Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Why the 2016 Election Proves America Needs the Electoral College

From The Daily Signal.com (Nov. 14):

In the last week since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in a stunning electoral blowout, there have been calls from many on the left to abolish America’s unique presidential election system.

It still hasn’t been settled whether Trump or Clinton won the popular vote, but many Democrats are upset about the possibility that their candidate may have won more total votes, yet lost the election.

Progressives are taking aim at the Electoral College and want to replace it with a national popular vote. This would both remove the indirect mediation of the electors’ votes, and more damagingly, eliminate the power of states in choosing a president.

………………………..

The ‘Fairness’ of the Electoral College

As designed in the Constitution, America’s presidential election is very much a product of the states—channeling the principle of “federalism” that the Founders cherished.

Smaller states receive a slightly higher number of votes compared to their population than more populous ones, which detractors of the Electoral College claim damages the idea of one man, one vote.

Many say this system is “unfair,” and that the total number of individual votes from all the states is a more accurate gauge for who the president should be. But, would it be fair for America’s chief executive to mostly be the product of a few urban centers in California, New York, and Texas?

The Electoral College system was designed to ensure that presidents would have to receive support from a diverse array of people around the country.

Modern candidates have to accommodate farmers in rural states, factory workers in industrial states, and software engineers in tech-dominated states. The president must consider the needs and opinions of people across the country instead of just the views of a few, highly populated urban centers.

The Electoral College ensures that the interests of “flyover country” in middle America cannot be ignored.  [read more]

What the Left doesn’t think about is one day in the future there might be a time when a republican candidate or a non-Left candidate will win the presidential election and get both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Then again they think everyone will always love them like parental figures. Then you have those like elites like Hillary who would rather just skip the vote altogether and just be annointed.

Even if Donald Trump won the popular vote too, the Left would just way they were duped by a con man. The masses are never duped by Left of course. The Left never con or lie to the public like Hillary did to the mothers who lost their sons over in Benghazi.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Seven Executive Orders Trump Should Reverse

From The Daily Signal.com (Nov 10):

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the president, creates the laws. Article I of the Constitution grants enumerated legislative powers to Congress. The Constitution assigns the executive the duty to enforce the law, and Article II, Section 3 requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

However, throughout the last eight years, we have seen the Obama administration continually abuse the power of the executive branch by issuing unconstitutional, unilateral executive actions to push its agenda. The “old days” of Congress creating our laws have become a distant memory.

President Barack Obama even went so far as to announce his unilateralism, saying, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

…………………………

As long promised, Trump should use the first 100 days of his administration to repeal every illegal executive action the Obama administration has issued while in office.

Here is a list of the seven areas with the most damaging executive actions signed during the Obama administration that must be repealed:

  1. Crony Exemptions to Obamacare
  2. Executive Amnesty. The new president must repeal Obama’s unilateral changes to our nation’s immigration laws, which exempted certain categories of illegal aliens from being deported. (This bar on deportations was halted by a court order, but the underlying exemption still remains on the books.)
  3. Environmental Protection Agency Overreaches. Trump must repeal Obama’s multiple illegitimate expansions of EPA rules. These new rules have imposed huge costs on society and are crippling the U.S. energy sector.
  4. Appeasement of Iran. Trump must repeal the executive order that single-handedly removed U.S. sanctions on Iran. These sanctions provided key leverage to the U.S. in negotiations with Iran, and their removal has cleared Iran’s path in developing a nuclear weapon.
  5. Climate Change Bureaucracy. Trump must repeal the executive orderthat purports to “prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change.” This action from Obama created manifold new justifications for government spending based on inconclusive science.
  6. Life and Religious Liberty. Trump should reverse Obamacare’s unprecedented taxpayer funding of abortion. He should also direct the secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a rulemaking process that will end the mandate for insurance to cover abortion-inducing drugs and contraception, along with “gender transition” therapies and surgeries.
  7. “Gender Identity.” Trump should repeal the Obama administration’s Title IX guidance equating “gender identity” with “biological sex.” The Department of Justice and Department of Education have wielded this guidance to punish educational institutions for “discrimination” under Title IX, simply for having separate showers,

By making the repeal of these executive actions a priority, the Trump administration will have an easy opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past administration.locker rooms, and bathrooms for men and women.  [read more]

I agree Donald Trump should resind those executive orders and then some. It was a blatent abuse of power—made the Congress seem obsolete. Then again Emperor Obama didn’t care.

Monday, November 28, 2016

When ISIS Rules

At first, Lattif said, ISIS treated civilians “gently,” even assuming some of the civil administrative duties that had been handled by volunteers and the FSA. They fixed damaged roads, planted flowers in the street, cultivated gardens, and cleaned the local schools. But not long thereafter, Lattif said, ISIS instituted Sharia law, forcing women to wear what he called “the Daesh clothes”—the niqab or full head-and-face covering. “They banned hairdressing. Beard shaving is also forbidden. No woman can leave her house without a male escort now. There’s no smoking, no shisha [flavored tobacco smoked in hookahs], no playing cards. They’ve made everything bad for civilians now. They force the people to go to the mosque for prayers, to close their businesses. No one can walk in the street during prayers. They kidnapped almost everybody working in the relief centers. About a month ago [November 2014], they closed the school. If you want to study now, you have to go to the Daesh school in the mosque.”

