this counterculture American identity. When he bows to foreign leaders, he is not displaying “otherness” but the counterculture Americanism of honorable self-effacement in which America acknowledges its own capacity for evil as prelude to engagement.

Bad faith in America became virtuous in the ’60s when America finally acknowledged so many of its flagrant hypocrisies: the segregation of blacks, the suppression of women, the exploitation of other minorities, the “imperialism” of the Vietnam War, the indifference to the environment, the hypocrisy of puritanical sexual mores and so on. The compounding of all these hypocrisies added up to the crowning idea of the ’60s: that America was characterologically evil. Thus the only way back to decency and moral authority was through bad faith in America and its institutions, through the presumption that evil was America’s natural default position.

Among today’s liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness. More importantly, it is the perfect formula for political and governmental power. It rationalizes power in the name of intervening against evil—I will use the government to intervene against the evil tendencies of American life (economic inequality, structural racism and sexism, corporate greed, neglect of the environment and so on), so I need your vote.

“Hope and Change” positioned Mr. Obama as a conduit between an old America worn down by its evil inclinations and a new America redeemed of those inclinations. There was no vision of the future in “Hope and Change.” It is an expression of bad faith in America, but its great ingenuity was to turn that bad faith into political motivation, into votes.

But there is a limit to bad faith as power, and Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party may have now reached that limit. The great weakness of bad faith is that it disallows American exceptionalism as a rationale for power. It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation. They bet on America’s characterological evil and not on her sense of fairness, generosity or ingenuity.

Our great presidents have been stewards, men who broadly identified with the whole of America. Stewardship meant responsibility even for those segments of America where one might be reviled. Surely Mr. Obama would claim such stewardship. But he has functioned more as a redeemer than a steward, a leader who sees a badness in us from which we must be redeemed. Many Americans are afraid of this because a mandate as grandiose as redemption justifies a vast expansion of government. A redeemer can’t just tweak and guide a faltering economy; he will need a trillion- dollar stimulus package. He can’t take on health care a step at a time; he must do it all at once, finally mandating that every citizen buy in.

Next week’s election is, among other things, a referendum on the idea of president-as- redeemer. We have a president so determined to transform and redeem us from what we are that, by his own words, he is willing to risk being a one-term president. People now wonder if Barack Obama can pivot back to the center like Bill Clinton did after his set-back in ’94. But Mr. Clinton was already a steward, a policy wonk, a man of the center. Mr. Obama has to change archetypes.

Read the rest.

October 25, 2010

George Clooney Exposes Bill Maher’s Ignorant Hatred For Conservatives

George Clooney is smart. He doesn’t care if his movies tank at the box office when they insult and take gratuitous shots at conservatives.  He knows he’ll get the roles regardless.  But Darfur is close to his heart and he doesn’t want to alienate his conservatives backers. Bill Maher, unlike Clooney, is just a talker, not a doer like Clooney, so it doesn’t matter who he offends as long as he has his clapping seals on board.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

October 4, 2010

US strike kills 5 “German” militants in Pakistan

Five "Germans" Killed in U.S. missile strike

Barack Obama Declares War on Ze Germans!

AP – An American missile strike killed five German militants Monday in the rugged Pakistan border area where a cell of Germans and Britons at the heart of the U.S. terror alert for Europe — a plot U.S. officials link to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden — were believed in hiding.

The attack, part of a recent spike in American drone strikes on Pakistan, came as Germany said it has “concrete evidence” that at least 70 Germans have undergone paramilitary training in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and about a third have returned to German.

Authorities across Europe have heightened security at airports and other travel hubs as well as at main tourist attractions following the U.S. warning of an al-Qaida-linked terror plot targeting London, Paris, Berlin and other European capitals.

Washington warned Americans over the weekend to use caution when traveling in Europe and imposed a curfew on some U.S. troops based in Germany. On Monday, Britain, Japan and Sweden issued warnings of their own, advising their citizens traveling in Europe to be on alert for possible terrorist attack by al-Qaida or other groups.

Police officers with sniffer dogs patrolled subways in Britain on Monday, while soldiers and mounted police were dispatched to two major churches in Paris — Notre Dame in the heart of the city and Sacre Coeur on the Right Bank. Paramilitary troops were also seen patrolling the area around the Eiffel Tower — twice evacuated in recent weeks for unspecified threats.

