Monday, February 23, 2015

ISIS is not an existential threat to America

They are just not in that league.  Not only are they not a threat to the U.S., they are not a threat to any western country.

Not even close to the existential threats to life as the real-deal historical heavyweights: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Union after WWII, and of course Napoleon Bonapart's early 19th century French behemoth.  Or Ghengis Khan's Mongol hoards, and who could forget the Vikings and the Visigoths.....

Those guys back in their day were 800 pound gorillas.  ISIS is the ukulele playing Tiny Tim trilling 'Tiptoe Through the Tulips" as compared to Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin belting out 'Whole Lotta Love.'


Sure, ISIS has complete mastery of today's social media and has a flair for the dramatic in posting videos of gruesome executions of their unfortunate captives.  Those images foment great anguish and emotion from civilized societies, as well they should.

But nobody in the Western world, even Italy, can seriously believe that these ISIS guys are coming for them in any meaningful way. ISIS simply does not have the war making capability in either manpower or manufacturing to pose even a credible threat to any Western nation.

Back in the day, Ghengis Khan steamrolled over civilizations like crap through a goose, and kept those societies under control through reward and punishment: once conquered, the conquered populations were offered protection, governance and order (they called it 'peace' back then) if they simply supported Ghengis' efforts (crushing others), and not causing trouble.  If the conquered populations or any portion thereof got uppity, then hell would rain down on everyone.  And nobody wanted that.  And that kind of deal that Ghengis offered worked out for everyone. To a point.

Ditto this arrangement for every other heavy hitter throughout history.  But this is not the vision of ISIS.  They are great at stomping on backward, goat herding Bedouin societies, where the leaders of society are not all that different from the marauding Sunni Muslim ISIS zealots themselves.  The populations that are now under ISIS control have always been under similar restrictions: women wear hijab/bhurkas, can't drive, can't vote, can't say boo.  Men in these ISIS controlled areas have always been under similar freedoms: they call all the shots in society, make all the rules, and are basically murdering scumbag bullies since the dawn of time.  

ISIS can never sustain a war machine.  Their theology eschews the promotion and nurturing of a manufacturing society so necessary in creating a viable war machine capable of capturing and maintaining territory. They have obtained their military equipment by simply picking weapons up off the ground where they were tossed by a fleeing Iraqi and Syrian Bedouin population.  That kind of armament philosophy is clearly unsustainable.  They can never maintain the war production necessary to pose a threat to any medium-level Western system, such as in pro-Western Jordan, for example.  Or pro-Western Turkey.  Yes, these are awfully iffy pro-Western countries, but they will in all likelihood remain affiliated with the West when push comes to shove. 

Let's just face facts: ISIS is great at grabbing headlines, and is a perfect fit for the poster boy bad guy in the world.  But as an existential threat to America?  Not even close.    

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Kayla Meuller was mistaken...

...and her mistake cost her dearly.  

The mistake that Kayla Meuller made was one that is made every day by most liberals in America and this would be the mistake: if you ignore evil in the world, or show that your intentions are pure in the presence of evil, then evil will not harm you.  Thinking this way would be a major mistake.

Obama is of this mindset, and so is the rest of his like-minded constituency.  He promised us prior to his 2008 election that the world would love us once we showed them that we mean no harm to any nation, regardless of what nation that is.  

We can all see how that is working out for us.  We are more hated now as a country internationally than we have ever been before. This is 180 degrees out of phase with the promises Obama made. We are detested both by our allies, whom we turn our backs on regularly under the Obama administration, and by our enemies who are emboldened by what they see as a weak United States.

Kayla Meuller just wanted to help those in need.  She went to Syria to help the poor refugees of the civil war that has now seen nearly a million displaced and thousands and thousands killed.  I am unsure as to why she figured that the violence over there would not descend on her, but that's what she figured, apparently.

What a mistake.  26 year-olds should not be allowed to travel to war zones unless they are wearing the uniform of a branch of the U.S. armed forces.  They just don't know enough of the world, and that just because you want to help doesn't make you bullet proof.