Torture is common, too. ISIS has taken to arresting members of the FSA, whom they accuse of being agents of foreign intelligence services. Sentences for various ISIS-designated crimes are carried out publicly in al-Bab’s town square. These range, depending on the offense, from dismemberment to beheading. “They cut off heads and hands in the square. Do you remember the hookah place?” Lattif was referring to a popular cafe in central al-Bab where, in 2012, he had outlined his vision of a free and democratic Syria. “The beheadings are taking place now in front of there. They shut down the hookah place, of course.”

Source: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (2015) by Michael Weiss.

Beard shaving is forbidden? The male cast of Duck Dynasty would fit in nicely except for being Christians. The ISIS thugs wouldn’t like that at all.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

9 Controversies Obama Didn’t Mention When He Denied Any ‘Major Scandals’

From The Daily Signal.com (Oct. 24):

President Barack Obama discarded eight years of controversies surrounding his administration, including the targeting of conservative groups, veterans lacking health care, the administration’s response to a terrorist attack weeks before the 2012 election, and a botched gun sting.

During a Democratic fundraising event in San Diego Sunday, Obama attacked Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for the various investigations into the administration.

“Here’s a guy who called my administration perhaps the most corrupt in history, despite the fact that actually, we have not had a major scandal in my administration,” Obama told Democratic donors.

………………….

Here’s a list of nine controversies that Obama didn’t mention at the Democratic fundraiser, but that nevertheless leave many unanswered questions.

  1. IRS Targeting Scandal.
  2. VA Waiting List.
  3. GSA Spending Spree. In 2012, Martha N. Johnson, the administrator of the General Services Administration, resigned after the federal procurement agency was engulfed in a controversy. The department was accused of allowing excessive spending on travel and conferences for the agency and employees.
  4. Attack on the Benghazi Compound.
  5. Clinton Emails.
  6. Fast and Furious Gun Walking.
  7. Solyndra Subsidies.
  8. DOJ and the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, hours before Obama was first elected, two members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside the door of a polling place in Philadelphia in paramilitary outfits. One of the men was carrying a nightstick. The two men were caught on video seemingly intimidating voters.
  9. A Job for Sestak.
  10. In 2010, Rep. Joe Sestak, who was challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, said that the Obama administration had offered him a job to dissuade him from entering the race.

    Obama had endorsed Specter, who had recently switched allegiance from the Republican to the Democrat Party during the early months of Obama’s presidency. The White House did not answer questions on the matter for several months.

[read more]

Yea, this is Obama’s legacy. He owns it. Whether he wants to or not. But he will not even think about these scandals because his narcissism won’t permit it. The press didn’t help anything by not doing their job and not reporting them. Or briefly reporting them.

Will these nine scandals get put in history books? Well, if Leftwing historians are writing the books probably not.

 

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Six Bullets Dodged with Hillary's Loss

From FEE.org (Nov. 15):
The current news cycle is monopolized by two narratives. In one, Trump supporters are cheering the great and promising future. In the other, oppositional progressives are screeching about how hateful and daft he and his supporters are. But in the midst of this chaotic national quarrel, one important person has managed to slip away: Hillary Clinton. Not only metaphorically but literally. Maybe she’s seeking asylum in Russia.
Anyway, while Trump’s impending reign isn’t anything to be ecstatic over, a relief of what America avoided in a Clinton presidency is definitely warranted. So let’s take a moment to examine some avoided disasters that likely would’ve happened had Hillary Clinton won.
         The Death of the Sharing Economy
Hillary Clinton is on the same track. Last year she pledged to “crack down” on companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Lending Club, Dogvacay, etc. These are companies that are frowned upon by taxi and hotel cartels, street corner title loan shops, and many more awful, out-of-date institutions. With Hillary out of office, the sharing economy and all those who benefit from its employment opportunities and convenience get to live to see another day.
          Minority Unemployment
Minimum wage increases, overtime rules, high corporate taxes; all these policies have historically and presently had a negative impact on employment opportunities among minority communities. This is particularly true of youth and blacks in middle- and lower-class America. Hillary Clinton supports all of these initiatives and more. Her policies included manufactured outsourcing of labor due to uncompetitive corporate tax rates, which disincentivizes businesses to stay in the States, and, instead, offsets the insane tax by employing workers in other countries like China and Mexico. So when it comes to the American labor force and those who are un- or underemployed, they may have dodged a huge bullet.
          Globalism and Imperialism
In addition to terrible military strategy, she’s also a staunch globalist, using government to achieve it. This is not to be confused with the internationalization of cooperative cultures and markets. She wants global governance, which means increased concentration of elitist wealth, power, and bureaucratic controls over our everyday lives.  [read more]
The other bullets not listed here are: Healthcare, Guns (specifically gun control laws), and Energy (increasing costs on energy producing companies like coal).


