Another snoozefest punctuated by lies and blather, and providing revealing insights into the delusions that crowd the progressive mind.
Sorry for that outburst.
I had a very hard time listening to the three Democratic Party candidates "debate" the issues.
The boring "inside baseball" data leak issue came up right away. Clinton got Sanders to apologize, and Sanders got in a few shots at the whacky DNC leadership. The whole thing can be summed as follows: Hillary is OK with the Russians, Chinese, and who knows whom else, reading her classified emails from her time as SecState--when she was illegally using a private server--but she wants off with Bernie's head if he sees her unclassified voter data! It all showed that Clinton is a disgrace, Sanders a wimp, and that the DNC is in the tank for Clinton.
For once, most of the questions were pretty good. The interrogators, at times, seemed to get exasperated with the candidates' evasive answers. I found surprising the relative toughness of the questions on "gun control." The questioners noted that most Americans did not seem to agree on a need for more gun control, and, in fact, had voted with their dollars by pushing gun sales to record highs. None of the three did a good job of explaining what he or she would do to reduce gun violence--none, of course, noted the steady decline in violence precisely as gun sales have increased. Clinton repeated her misleading statistics, claiming that gun violence takes some 33,000 persons/year in America--not noting, of course, that two-thirds of those are suicides and a good chunk of the remaining are accidents, acts of self-defense, and police shootings. Sanders, who represents gun-owning Vermont, was particularly obtuse in discussing the issue and fell back on vague bumper sticker phrases. O'Malley kept jumping in to brag about the great "success" he had as Governor of Maryland in imposing new restrictions on gun ownership--the fact that he can't show that these restrictions did anything to reduce violence in Maryland doesn't seem to dampen his enthusiasm.
All I can say is, I hope the Dems run on gun control as a major issue in the general election--oh, yes, that and Obamacare.
Bernie Sanders continued to work on his long-term objective: Destroying the stereotype that all Jews are smart. He is succeeding quite admirably as we see from his simply bizarre economic and foreign policy prescriptions.
All three were extremely weak on foreign affairs with Clinton giving only a desultory defense of her abysmal foreign policy record. None could come up with a strategy for defeating ISIS, and none could bring himself or herself to identifying, at the very least, radical Islam as the problem. Both Clinton and O'Malley went out of the way to court the Muslim vote with lachrymose tales--True? Who knows?--of looking into the eyes of patriotic Muslim Americans worried about the "backlash" against Islam in the USA. It was in this discussion that Clinton told the whopper of the night.
Let me quote Politifact. She said,
"We also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don't fall on receptive ears . . . He is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."It seems our ex-SecState has an obsession with videos.
She blamed a video by a Christian Egyptian for the Benghazi disaster and now blames a "video" of Trump for the ability of ISIS to recruit to its evil cause.
Well, guess what? There ain't no such video.
As even the above-cited Politifact concluded,
Clinton said that ISIS is "going to people showing Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
We were unable to find any evidence to support this. The Clinton campaign did not provide any evidence that this is already happening -- only that it could be happening, or that it may in the future. If ISIS was using Trump for recruitment videos, we would expect a frenzy of media coverage over it. We rate this claim False.This obsession of Clinton's is a manifestation of the progressive mind-set; she and her co-religionists do not, can not acknowledge that ISIS and "radical" Islam do not recruit based on any particular event or person in the West. They recruit from the Koran, a book full of hatred for the non-believer and of instructions for Muslims on how to deal with infidels: conversion, enslavement, or death. This shows that these progressives cannot be trusted to defend the nation against the jihadis who now assail us all over the world, including in our own homes.
Another debate performance like this, and Trump will be our next President.
The difference between Jihadis and Democrats:
ReplyDeleteThe Jihadis believe their words and deeds in the pursuit of power are manifestations of the "truth". This "truth", to them is the end objective. The Democrats believe that power itself is the end objective, anything else is irrevelant, especially words, deeds, and the truth. That is as understandable I can be at time in the morning.
