Friday, November 21, 2014

Friday Afternoon Roundup - A Nation of Obamas


 Peter Kassig was a ex-Ranger who, like so many of the other hostages, was betrayed by Muslims he trusted into ISIS custody. He converted to Islam as a hostage and his parents have continued the farce of calling him Abdul Rahman.

Now one of America’s enemies has been invited to pray over his funeral.

The sermon built to an impassioned, rapid-fire crescendo, in which, almost shouting, al-Yaqoubi seemed to divide jihad into foreign and domestic spheres, with appropriate action for each. “Wherever the American troops are — wherever they are, they are going to be defeated,” he yelped. 

Sheikh Who Cheered Killing US Soldiers to Pray Over Ex-Soldier Beheaded by ISIS

“Palestinian” Terrorists Killed More Americans in 2014 Than ISIS


2. We are a nation of laws

“Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable… “

The least appropriate time to namecheck America as a nation of laws is when you have to decided to…

A. Illegally usurp Congress

B. Provide sanction to lawbreakers

C. Disregard the very immigration laws you’re mentioning

The 5 Dumbest Lies in Obama’s Amnesty Speech


Obama Whines TV Won’t Preempt “The Biggest Loser” for his Sore Loser Speech

Illegal Alien: Obama’s Amnesty Inspired Us to Cross Border - Who says Obama doesn’t inspire anyone anymore?


Under Stalin there were two Communisms. One was the real Communism practiced in Moscow in which a slave empire sought to expand its territory and power. The other was a set of ideas by their useful idiots in the West. Those Western Communists who moved to the Soviet Union eventually wound up in a Gulag whether or not they could name Lenin’s mother or recite chapter and verse from Das Kapital.

Western sympathizers of Communism or Islam did not understand that the actual implementation of the system was a machine of terror with no off switch. Stalin’s USSR and the Caliph’s Islamic State depended on grand promises and mass murder.

The African-Americans who moved to the USSR believing that it was a truly non-racist society ended up dead. Westerners who think that reciting the Koran can save them from the sword have discovered that the Koran can turn on the machinery of terror, but there is no off switch for the swinging sword.

Converting to Islam Won’t Save Your Head

Jordanian Parliament Prays for “Spirits of Heroes” Who Murdered 4 Rabbis


The latest Pew poll shows that 74 percent of Democrats support ObamaCare, but only 29 percent of white respondents do. The Democratic Party is becoming a party without white people. Under Obama, the Democratic disadvantage among white voters doubled without any corresponding gains among minority voters.

Republican congressional candidates won 64 percent of white working class voters. Landrieu won just 18 percent of the white vote; 22 percent among white women and 15 percent among white men. That’s less than the amount taken by a second Republican candidate in the race, Rob Maness.

Those numbers alone indicate why the Democrats won’t put any real money behind her. If Landrieu can’t even compete for the white vote, then there’s no reason to waste good money on her.

The Vanishing White Democrat

We’ve Got to Legalize Illegal Aliens So They Can Receive Our Taxes

Conscription of Wealth Possible

Chicago Oct 22, 1917

Declaring that the Liberty loan affords a splendid opportunity for the removal of the family savings from the stocking to a safer place, Secretary Daniels made a stirring appeal for the success of the second offering.

“Money is plentiful in America,” declared the secretary. “The banks are overflowing with it; the stockings are bulging out with it.”

“I wish that every dollar in America was on legs so that it had to march up the street and ride on the street cars to get home. Then we could see the dollars and enlist them in the selective draft. Under the law we have the right to do so, but the first Liberty loan was fully responded to so cheerfully and so fully that there was no necessity and there will be no necessity now.

“Just as truly as a republic can lay its hands on a young man and send him to France in the trenches so it can and will, if necessary, lay its hands on every dollar in America.”

“Lay its Hands on Every Dollar in America”


Obama is tripping over his own feet here. He’s sabotaging his own rationale for amnesty by not even pretending to work with a Republican Senate, many of whose members are quite amnesty friendly, but that’s nothing new for him.

1. That boy needs attention – Obama simply can’t reconcile himself to being a lame duck and with Valerie Jarrett’s prompting, no doubt stung by the Politico story and pressure from the Dems to fire her, convinced him that he can establish a domineering role by shooting first.

Did Gruber Videos Force Obama to Speed Up Amnesty?

Hillary Clinton Might Be Only Dem Under 70 Running for President


Nora O’Donnell is of course correct. Har Nof is contested. Certainly the synagogue is.

Muslims murdered four Jews there. How can it then not be contested? The very definition of contested is a place that Muslims kill people in.

Now that Muslims have killed people in that synagogue, it is now contested. It must be negotiated for. Obama and Kerry must demand that Israel cede it. Peres, assorted leftists and sellout security chiefs with villas in Paris and Los Angeles must insist that Israel has no use for the synagogue and would be better off without it.

And the one after that. And the one after that.

What is a “Contested Religious Site” Anyway?

“Rioting and Looting are Tools of Those Without a Voice,” Says Idiot in Spider-Man Mask


The most powerful man in the world is making the same excuse as a little boy losing at Monopoly. But he has a point. There was no way to win on his terms by maximizing the turnout of the base with ugly polarizing identity politics. The closest thing to that effort came from “Senator Uterus” and his off-putting “War on Women” rhetoric and it failed. If Obama can’t win with identity politics, then the election is unfair… and the only way to fix it is with illegal alien amnesty for demographic change.

Illegal alien amnesty is the adult political equivalent of overturning the board of the United States, tossing all the American voters on the floor, and remaking the country with new majorities.

That way identity politics will always be a winning move.

The Dems Lost and It’s Not Their Fault

Millionaire Congresswoman Says Income Inequality is America’s Biggest Problem


For a lawmaker hoping to land a top party seat on a key congressional committee, which matters the most? Seniority? Policy expertise? Legislative skill?

Or is it the ability to raise staggering sums of money—including from interests and industries they hope to oversee—that can be funneled to their colleagues?

The latest campaign finance filings from Reps. Anna Eshoo and Frank Pallone—veteran lawmakers vying to succeed retiring Rep. Henry Waxman as the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee—show that since last year and through Oct. 15, they have combined to distribute more than $1.2 million in direct contributions to the campaign coffers of House Democratic incumbents and challengers across the country.

Pelosi Abused Pregnant, Wounded Vet for Green Energy Cash


Swedish Ambulance Workers Want Body Armor Against Machete Attacks

Muslims Robbing European Churches to Finance Terrorism

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Tears Don't Protect Against Murder

After serving a few years in prison for his role in the Munich Massacre, Willi Pohl moved to Beirut. The brief sentence was a slap in the wrist, but Pohl had still served more time in prison than the Muslim gunmen who had murdered eleven Israeli athletes and coaches during the 1972 Summer Olympics. Mohammed Safady and the Al-Gashey cousins were released after a few months by the German authorities.

They went back to Lebanon and so did he.

A decade after the attack, Willi Pohl had begun making a name for himself as a crime novelist. His first novel was Tränen Schützen Nicht vor Mord or Tears Do Not Protect Against Murder.

While Pohl was penning crime novels, Israeli operatives had already absorbed the lessons of his first title. Tears, whether in 1939 or 1972, had not done anything to prevent the murder of Jews. Bullets were another matter.  

The head of Black September in Rome was the first to die, followed by a string of PLO leaders across Europe. Those attacks were followed by raids on the mansions and apartments of top Fatah officials in the same city where Pohl had found temporary refuge. By the time his first book was published, hundreds of PLO terrorists and officials were dead.