Monday, November 21, 2016

ISIS’s Divide-and-Rule Strategy

In The Management of Savagery, Abu Bakr Najji elucidated the importance of manipulating tribal politics and offered his own anthropological gloss on the matter. He observed that it was not necessarily a bad thing for jihadists that confederations of families tended to stick together. In fact, this reality was easily harnessed to the jihadists’ benefit by a gradual process of bribery, brainwashing, and co-optation. “When we address these tribes that have solidarity we should not appeal to them to abandon their solidarity,” he wrote. “Rather, we must polarize them and transform them into praiseworthy tribes that have solidarity. . . . It is possible to begin doing so by uniting the leaders . . . among them with money and the like. Then, after a period of time in which their followers have mixed with our followers and their hearts have been suffused with the picture of faith, we will find that their followers do not accept anything which contradicts the sharia. Of course, solidarity remains, but it has been changed into a praiseworthy solidarity instead of the sinful solidarity which they used to have.”

Given the popularity of this manifesto among ISIS zealots, it was hardly a shock that the organization would be the first one in history to successfully pit members of the same tribe against one another. Such divide-and-rule tactics were on grim display in August 2014, when members of the Shaitat tribe in Deir Ezzor participated in the killing of hundreds of their fellow tribesmen at ISIS’s behest. The same kind of coerced fratricide occurred in the Iraqi town of Hit, where members of the Albu Nimr took part in the execution of dozens of their own in October 2014. Making the ruled complicit in the crimes of the ruler, and individuals more loyal to the state than to their own flesh and blood, is a hallmark of totalitarianism.

As per Najji, the exchange of money for loyalty has played a major role in tearing families apart. In April 2013, after the rupture with al-Nusra, ISIS secretly sought to co-opt young tribal leaders by offering to share oil and smuggling revenues with them. It also promised them positions of authority currently held by their elders. Younger tribesmen were generally more credible and popular, owing to their participation in the anti-Assad rebellion; their elders had mainly sided with the regime or stayed neutral.

One figure from the Syrian border town of Albu Kamal explained how ISIS had exploited this generational schism to snare members of a prominent family, months before the jihadists had even established a presence there. “They are giving him a portion of an oil well in the area,” the figure said, referring to a younger relative who had joined the jihadists. “They know that if they are to be eradicated in our area, who would be able to rally up people around him? Most of the other tribes in our area have no leadership; we have leadership and influence. They give him money, they protect him and consult with him on everything. The other option is, they would assassinate him.”

Source: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (2015) by Michael Weiss.

The divide-and-conquer rule is used by a lot of dictators. It’s hard to conquer when the people you are trying to conquer are united.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

How Republicans Could Overcome Filibusters by Senate Democrats

From The Daily Signal.com (Nov. 10):

As Democrats strategize on how to stop conservative legislation from making its way to Donald Trump’s desk in the White House, Republicans have a little-known rule in their toolbox that would allow them to pass legislation, including a repeal of Obamacare, with a simple majority.

Democrats were able to keep 48 seats in the Senate after Tuesday’s election, giving the party the power to filibuster legislation and effectively prevent conservative policies from being enacted.

But Republicans can turn to a seldom-used Senate rule that would allow them to pass legislation by a simple majority vote—legislation that has a greater chance of earning Trump’s signature after he assumes office Jan. 20.

Called the two-speech rule, the tool limits senators to giving only two speeches in one legislative day on a question before the Senate. A legislative day, which differs from a calendar day, ends when the upper chamber adjourns.

Once a senator gives those two speeches, he or she is not allowed to speak again. [read more]

Works for me. If the roles were reversed this is what the Dems in the Senate would do in a heartbeat. Politics is war to them and the Republicans ought to know that by now.

If the Republicans in the Senate activate this rule the Dems would call fowl of course. That’s their modus operandi.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Slavery and the Founders Part III: Benjamin Franklin

Critics of the Founders point to the three-fifths clause in the United States Constitution, which counted blacks as three-fifths of a person, as proof of their racism. To use this as proof of the Founders’ hatred for black people shows a painful lack of knowledge.

The three-fifths clause had nothing to do with the worth of the human being. The argument in question was over the census and counting people in various states for Congressional representation and taxation. Many southern delegates argued that slaves, as their property, should be counted as a full person. Why? Because that would increase their representation in Congress, and thus their power and ability to keep slavery intact. The northern delegates who sought the eventual end to slavery knew that more representation meant more power for the south. And if they allowed that, slavery may never end. The compromise was the three-fifths clause.