James the Lesser
So, if muslim==zombie I'mna guessing we're living World War Z? I lived and worked several years in the ME, lived with muslims, worked with muslims, had good working relationships with muslims but at no time did I ever actually trust muslims. That's what happens when you read their book and take it seriously.
ReplyDeleteOH, yes, I have identified Islam as the problem repeatedly. I was saying that the Dem candidates could not even use the words "radical Islam."
ReplyDeleteYour statement "they recruit from the Koran" is certainly true, but the Koran has been around for a long time. What changed? I suggest the great recruiting tool of modern Jihad is .... Victory. Personally I believe the current wave of Jihad began with the Israeli defeat / Islamist victory in Southern Lebanon in the early 80s. It showeded that the combination of suicide killing and exterior maneuver in the west (Cf. Time Magazine, CBS News, etc, etc, etc.) could defeat even the vaunted Israelis. That template was seized upon by the various Jihadi groups who copied and improved it. And it appears to be working. One has to ask, where has this new Jihad been defeated? The only place I can think of is Chechnya and the implications of that are, to say the least, troubling. For what it's worth.
ReplyDeleteCalling the propaganda offensive "exterior maneuver," though technically accurate, is misleading.
DeleteI suspect you were trying to be cute. We all do, sometimes. It sometimes really works, but seldom.
"Cute"? Ah, no. I have fought insurgency on the ground, in person, and have scars on my body from that fight. Not cute.
DeleteExterior maneuver is that part of the war that takes place outside the theater of direct combat. When the Jihadi places a bomb on a bus in Tel Aviv that is, from the insurgents viewpoint, interior maneuver. Getting the UN to condemn the passengers, the US to call for the freeing of the bomber, and an Italian bank to "disinvest" in the bus company, that is exterior maneuver and it can often be more important than the event. They are two sides of the same coin, indivisible. The Wests unwillingness to face that is a major handicap in this war.
Please explain, in some detail, how this is misleading. (Not sarcasm. If in fact I'm wrong about this I want to know.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFleetwood, very good observations
DeleteMerriam-Webster simple definition of military "maneuver": "a planned movement of soldiers or ships." One could quibble, but I think that comports with the general understanding.
DeleteIt is perfectly true that a generalized conception of "maneuver," such as you have proposed, can encompass the deployment of propaganda, NGO, or other resources that don't physically destroy people and stuff. In fact, that's rather clever.
It is also true that most people would not understand that to be meant by the word "maneuver." Hence "technically accurate [but] misleading."
However,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis obsession, unfortunately, is a terrible form of hubris. It's an American-centris gone *WAY* off the ranch. No, Mrs. Rodham (sorry, I consider her roughly divorced after the limp response to her hubby's philandering) the entire world is not simply a side effect of US politics.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are hearing from Trump comes from no other than Winston Churchill himself. I wish Trump would actually *quote* from the old Winnie when making these references to Islam (which largely coincide with the brilliant analysis of CS Lewis as well):
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
- reader #1482
Actually, I think the beginnings of our modern science were sheltered in the strong arms of Christianity.
DeleteYeah... agreed there... and the rejection of that protection is part of 'the problem' today... Winnie wasn't perfect, but he had a far better understanding of the world than our leaders these days.
Delete- reader #1482
And Trump will be our next president...
ReplyDeleteHmm. I've come to the thought that his splitting the GOP is paying back the Clintons for some favor or another. But it could also be that he's opportunistic enough to sell them down the river if it turns out he really is electable.
Easily. Nicely observed, Kepha.
DeleteThere is a Spanish saying that translates loosely as, "Breed crows and they will pluck out your eyes."
DeleteComo se dice, Senor Dip? Mi otro lengua mas bueno es Chines.
DeleteCria cuervos y te sacaran los ojos
DeleteThanks. Muchos gacias (empieso estudiar Espanol). I just hope that if my suspicions about the Donald are correct, he turns out to be the crow that [figuratively] pecks out the Clintons' eyes (although I'd much rather see Cruz, Carson, Rubio, Huckabee, or someone from the rest of the GOP field beating Shrillary Shrooo).