European law enforcement had failed to hold even the actual perpetrators of the Munich Massacre responsible, never mind the representatives of the PLO who openly mingled with red radicals in its capitals. Israeli operatives did what the German judicial system had failed to do, putting down Safady and one of the Al-Gasheys, while the other one hid out with Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

The Israeli raid on the PLO terrorists in Beirut's Muslim Quarter missed one important target. Arafat. And so, on another September day, some  later, September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin shook hands with Arafat and proclaimed, "Enough of blood and tears! Enough!"

But the blood and tears had only begun, as a PLO on its last legs was revived and built its terrorist infrastructure inside Israel's borders.

By 1993, the year of the infamous Rose Garden handshake, 45 Israelis had been killed and 34 injured in Muslim terrorist attacks. A year after the handshake, the toll stood at 109 Israelis dead and 456 wounded. By 2002, the year that Israel's patience finally broke and Sharon sent forces storming into Arafat's compound, the numbers for that year were a horrifying 451 dead and 2,348 wounded.

Today, some 40 years after that September in Munich and two decades after the even worse tragedy of that September in Washington D.C., with over 1,500 dead since that fatal handshake, there have been rivers of blood and tears. And a shortage of bullets.

PLO officials these days are more likely to die of morbid obesity or, like Arafat, of AIDS, than of Israeli raids. They are nearly as likely to kill each other, like Arafat's cousin, Moussa Arafat, the former head of the Palestinian Authority's terrorist forces, who was dragged out of his home and shot by his own people.

The murder of Mohammed Abu Shaaban, killed a week after the handshake, by his own people, was the first of a long string of Fatah on Fatah violence that is a far more likely cause of death for top terrorists than the jet planes and tanks of the hated Zionist regime.

The rivers of tears keep flowing, but tears don't protect against murder. Neither do peace treaties. No amount of tears from the tens of thousands mutilated, tortured, crippled, wounded, orphaned and widowed by the PLO in all its front groups, splinter groups and incarnations, including its current incarnation as a phony government, has been enough to stop Western governments from supporting, arming and funding the terrorists.  

Tears don't protect against murder. They don't stop killers from killing. They don't prevent the authorities from looking the other way when the killings happen because there is something in it for them. They don't bring the terrorists to justice. They don't even ensure that the truth will be told, rather than the lie that rationalizes the terror.

Tears did not stop the operation of a single gas chamber. They did not save the life of a single Jewish refugee. They did not stop a single dollar from going to the PLO or Fatah or Black September or the Palestinian Authority or any of the other masks that the gang of Soviet-trained killers wore. They will not stop Iran from developing and detonating a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv. They will not stop Israel from being carved up by terrorists whose demands are backed up by the diplomatic capital of every nation that bows its head in the direction of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh, and the old men who control the oil wells and the mosques.

In 1988, Willi Pohl published another book, Das Gesetz des Dschungels or The Law of the Jungle. That same year, PLO terrorists carried out the "Mother's Bus Attack" taking the passengers of a bus, filled with women on board, hostage and demanding the release of all imprisoned terrorists. The terrorists killed two hostages and Israeli Special Forces moved in killing the terrorists and saving the lives of all but one hostage.

In response, Israeli commandos stormed Tunis, killing Abu Jihad, a former Muslim Brotherhood member and the number two Fatah leader after Arafat . The United Nations Security Council met and passed Resolution 611, noting with concern the "loss of human life", particularly that of Abu Jihad, and vigorously condemned the "act of aggression".

Not a single member of the Security Council voted against it. The United States abstained.

Not one single resolution was passed that year or the year afterward or the year after that condemning a terrorist attack against Israel or criticizing any of the countries that trained, armed and harbored the terrorists. Instead there were numerous resolutions condemning Israel for expelling and deporting terrorists.

The closest thing to a resolution critical of terrorism was Resolution 579 in response to the Achille Lauro hijacking, carried out by men loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the current President of the Palestinian Authority, who also provided the funding for the Munich Massacre. Resolution 579 did not mention the Achille Lauro, Leon Klinghoffer or Palestinian Arab terrorists. Instead it condemned "hostage-taking" in general.

In 1972, the year of the Munich Massacre, there were three Security Council resolutions condemning Israel. Not a single one condemning the massacre of Olympic athletes at an international event. Not a single one condemning the countries which armed, trained, harbored and controlled the terrorists. The countries that had refused that their flags be lowered in response to the massacre.

This was the law of the jungle disguised as international law. Against the law of the jungle, tears are futile. Jungle law cannot be debated away or subdued with the speechifying of an Abba Eban or a Benjamin Netanyahu. It cannot be moralized into decency or signed away with peace treaties.

It can only be met with resistance.

Tears don't protect against murder. Bullets do.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Life Under the Victimocracy

In America there are two types of people; the oppressed and the oppressors.

 The oppressed oppress the oppressors. And everyone including the oppressors agrees that this is only fair because the oppressors deserve to be oppressed. After all they are the oppressors.

They deserve to have the money they earn taken away. They deserve to be sent to the back of the line when applying to a college or looking for a job. They deserve to be beaten, robbed, raped, and taunted with slurs that would lead to national outrage if it were directed at the oppressed.

But they’re the oppressors. They deserve it.

If they complain, they deserve to have their speech censored. They are the oppressors. There’s no telling how much oppression they might dish out if the oppressed don’t keep them down.

That’s just life in the Victimocracy.

With one sob story too many, one whine too great, one more PBS special, special report about the plight of the oppressed and episode of Donahue, the country changed. The oppressors still had the democratic refuge of elections where they could by sheer numbers vote to retain their civil rights, but most of the other mechanisms of governance had ceased to be democratic and instead became victimocratic.

To have real power you had to be a victim or one of their protectors.

The Victimocracy is a lot like any other tyranny. In an aristocracy, power belongs to the nobles, in a theocracy, power belongs to the clergy, in a meritocracy, to anyone with skill and a work ethic.

But in a Victimocracy the biggest and angriest whiner wins.

In a Victimocracy, suffering is the exclusive privilege of the elites. No one else is allowed to suffer except them. No one else has ever been oppressed, has felt pain, been insulted, abused, degraded, enslaved and ground down into the dirt except the very people who are grinding you into the dirt now.

Victimhood is what entitles them to special privileges, it’s what ennobles them as a superior class of people and gives them the right to rule over you. They are the victims. What they say goes.

Victimization is the currency of their power. They have 1/16 Cherokee blood and high cheekbones. They are ‘triggered’ by loud noises and differing opinions. They spent their twenties “coming to terms” with something because of the lack of sitcom role models for their favorite sexual preferences or skin color. They are all survivors of something or other. They were activists and someone once said mean things to them. And if all else fails, they are deeply passionate about the plight of the oppressed. Like, seriously.

Now stop oppressing them and educate yourself by recognizing their right to oppress you.

The Victimocracy is based around the superior moral power of their suffering. That is why no one else is allowed to suffer except them. Their convoluted theories of social justice eliminate the very possibility that the source of their exclusive moral power can be experienced by anyone else. They have strived to warp language around their political narcissism to define suffering as an experience unique to them.

They will assert, for example, that anti-white racism cannot exist because racism is not interpersonal but a structural product of power relations. Since everyone knows that America is a white male patriarchy, white people cannot be oppressed. They can only be the oppressors. Because of the patriarchy, men cannot be sexually assaulted. Christians cannot be religiously discriminated against. Americans can’t be blown up by Muslims. Any claim otherwise is a lie intended to oppress our oppressed oppressors.

Victimocrats are narcissistically infuriated by the suffering of others. Many tyrannies applied the whip and the lash, the prison cell and the gulag, but they at least left those they abused in possession of their suffering. The Victimocracy denies its victims even their suffering. Victimocrats reject the humanity of their victims as thinking and feeling beings with the same needs and boundaries as themselves.