During the constitutional convention of 1787, the slavery debate threatened to derail any attempts to form a new government. The southern states would not have entered the Union if slave trade had been abolished. Thus, the delegates agreed to end the slave trade in 1808. James Madison wrote, “Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would be worse.”

The Founders put an end to the slave trade in 1808. From the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 to 1808, the slave trade lasted a total of 17 years in the United States of America. Ending slavery altogether would take a civil war and the lives of 600,000 Americans, 57 years later.

In the early 1770s, before America declared independence from England, two Founding Fathers — Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush — tried to eliminate slavery from the American continent. Franklin’s journey towards abolitionism had started ten years earlier with a visit to a school for black children, created by the Reverend Thomas Bray. For Franklin, it was an eyeopener, and he financially backed the Bray Associate School in Philadelphia.

Historian David Barton explains:

While Pennsylvania was still a British colony, Pennsylvania passed an anti-slavery law, but King George III vetoed that law passed by Pennsylvania. At that point in time, in 1774, Ben Franklin joins with fellow Pennsylvanian, also soon to be signer of the Declaration, Benjamin Rush, and they start the first Abolition Society in Pennsylvania. It was an act of civil disobedience against King George III. He said, “You can’t end slavery.” They said, “Watch us.” But Franklin had already taken actions well before that.

Back in 1768, Ben Franklin had joined with Francis Hopkins, who was also soon to be a signer of the Declaration, and they started a chain of schools across Pennsylvania and across New England for black Americans. And it was to teach black Americans the Bible and academics. Now, that doesn’t seem all that notable today, but it was then. Because under British policy, you were not to be educating blacks. Because if you educate blacks, they don’t make good slaves.

And, by the way, if you teach them to read, they’re probably going to read the Bible because that was the book. And if they read the Bible, they’ll probably end up praying. And if they end up praying, you know what they’re going to pray for, is an end of slavery. And that’s just not a good thing, to have an educated slave. So under British policy, you tried to avoid education for slaves.

Now, that was carried forth in America in the southern states. And at the time of the civil war, it was a capital offense to teach a black to read. If a white person taught a black person to read, you both got kill. That was a capital offense.

Benjamin Franklin, president of the Pennsylvania anti-slavery society, thought differently and wanted to see blacks educated. When the first Congress of the United States convened in 1789, Ben Franklin introduced a petition asking Congress to abolish slavery. He died shortly after in 1790, without seeing his efforts to end slavery come to fruition. But he was one of the many Founding Fathers who worked to end slavery in America, recognizing that civil rights came from God’s creation, that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, including life and liberty

Franklin realized that being in bondage as a slave, having no free will, being governed by fear, and most likely abused on a regular basis, would take its toll on its victims. So he not only fought to free slaves, but also set up a way to help once they were freed. Franklin and his friends decided to expand the activity of their Abolition Society to include assistance in the immediate post-slavery period, helping former slaves make the transition to freedom by providing advice, assistance in finding jobs, educating children and learning how to exercise and enjoy their new civil liberties. He did all of this with private funds and private effort and without any government interference or intervention.

Source: “Slavery and the Founders Part III: Benjamin Franklin.”

There is one last part to the series called “Slavery and the Founders Part IV: Abolitionists.”

For a racist, Ben Franklin sure tried to abolish slavery and help former slaves. He also wrote a pamplet in 1789 called “A Plan for Improving the Condition of the Free Blacks.” Hmmm. Sure don’t make sense unless he wasn’t a racist.

Under the pseudonym of Polly Baker he wrote a fictional story about a woman put on trial in 1747 for have an illegitimate child. The woman protested saying that the child’s father was never put on trial for the same offense. So, maybe he was a feminist too?

Monday, November 14, 2016

Converts to ISIS and “Five-Star Jihadists”

The intellectuals.

[Mothanna Abdulsattar] spoke with gusto about his journey into ISIS, downplaying the eight hours he had spent in its custody as more of a rite of passage than a life-or-death grilling. Abdulsatter said that he was ultimately swayed by ISIS’s “intellectualism and the way it spreads religion and fights injustice.”

A great number of ISIS members who were interviewed for this book echoed similar sentiments—and hyperbolic appraisals—of the terror army, which has mastered techniques to break down the psyches of those it wishes to recruit, and then build them back up again in its own image.

The novice.

The Kurds.

Hussain Jummo, the political editor at the Dubai-based Al Bayan newspaper, and a prominent analyst of Kurdish politics, offers the most plausible explanation for why Kurds have joined ISIS. After Saddam’s Halabja massacre, many families in the town were left impoverished, while others built new homes and carried on with their lives as before. Charities that were started and meant to tend to the victims of the chemical attacks were mainly Salafist in orientation, organized and funded by Gulf state sponsors, including Kuwait’s Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage, which has been accused by the United States of bankrolling al-Qaeda. So after decades of proselytization in the Kurdish regions of the Middle East, Halabja became the epicenter of Kurdish Islamism.