DeleteBTW, bumptious as Trump is (and he used a vulgar Yiddishism the other day), Shrillary Shrooo has shown that she is an opponent of the First Amendment--free exercise, free speech, etc. Add this to her record of lying, staying one step ahead of the law (on technicalities, perhaps?), and proven incompetence as SecState, I shudder to think of that woman becoming POTUS.
Alas, the debate performance won't matter. The nomination is in the bag. Democratic general-election voters (including without limitation the dead, the illegal, and the multiple) will vote not a whit less.
ReplyDeleteAnother debate performance like this, and Trump will be our next President.
ReplyDelete"'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished."
Where is the link to contribute for the next Democratic debate?
Ha!
DeleteThe democratic party has completely lost it's former self. The industrial trade unions, farmers and other workers have been abandoned for the client groups, government workers and socialists. They will not survive very much longer.
ReplyDeleteBut for the current candidates, note that Hillary is not a traditional politician but a celebrity as is Obama. Weak parties can come up with nothing else. Trump reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger whose movie persona sold the California electorate. But he had no real philosophical core except to become and remain a celebrity. Hillary (the smartest woman in the world TM) was created out of whole cloth, while Bill Clinton was a true creation of the Arkansas Democratic machine. But maybe this is a natural state of relatively calm times. In war or true challenges many otherwise ordinary men rise to the occasion. We then get not only Lincoln's, but Coolidge, Truman, and others. Time will tell
Coolidge? Was his a time of war or true challenges?
DeleteHarding and Coolidge took office as a deep recession/depression was going on after World War I and the end of the Wilson "wartime Socialism" was collapsing. They did the opposite of what Hoover did in 1929 and the country was out of the recession/depression so fast that it has been lost to history. I would call that a "true challenge."
DeleteWiki article on that depression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21
DeleteCoolidge was president August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1929.
DeleteAlso, does every slump (they didn't call them "depressions" yet at that time) a "true challenge" make?
I think Coolidge's merits have only recently begun, again, to be appreciated; but because of the man, not the times. Not every great leader is an ordinary man made great by extraordinary times.
In particular, although his times were extraordinary, Lincoln was never an ordinary man. In fact, his times became extraordinary--the South seceded and the North resolved to fight--not least because Lincoln was elected.
O'Malley was successful in driving Beretta out of Maryland, though. They took their 300 jobs to Tennessee.
ReplyDelete"We also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don't fall on receptive ears . . . He is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists."
ReplyDeleteEven though it’s highly unlikely that this congenital liar believes what she says, it’s amazing she hasn’t changed her stance since Benghazi. This position on their reaction to Trump is the same as that one. It's deeply disturbing to think that someone who wants lead the free world would think that the proper response to people invading US territory and killing its citizens because they were offended by a movie is to "get" the guy who made the movie that offended them.
If someone criticizing Islam makes certain Muslims want to join ISIS and behead/crucify/rape their way across the globe, then they were always on the side of the terrorists to begin with and were never civilized/moderate. The solution – to anyone even remotely concerned with individual rights and freedom - is not to stop criticizing them. It betrays her true feelings for this country's culture for her to say it is.
Thomas Jefferson learned the truth of Islam over 200 years ago when he asked what this little upstart Nation several thousand miles across the ocean did to cause the Muslim Nations to capture their ships and enslave their citizens. The Islamic leaders told Jefferson they do it because their Book and Prophet command them to.
ReplyDeleteJefferson stopped the ransom payments and put that money into a Navy to confront them. The Marines landed upon the Shores of Tripoli and the Islamic world crawled under their rock until 1979...when Jimmy Carter helped re-install an Islamic State.
Learned Hand once said that if liberty dies in the hearts of a people, the best Constitution and best institutions cannot save it. I believe the whole Democratic Party is eager to trade liberty for an illusory economic security.
ReplyDeletePoliti"Fact" rated the claim false yet they don't seem to, shall we say, "trumpet the shit out of it" like they would if Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Jeb, or anyone else within hailing distance of an (R) had said it.
ReplyDelete