The U.S. missile strike in Pakistan killed five German militants taking shelter in a house in the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan, a known hub for foreign militants with links to al-Qaida, Pakistani intelligence officials said.  The terror cell said to be behind the Europe plot — eight Germans and a Briton — were believed to have been in hiding in the region. A second Briton was killed in a U.S. strike last month


Germans my big black ass.  MUSLIMS.

But the term ‘German’ is tossed around so liberally here you’d think we were reading old newsprint from the Great War.  Because of course, the determining factor here is what passports they carry, not their religion!  Right?  So if PC demands we eradicate the term ‘Muslim’ from the war on terror lexicon because not all Muslims are terrorists, are the Perception Shapers therefore implying that all Germans and Britons must be terrorists?  And if we mustn’t use the ‘M’ word because we aren’t at war with Islam, does that mean we are now at war with Germany?  Their logic, folks, not mine.

September 29, 2010

Why Mahmoud Abbas Cannot Make Peace

By Michael J. Totten — Once in a while, I “meet” someone online, on blogs and in comment sections, who thinks the current round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks might end the conflict, but I don’t think I know anyone in person who lives in the Middle East who believes this. Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh summed up the consensus view a few days ago. “The peace process is going nowhere,” he wrote, “and everyone is just pretending.” Nations make peace with their enemies, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — also known as Abu Mazen — is not really Israel’s enemy. He’s hardly a friend or an ally, but the Israeli army and Abbas’s security forces have a better and more professional working relationship with each other right now than they ever have. Even Israel’s hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, doesn’t think of Abbas as the leader of the enemy camp. “I repeat,” he said a few weeks ago, “Abu Mazen will not fight us.”

Israel’s enemy is the Resistance Bloc consisting of Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. No one from that bloc is participating in peace talks. Even if Abbas signed a treaty with Israel — a most unlikely event while Hamas holds a gun to his head and even he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state — it would only mean the war between Israel and Abbas was over. But that war is effectively, though perhaps just temporarily, over already. Not much would actually change. The Arab-Israeli conflict would rage on, as would the Islamist-Israeli conflict. Not even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would end if Abbas signed a treaty. He couldn’t enforce it.

“By being forced out of the Gaza Strip,” Toameh wrote, “Abbas lost direct control over some 1.5 million Palestinians, roughly half the Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories. … So if Abbas cannot go to the Gaza Strip and has limited control over the West Bank, where is he supposed to implement a peace agreement? In downtown Ramallah? In Tel Aviv?”

The only reason he retains even limited authority is because he extended his expired term in office and is propped up by Israel. He has no authority whatsoever in Gaza and lacks even influence in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.  If the Iran-led Resistance Bloc was wounded or crumbling, if it was under irresistible pressure from within and without to reform or die, a deal might be possible and would be worth exploring. But that’s not what’s happening. None of the bloc’s leaders will even start peace talks, let alone finish them, while they’re rising in power and have no need to change.

Just a few years ago, Hamas was but one force among several in Gaza, but today it rules with a totalitarian fist. Syria and Hezbollah have seized de facto control over Lebanon, despite Hezbollah’s poor performance in the recent election, while Iran is nearing the threshold of becoming a nuclear-armed regional superpower.

If Abbas had the authority of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments, he might be able to force a cold peace on his people, but he doesn’t. The Resistance Bloc has successfully embedded itself in the Palestinian population and rules roughly half of it. Hamas would simply ignore any treaty Abbas might sign and continue its war against Israel, just as Hezbollah does whatever it wants up north in Lebanon. Abbas can’t put a stop even to his own part of this region-wide conflict any more than Saad Hariri in Beirut can end his.

August 27, 2010

The ACLU is PRO-Al Qaida

Here Bill O’reilly interviews a Gitmo lawyer about the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Obama administration for their drone war against Al-Qaida.  This is what anti-Americanism looks like.  Of course, cloaked in the kind of arrogant and self-deceptive moral posturing that allows the do-gooders to believe they are better people than the rest of us.  It’s a self-image I recognize well from growing up on the Left.

August 19, 2010

How to Win the Clash of Civilizations

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

What do the controversies around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the eviction of American missionaries from Morocco earlier this year, the minaret ban in Switzerland last year, and the recent burka ban in France have in common? All four are framed in the Western media as issues of religious tolerance. But that is not their essence. Fundamentally, they are all symptoms of what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington called the “Clash of Civilizations,” particularly the clash between Islam and the West.

