Guantanamo - What Now?

As would be expected, the NY Times led the jubilation by the Liberal media at the Supreme Court decision to, in effect, treat thugs captured in our defensive war against Islam to the full range of constitutional protections of American citizens, starting with the right to habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a civilian judge. Needless to say, this right is not granted to even legitimate prisoners of war in the middle of an ongoing conflict. This 1^st “grant” must inevitably lead to other procedural protections - on evidence and presumption of innocence - that go with any criminal trial in a civilian court. Presumably, soldiers in battle must now be accompanied by a full-scale CSI unit (“Afghanistan CSI”?). We can only imagine the glee and the feeling of facile righteousness that will envelope Liberals when some of these thugs are let loose (some even before trial) because our troops in the field did not use all the correct procedures to apprehend them. Oh what joy!

As has already happened when others were let loose previously (usually under pressure from our “allies”) and promptly went back to their evil ways, we will hear nothing from the Liberals. Just like when domestic criminals, freed on procedural grounds, go on to commit other crimes, we will be told “this is the price we pay for our liberties and constitutional protections”. Sadly, it will not be any of the justices who will pay this price.

In the cases of freed domestic criminals, they can at least be under the watch of local or Federal law enforcement. But when these Muslim thugs disappear back in their home countries, who is there to watch them and protect us? Is facile righteousness for Liberals enough to compensate the rest of us for the carnage they will perpetrate?

The Supreme Court justices who have instigated this idiocy are typical egg-head theorists who will divorce themselves from the consequences of their benevolence and bouts of human kindness. Their feeling good about themselves for “upholding (really inventing!) Constitutional principles” is not enough compensation for the rest of us, if we – domestically - or our troops in the field are subjected to future outrages by these “victimized” thugs. Any blood that they spill is squarely on the heads of these judges and the whole lot of the “civil rights” industry. America (most certainly our troops in the field) will suffer for this wrong-headed application of our constitutional protections – and the perpetrators will be recorded as courageous heroes for their creations. No justice here!

The one thing wrong with the Guantanamo approach is that our well-meaning leaders in the military and in the Bush Administration did not think through the end-game of this budding fiasco. Guantanamo, or any other form of incarceration for these prisoners, need to have been expressly set up as the “roach motel”: once you check in, you can never check out - except feet first. Each dead “guest” at Guantanamo means life for some good guy on OUR side.

Who Dissed Hillary and Why?

Some Democrats, most especially the feminists, are up in arms about the supposed bad treatment that Hillary Clinton got in the media during the primaries. True to their victimist mind-set, they are naturally claiming sexism. This is the standard lament by all ideologues in the “identity” politics industry - no matter what their identity group is – when their candidate is defeated or when their demands are not met in full. Wait for the hue and cry if Obama loses in the general election despite all the efforts and positive prognostications by his admirers (and there are many!) in the media - RACISM.

In this case, of course, there were many factors in play to explain Clinton’s defeat. Certainly “sexism” was a factor for Clinton, just as anti-Mormonism was probably a factor in play against Romney; anti-evangelical bias against Huckabee; anti-tough guy-ism against Giuliani - and most certainly anti-ageism now in full bloom against McCain. Well, them are the breaks in an open society, when you are mired in “identity”. For Clinton, of course, her misfortune was that her identity claims were much less compelling for the chattering classes than Obama’s claims. He is a triple threat: “intellectual” with appeal to all the self-selected “knowledge" class; “African-American” (to whatever extent he chooses to claim that label-of-convenience); multi-racial (wow a whole different ball-game from any other “African-American” who has ever run before). And added to that a multi-cultural (multi-religious?) icon, guaranteed to get us in the good graces of America’s haters all around the world. Poor Hillary, she never had a chance!

In order to ensure the triumph of this exotic Messiah, the Liberal-oriented media was even willing to overtly commit the sin of sexism, and to even point out, and openly discuss, some unpleasant truths about her and how she got to be where she did in politics: beneficiary of sympathy votes in reaction to her husband’s bimbo eruptions; beneficiary of her husband’s chicanery and accumulated political clout and wealth. All the things that the Liberal media was willing to overlook and excuse for her and her husband over the last 16 years (they wouldn’t have wanted to give aid and comfort to the right wing conspiracy, after all) were now in play in the service of the greater good - to boost the electoral prospects of the Anointed One.