It's a pity this poor misguided woman had to die for a huge mistake that is so obvious to so many of us.  American tourism to see the great pyramids at Geza in Egypt has fallen off over 95% or more in the last 20 years.  Why?  Because the word has gotten out to most rational people that Egypt is a Muslim country, and polls indicate within the population of Egypt that Americans are not their friends anymore, nor actually never really were their friends.

Accordingly, in order to avoid being stabbed, poisoned, shot or kidnapped, rational people stay away from most Middle Eastern destinations.

For good reason.  And Kayla Meuller chose to ignore those reasons, to her ultimate demise.  


Friday, February 6, 2015

If Nixon had Obama's list of scandals....

....he would have been impeached about 100 times by now.

Now we need to 'get off our high horse,' and turn the other cheek to Islamic terrorists burning prisoners to death and beheading infidels willy nilly.  Christians are no different, you see.

Man, what to say about that.  What a president.  What a man.  Some kind of leader.  Makes you wish we had King Abdullah of Jordan as Commander in Chief.  The King of Jordan gets mad, and swears an oath to attack ISIS until they run out of fuel and bullets.  King Abdullah gets my write-in vote in the upcoming 2016 primaries, for sure.  Wonder if would consider relocating from Amman to Washington D.C.?  That, and I'm sure he could fake a short form birth certificate to prove he was born in Steubenville, Ohio.

Richard Nixon was nearly impeached (he resigned, remember?) because of the unforgivable high crime and misdemeanor of sticking up for his staff, through thick and thin.  He didn't break into the Watergate Hotel, his guys did.  He didn't know about it, or order it, or any of that garbage.  But once the poop hit the fan, he stuck up for his guys.  How evil.  How horribly wrong.  That is the only reason the guy had to resign.

What would have happened to Richard Nixon if he had to deal with the following list of REAL (not phony) scandals that Obama has racked up to date:

1.  He swore in 2007 he would accept federal campaign funds and the limits put on his finances by doing so, and then he changed his mind once the dough started flowing in from independent sources.

2.  Hacking into Sheryl Atkinson's computer.  This little incident was eerily similar to Watergate: Obama minions digging around in a private person's files.  Remember again - Nixon was forced to resign over a nearly identical crime as this one.

3.  Benghazi.  Where the hell was Obama during all of this dark episode?  Nobody knows.  And why did Obama's underlings simply stand by and watch while these Americans died?  When there were assets available within a few hours away, more than enough time to change the way things ended.

4.  IRS.  Obama sanctioning this feared agency to punish political adversaries.  Imagine Nixon doing this?  Nixon talked about it, but never did it.  Obama never talked about it, but did it.

5.  Joe Sestak-gate.  Paying off /bribing Joe Sestak to pull out from opposing Arlen Spectre (D-PA).  We never did get to the bottom of that one, but imagine Nixon getting involved in something like this?  Every journalist on the planet would STILL be digging around in Pennsylvania for dirt, if Nixon were behind this one.  But he wasn't; Obama was.  And now all we hear are crickets chirping.

6.  Screwing veterans out of medical care by the VA.  The whole agency was a mess that Obama swore to clean up during his campaign, and once elected we never heard him mention the VA again.

7.  Obamacare.  So many crimes here, so little time.  How it got passed via legislative reconciliation, by Democrats only, with the 'Louisiana Purchase' and the 'Cornhusker Kickback' bribes to Democrat senators in passing this awful law.  Lying to the American people got Richard Nixon in hot water, big time.  Now we have Obama telling us if we like our doctors, we can keep our doctors.  If we like our health care plans, we can keep our health care plans.  Period.  Anyone beside me remember those bald faced lies?  Nixon was booted from office for less.  Much less.

8.  What about the Fast and Furious gun running scandal?  Imagine Dick Nixon with his hands in THAT cookie jar?  He would have been toast.  But not Obama, who was the driving force behind this failed scheme from the beginning.  He gets off Scott Free.