In Syria the Kurdish turn to ISIS has been less common, although not unheard-of. Syrian Kurds are predominantly secular or Sufi from the Khaznawi order, named after the family that inaugurated it. We spoke with two Kurds from Aleppo and Hasaka, however, who said they were driven to ISIS because of the organization’s pan-Sunni, rather than pan-Arab, philosophy. A Kurdish ISIS member from Hasaka related to the authors a conversation he had had with an ISIS recruiter shortly before he joined. The recruiter told him that al-Nusra, which had by then split from ISIS, was essentially an “Arab” organization, rather than an Islamic one. ISIS was blind to ethnicity, he said, and attended only to true faith—a theme that recurs frequently in its propaganda.

The prisoners.

According to journalist Wael Essam, who met al-Absi after the Syrian uprising started, the jihadist has considered many of his fellow former inmates at Sednaya to be kuffar, including those who now lead rival Islamist brigades and battalions in Syria. Why? Because they refused to pronounce as nonbelievers the taghut (tyrannical) Muslim rulers in the Middle East and the majority of Muslims in the region. Also, al-Absi explained, these Islamists acceded to the surrender of Sednaya to the Syrian authorities after the bloody 2008 riot.

The fence-sitters.

Another category of ISIS recruits consists of those who already held Islamist or jihadist views but had limited themselves only to orbiting takfiri ideology. The final gravitational pull, as it were, differed depending on circumstance. Some recruits joined for the simple reason that ISIS overran their territories and became the only Islamist faction available to join. Others were impressed with ISIS’s military prowess in campaigns against rival rebel factions. Still others fell out with their original insurgencies and found ISIS more organized, disciplined, and able-bodied.

For what might be called “extra-mile extremists,” the conversion experience is hardly as sweeping or comprehensive as it was for men like Abdulsattar. They have tended to trickle into ISIS from the rank and file of the Islamic Front and Islamist-leaning groups in Iraq and Syria as a result of either leadership disputes or the abortive Syrian Sahwa that erupted in late December 2013.

The politickers.

As it happens, the closer ISIS came to realizing its territorial ambitions, the less religion played a part in driving people to join the organization. Those who say they are adherents of ISIS as a strictly political project make up a weighty percentage of its lower cadres and support base.

For people in this category, ISIS is the only option for Sunni Muslims who have been dealt a dismal hand in the past decade—first losing control of Iraq and now suffering nationwide atrocities, which many equate to genocide, in Syria. They view the struggle in the Middle East as one between Sunnis and an Iranian-led coalition, and they justify ultra-violence as a necessary tool to counterbalance or deter Shia hegemony. This category often includes the highly educated.

The pragmatists.

In areas fully controlled by ISIS, people support the group because it is effective in terms of governance and delivery of basic services, such as sanitation and food delivery. ISIS has established a semblance of order in these “governed” territories, and people view the alternatives—al-Assad, the Iraqi government, or other militias—as far worse. For those weary of years of civil war, the ability to live without crime and lawlessness trumps whatever draconian rules ISIS has put into place. Members of this category sometimes keep their distance from ISIS, to avoid trouble; others seek out areas where ISIS is said not to be committing atrocities.

The opportunists.

There are also those who were drawn to ISIS largely because of personal ambition. The opportunists tend to serve in the group’s rank and file as well as its low-level command structures. They join to undermine a rival group, to move up the chain of a dominant military and political force, or simply to preempt ISIS’s brutal justice because of some past offense or crime they might have committed against the group.

The foreign fighters.

The radicalization expert Shiraz Maher of King’s College London has explained how digital apps or social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and, in the ex-Soviet context, VKontakte (Russia’s answer to Facebook) have revolutionized jihadist agitprop. Much of the online chatter among Western-born ISIS recruits sounds more like a satire of the group than an earnest commitment to it: “Does the Islamic State sell hair gel and Nutella in Raqqa?” “Should I bring an iPad to let Mom and Dad know that I arrived safely in caliphate?” “I was told there’d be Grand Theft Auto V.”

In December 2013, Maher’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation calculated that the number of foreign fighters enjoined with the Syrian opposition was “up to 11,000 . . . from 74 nations.” Most of them signed up with ISIS or other jihadist groups, with few going to join mainstream FSA factions. Western Europe, the study found, accounted for 18 percent of the total, with France leading among nations as the number-one donor country for jihadists, followed closely by Britain. That number only grew, particularly in light of the US coalition war against ISIS. By September 2014, the CIA calculated that there were fifteen thousand foreign fighters in Syria, two thousand of whom were Westerners. These figures had doubled by September 2015. The predominant emigration trend has always been from the Middle East and North Africa, with Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Tunisia being the major feeder countries of foreign Sunni militants.

Missionary jihadists who were driven by civilian suffering, according to Maher, constituted a plurality of the Britons who joined ISIS. They saw jihad as an obligation to defend women and children as the war dragged on in Syria, Maher said.