In truth, this is delicious irony. It was the election of the Clintons that brought “identity” into the political mainstream. They elevated “diversity” to the level of a civic religion; diversity in anything - animal, vegetable, mineral – is now celebrated to nauseating extremes. No more that culturally biased concept – assimilation; that has now become a dirty word in our national conversations. It is almost hard to recall now, but George H. W. Bush was just about the last major party candidate to run against multiculturalism. His former opponent, Bill Clinton, was hailed as America’s first Black president, with no apparent irony or sense of insult to Blacks.

Those who live by identity politics die by identity politics - or so we hope.

The Spirit of Entebbe - Doing the "Unthinkable"

Liberal opinion in the US along with the entire political spectrum in Europe take the position that military action against Iran, if it does not give up its nuclear program, is "unthinkable" and would be a "disaster". In an attempt to play "warrior" they put up all kinds of reasoning about tactical problems against eliminating Iran's capability militarily (scattered facilities; "buried too deep"; "unacceptable" (by who?); civilian casualties). Apparently, military action is only acceptable and feasible for "humanitarian" causes like Kosovo and Bosnia - and most definitely only against White/Christian regimes like Serbia.

Since Iran has been able to ignore things like economic sanctions with impunity (aided and abetted by Russia, China and our so-called allies), peremptorily taking all forms of military action off the table amounts to giving Iran a green light to do anything it wants without fear of significant retaliation. All the Liberals in the West recoiled with horror at Hillary Clinton's suggestion that Iran would be obliterated if it attacked Israel, giving Iran, in effect, the go-ahead to obliterate Israel if it should ever gain the capability to do so, without any fear of consequences (after-all we wouldn't want to hurt innocent Iranian civilians just because they would be joyful at any effort to annihilate the dirty Jews!).

As always, pusillanimous western "leaders" are ready to give up others' freedom and lives, just so they can live up to their "high" pacifist principles. Of such intellectually bankrupt mindsets are historic disasters fashioned. Are you listening, Barrack Hussein Obama?

To show their bona fides and to seal the deal, Liberals always like to talk in military terms, throwing around words like "tactical" and "strategic", setting up straw dummies - only to knock them down - to argue that military action is not feasible and, thus, should be "off-the-table": In this instance, they assert that the only option is aerial bombing (shades of Serbia!) and that, since Iran's facilities are scattered and dug in, the US would have to use very heavy weapons, like bunker-busting bombs or even tactical nuclear weapons (oh heaven forefend!) that would result in civilian casualties - something that, apparently, was not a big moral issue when bombing Serbia. Yet, of course, the actual military campaign may and SHOULD include special operations forces attacking on the ground to take out the hidden and deeply dug-in targets. Sadly, the kind of ground action that would be required may end up being near-suicidal missions.

In our current mind-set, especially as the Bush administration comes to and end and pacifism, in the person of Democrats, dominate our country (remember, "It’s all about the troops") these kinds of missions will not be undertaken by the USA. The unfocused, deluded, American public will be stirred up to oppose such a mission unless someone can demonstrate "imminent" danger and, certainly, the Democrats and the Liberal-dominated media will ensure that that will not happen.

For the Israelis, however, the equation is quite different. For them it will be a question of "suicide missions now; or assured national suicide later". It is hoped that under better and more resolute national leadership, the Israelis will re-ignite the "spirit of Entebbe" and do what needs to be done... And Iranian "civilian" casualties be damned.

What Now?

Well, the Exotic Messiah is one step closer to ascending his earthly throne. And what did we end up with? WHO is this guy? What has he actually done to deserve all the hosannas and hallelujahs?

More than anything he is the vessel, the repository, of the hopes and dreams (and the guilty conscience) of the predominantly White intelligentsia, particularly as represented in the mainstream news media. For the Liberals, he is the perfect candidate to lead them back to power: a left-Liberal, who is also Black and “clean”. What a combination! No Dukakis or Kerry, bland White men, trying to act moderate to appeal to the White middle and working classes (but never quite able to hide their “intellectual” disdain for the people whom they need to appeal to); No “dirty”, sleazy, Black “leader” like Jackson or Sharpton, who could not possibly be snuck into power after years of open race baiting and demagoguery. Here is the perfect combo: ‘intellectual”, sounding almost White; certainly a fully-paid-up member of the academic, quasi-governmental, Liberal elite. And he is interracial, with a vague, exotic, (just a hint of Islam) background - but most certainly, identifiably Black! The added bonus is that, because he is Black and “multi-cultural”, he is going to be practically immune from savage attack by the cowering Conservatives. No Willie Horton! No Swift Boat, thank you very much!