The Victimocracy rations empathy. Empathy is the election of its system. The biggest victim wins and his suffering licenses his abuses. The bigger the victim, the bigger the abuses he is entitled to commit. If the empathy flows the wrong way, then power shifts and the entire system collapses. To take over a society, the Victimocrats must control its education and entertainment to structure its empathy flow their way.

Victimocrats must appear weak to gain power. They must always seem beleaguered, under siege, abused and threatened from a thousand different directions. They must be made to seem underdogs. Even if a Victimocrat sits in the White House, unilaterally dispensing with the lives and fortunes of a nation with phone and pen, he must remain a vulnerable victim of a terrible history of racism.

The Victimocrat must always be seen as a weak victim in need of rescue from those he oppresses.

Never able to argue a thing on its merits, the Victimocrats shift the debate to the moral high ground of their own oppression. It is impossible to disagree with them without somehow invoking stereotypes, flashbacks and the return of the white male patriarchy riding back into town on the last thing you said.

The Victimocrats are always in need of rescuing. No matter how much power they have, someone is always abusing them. And once that happens people of good will are called upon to condemn the abuse and to reinforce their power structure of the oppressed oppressor and the oppressive oppressed.

Victimocrats don’t win arguments. They convince others that they are entitled to avoid the argument. In the Victimocracy the illusion of weakness is power. The weak are entitled to disproportionate power to protect themselves from the rest of us. The weaker they are, the more power they need. And the more power they get, the weaker they grow until we live under a tyranny of the absolutely powerless who wield absolute power.

Sometimes the oppressors wonder where their incredible power is supposed to be. They don’t have all that much money and no one seems to have taught them the secret handshake that will unlock the heavy iron doors of the heteronormative patriarchy where the patriarchal plutocrats sit around the table drinking the tears of Obama, Oprah and various Hollywood celebrities from human skulls.

Their oppressors tell them about their privilege, an invisible power to oppress others that they never even knew they had, but the privilege never really explains why they have to work harder, die sooner and be berated constantly for even existing. And they die and their oppressors take what they have.

There is no end to the oppression because the Victimocracy has to grow. America is always more bigoted than it was last year because the Victimocrats need more power this year. The more oppressed Americans become, the more they must be denounced for victimizing all the nice people running their lives and robbing them blind.

The Victimocracy rules by manufacturing an urgent crisis of oppression. It demands special measures to deal with the crisis. The temporary measures become permanent. Rolling them back would be an act of oppression. The permanent measures turn out to be insufficient. They must be redoubled.

Each Victimocrat victory is “a significant step forward” but there is always “more work to be done.” And like all lust for power, the work never ends.

The oppressed want more. The oppressors make do with less. The protectors of the oppressed, who actually run the Victimocracy, announce that more speech must be censored, more wealth redistributed and more must be made unequal to achieve equality. A better world is around the corner, but first the one we have must be destroyed.

Only when the balance shifts permanently and the new world is born, will the oppressors be allowed to see for the first time that they had been the oppressed all along.

And then it will be too late.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Super-Amnesty Will Turn Every City into Detroit

After another bloody weekend in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel branded the shootings unacceptable and the city’s top cop demanded more gun control laws. Chicago’s murder rate has actually dropped since concealed carry became legal. Emanuel’s lawsuits over his illegal gun control laws have left the already struggling city deep in the hole and forced to cover the NRA’s million dollars in legal bills.

Concealed carry paid off over that bloody weekend when a vet carrying a gun returned fire stopping a massacre before it happened. The original shooter ended up in the hospital, but nobody ended up in the morgue, which kept the death toll for the weekend down to fourteen.

Fourteen isn’t pretty, but it’s better than twenty or thirty.

Chicago’s murder rate in 1992 was double what it is today. The death rate was at 33.7 out of 100,000 which meant that you had a pretty good chance of being shot in Chicago. Today it’s down to 15 out of 100,000, which is small comfort to those ending up in the morgue, but it gives everyone else much better odds of surviving to see what ingenious ways the next corrupt mayoral administration will use to rip off the city.

Back in 1992, the cops also blamed guns for the murder rate. But it wasn’t the guns that were killing people. It was the gangs. Now the murder rate is down, but the number of shootings is up. To Chicago’s police boss, that’s a problem, as if it makes a difference to the deceased whether he’s shot, stabbed or dropped in the water wearing cement overshoes. But fighting guns is easier than fighting crime.

The gun obsession is one of the few things that cops and leftists have in common. It’s the last politically acceptable form of prohibitionism in a society that enthusiastically legalizes drugs, even if possessing crack cocaine is statistically much more likely to lead you to kill a man, than possessing a gun will.

Every shooting spree bypasses the obvious problem with calls for more gun laws and something for the youth to do over the weekend that doesn’t involve shooting up the local housing project. This weekend, Rahm Emanuel took on the problem of funding more teen centers while Chicago’s top cop blustered about more gun laws. And then having successfully talked around the issue, they all went home.

The left loves root causes more than it loves red shirts and black bandanas, a fashion choice that it shares with some of the gangs responsible for most of the shootings.

America’s gun violence problem is urban. It’s localized in Democratic enclaves. And it overlaps neatly with its corrupt political machines. It has nothing to do with the NRA and a great deal to do with the party of social engineering, the welfare state and gun bans.

And illegal immigration.

Homicide rates overlap with unemployment rates, especially when accounting for the demographic populations of young minority men who are statistically more likely to kill or be killed.

92% of black male teens in Chicago don’t have a job. In Detroit, 50% of black men are unemployed. It’s not that there aren’t any jobs, but the entry level jobs have been mostly going to immigrants.

The Center for Immigration Studies found that under Obama two-thirds of jobs went to immigrants, both legal and illegal. Throw in a massive illegal alien amnesty and the rush of illegal aliens into the country will turn the employment figures of every city into Detroit and Chicago.

The black male unemployment rate in New York was at 33%. And the murder rate in New York is significantly lower than in Detroit or Chicago. But how long will that last if the unemployment rate in New York rises above 50%? Before long the marginal gangs will swell to monstrous sizes controlling entire neighborhoods. Anyone who can will flee and the city will once again become what it was.

The same process will take place in most major American cities.

The United States of America does not have a shortage of workers. It has a shortage of jobs. The irresponsible immigration policy has created a surplus of workers. Illegal alien amnesty will make that surplus much worse. Legalize twelve million illegal aliens and another twelve million will come. Those who can’t find jobs, will find gangs. Those who lose jobs to them will also find gangs.

The gangs will fight each other for control of entire neighborhoods and the crime wave will set America back decades.

After the 1986 amnesty, the number of murders, which had begun to fall in the early eighties, rose again. They did not return to a pre-amnesty level until 1997. Rapes have only recently returned to a pre-amnesty level. Now the progress we’ve made is about to be undone all over again.

In 1986, murder rates suddenly rose mysteriously in major cities. The New York Times described the crime rates as being the highest since the 1970s.

In Chicago, murders increased by 20%. In New York they increased by 20%. The cities rushed to crack down on guns while insisting that they were mystified by the drastic increase.

The guns weren’t the problem. The illegal alien amnesty which had created a magnet was. Illegal aliens with fake documents headed in hoping to take advantage of amnesty. Later newly legalized immigrants invited their family members to join them. Even before the amnesty took effect, crime rates spiked.

Amnesty advocates claim that immigrants aren’t taking jobs from Americans because they are more likely to be employed at the lower and higher ends of the marketplace. And that’s half true. What it really means is that they displace trained technical workers at the high end of the marketplace. That leads to a further erosion of the native middle class, but it doesn’t directly lead to gang violence.

At the lower end of the marketplace, they not only displace workers, but they displace the workers that might have been. Teenagers who would have started working regular jobs instead roam around aimlessly. The lost entry level jobs are substituted with crime. Neighborhoods fall apart and gang violence increases as gang members compete for turf in the new drug marketplace. And the rest is crime statistics and children taken to morgues in cities that can barely keep the lights on.