Huntington’s argument is worth summarizing briefly for those who now only remember his striking title. The essential building block of the post-Cold War world, he wrote, are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.

The balance of power among these civilizations, he argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.

The West’s universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations.

President Obama, in his own way, is a One Worlder. In his 2009 Cairo speech, he called for a new era of understanding between America and the Muslim world. It would be a world based on “mutual respect, and upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles.”

The president’s hope was that moderate Muslims would eagerly accept this invitation to be friends. The extremist minority—nonstate actors like al Qaeda—could then be picked off with drones.  Of course, this hasn’t gone according to plan. And a perfect illustration of the futility of this approach, and the superiority of the Huntingtonian model, is the recent behavior of Turkey.

According to the One World view, Turkey is an island of Muslim moderation in a sea of extremism. Successive American presidents have urged the EU to accept Turkey as a member on this assumption. But the illusion of Turkey as the West’s moderate friend in the Muslim world has been shattered.

A year ago Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan congratulated Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election after he blatantly stole the presidency. Then Turkey joined forces with Brazil to try to dilute the American-led effort to tighten U.N. sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Most recently, Turkey sponsored the “aid flotilla” designed to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and to hand Hamas a public relations victory.

True, there remain secularists in Istanbul who revere the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey. But they have no hold over the key government ministries, and their grip over the army is slipping. Today the talk in Istanbul is quite openly about an “Ottoman alternative,” which harks back to the days when the Sultan ruled over an empire that stretched from North Africa to the Caucasus.

If Turkey can no longer be relied on to move towards the West, who in the Muslim world can be? All the Arab countries except Iraq—a precarious democracy created by the United States—are ruled by despots of various stripes. And all the opposition groups that have any meaningful support among the local populations are run by Islamist outfits like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

In Indonesia and Malaysia, Islamist movements are demanding the expansion of Shariah law. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s time is running out. Should the U.S. support the installation of his son? If so, the rest of the Muslim world will soon be accusing the Obama administration of double standards—if elections for Iraq, why not for Egypt? Analysts have observed that in free and fair elections, a Muslim Brotherhood victory cannot be ruled out.

Algeria? Somalia? Sudan? It is hard to think of a single predominantly Muslim country that is behaving according to the One World script.

The greatest advantage of Huntington’s civilizational model of international relations is that it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. And it helps us to identify the internal conflicts within civilizations, particularly the historic rivalries between Arabs, Turks and Persians for leadership of the Islamic world.

But divide and rule cannot be our only policy. We need to recognize the extent to which the advance of radical Islam is the result of an active propaganda campaign. According to a CIA report written in 2003, the Saudis invested at least $2 billion a year over a 30-year period to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam. The Western response in promoting our own civilization was negligible.

Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended. This was perhaps Huntington’s most important insight. The first step towards winning this clash of civilizations is to understand how the other side is waging it—and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion.


August 6, 2010

Carrier-killing missiles, space bombers to alter balance of power

USS George Washington

Chinese Developing Carrier-Killing Missile

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE WASHINGTON – U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).

The weapon, a version of which was displayed last year in a Chinese military parade, could revolutionize China’s role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening Washington’s ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea. It could also deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China’s 11,200-mile (18,000-kilometer) -long coastline.

Setting the stage for a possible conflict, Beijing has grown increasingly vocal in its demands for the U.S. to stay away from the wide swaths of ocean — covering much of the Yellow, East and South China seas — where it claims exclusivity.  It strongly opposed plans to hold U.S.-South Korean war games in the Yellow Sea off the northeastern Chinese coast, saying the participation of the USS George Washington supercarrier, with its 1,092-foot (333-meter) flight deck and 6,250 personnel, would be a provocation because it put Beijing within striking range of U.S. F-18 warplanes.

The carrier instead took part in maneuvers held farther away in the Sea of Japan.  U.S. officials deny Chinese pressure kept it away, and say they will not be told by Beijing where they can operate.  “We reserve the right to exercise in international waters anywhere in the world,” Rear Adm. Daniel Cloyd, who headed the U.S. side of the exercises, said aboard the carrier during the maneuvers, which ended last week.