Maher notes a second category of foreign fighters: martyrdom-seekers, who want nothing more than to carry out a suicide operation and thus be lionized in the annals of jihadism. For many foreign fighters from the Gulf states, the glorification of suicide bombers has been a constant on jihadist chat forums and websites since al-Qaeda in Iraq got started. Saudi nationals often point to the fact that many Saudis carry out these self-immolations, to argue that ISIS leaders discriminate against their compatriots by sending them to their deaths, whereas Iraqis hoard all the leadership positions in the organization for themselves.

The final factor leading foreign fighters to ISIS, according to Maher, is pure adventurism. Adrenaline junkies tend to be nonpracticing Muslims and are often drug users or addicts, or involved in criminality and gang violence back home—much as al-Zarqawi himself was in Jordan before discovering the mosque. Going off to fight in Syria represents just another rush.

Source: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (2015) by Michael Weiss.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Happy Veterans Day!

1

Here’s a commentary from Lt. Gen. Thomas W. Spoehr, U.S. Army (Ret.) on The Daily Signal.com (Nov. 10):

Friday is Veterans Day. We celebrate Veterans Day on the 11th day of the 11th month of the year, the day the guns fell silent in Europe following the armistice that ended World War I. For some, it’s a day off from school or work, but for the majority of Americans, it means so much more.

Veterans Day is the chance to thank and honor those who have selflessly served their country. Support for veterans has been mixed through our nation’s history. But today, through the efforts of great Americans, respect and assistance for veterans has never been stronger.

In increasing numbers, veterans are returning that support by continuing their service to their communities and country.

The term “veteran” comes from the Latin, vetus meaning “old.” In America and elsewhere, we use the word to describe those who have served in the military. But you don’t need to be old to be considered a veteran.

A veteran is a person who has served honorably in the U.S. military. He or she can be a citizen who served for four years and leaves the service at the ripe old age of 24.

U.S. veterans today enjoy a much different relationship with the populace—their government and the American people—than veterans have over the span of our history.

Revolutionary Beginnings

In the Revolutionary War, America relied on volunteers, although some state militias used conscription. Pay was the responsibility of the states and was sporadic or nonexistent. Many soldiers were promised cattle when their term of service ended. There was no system for pensions, death benefits, or disability payments. This led to unrest and dissatisfaction among those who had served so faithfully.

In 1830, years after the end of the war, Sgt. Joseph Plumb Martin, a Connecticut soldier who served for seven years in the Continental Army, summed up these feelings when wondered in his memoirs why he and his fellow soldiers were “turned adrift like worn-out horses.

The number of people who served in the Revolutionary War never exceeded 30,000, and they were relatively ineffective in mustering any public opinion to better support veterans.

This national disinterest toward veterans continued with relatively minor reforms until the Civil War, where heretofore unprecedented numbers of Americans were killed or wounded.

Sensing a growing national obligation toward veterans, President Abraham Lincoln explicitly mentioned supporting them after the war. Post-Civil War reforms resulted in the establishment of a better system of pensions and payments, but most still remained meager.

Fast forward to World War I. Large groups of veterans returned from overseas; some with major needs. But the largest change in America’s treatment of its veterans came after World War II, which was pivotal in improving the relationship between veterans and their government.  [read more]

He goes on to talk about the GI Bill of Rights and veterans returning to the community.

To all veterans past and present, thank you for your service and defending America’s constitution.

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Secular, Feminist, and Pro Life

Commentary by John Stonestreet on Break Point.org (Oct. 25):

The pro-life tent is constantly expanding, but some of our new allies might surprise us.

In the third presidential debate on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton said women should be able to end the lives of their preborn babies right up until the very moment of birth, long after a child is viable outside the womb.

In a recent Marist poll reported by the Wall Street Journal, eighty percent of Americans and some sixty-percent of self-described pro-choicers oppose this extreme view. Instead, they support restricting abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy.

……………………

All of this led Ruth Graham to conclude in Slate that the pro-life movement is in the midst of a transition. But it’s not just in the sense that it’s getting younger. It’s also attracting the non-religious.

Not that long ago, being pro-life meant you were almost certainly a Catholic or evangelical. But now, the belief that killing unborn babies is wrong is transcending religious and even political boundaries.

Take Aimee Murphy, the 27-year-old founder of Pittsburgh’s Life Matters Journal. Aimee was raped by an ex-boyfriend who pressured her to get an abortion when she thought she was pregnant. That was when it clicked, Aimee says. “I could not use violence to get what I wanted in life. I realized that if I were to get an abortion, I would just be passing oppression on to a child.”

Her appeal, like that of a growing group of young pro-lifers who aren’t religious, is rooted in human rights, and the belief that our nation has committed an unspeakable atrocity in the name of convenience.

Kelsey Hazzard, founder of the group Secular Pro-Life, says the non-religious argument against abortion has the potential to bring people on board who would have never otherwise taken the message of life seriously.

And Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, a Dallas resident who founded New Wave Feminists, sees protecting the unborn and ending abortion as a deeply feminist cause. She told Slate she doesn’t understand why so many fellow feminists treat fertility “like a disease,” as if abortion is the only way women can achieve their dreams. The culture of death tells women they must bear the consequences of pregnancy alone, and Herndon-De La Rosa calls that “a grave form of injustice.”  [read more]

Humorist Dennis Miller once said the Left believe in cradle-to-grave healthcare but make it hard for babies to get to the cradle. So, true.

What abortionists don’t understand is if you kill off the potential human beings you are going to have under population because eventually everyone will grow old and die. You will need new people (babies) to at least replace the dead. Also, with the newly born come new ideas and innovation. The economic system will collapse without new workers. Russia has experienced this phenomena. And now China is telling its citizenry its okay now to have more than one child—actually just two children. Well, the citizens are basically giving the finger to the gov’t. The gov’t told its people for 30 years to only have one child because they were worried about overpopulation. Now, they have the opposite. This is what happens when Big Gov starts to play God.

One final thought. Most people believe abortions should be outlawed except if the mother’s life is in danger. This is in a lot of states constitutions as well. Well, what if the mother is pro-life and wants to sacrifice her life for her baby’s? Is that so hard to believe? It’s not so different than a mother pushing her child out of the way in front of a speeding car when she doesn’t have time to save herself. Just like people have a DNR legal order maybe potential mothers could have a Save-My-Baby legal order.

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Iran claims it's sending elite fighters to infiltrate US, Europe

From Fox News. com (Nov. 2):

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the country’s elite military force, is sending assets to infiltrate the United States and Europe at the direction of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to recent Farsi-language comments from an Iranian military leader.

The IRGC “will be in the U.S. and Europe very soon,” according to the Iranian military commander, who said that these forces would operate with the goal of bolstering Iran’s hardline regime and thwarting potential plots against the Islamic Republic.

“The whole world should know that the IRGC will be in the U.S. and Europe very soon,” Salar Abnoush, deputy coordinator of Iran’s Khatam-al-Anbia Garrison, an IRGC command front, was quoted as saying in an Iranian state-controlled publication closely tied to the IRGC. [read more]

Interesting. Is Iranian officials going to lobby the Congress? They already got Obama on board, and if Hillary wins she’ll be favorable to the Iranian gov’t. That’s what it sounds like.

There should be a law that says countries (even our allies) can’t lobby Congress because that usually helps the other country. The law should include foreign companies too not just gov’ts.

Monday, November 07, 2016

The Management of Savagery

Al-Zarqawi’s sinister strategy for fomenting a complete societal breakdown in Iraq hewed closely to a text titled Idarat al-Tawahhush, or The Management of Savagery. Published online in 2004 as a combined field manual and manifesto for the establishment of the caliphate, it is the jihadist answer to The Art of War and Leviathan. Its author, Abu Bakr Naji, conceived of a battle plan for weakening enemy states through what he called “power of vexation and exhaustion.” Drawing the United States into open as opposed to “proxy” warfare in the Middle East was the whole point, because Naji believed that once American soldiers were killed by mujahidin on the battlefield, the “media halo” surrounding their presumed invincibility would vanish. Muslims would then be “dazzled” at the harm they could inflict on a weak and morally corrupted superpower as well as incensed at the occupation of their holy lands, thus driving them to jihad. He urged that they should then focus on attacking the economic and cultural institutions (such as the hydrocarbon industries) of the “apostate” regimes aligned with the United States. “The public will see how the troops flee,” Naji wrote, “heeding nothing. At this point, savagery and chaos begin and these regions will start to suffer from the absence of security. This is in addition to the exhaustion and draining [that results from] attacking the remaining targets and opposing the authorities.” He used the time-honored example of Egypt, but he was also implicitly referring to Iraq, where he urged the fast consolidation of jihadist victory in order to “take over the surrounding countries.”

There are four “primary objectives” to the power of vexation and exhaustion, according to Naji. The first is to tire out the enemy and those regimes collaborating with it so that they cannot catch their breath. The second is to attract young jihadists to the cause through “qualitative operations,” or terror attacks, which need not rise to the level of a 9/11, but could be small and frequent. The third objective is to dislodge regions from the control of the “apostate” regimes entirely: the conquest of land, to be followed by the governance or administration of savagery by the jihadists. The fourth and final goal is the “advancement of groups of vexation through drilling and operational practice so that they will be prepared psychologically and practically for the stage of the management of savagery.”