If we want to repeat the same cycle again, Super-Amnesty, an amnesty several times bigger than the one in 1986, will make it happen. Entire cities will fall into gang violence. Their economies will collapse and that will have a ripple effect on their suburbs and on entire states.

America will be a more dangerous and poorer place. And the politicians will talk some more about banning guns and about building more teen centers for the youth to hang out in between shootings.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Price of Restraint is Death

Yesterday afternoon a young woman stood by the side of a road holding up a sign. It read “Gush Etzion”. Those two words summon up spittle-flecked rants about Zionist settlements from the anti-Israel left.

But for Dalia, it was just home. And then it wasn’t.

Dalia caught a ride to a bus stop on the way home from her job as a children’s occupational therapist. Her next stop was a shift at Yad Sarah, a volunteer organization for the elderly and disabled.

But before that could happen, a Muslim attacker did what songs, cartoons and posters distributed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas encouraging “Car Jihad” had been telling him to do.

He ran her over with a Mazda van.

With the 26-year-old woman on the ground, the courageous Islamic Jihadist stabbed her as she lay dying. Then shouting Allahu Akbar, he began slashing at an unarmed man who had stopped to help. When the unarmed man fighting him off with his bare hands proved too much for the knife-wielding Jihadist, the killer fled, was wounded and taken into custody.

Dalia’s father, a volunteer with Magen David Adom, Israel’s Red Cross, heard that there had been an attack. He did what countless Israeli fathers and mothers began doing right after they heard the news. He called his daughter. There was no answer.

Despite being only in her twenties, Dalia knew what was coming. This wasn’t her killer’s first act of terrorism and it wasn’t her first time as a victim of Islamic terrorism.

When she was seventeen years old, Dalia was attacked by a knife-wielding terrorist in the same place. But the terrorist didn’t have a van and there were armed men at the scene.

“I stood on February 28, 2006 at Gush Etzion Junction when a terrorist came and began to stab those standing at a hitchhiking station,” she would later write.

She described terrorists for whom prison life is “like a hotel”, who watch television, take courses and contact their lawyers. “Those who stab Jews have their rights and privileges. The injustice cries out to Heaven.”

“Punish and expel those who threaten us," Dalia wrote, “no matter the cost to them. They must pay the price for their terror. That is the only way the terrorism will end.”

As you read this, Dalia Lemkus will have already been buried. Her parents and her five brothers and sisters will have cried over her grave. Her killer will receive the best possible care in an Israeli hospital. The Palestinian Authority will use the foreign aid it receives from the United States and the European Union to pay him a salary for life. If he gets out, he will be entitled to everything from special housing to free medical care paid for by you, by me and by all of us.

Stabbing a young woman in the neck while she lay in the street made him a hero of Palestine. He has become a model of Muslim manhood, little boys in UNRWA schools will be taught about his great deed and encouraged to follow in his footsteps. And they will, just as he had followed the example of those great Muslim heroes who had murdered Jewish women and children in Hebron before he was born.

The educational system staffed by Hamas supporters and paid for by foreign aid does its work well. Some countries turn out future doctors and scientists. The Palestinian Authority turns out heroes who can nerve themselves up to take on a 26-year-old Jewish woman as long as they have a few thousand pounds of van or at least a butcher knife on their side. Not to mention Allah and the Koran.

Dalia’s killer may remain behind bars where Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will complain that his smartphone isn’t fast enough, that his Coca Cola isn’t fizzy enough and that the clothes he shops for remotely with his family using the money that the Palestinian Authority pays to the families of its heroes don’t fit him correctly. But it’s also possible that he will be set free.

He was before.

Dalia’s killer had been in jail for terrorism before he was released. Releasing terrorists is how Israel demonstrates its goodwill toward terrorists.

This year, Obama forced Israel to free over a hundred convicted terrorists as a “gesture” just to get the Palestinian Authority terrorists to discuss continuing talks with Israel. Israel was being pressured into releasing terrorists in exchange for an opportunity to negotiate resuming negotiations. And Israel freed most of the terrorists until the PLO broke the deal and went to the UN.

Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it was Israel’s fault because it “didn’t release the Palestinian prisoners on the day they were supposed to be freed.”

The next time that Obama and Kerry force Israel to release terrorists for the opportunity to negotiate the possibility of negotiating with terrorists, Dalia’s killer may be shouting “Allahu Akbar” all over again. And if Israel doesn’t release him on the day that Obama and the PLO want him released, it will be blamed for not wanting peace. What better way is there to achieve peace than by freeing terrorists?

Dalia left her comments on talkbacks in which Israelis shout to be heard above the reassuring lies told by their media. Now she has been silenced. She will be buried in her native town of Tekoa where her body will rest unless the left and their Islamic partners succeed in forcing the expulsion of the thousand Jews of Tekoa, the living in the houses and the dead from the town cemetery.

The State Department, which rejects the existence of the living and dead Jews of Tekoa and wants them gone, responded to Dalia’s murder by urging both sides to show restraint.

The AP’s Matt Lee asked State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki whether she meant that Israelis should show restraint by standing still and allowing themselves to be stabbed.

“If you’re standing at a bus stop or something and someone runs a car into you or comes up and stabs you, I don’t know how to, I mean, those people aren’t, don’t need to exercise restraint, do they?”

Psaki laughed and refused to address the question. But it’s a question that ought to be addressed.

Israel is constantly ordered to show restraint. It is told that its response to Muslim terrorism is disproportionate. But when does proportionate restraint begin? Is it when a Muslim terrorist is running you over with a van and sinking his knife into your neck? Or is it only when the terrorist is down and you contemplate doing something about the men who sent him and will continue sending more like him?

Israel is generously allowed to fight back once the knife is at its neck. But once it breaks free, then it’s told to show restraint. Taking out the terrorist networks that send out men like this would be disproportionate. Refusing to release the killer of Dalia would show that Israel doesn’t want peace.

And no matter what Israel does, how much it sacrifices, how many young women it buries in its cemeteries after they have been run over, stabbed or blown up, no matter how many of their killers it releases, it is always guilty of not wanting peace badly enough.

Critics of Israel like Jeffrey Goldberg insist that its situation is not “sustainable”. And that’s true.

Struggling with an attacker who has a knife at your throat is not sustainable. Either he cuts your throat or you cut his throat. If every time you get enough breathing room to fight back, you try to negotiate with him, instead of doing to him what he’s trying to do to you, then eventually he will kill you.

Dalia survived her first attack. She didn’t survive her second attack. There are only so many second chances when someone wants to kill you. And if you are a non-Muslim in the Muslim world, then someone always wants to kill you.

The price of restraint is death. Negotiating with your killers lets them trade up from a knife to a van, from a stone to a rocket, from an outpost in Lebanon to fortresses within range of your major cities.

Dalia tried to warn Israelis. She tried to warn the world. Now her voice speaks from the grave. It is the voice of the dead. It is the voice of truth.

“They must pay the price for their terror. That is the only way the terrorism will end.”

Sunday, November 09, 2014

The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here

There are really two Democratic parties.

One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.

They will say absolutely anything to get elected.

Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.

The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.

They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.

Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol' boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.

Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.

The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.

Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.

Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.

Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.

The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.

Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.

Republicans benefited from a Democratic civil war. They were running a traditional campaign against a more traditional part of the Democratic Party. They didn’t really beat the left. They beat the old Dems.

The old Dems were crippled by the progressive agenda. They were pretending to be moderates while ObamaCare, illegal alien amnesty and gay marriage were looking over their shoulders. They married Obama and it was too late for them to get a divorce. And it doesn’t look any better down the road.