But the new missile, if able to evade the defenses of a carrier and of the vessels sailing with it, could undermine that policy.  “China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back,” said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Former Navy commander James Kraska, a professor of international law and sea power at the U.S. Naval War College, recently wrote a controversial article in the magazine Orbis outlining a hypothetical scenario set just five years from now in which a Deng Feng 21D missile with a penetrator warhead sinks the USS George Washington.  That would usher in a “new epoch of international order in which Beijing emerges to displace the United States.”

Read the rest.

The Chinese missile is an “anti-access” weapon.  It’s mere existence restricts the movement of U.S. aircraft carriers in waters within range.  This missile, and subsequent generations that are to come could spell the end for the aircraft carrier as a weapons system if this missile technology proliferates across the globe, making it harder to justify the astronomical financial costs of building and maintaining a carrier fleet that is subject to ever diminishing access to the world’s oceans.  The carrier fleet would eventually join in obsolescence the mighty battleships and dreadnoughts that preceded it as the U.S. Navy’s ability to project military power inevitably contracts, and its role shrinks to resemble that of other navies across the world; protecting the littoral waters of the homeland only, something Navy planners must no doubt be worried sick about.

Yet as China arms itself for the last war and develops missile systems for dealing with naval threats whose expiration date is on the visible horizon, the U.S. prepares for future conflicts with the development of space-based weapons systems like DARPA’s hypersonic troop transport and the X-37 space bomber, the latter which may in effect put the U.S. carrier fleets out of business before the Chinese do.  Who needs aircraft carriers when you’ve got a fleet of these hanging in stationary orbit above their target:


DARPA’s Mach 20 Hypersonic Glider and Air Force’s X-37B Space Plane Make Their Debuts

Future space marines might commemorate yesterday as a historic moment, based on the coinciding launches of DARPA’s hypersonic glider and an Air Force space plane. Both test vehicles could pave the way for new warfighter transports or weapons systems, the Ares Defense Blog reports.

DARPA’s HTV-2 was first into the air, around 7 pm EDT. The hypersonic vehicle is designed to glide through the Earth’s atmosphere at speeds 20 times greater than the speed of sound. The Santa Maria Times notes that several maneuvers were scheduled to test how HTV-2 handles during the hypersonic glide stage, before hurtling into the Pacific Ocean at more than 13,000 mph for a planned demise.

A future hypersonic platform could theoretically deliver precision strikes to targets around the world with “little or no advanced warning,” as DARPA puts it. A second test is planned for 2011, based on the success of yesterday’s sortie.

Barely an hour after the HTV-2 debut, the U.S. Air Force launched its X-37B space plane. That much-anticipated mission lofted the space plane — powered by gallium arsenide solar cells with lithium-ion batteries — into orbit for possibly as long as 270 days, according to the Ares Defense Blog.Like DARPA, the Air Force has remained relatively tight-lipped about the exact purpose of such a space plane. But it’s not hard to imagine what hypersonic weapons or a space plane might do for the future of U.S. military operations, as far as speed of deployment is concerned.


July 29, 2010

Chris “Tingles” Matthews: Arizona Ruling a Windfall for GOP

It’s the nature of politics that a loss for America is a win for the party out of power. It was true when Harry Reid (D) famously wished for our defeat in the Iraq, and it’s true with Arizona’s defeat in that courtroom yesterday.  America’s loss guarantees the GOP is going to seriously kick some in November.

“It [immigration] is a killer issue for the Democrats this fall, and a huge windfall for the Right.  It will anger even those people who believe the Arizona law went too far.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

July 28, 2010

ISI: The Secret Government of Pakistan

The nation of Pakistan suffers from a personality disorder.  They are our purported allies, yet a haven for our worst enemies.  Behind Pakistan’s democratic facade is a shadow government run by their infamous Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).  It is not an overstatement to say the ISI are defacto rulers of Pakistan.  The ISI assisted in the creation of the Taliban to help unleash an Islamic uprising in Indian-held Kashmir, and are thought to have helped evacuate top Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives as American forces were closing in.  The ISI was using their Afghan allies to wage a guerrilla war against India, and in return the Taliban gained Pakistani volunteers for their madrassas, as well as weapons and ammo to gain control of the country.  The ISI’s real agenda begins and ends with victory over India in the Kashmir.  Nothing else concerns them.  If Osama is still roaming free today in the Pakistani frontier territories, it’s because the ISI has decided this furthers their cause.  The fact is the ISI has been playing a double game with us since terrorists slammed those planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11.  While Pakistan’s democratic government makes nice with us, the ISI undermines the war on terror behind our backs.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

July 27, 2010

Mel Gibson vs Oliver Stone: Anti-semitism, Left and Right

In bed with goons and clowns: Oliver Stone

Filmmaker Oliver Stone has apologized after critics slammed him for making comments that were interpreted as anti-Semitic in an interview last Sunday.  While promoting his documentary “South of the Border” with The Sunday Times of London, Stone not only defended Hitler, but also downplayed the Holocaust.

“Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein,” Stone, who is half Jewish, told the paper. “German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.”

This year, while promoting his Showtime documentary “A Secret History of America,” Stone said “Hitler was an easy scapegoat.”

Later, he complained about the “Jewish domination of the media,” saying, “there’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f**ked up United States foreign policy for years.”

On Monday afternoon, Stone issued the following statement in an attempt to appease the situation:  “In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret.

“Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry. The fact that the Holocaust is still a very important, vivid and current matter today is, in fact, a great credit to the very hard work of a broad coalition of people committed to the remembrance of this atrocity — and it was an atrocity.”

But Stone’s apology may be too little, too late for his critics, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and the American Jewish Committee, who said Stone’s comments have outed him as an anti-Semite.

“For all of Stone’s progressive pretensions, his remark is no different from one of the drunken, Jew-hating rants of his fellow Hollywood celebrity, Mel Gibson,” a spokesman for the American Jewish Committee said.  For his comments on Israel foreign policy, Stone earned the criticism of Israel Diplomacy Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said his comments “could lead to a new wave of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and it may even cause real harm to Jewish communities and individuals.”


Let us weigh the equities, shall we?  Mel Gibson had to pay even though his comments were in private to a cop.  Oliver Stone will get away with it even though his comments were made in PUBLIC to the Times of London.  Whose comments do you think will have greater repercussions for Jewry– Gibson’s comments made in an angry, booze-fueled rant to a cop, and in PRIVATE?  Or the stone-cold sober, rational and official comments Oliver Stone made to a global daily newspaper.  Which?

And yet Oliver Stone will get away with it– because he’s on the Left.  There is nothing a Leftist can say that will get him into trouble.  Nothing.  Because, despite their occasional “slip of the tongue”, deep down inside they mean well.  It was merely a poor choice of words.  Or so goes the thinking.  If you are on the Right, however, you will not get away with it.  Your stumbling requires no context.  If you are on the Right, your slip-ups are proof-positive the Right is a barely-contained menace to the planet.

Mel Gibson was ostracized for his booze-fueled anti-semitic rant to that cop because he had just committed the unforgivable crime of his Passion of the Christ.  His crime was being Christian and on the Right.  THAT– and not his booze-fueled anti-semitic rant– is why he didn’t get away with it.  Despite the ADL’s anger, Oliver Stone will get away with it.  When the Right says they’re sorry, it has no mitigating effect.  Yet, Stone’s apology pretty much kills the story.  It’s over.  Stone’s career and public standing will not suffer because he is immunized by his Leftism.

July 15, 2010

So Much for his apology tours…

Remember the mantra among the Bush deranged that he was damaging to our alliances?  So much for Obama’s apology tours.

Europe warns Obama: this relationship not working

Europe’s disappointment with Barack Obama’s presidency is laid bare today as the EU’s most senior figure calls for a dramatic effort to revive transatlantic relations.  The President of the European Commission told The Times that the new era at the White House was in danger of becoming a “missed opportunity” for Europe.

José Manuel Barroso said that the EU-US relationship was “not living up to its potential” and was being marred by fundamental disagreements on how to deal with the economic crisis, climate change and trade reform.  The feelings of a deepening rift are mutual. Senior US figures said last night that Mr Obama could never live up to Europe’s sky-high expectations.

Speaking days before David Cameron visits the White House, Mr Barroso said: “The transatlantic relationship is not living up to its potential. I think we should do much more together. We have conditions like we have never had before and it would be a pity if we missed the opportunity.”

Downing Street said that the relationship between Europe and America had always been built on dialogue and co-operation. “If Mr Barroso thinks that we should see more of that, we’d agree.”  A senior aide to President Sarkozy of France said: “Obama does not come from the same tradition as his predecessors. He is interested in Asia and Russia, not Europe. There is no sense of a privileged relationship. They seem to take us for granted sometimes.”