9.  How about attacking Libya without congressional input.  And look at the mess it is now.  Obama's finger prints are all over this one.  Imagine Nixon doing something like this?  And how the press would have gone bananas?

10.  Rosen-gate?  Considering bringing criminal charges against Fox News' James Rosen?  And then snooping on him?  Imagine Dick Nixon doing this?  Oh, that's right.  His staff DID something like this.  And Nixon was tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.  But not Obama. No siree Bob.

And there's bunches more, my fingers are getting tired of typing (Solyndra, GSA, Bergdahl, 'get off our high horse...': I could go on but I am sick of listing this guy's mess of a record.

The "Teflon Don" John Gotti had nothing on this Teflon POTUS.  He seemingly can do no wrong.  And yet, that is ALL he seems to be able to do is wrong things.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Police public relations problems are their own creation

While the media has not been particularly kind to selected police departments around the country lately, namely Ferguson, MO (Michael Brown shooting) and Staten Island, NY (Eric Garner death at the hands of overzealous police) who lead the parade, this kind of coverage is not something that comes out of the blue.

Police departments throughout the U.S. have for decades, and perhaps centuries now, brought a great deal of scrutiny upon themselves.  Criminal activity within all communities is largely committed surreptitiously, since the bad guys don't want to go to jail and 99% of the time will give it their best shot to do their dirty deeds away from the eyes of the authorities.  The on-the-spot police involvement of crimes in progress grabs the headlines every time it occurs.  It's only human nature; we want to see these conflicts and how they play out.  Will the good guys or the bad guys win?

And much like Hollywood is always prone to do, they love to portray good guys as bad guys and vice versa.  It makes for great TV viewing. Anymore, TV is not about enlightening their audience with facts.  TV wants to grab as many eyeballs and glue them to their screens, and keep them there, whatever it takes.  Facts and reporting be damned, that's not what the media is about anymore, at least not primarily.

It's the airplane crash that grabs the spot light, since there's always a great deal of destruction and loss of life.  People can't help themselves, they want to know all about it.  Don Henley of "Eagles" fame put it correctly in his ditty "Dirty Laundry" several years ago:

"We got the bubble headed bleach blond who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry."

That's what people want.  And the media will gladly give it to them and most police departments play right into this need and are hard wired to portray these rare opportunities out to the most outrageous end.  They want to ensure that the public, and more accurately, their bosses, sees that their guys and gals in blue win at all costs, and that at the end of the confrontation, the bad guys are either down on the ground in hand cuffs or down on the ground with bullet holes in them.  

Most police departments have a desired ratio of patrolmen/women to population within their jurisdiction.  These ratios are subject to funding by each jurisdiction through taxes levied on that municipality.  These ratios vary widely and typically these ratios are higher in rural areas than in urban areas.  Criminals are acutely aware of where the police are, and where they are not.

Accordingly, crimes are almost always committed outside of the scrutiny of the police.  Houses are burglarized, cars are stolen, convenience stores are robbed at gunpoint, and the police are nowhere to be seen.  And this is understandable.  The ratios that are affordable by any municipality simply don't enable police patrols to watch everything all the time.  Criminals know this.  

When the victim discovers that he has been burglarized, for example, the criminals have been gone long before a police response could prevent the crime.  The police are called and they come out to the scene of the crime, look around, ask some questions and either verify that a crime has been committed or not. This is the way crime is handled 99.99 percent of the time.  The cops come out, write down what they see on their reports, cast a suspicious eye on the victims (since they are there at the scene of the crime and the criminals are not), file their report and then cruise off to Dunkin' Donuts to talk about how the Bears lost to the Vikings, never again to think about the crime report they will file at the end of their shift.  

No crime is solved, no investigation is undertaken.  Oh sure, they give you lip service that a follow up investigation will be initiated, but in the end, in the vast majority of police cases, nothing happens and the victims never see any kind of justice.  