The Clintons became the public face of the Democrats, but Instead of turning things around, they presided over a series of defeats. Bill Clinton couldn’t even save Mark Pryor in Arkansas. Not only that, he had to watch Republicans take every congressional seat in Arkansas and the governor’s mansion.

Bill had wanted Hillary to play Sarah Palin, turning her into a kingmaker and building on a narrative of female empowerment by having her back female senators. Instead Kay Hagan, Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes and Amanda Curtis lost. Not only did Hillary Clinton fail to deliver, but the War on Women narrative was turned inside out by the rise of Joni Ernst. Ernst’s emergence as the definitive new senator of the election killed any chance that Democrats had of spinning the election results as sexist; even if Harkin’s Taylor Swift crack hadn’t done that on its own.

The Dems had gambled that the War on Women could offset Obama’s unpopularity, but voters were more concerned about the economy than the culture war. Not only novelty candidates like Wendy Davis, but incumbents like Mark Udall, tried for what they thought was a winning strategy.

But the War on Women wasn’t a strategy, it was a fake talking point that their own consultants had forgotten to tell them was disinformation that they had created to seed the media and spread fear among Republicans. Romney had won white women in every age group.

Increased turnout by minority women had skewed the numbers, but those numbers reflected racial solidarity, not a gender gap. Progressives had not bothered to tell their old Dem cousins what they were doing. The Senate Dems marched into political oblivion by adopting the Wendy Davis platform to the bafflement and ridicule of female voters.

The War on Women meme was greeted with laughter in New York and Colorado. Senator Udall was dubbed Mark Uterus by his own supporters and performed worse with female voters than in 2008. Meanwhile in Iowa, Joni Ernst had split the female vote which Harkin had won by 64 percent in 2008.

Not only did Hillary Clinton do more damage to her brand by failing to deliver white and women voters, but the Democratic Party is stunned, confused and divided. And the damage is self-inflicted.

The Clintons thought that they could reunite a splintering Democratic Party by taking on a Republican midterm election wave. Obama sabotaged Reid to keep the Democratic Party leaning to the left. Reid is now attacking Obama openly in a way that would have been inconceivable a year ago. Obama’s people are returning the favor by going after Reid and Schumer. The war of the two parties has begun.

The old Dems have no ideas and no agenda. The progressives want to get as much of their agenda done even if it’s by executive order and even if it makes them even more unpopular than they are now. The old Dems have realized that they are the ones who will pay a political price for progressive radicalism.

And waiting in the wings is the 2016 election.

Obama has made it clear that he is willing to nuke his own party to get amnesty done. But for the first time his party seems less than eager to sacrifice its short term greed for the agendas of the left. And the only man who could tie the two wings together has emerged weakened from the Battle of Arkansas.

Amnesty promises radical demographic change, but red state Dems want to protect their positions today. They aren’t doing it for the ideology. They want to stay in office. The mutual backstabbing ended in disaster for the Democrats and there’s no reason to think that the backstabbing is going to stop.

Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans for the next two years. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.

Friday, November 07, 2014

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Winning


Looking back on election night, I'm not so much happy that the Republicans won, as I am that the Democrats lost.

We did put some good people in, but once again the pros are taking credit for public enthusiasm. That's what the Dems did in 2012, taking credit for black turnout, which they now failed to repeat despite their super amazing ground operation. Now it's the turn of the Repubs to claim that they're political geniuses. Said claim is mostly based on message discipline and purging conservatives.

You won't find me saying, "Don't vote." Voting is important. Even as in New York City where it mainly means casting a protest vote.

But we ought to remember that if McCain had won in 2008, we would have gotten amnesty years ago. If Romney had won in 2012...  I wouldn't have bet against it.

The triumphant establishment is rolling out a Chamber of Commerce wish list, much of is worth doing, but the Republican Party didn't get the keys to the Senate to cater to a few powerful interests. If the Republican Party isn't seen fighting for the middle class against powerful liberal interests, it's never going to win on its own merits. It'll remain a default vote or a protest vote.

Here's what I wrote right after Obama's first election

With sole control in the hands of the Democrats, everything wrong in government can be and should be laid at their doorstep. The key thrust must be to characterize Congress and the people around Obama as corrupt and Obama as incompetent and a failed leader.

Every policy, every proposal, every appointment, every statement must be linked to one or more of these messages.

During the election we were warned not to use Obama's middle name. Well let's give him a new middle name now Failure. Failure must be closely associated with everything Obama does with reference to a "Pattern of Failure."

That finally kicked in, less because of Republican messaging, than because of a series of crises. Obama is now associated with failure. He has belatedly lost credibility. And it only took six years.

Here's what I wrote about what the GOP needed to do back in November 2008.

By harnessing the frustrations imposed by government on the ordinary American, the heavy tax burden, the waste, the pork, the Republican party can take back Congress and the White House... but it has to be more than rhetoric. It has to be a real agenda...

Reagan's ability to connect with the ordinary American lay in his understanding of the frustrations that most people had toward an impersonal government. There is a lot of talk about Reagan's legacy, but his real legacy should be a Republican party capable of genuine revolutionary action backed by rhetoric devoid of condescension that connects to the experiences and frustrations of the ordinary American. We should not shy away from partisanship or from radical proposals. It is the only way to survive...

Finally Obama's election is a preview of things to come if the immigration problem is not dealt with within the decade. The Democrats want nothing more than a large underclass which has not absorbed American traditions and history and is easily gulled into voting bread and circuses for itself. If we do not drastically slash third world immigration, not only will we face the indigenous Islamic terrorist threat by second generation Muslim immigrants that Europe already faces, but the American electorate will no longer be American.

The American voter whose confidence we need to win is frustrated by illegal immigration, by having to shell out tax dollars for social benefits for immigrants and by the transformation of his towns and communities into something alien to his experience. The Republican party can win big in district after district by taking up his cause. It will however lose big if it panders to the La Raza crowd in the hopes of winning a few thousand Latino voters here and there. 

All this unfortunately still remains relevant today. Too many Republicans have not learned how to talk compellingly about individual freedom, opportunity and big government in terms that relate to ordinary people.

The Democrats are quite good at painting vivid pictures of life under oppressive social and economic injustice. The Republicans counter that with blue sky rhetoric rather than doing what Reagan did and showing how big government makes life worse. And there's a reason for that.

Quite a few of them like big government in what they think is the right dose. So do some of their biggest backers.


Obama Aide: “He Doesn’t Feel Repudiated.”

75% of Americans Say Obama Needs to Rethink Issues

Harry Reid: It’s Obama’s Fault!

Biden: “I Predict We’re Gonna Keep the Senate.”

Michelle Nunn: “We Stand On the Cusp of an Extraordinary Victory”

Charlie Crist Loses 3rd Time, Which Party Will He Switch to Now?

Democrats Offer Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Job to FOX News Host


It’s not the job of the Secretary of State to “put real Islam out there” and in deciding which Islam was the real Islam, Ayatollah John was functioning as an unlicensed Muslim leader.

ISIS Jihadists are denounced as Takfiris for declaring other Muslims to be infidels. Ayatollah John receives communion at the Paulist Center and then moonlights as a Muslim Takfiri by claiming that the Takfiris of ISIS are infidels.

This is the trap of “moderate Islam.” Once we distinguish a “good Islam” from a “bad Islam,” we have established the “good Islam” as a state religion. And then we have to support it and enforce its laws. Few leaders demonstrate the folly of trying to defeat Islamic terrorism by embracing Islam better than the Ayatollah of State.

Are You There Allah? It’s Me, John Kerry

Director of Org Funded by Nazi Collaborator to Head ADL


While liberalism’s War on Women meme and the sexism of Islamic law may seem like two opposites, they are actually mirror images of each other. Muslims teach men to hate and fear women. Liberals teach women to hate and fear men. Liberalism promotes paranoia about the intentions of men while Islam teaches men to be paranoid about the intentions of women.