Asked how he planned to reach out to Mr Obama — who visited Europe six times in his first year in office but was said by US analysts to have nothing to show for it — Mr Barroso said: “Of course it is a question of how the Americans are going to reach to us as well because the relationship should be perceived as mutual.” Analysts said that the EU was naive to expect a sea change in US foreign policy just because George Bush had been replaced in the White House.

Hugo Brady, of the Centre for European Reform, said: “Obama was always overblown as a symbol because US foreign policy interests tend not to change. The US does not understand the need for everyone to be around the table at the EU, which they find as frustrating as a mini-UN where people want to talk about the good things they have done.”


July 9, 2010

Obama: Israelis suspicious of Him because of his middle name

Bibi and Hussein

U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.  In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied “I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern.”

Obama spoke to Channel 2’s Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an “excellent” meeting with Netanyahu at the White House.  The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran’s efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”

“Ironically, I’ve got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors.  My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate,” Obama said.

“I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there’s the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West,” Obama went on to say.


First he sets up the strawman– Israelis fear Obama because of his middle name– then he knocks down his own strawman– his Chief of Staff is Jewish.  Not to make too much a big deal out of this, but oy vei.

A silly comment, yet perhaps revealing.  It was an unguarded moment that can mean one of two things: it doesn’t come from his brain, it comes from the gut, his ego.  It’s the part that reacts emotionally to slights.  The mocking of his middle name by Obama haters has clearly hit home.   There’s baggage there.  Instead of deflecting it by self-deprecating the way Bush used to do, he projects it onto the Israelis.  He’s not one to laugh at himself.  We saw this same thin skin at the White House correspondents dinner.  He was a riot, but his jokes were aimed at others.

That, or it reflects how poorly he thinks of the Israelis– they are racists who suffer from an irrational fear of Arabs.  He essentially just called them “bitter clingers.” Their fear/hatred is emotional, not based on actual history, politics, or events.  All it takes to tap into their irrational fear is the middle name “Hussein.”  They get flashbacks at the mere mention of it.

In his defense, he probably thinks the Arabs are just as stupid (see his NASA goodwill tour).  Our disagreements aren’t based on tangible– and often irreconcilable– differences.  Our differences are emotional and irrational, and can be resolved through apology tours, goodwill tours, and confidence-building measures.  Let’s make Muslims “feel good” about themselves.  That’s the ticket.  Peace will break out when we all realize it’s all just been a big misunderstanding.

July 6, 2010

Obama: U.S. and Israel Bond Unbreakable

Was that so hard? Bibi and Barack pretend to make nice.

Who can say for sure why the sudden 180 on Israel.  I won’t speculate.  Ridiculous that it even had to come to this, but he did the right thing.

Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu hail ‘unbreakable’ bond of US and Israel

Barack Obama yesterday backed calls by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli premier, to resume direct peace talks with the Palestinians as both men hailed the “unbreakable” bond between the United States and Israel.

In a pointed display of togetherness, Mr Obama, the US president, also praised Israel for easing the Gaza embargo and allowing easier movement on consumer goods into the Palestinian area, though he did cite continuing “tensions” over the blockade.

White House officials had indicated beforehand that Mr Obama would push Mr Netanyahu to extend Israel’s freeze on settlement expansion. But Mr Obama declined to do this publicly, instead stating that there were “a range of confidence-building measures that can be taken by all sides” when asked about the settlement issue.

The effusive language and a warm handshake before the cameras that lasted several seconds was in striking contrast to the coolness of their last meeting when the Israeli leader and his aides were left alone in the West Wing as Mr Obama dined privately. .

That meeting, in which there was no photo opportunity or press conference, followed the humiliation of Vice President Joe Biden in Israel in March when the Jewish state announced plans to expand a Jewish settlement in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, blindsiding their American guest.

After a tense dinner conversation between the two men, Mr Biden issued a strongly-worded statement denouncing the “substance and timing of the announcement” and describing it as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now”.

This time, Mr Obama lavished praise on Mr Netanyahu and said that the relationship between the US and Israel was “unbreakable’ and enduring. Mr Netanyahu denounced reports of a US-Israeli rift as “flat wrong”.

Mr Obama said: “It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on.”

The president said he was convinced that Mr Netanyahu “wants peace” in the Middle East and was “willing to take risks for peace”. The US would never ask Israel to “take any steps that would undermine its security interests,” he said.


Older Posts »