As Naji defines it, this stage is really nothing more than the application of a rudimentary jihadist political economy, the rescue of Muslims from the Hobbesian chaos that was to be brought about by the toppling of the aforementioned regimes. The actual “management” consists of twelve basic needs that must be satisfied:

  1. The establishment of internal security such that the local population would be protected from violence other than that meted by the Islamic authority;
  2. The provision of food and medicine;
  3. The securing of the borders from foreign invaders;
  4. The installing of a system of Sharia jurisprudence to govern those ruled;
  5. The creation of a pious and “combat-efficient” youth movement;
  6. The spread of Islamic jurisprudence as well as “worldly science”;
  7. The “dissemination of spies” and the creation of an intelligence service;
  8. Buying the fealty of the local population through bribery and financial inducements;
  9. “Deterring hypocrites,” by which Naji meant dissuading any internal resistance to challenges to the ruling Islamic authority;
  10. Laying the groundwork for the expansion of this fief and a greater offensive against the enemy, whose money should be plundered and who should be put in a “constant state of apprehension and desire for reconciliation”;
  11. Building “coalitions” with other groups, including those who have not pledged full allegiance to the Islamic authority (elsewhere in the text, Naji gives a separate disquisition on the role of “affiliates”);
  12. The advancement of “managerial groups”—bureaucracies, in effect—who would work toward the future establishment of a bona fide Islamic state. This was the end goal of jihad, after all, and the stage of the management of savagery was to be the “bridge” to such a state, “which has been awaited since the fall of the caliphate.” This stage was also the most “critical” through which the global Islamic community would now have to pass, as Naji states in the subtitle to his tract.

One Isis-affiliated cleric told us that The Management of Savagery is today widely circulated among provincial Isis commanders and some rank-and-file fighters as a way to justify beheadings as not only religiously permissible but recommended by God and his prophet. For ISIS, the manifesto’s greatest contribution lies in its differentiation between the meaning of jihad and other religious matters.

Source: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (2015) by Michael Weiss.

Interesting book.

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

Slavery and the Founders Part II: George Washington

It was the British who stopped the original abolition movement in America. In 1773 and 1774, states like Rhode Island and Connecticut and Massachusetts and Pennsylvania passed anti-slavery laws. But in 1774, King George III vetoed every anti-slavery law in America. That’s what caused Thomas Jefferson to write a clause in the Declaration which favored ending slavery (three southern states demanded it be removed). When America separated from Great Britain in 1776, those states were the first ones to end slavery. Once America was free from the British empire, the ending of slavery began. By 1800, every northern colony had abolished slavery in America.

George Washington and the other Founders who favored abolition knew they could not immediately end slavery in the United States and still have a United States. They would have instantly lost all of the Southern colonies, weakened the union and wound up without a nation. That’s why Washington favored a gradual or, shall we say, “progressive” end to slavery.

Despite having inherited his first ten slaves when he was 11 years old, Washington grew to despise the practice. Upon his marriage to Martha Custis, Washington took possession of many more slaves. Martha was a widow when she married her second husband, George, and she brought to the marriage close to 100 dowry slaves. Washington argued and fought from the very beginning to end slavery, with no success in the legislature. When his and Martha’s slaves began marrying and forming families, his hands were further tied, as he refused to sell slaves and break up families. He waited until his death and Martha’s to free his slaves saying, “You can’t free the slaves till after I die and till after she dies. Because once we’re both dead, then you can keep the families together.”

…………………………

Phyllis Wheatley, a 22-year-old slave and poet was so impressed with the respect and kindness Washington had shown her that she wrote a poem — His Excellency General Washington — to honor the man she so greatly admired when he was made commander in the Continental Army in 1775. Washington responded by inviting Ms. Wheatley to his headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he received her as if she were a visiting dignitary.  [read more]

Tuesday, November 01, 2016

Slavery and the Founders Part I: Thomas Jefferson

Fifty-six Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. Of those 56, we know that 15 owned slaves and did not release them, nor did they want to. This minority of Founders is what we would call, in effect, racist. So what about the other Founders, those who did not own slaves or those who did but wanted to free them? Thomas Jefferson, in particular, has been singled out as a hypocrite who spoke against slavery, but didn’t free his own slaves upon his death. Why?

Let’s begin with the obvious: America’s Founding Fathers grew up in colonial America under English tradition and English rule. The colonies were an extension of Great Britain. It was the British, not our Founders, who brought slaves to this continent, and they did so for about 140 years. Thomas Jefferson, who grew up in 1700s Virginia where landowners owned slaves, began inheriting slaves at 14 years old. Even so, as he matured and considered the issue, Thomas Jefferson became decidedly anti-slavery.

So why didn’t Jefferson end slavery in his own home? State law in Virginia was very clear, and Jefferson wrote about it, saying the laws would not permit him to “turn them loose.” One law regarding slavery stated that if there was debt, slaves could not be freed and must be held to pay off that debt. Jefferson was, in today’s dollars, $2.5 million in debt. So by state law, he could not free his slaves.

Black civil rights leaders from multiple eras — Benjamin Beneker who personally knew Jefferson, Henry Highland Garnet, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. — praised Jefferson for his relentless efforts to end slavery. [read more]

Keep in mind slavery wouldn’t have existed if the State wouldn’t have allowed it at all.