Liberalism treats masculinity as a pathology. Islam treats femininity as the root of all evil. Both ideologies insist that one gender and everything related to it is inherently tainted and that the only way to maintain a good society is to purge that gender and everything it represents from the public square.

Liberalism and Islam both seek to create conditions of divisiveness that make trust between the sexes impossible. Even when men and women do connect, both ideologies work to create power imbalances, social, religious and legal, that make family life inherently unstable.

The Leftist and Islamic War on the Family


“That’s a commitment I made not just to the American people  — and to businesses and the evangelical community and the law enforcement folks and everybody who’s looked at this issue and thinks that we need immigration reform — that’s a commitment that I also made to John Boehner, that I would act in the absence of action by Congress.”

Obama has to illegally amnesty a bunch of illegal aliens because he made a commitment to Boehner that he would do it if he didn’t get a bill.

I think Obama is confusing “commitment” with “threat”. Also blackmail.

But he also made a commitment to law enforcement, even though everyone from the border patrol, the relevant agency, has been firmly opposed. Also evangelicals, by which he means a bunch of lefty plants.

And he made a commitment to the American people to illegally bypass Congress for a measure that they don’t want him to do.

Obama Must Amnesty Illegal Aliens b/c of Commitment to Boehner


A man in his early 20s allegedly was approached by two Libyan soldiers who subjected him to a serious sexual assault. Moktar Ali Saad Mahmoud, 33, and Ibrahim Abogutila, 22, were charged with rape on Monday.

A Libyan soldier has spoken to BBC News from the Cambridgeshire barracks at the centre of Britain’s controversial training mission for the Libyan army.

“They didn’t tell us about British law and what’s the difference between right and wrong here.”

Can We Make a Pamphlet Telling Muslims Not to Rape?

Anti-Israel Left: Netanyahu Threatened to Kill Obama by Saying “Lawn”


The American Studies Association’s radicals decided to take a break from studying sixth wave feminist anti-capitalist readings in Navajo weaving to boycott the only country in the Middle East that protects their kind from being murdered in the street by angry mobs.

Whom did the boycott hurt?

The aptly named Sternhell is a radical anti-Israel leftist who compares Israel to the South. Now she’s having problems organizing an anti-Israel conference accusing Israel of Segregation… because the participants are boycotting Israel.

This is like the time that Hitler accidentally bombed Mussolini.

First Victim of American Studies BDS Boycott of Israel was Palestinian Student

Saudi Woman Arrested for Questioning Length of Mohammed’s Beard


Jim Gerstein isn’t really a pollster, he’s an advocate. He’s been entangled with J Street all along and his polls remain controversial because they’re pushing an agenda.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to him.

“As an American, you have a say in what your country is trying to do, and can try to affect its policy,” said Gerstein, in one of several wide-ranging interviews with Tablet Magazine ahead of the conference. “How do you get the people who are typical American Jews, who care about political causes and went out and volunteered for Obama, to engage on this issue? The question is how to translate the support Jewish individuals have for progressive issues in America and put that together with their views on peace.”

Why J Street’s Exit Poll of Jewish Voters is Phony

I’m sorry I lied about all the racism. I did it because of the racism.


When Alyza Lewin, the family’s lawyer, protested, Sotomayor said, “How could you tell me it’s not a lie? You, the United States, are being asked to put on the passport that you believe the place of birth of this individual is Israel, and … the executive has said, no, we don’t think it was Israel, we think it was Jerusalem.”
The Wise Latina seems to be too stupid to understand the difference between a political position and a statement of fact.

Bizarrely she’s attacking a twelve-year-old boy and his family for wanting the government to uphold its own law and accusing them of lying and of wanting the government to lie.

Obama’s Supreme Court Justice Accuses Jewish Boy of Lying About Being Born in Jerusalem


...from a comment on Instapundit on my Unbearable Lightness of Feminism article

A few years ago, I would have considered myself a supporter of feminism. Back when I thought it was mostly about equality and protecting women from harassment, rape and abuse. Back when I bought the line that the radical feminists are just a fringe group that didn't represent the movement as a whole.

Thank you, petty, totalitarian and asinine modern feminists: you've killed any chance I will ever support a movement calling itself "feminist" ever again. I don't know exactly what it was that tipped the scales. Maybe it was hearing you say that wearing a burqa is liberating and that women in Muslim countries are treated better than those poor, oppressed women in America. Maybe it was having you accuse me of supporting rape when I said that the best way to stop rape was to arm women and have them kill their would-be rapists.

Or maybe it was the 2008 election where, after years of hating the c-word myself, I got to hear hundreds of so-called feminists use it against Sarah Palin. Or the people who told me that they hoped Sarah Palin would be raped and murdered. Classy stuff.

Somewhere in there, I realized that the real perpetrators of rape culture, the real haters of strong women, the real misogynists were you.


I found this observation from Korean-American author Euny Hong interesting.

During the process of conversion and for the first few years, it almost was not worth it. I was younger and more tolerant. I was not the kind of person who would just walk away because of being insulted or whatever. Generally, the more religious somebody was, the more accepting they were. I had very positive experiences in Modern Orthodox synagogues, for example. If you go to an Orthodox synagogue, even if you don’t look Jewish, they kind of assume there must be a reason that you’re there. At a Reform synagogue or Conservative synagogue, which is what I converted to, they’re just very suspicious because there are so many people who go to shul and aren’t religious; a lot of them don’t even want to be there themselves unless it’s the High Holidays. So they’re suspicious of anyone who wants to be there who doesn’t have to be there. A lot of it, frankly, is self-hatred. “If you want to be like me, there must be something seriously wrong with you” kind of thing. I think it’s really unfortunate I had to see that side of people. It’s definitely something I’m still not okay with.

I've only been on the Orthodox and white side of the line, but it matches my experience. Her experience of racism in liberal congregations is interesting and unexpected. As is her interpretation that it stems from self-hatred.

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

The Unbearable Lightness of Feminism

In Nigeria and Iraq, Muslim armies are selling women as slaves. Iran hanged a woman for fighting off a rapist. ISIS was more direct about it and beheaded a woman who resisted one of its fighters.

But we don’t have to travel to the Middle East to see real horrors. The sex grooming scandal in the UK involved the rape of thousands of girls. The rapists were Muslim men so instead of talking about it, the UK’s feminists bought $75 shirts reading, “This is what a feminist looks like” which were actually being made by Third World women living sixteen to a room. This was what a feminist looked like and it wasn’t a pretty picture.

The same willful unseriousness saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a survivor of genital mutilation and an informed critic of Muslim misogyny, booted from Brandeis by self-proclaimed feminists. Meanwhile the major feminist cause at the moment is Gamergate, a controversy over video games which can be traced back to a female game developer who slept with a video game reviewer. Professional feminists have spent more time and energy denouncing video games than the sale and rape of girls in Nigeria and Iraq.

That is what feminism looks like and there is something seriously wrong with that.

Women Against Feminism touched a nerve because professional feminists know that few women want to identify as feminists. Polls have found that the majority of women view feminism negatively. Even among young women, the feminist label doesn’t come close to breaking the halfway mark.

Professional feminists respond to the negative feedback by claiming that feminism is simply equality. But if feminism were equality, women, and for that matter men, wouldn’t dislike it so much.

A feminist looks like a professional activist wearing a $75 t-shirt made by slave labor while proclaiming that she is a feminist. It isn’t fighting for the rights of women that makes her a feminist. It’s the pricey fashion statement of someone who toots their own horn while exploiting less fortunate women.

