1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Bordering on Madness

Matt in N.C. Wrote: 10 hours ago (7:31 AM)
"A country that does not control its own borders does not have any immigration policy." Your economy with words is always admirable, but this example may benefit from expansion. A country that doesn't control its own borders doesn't have borders; it has penumbras and emanations. A country that doesn't have borders isn't really a country; it's a place. A country that has borders, but admits immigrants indiscriminately doesn't have a policy; it has a schedule. Although developing and enforcing any immigration policy may create drama and upheaval, the policy itself needn't be complex. In fact, a legitimate policy must be straightforward because it addresses just one question: Whom shall we admit or exclude to benefit this country, support its allies, or trouble its enemies? Letting Mexico export its surplus population, mostly uneducated and unskilled, and import the expatriates' remittances has put American citizens out of work, driven American hospitals out of business, burdened American taxpayers to exhaustion, and enabled a series of corrupt fascist regimes inimical to our interests. Clamping the lid on the Mexican pressure cooker half a century ago might've caused a popular revolt resulting in genuine reform and a higher standard of living. On the other hand, letting Albert Einstein immigrate helped us win World War II. A sane immigration policy would distinguish between those who break the law and those who follow it, between a hopeless welfare case and a world-class genius. But then so would a sane electorate.
In the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it insisted on insane objectives (e.g., containment, nation-building), overnice rules of engagement, and other dilatory restrictions, then declared a quagmire and demanded surrender, stalemate, or withdrawal. During the Whitewater investigation, Clinton and his loyalists lied, stonewalled, and obstructed; then they ruled that the proceedings had taken too long and began leading the media in chants of "four years, $40 million." I could go on, but no one would read a book-length essay if I had the time and patience to write it. Leftists have done this for generations. We let them get away with it. We know they're going to try it again and again, yet we fail to anticipate. They've trained us well.
Ava: Thanks for the useful links. I managed to overlook these and the one you posted at 0847.
Even when they HAVE killed us here. Clinton admitted to a biographer and even in his own book that he let Iran shoot down TWA 800 with impunity because war with Iran would've complicated his reelection campaign.
Very good point: failing to act is the same as ordering inaction. Good questions, too. The diver who recovered Mary Jo Kopechne's body said that she'd lived for hours in that submerged Olds 88 and that she had aphyxiated, not drowned. Kennedy was sobering up and desperately trying to save his own worthless butt while she died needlessly. Obama almost certainly had a Chappaquiddick moment on 9/11/12. But whereas Kennedy's running off the bridge was probably an accident, sending Amb. Stevens into a death trap certainly wasn't. When the attack started, Obama had a big, potentially career-ending political problem, and he almost certainly would've worked on that if he worked on anything at all. My dark suspicion has always been that hehad no need to consult with military or national security advisors, for he never intended to dispatch help if anything in Benghazi went sour. Stevens may not have known that he was on his own, but he was.
Timmerman comes close to answering the question no one in Congress or the media dares to ask: Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11? Stevens evidently helped run arms to the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda before he became ambassador. He very likely met with its representatives and the Turkish consul-general the fateful evening to get those weapons back before they could be used to slaughter Americans or to send arms through Turkey to the Al Qaeda franchise in Syria. Recently declassified testimony shows that several senior American officers, including GEN Carter Ham (but apparently not RADM Charles Gaouette), told Congress that no one ordered a stand-down during the all-night struggle in Benghazi, though the emergency-response team in Tripoli was told to stay and protect the embassy—an odd reversal of Washington's indifference to the embassy's security, but I digress. They are officers and gentlemen. There's no proof of falsehood. I want to believe them. But we don't know what was cut out of the transcripts or what testimony remains classified. We don't know why anyone who judged the Tripoli team unable to help in Benghazi thought it could've done more good at the embassy. We don't know why Ham and Gaouette were abruptly relieved of duty. Civilian members of this regime have lied to Congress about many things, e.g., the IRS scandal, and lied to the world about The Video. News released six weeks before the election that we were arming Al Qaeda would've ended Obama's career. Withholding aid and letting our people die to hide the operation is not beyond Obama or his circle. Officers with good character and spotless records might lie to Congress if ordered to do so or if someone convinced them that the truth would harm the country. Their testimony changes little. If it is true, then despite numerous assets in the area, someone sent the ambassador to an indefensible consulate in an extremely dangerous place to meet extremely dangerous people on the worst possible day without extra preparation, extra communication, or even a rescue plan. The result is the same as if there had been a stand-down order: American lives thrown away. The possible explanations are the same: the grossest imaginable incompetence or political calculation that rises to the level of treason.
I think you've stretched the definition of "human being" to the breaking point.
Is anyone really astonished that this kind of abuse goes on? People who know everything can and will do anything.
There is no legitimate constitutional reason for NSA to be collecting anything at all on Americans, never mind sharing it. It was created to engage in foreign intelligence and to keep government communications secure. If it is spying on Americans, it is clearly not doing the first job. If it is giving the keys to a potential totalitarian state to "young enlisted guys, 18 to 22 years old," and letting civilian contractors' new hires (e.g., Snowden) make off with enough secrets to shake the world, it is clearly not doing the second. In fact, its only remaining jobs are to preserve and enlarge itself and help other government agencies oppress us. It has become a greater threat than our external enemies. Putin and the mullahs can only kill us. These nominal compatriots can enslave us. NSA must be abolished and dismantled if we are to remain free. I fear that it is already too late.
In response to:

Step Right Up to MTV's Incest Plot

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 18, 2014 6:39 PM
. . .dissension bordering on rebellion. . .
1 - 10 Next