The most pathetic people, in their reaction to Obama, are the Conservatives, inside the media and out. As well as being defensive about “the sins of Bush”, they have been programmed over the last forty years to be “sensitive” to being accused of the ultimate sin: RACISM. The final surrender really began in 2000 when G. W. Bush, after eight years of national “re-education” in the joys of “diversity”, under the Clintons, embraced multiculturalism in all its glory. No more Buchanan-style punditry about the “Culture Wars”; courting voters in Spanish; a stage-full of “people of color” at the convention; and so on – ad nauseum.

Now Conservatives are fully programmed to avoid even the hint of racism. We can be sure that just about any personal attack against the Anointed One will raise the cry of racism - and whoever dared to make the attack will cringe and slink away, like a vampire before the sign of the cross. And of course, the Republicans have fully disarmed by exiling effective hard campaigners like Rove and De Lay.

Instead of fighting for their ideas and their candidates, Republicans have succumbed to the demonization of their party, in general, and of the Bush Administration, in particular. Poor, ignorant, Bush and demon Chaney, all the ills of America are their fault and theirs alone:

• We are hostage to the dirty Arabs for our oil? Bush doesn’t have an energy policy (he has one, but since it didn’t please the left-wing environmentalists, it was dismissed out-of-hand). It seems no one else in the thirty plus years of neglect by both parties, as they indulged their various constituencies on the left and the right, had anything to do with our current mess. Certainly not the Democratic clients in the unions (UAW job protection) or the environmentalists (who obstructed new drilling for domestic oil supplies or other “dirty” forms of energy growth, like shale oil or coal gasification, from being pursued, while chasing unrealistic dreams of clean and renewable energy to save the planet. No one seems to ask: if “clean” energy is so easily and economically attainable, why haven’t the Japanese and Europeans – certainly not under the control of Bush/Chaney – been able to harness them effectively?
• Our sorry balance-of-payments and Federal deficit situation? It was all the fault of Bush’s “tax cuts for the wealthy” and HIS globalization. No word on over fifty years of Liberal strategy of helping the 2^nd and 3^rd world catch up to America by opening up America’s markets; no word on Liberal social spending and entitlements programs.
• And the list goes on and on.
  

Now the Messiah has come to claim his earthly throne. WHO is this man? What exactly has he accomplished to merit such adoration? What exactly are his policies and priorities beyond the same tired left-Liberal nostrums that have been pitched over and over again by the previous white-bread Liberal candidates? No one asks; No one cares. The Exotic Messiah is here and he cannot be questioned lest we encourage the sin of RACISM.

The real question between now and November is whether the American public will wake up from their induced trance in time to put away this latest manifestation of the same old leftist rubbish: Appeasement and cowardice in foreign policy and the same old failed socialist nostrums here at home.

If Only................

If only Liberals had foresight: if, in 1999, they had let Bill Clinton twist slowly in the wind, helped to convict him and have him removed from office, just think where they would be right now:

• Al Gore becomes president and can then be elected for an additional two terms. He is so cute and cuddly that he would have easily beat George Bush in 2000, especially with the full support of the Liberal establishment
• A second full term for Gore would have been a shoo-in (unless, of course, the American public becomes too concerned about his pusillanimous foreign policy - forever waiting for the definitive UN resolution to force the Taliban to expel Osama and turn him over to the "international court" at the Hague!)
  
• Bill Clinton is quietly buried and no longer an embarrassment to Gore and the Democrats. He can still get fabulously wealthy trading on his contacts with the Arabs and other notorious international players. That might have been enough to keep the Clintons out of everyone's hair.
• No Bill, no Hillary. No Senate seat, no power base for a run at the presidency. She wouldn't have dared to run against Gore in 2004, would she?
• Lastly, no candidate from hell. The path for Obama, the Anointed One, would have been clear. Ahhh heaven!

If only................