The professional feminist is not there to help women, but to promote the agenda of the institutional left. She will turn campus rape into a political cause while criticizing every rape prevention measure, from a rape drug detecting nail polish to self-defense for women, for not dealing with rape culture. Stopping rape doesn’t interest her. Exploiting the abuse of women to fight a culture war does.

Her concerns are limited to causes affecting upper class young women and the overall political organizational needs of the left. That’s why she will veer erratically from inflating college rape statistics to arguing for illegal alien amnesty despite the high number of rapes committed by migrants.

But the women being raped generally won’t be found on an Ivy League campus.

And that’s also what a feminist looks like.

The institutional left can’t call out Islam for sexism, homophobia and racism because it has already inducted it into its political coalition. And that’s why feminists can’t talk about the mass rape of young girls in the UK without stepping on a political landmine. Those courageous women who do talk about it, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Pamela Geller, represent the principles that feminists only claim to stand for.

It’s easy to take shots at gamers, but discussing the rise of honor killings, genital mutilation and domestic abuse among Muslims migrating to the West is dangerous territory. That is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to be silenced so that she wouldn’t show up the professional feminists trying to pretend that their mass distractions of video games, subsidized birth control or celebrating “sex workers” are real feminism.

Modern feminism is defined by talking non-stop about the things that don’t matter to avoid talking about the things that do. It long ago stopped being a movement and became a series of distractions. When feminists actually hit on a relevant issue they quickly scramble to avoid talking about it. That’s what happened with the viral Hollaback video of a woman walking around New York City and being harassed by minority men. The video quickly went from a hit to an embarrassment as feminists realized that they had unintentionally documented something that they could not talk about.

Feminism is filled with things that it can’t talk about. That’s why it long ago hit a dead end. It is too afraid of being politically incorrect to be relevant. It can’t advocate for women and so it frantically stirs up micro-controversies that are irrelevant to 99.99% of women. Its obsession with Gamergate as the biggest threat to women since the time that Miss USA suggested that women should take self-defense classes is another reminder of its inability to meaningfully address the problems facing women today.

Professional feminists don’t want to fight rape; they want to fight an intangible “rape culture”. They don’t want to help women. Instead they want to exploit the problems facing women to advance their own agendas and careers. They are part of a movement cut off from ordinary people and rooted in academia. Few women want to identify as feminists, because feminism doesn’t identify with them.

Feminism can’t talk about the problems facing women because it is a prisoner of the left. It’s a fundraising gimmick, an election turnout gimmick and a way to sell pricey shirts.

The War on Women meme has jumped the shark. Senator Mark Udall was mocked, ridiculed and written off by his own Democrats for his cynical abuse of the meme. An attempt by a congressional candidate to invoke it during a debate in New York was met with uproarious laughter.

The last election cycle had reduced feminism to subsidized birth control. This cycle wiped it off the map entirely. The next election cycle will bring us Hillary Clinton as the ultimate feminist candidate. Hillary built her career and won elections on the strength of her husband’s name. Polls show that she appeals to voters because they think her husband is part of the package deal.

If Hillary wins, the first female president will be a woman who got the job only because she refused to divorce her husband after he cheated on her because she hoped to exploit his political connections.

That too is what a feminist looks like.

Hillary Clinton laughing at her client’s rape of a 12-year-old girl from a working class family or Carol Costello chuckling over the assault on Bristol Palin reminds ordinary women what feminists really think of them.

Feminism no longer speaks to women. It has become a privileged sorority for actresses, politicians, media types and academics who don’t actually like women. Especially working class women.

The public face of feminism should be Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but instead it’s the neurotic privileged pettiness of Lena Dunham.

Feminism has become a lightweight movement heavy on pop culture and phony outrage and unbelievably light on content. It speaks all the time, but it no longer has anything to say.

Monday, November 03, 2014

Sweden Saves the Middle East

On Thursday, Sweden finally solved all the problems in the Middle East by recognizing the State of Palestine.

For decades all the instability in the region had been blamed on the lack of a PLO state. Foreign policy experts stood in line to tell us all that the only thing that could end terrorism in the Middle East was a terrorist state.

 It was a plan so crazy that it was bound to either work or kill a lot of people. Mostly it’s done the latter.

But our leaders kept the faith. The White House’s Middle East coordinator insisted that Israel’s obstinate refusal to create a Palestinian State, against the wishes of the unelected president of the Palestinian Authority who refuses to negotiate one or to stop the terrorism, was causing instability in the region.

Secretary of State John Kerry had denied that ISIS was Islamic, but blamed Israel for ISIS recruitment.

But it wasn’t John Kerry who saved the Middle East from instability. Instead Sweden did it by recognizing a terror state whose leaders stopped bothering with the onerous duty of holding elections once they realized that the Eurocrats and Obama would keep shoveling money at them even if they chose their unelected terrorist leaders by playing Russian Roulette.

Sweden’s new Palestine not only dispensed with elections, routing the business of governance through its core PLO organizations, but also has no economy, instead employing an army of people who are paid not to run a country that doesn’t exist with money sent over by America, Europe and Japan.

Some would call that a scam, but it’s remarkably similar to how the European Union works.

In addition to lacking such luxuries as an elected government and an economy, the State of Palestine also doesn’t control Gaza, which is run by another terrorist group, Hamas. The international community has been ignoring that minor problem because it wouldn’t do for a bankrupt terrorist state which happens to be our last best hope for stability in the Middle East to be disqualified just because it’s actually two quarreling bankrupt terrorist states.

One terrorist state can’t help but bring stability to the Middle East. Two terrorist states sound downright unstable. If the Arab Muslim settlers in the West Bank and Gaza can’t stop fighting each other long enough to peacefully unite under the banner of one anti-Israel terrorist group, all hope for peace is lost.

With Sweden’s bold step, a bright future dawns over the Middle East. ISIS recruitment is bound to start falling as the Canadian and Swedish Jihadis with their Burqaed brides heading to kill as many Yazidis as they can will realize that there’s no more need for them to behave the way that their religion has for over a thousand years.

There’s a Palestinian State now. All their grievances have been met. A million cartoons and a thousand YouTube videos couldn’t outrage them now. Unless they were about Mohammed.

I wouldn’t be surprised if ISIS transformed into a humanitarian agency for gluing back all the Yazidi, Christian and Shiite heads that it cut off back on the bodies it beheaded. Even now, Sunnis and Shiites are hugging each other all over Iraq and only occasionally blowing themselves up in the process.

Sweden has given a great gift to the world. It’s only a question of how to properly repay it and the answer is obvious. If Sweden recognizing a micro-nation inside Israel’s borders will stabilize the region, it’s only right for Israel, and all right-thinking people, to recognize a micro-nation inside Sweden.

Sweden ended the occupation of Norway, but it continues to occupy such embryonic nations as the Royal Republic of Ladonia and the Republic of Jamtland.

While many of us might know Lars Vilks for his Mohammed cartoons, he also founded the Royal Republic of Ladonia after some of his other artwork was censored by Swedish authorities.

The Royal Republic of Ladonia was founded in 1996, three years after the Palestinian Authority, making it only slightly younger and a lot less violent than that micro-nation. While Ladonia is only around a third of a mile in size, it has a government, a newspaper, a lot of citizens and almost as many nobles.

Queen Carolyn I rules over the constitutional monarchy while President Christopher Matheoss was recently elected by a wide margin over such candidates as Count Wrigley, Antonio Maria De Grandis and Alexander Nevzorov III.

Unlike Palestine, Ladonia holds elections making it a much more legitimate country. And unlike both Palestine and Sweden, Ladonia has freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Considering how many newly created countries lack either, the Royal Republic of Ladonia has more of a claim on existence for its mere willingness to extend these freedoms to all.