Most policemen and women's only job is shaking down the people they have sworn to 'serve and protect,' by issuing citations for speeding, littering and other misdemeanors that keep the revenues flowing into the government's hands. Their involvement in fighting crime takes up perhaps 1% of their time, since the vast majority of criminals while evil are not stupid: they will do their dirty deeds surreptitiously, and not rob and steal in front of a live police presence.  The 99% of a run of the mill police person's total time on the job involves eating donuts and writing tickets.  

They are not judged by their police supervising sergeants and lieutenants by how many bad guys they collar.  That kind of personnel review simply will not work, there is just not enough bold, blatant crime committed that involves active police personnel. No, they are given performance reviews that focus on how many citations they issue to the tax payers.  Based on these criteria, they are determined to be good police men and women by how much money in fines and penalties they can squeeze out of the good guys. There are just not enough bad guys out there committing crimes in front of squad cars to justify their jobs with active collars and arrests.

And when a bad guy pops up in the presence of a cop to do his dirty work on super rare occasions, their training kicks in and they make as big of a mess of the scene as they possibly can to ensure that their exploits are noticed by their superiors.

We are all seeing the police departments across the country squirm and squeal about the terrible coverage they are getting from the media.  That media attention they are getting is warranted; these guys and gals in blue are getting exactly what they are asking for.  

Be careful what you ask for, is all I have to say.  In the fullness of time, you just might get it.     






Thursday, January 15, 2015

Rahm Emanual's free lunch for everyone

The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual, has just announced an initiative that will provide the citizens of Chicago free junior college.  Just keep your high school grades up, and you're entitled to two years of college, all free.

The mayor assumes that having lots of his citizens with two year community college Associate of Arts degrees, all picked up by the taxpayers, will entice new businesses to swarm into the city limits in droves, and snap up all of these educated folks to work for them in a New York minute.  

Fat chance.  Business owners are not stupid, Rahm.  It only takes a few key strokes to determine what kind of taxes they would have to pay if their businesses relocated to Chicago, and those key strokes would spit out the dismal facts in a New York minute.

Chicago is one of the highest taxed business climates in the country, just outside of New York and San Francisco.  They have a state sales tax of 7.25% tacked onto almost everything you need to buy in Chicago, one of the highest gasoline taxes in the country, an enormous property tax burden, a city sales tax of around 3% tacked onto the state sales tax, and Cook county gets its fingers into the till as well with a county tax to boot.  

Nobody in his right mind is going to relocate to Chicago unless they get a monster sweetheart tax deal that exempts them from most of these taxes for a period of time.  Otherwise, forget it.

No business worth its salt is going to move to Chicago, Rahm.  The crime is out of control with one of the highest murder rates in the country, and the weather is just plain lousy, and add all those taxes to the mix, and this city is the last place on earth any business would relocate to.

And Rahm thinks giving away free college is the answer.  Think again. All that will do is suck more money from taxpayers with nothing to show for it other than a bunch of associate of arts degree holders (who majored in diversity studies and performance arts with a concentration in the art of mime).  

No wonder Chicago is about as broke as any city in the nation. Their leaders have absolutely no clue as to what attracts businesses to locate there.  These leaders, including Rahm, are all Democrats and have been Democrats in power since the days of Al Capone.  All Democrats know about running a government is to raise taxes and ruin a city in the long run.  Just ask the good citizens of Detroit how things have worked out for them over the last 75 years of Democrat leadership.

It's only going to get worse in Chicago.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Why do people think liberalism is good for us all?

Did you ever wonder why people who support liberalism think that this flawed philosophy is good for us all?

Even when this philosophy has been demonstrably, historically proven to fail wherever it has been implemented?  Throughout the history of mankind?

I am taken aback at how people can think this way all the time.  I have met many well-off, relatively wealthy folks who are completely enamored with liberalism and its leaders.  They themselves are not the benefactors of liberal politics which yield food stamps, welfare checks, Obama phones and rent controlled hovels.

These people are living large primarily because they worked at high paying jobs, saved their money that was not taxed away from them, invested it (and paid taxes yet again on any capital gains yielded from these investments).  And these liberals don't give it a second thought of the tax rates the rest of us also put up with, and the rampant wasted spending that Congress winds up doing with this tidal wave of confiscated tax money.