Israel should recognize the Republic of Ladonia. So should the United States. It’s the only hope for stabilizing Sweden which continues to experience outbursts of Muslim violence in its major cities.

A better case for independence can be made for the Republic of Jamtland, which unlike Palestine, has an ancient history and was an independent peasant republic before the Muslims even invaded Jerusalem.

It declared independence in 1963, a year before the PLO was founded, making it indisputably older than Palestine. Back then the West Bank, which now hosts the PLO, had been annexed by Jordan and Article 24 of the Palestinian Covenant stated that it “does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”

The Republic of Jamtland had declared its independence from Swedish occupation while the PLO was still endorsing the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the West Bank; the territories that it belatedly decided were really the homeland of its independent state after Israel took them back from Jordan, the country which also occupies most of the territory of the Palestine Mandate.

Despite generations of Swedish occupation, the Jamtlanders have not turned to violence. At least not in several centuries. Ten of thousands gather for their Freedom Festivals. Their Jamtland Republican Army remains peaceful even when it sets up its own tolls and checkpoints. The only violence there can be seen from the Jamtland Republicans, a local American football team, vigorously playing on the field.

Jamtish, a dialect, is spoken. The flag of the Republic, blue for the sky, green for the forests and white for the snow, is waved. And the European Union and the Swedish government are denounced.

Considering the peacefulness and antiquity of the Republic of Jamtland, its sizable population and unique cultural heritage, recognizing this micro-nation would be the right thing to do. It’s time for Sweden to end the long occupation of Jamtland’s rivers and forests and for this brave republic to take its rightful place among the free and democratic nations of the world. Sweden chose to recognize two terrorist states inside Israel’s borders. It would only be proper for nations of goodwill to recognize two wholly peaceful republics inside Sweden’s borders.

If recognizing breakaway countries can stabilize the unstable Middle East, just think of how much stability it can bring to Europe. Now that Sweden has solved the problem of Muslim violence in the Middle East, perhaps a few breakaway republics will solve Muslim violence in Sweden.

Sweden saved the Middle East. Now maybe someone can save Sweden.

Saturday, November 01, 2014

Why Obama Hates Netanyahu

Obama’s foreign policy was supposed to reboot America’s relationship with the rest of the world. Old allies would become people we occasionally talked to. Old enemies would become new allies. Goodbye Queen, hello Vladimir. Trade the Anglosphere for Latin America’s Marxist dictatorships. Replace allied governments in the Middle East with Islamists and call it a day for the Caliphate.

Very little of that went according to plan.

Obama is still stuck with Europe. The Middle East and Latin American leftists still hate America. The Arab Spring imploded. Japan, South Korea and India have conservative governments.

And then there’s Israel. The original plan was to sideline Israel by focusing on the Muslim world. Instead of directly hammering Israel, the administration would transform the region around it. The American-Israeli relationship would implode not through conflict, but because the Muslim Brotherhood countries would take its place.

That didn’t work out too well. Instead of gracefully pivoting away, Obama loudly snubbed Netanyahu. A photo of him poking his finger in Netanyahu’s chest captured the atmosphere. Netanyahu delivered a speech that Congress cheered. And Obama came to see him as a domestic political opponent.

The torrent of anti-Israel leaks from the administration is a treatment usually reserved for political opponents. The snide remarks by White House spokesmen and the anonymous personal attacks on Netanyahu in the media echo domestic hate campaigns out of the White House like Operation Rushbo.

Netanyahu wasn’t just the leader of a country that the left hated. He had become an honorary Republican.

When Obama met with him, Netanyahu firmly but politely challenged him on policy. He has kept on doing so ever since, including during his most recent visit. At a time when most leaders had gotten the message about shunning Romney, Netanyahu was happy to give him a favorable reception. Netanyahu clearly wanted Romney to win and Obama clearly wished he could pull a Clinton and replace Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s economic policies were working in exactly the same way that Obama’s weren’t.

The two men hate each other not only on a personal level, but also on a political level.

Netanyahu had successfully pushed through a modernization and privatization agenda that on this side of the ocean is associated with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. It’s likely what Romney would have done which is one more reason the two men got along so well. Obama’s visible loathing for Romney is of a piece with his hatred for Netanyahu.

He doesn’t just hate them. He hates what they stand for. That’s why Harper and Netanyahu get along so well. It’s part of why Obama and Netanyahu get along so badly.

But the bigger part of the conflict is neither personal nor political. Obama wanted to sideline Israel; instead he’s stuck dealing with it. Hillary’s lack of foreign policy ambition allowed the Jewish State to come through fairly well in Obama’s first term. For Hillary, being Secretary of State was just a stepping stone to the White House by making her rerun candidacy seem fresh. Her relationship with Israel was bad, but her first job was not to make any waves.

John Kerry ambitiously jumped into multiple foreign policy arenas. His bid for a deal between Israel and the PLO was a predictable disaster. And he took Obama along for the ride. It’s unknown if Obama blames Kerry for the mess that ensued when his proposals collapsed into war, but there’s little doubt that he now hates Netanyahu more than ever.

The war dragged Obama deep into the confusing political waters of the region. His attempt to back the Turkish and Qatari empowerment of Hamas in the negotiations ended with Egypt and the Saudis scoring a win. It was hardly Netanyahu’s fault that Obama once again chose to side with a state sponsor of terror, but it’s safer to blame Netanyahu for the humiliation than the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

And then there’s Iran. Netanyahu remains the loudest voice against an Obama agreement to let Iran go nuclear. No matter how many talking heads defend the deal, he blows away all their hot air.

Not only did Obama fail to sideline Israel, but he’s stuck dealing with Netanyahu. And no matter how much he may view Netanyahu as an Israeli Romney, he can’t quite openly treat him like Romney because there are plenty of Jewish Democrats who still haven’t realized his true feelings for Israel.

Both men are stuck together. Egypt hates Obama more than it did before he overthrew its original government. Iraq and Syria are war zones. The Saudis are actively undermining Obama’s policies. Israel is still America’s best ally in the region and that interdependency frustrates him even more.

Obama wanted to destroy the American-Israeli relationship. Instead he’s entangled in it. He blames Netanyahu for the situation even though the mess is mostly of his own making.

Despite the myths about the vast powers of the lobby, Israel has never been at the heart of American foreign policy. And under Obama, it’s been on the outskirts in every sense of the word. Israel is back to being a major concern of American foreign policy mostly because of Obama’s massive failures in every other part of the region and Kerry’s belief that he could somehow succeed where everyone else failed.

Netanyahu’s presence reminds Obama of his own failures. If everything had gone according to plan, America would be experiencing a new age of amity with the Muslim world. Instead he’s stuck bombing Iraq and reaffirming the special relationship with Israel almost as if he were on Bush’s fourth term.

It’s not the way that the international flavor of Hope and Change was supposed to taste.

Obama hates Israel. He hates Netanyahu. And their continuing presence in Washington D.C. reminds him of his inability to transform American foreign policy. Their very existence humiliates him.

He knows that directly lashing out at Israel would alienate the Jewish supporters he still needs. Despite his effort to displace pro-Israel voices with J Street, the Jewish community is still pro-Israel. And so he resorts to passive aggressive behavior like snubbing the Israeli Defense Minister or anonymous officials in the administration taunting Netanyahu as a “coward” and “chickens__t” in the media.

It takes a courageous administration to anonymously call the leader of a tiny country a coward. It’s childish behavior, but this is an administration of children overseen by a man whose response to his opponent’s accurate reading of the world situation was to taunt him about the “1980s” and “horses and bayonets”.

While Obama’s people anonymously taunt Netanyahu as a coward, it’s their boss who acts like a coward, stabbing Israel in the back, slandering its leader anonymously through the media and then trying to sell himself to Jewish donors as the Jewish State’s best friend in the White House.