These very same people also paid accountants to ensure that they were not paying one single dime more in taxes than is absolutely required by law, not a penny more.

And yet these very same people think that we all should be taxed even more to support the unfortunate among us.  You know, the bums, alcoholics, drug addicts, and general lowlifes that don't have what they themselves enjoy in life.

According to these high living liberals, that's just not right.  That's just not fair.  And they will vote in as many liberals as they can that get up on the campaign stump and promise to make things right. Make things fair, it's only the decent thing to do, vote for me, vote for fairness.

Everyone should enjoy the finer things in life, they insist.  Why should only a tiny minority of people dine on caviar and truffles, while the great majority eat out of dumpsters?  Why should only a small minority of Americans live on the beach, drive Ferrari's and Bentley s and light their imported hand rolled cigars with $20 bills?

It's just not fair.  So let's all make it fair.   That is to say, they want their neighbors to pony up to make things fair for everyone and jack up their taxes, put limits on their freedoms and do it that way. No, no, these limousine liberals will not kick in a dime of their own to see to it that fairness reigns.  Not on your life.  That's the rest of us tax payer's responsibility, not theirs.  

They think that to ensure fairness through out our society, we ALL need to kick in and help those less fortunate than they are.  But don't pass that hat THEIR way, they have their yacht payments to deal with, you see.  They have their elite club memberships to service, and their mansion groundskeepers to support.

These liberal phony baloney hypocrites think that they are doing their part to lessen the misery and unfairness in our society by voting in liberal politicians that will see to it that their neighbors cough up the trillions it will take to make things right.

Just don't darken their liberal doorstep with your collection plate, you just better take it across the street where the money should rightly come from; not them.

I will never understand these liberal people.  And there are millions of 'em. Millions and millions of these generous liberals out there. Generous to a fault with the money of others.  




Sunday, December 14, 2014

Hollywood hypocrisy is not news, folks

As I was browsing through my favorite blogs, I stumbled across a link on "Geez"s blog written by Juan Williams ( THIS) pertaining to the Hollywood unflattering emails that were hacked and published recently. 

The main beef I have with Juan, who is a relatively reasonable guy most of the time (for a liberal), is that on several occasions within his article, he clearly stated that conservatives were justified in feeling a sense of Schadenfreude - the joy felt in watching the misfortunes of others - at the blatant hypocrisy of these Hollywood moguls.

Nothing could be farther from the truth: no conservative worth his or her salt could possibly have this kind of reaction to these recent revelations on the thought processes present in the Hollywood elite.

The fact is that we all know this is how these guys think.  It's nothing new, it's 'dog bites man,' and not the other way around. Why on earth would anyone get a feeling of joy at these Hollywood liberals squirming in their moment of lucidity?

I think Juan Williams' point is that since their raging hypocrisy is now on display, there will be accountability on their part to change, to atone for their sins, to become better people.  Accordingly, the conservative cause will have gained merit, and the liberals will have lost some mojo because of this kerfuffle.  

HA.  Fat chance.  None of that will happen.  These liberal moguls will continue to fund liberal causes, produce liberal movies and do liberal things just like nothing happened.  No accountability will reduce any of their activities, no face will have been lost for the liberal philosophy, life will go on exactly as it has before.

Why would conservatives be joyful over essentially nothing?  Nobody is taking this little episode to heart, and changing things in their lives: there is absolutely no chance that some of the clueless out there are suddenly going to read the National Enquirer and declare: "did you read this about those Hollywood hypocrites, Marge?  By golly, they are rotten to the bone saying those things, I think I will stop believing them and their liberal views.  I am never voting for another liberal ever again, and I am now going to vote conservative, Marge.  C'mon, Marge, let's go register as Republicans...."

Like that's going to happen? In a pig's eye.   Juan couldn't be more wrong about this Schadenfreude on behalf of conservatives.