At Free Beacon, "VIDEO: Secretary of State John Kerry: 'We Are Not at War' with #ISIS."
Also at CNN, "Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS."
Friday, September 12, 2014
Foreign Fighters Flock to #ISIS — Unexpectedly!
At CNN, "How foreign fighters are swelling ISIS ranks in startling numbers."
Yes, but these fighters aren't real Muslims or anything.
Yes, but these fighters aren't real Muslims or anything.
Unexpecedly! #ISIS Ranks Swell to Over 31,000
At Lonely Con, "ISIS Ranks Swell to Over 31,000."
Yeah, and we're still trying to figure out if we're really "at war" with the Islamic State.
Yeah, and we're still trying to figure out if we're really "at war" with the Islamic State.
Unexpectedly! Arab States Give Tepid Support in Fight Against #ISIS
It's just like Ralph Peters said: Arab regimes don't trust Obama. He's f-ked 'em over too many times by now.
At the New York Times, "Arabs Give Tepid Support to U.S. Fight Against ISIS" (via Memeorandum):
At the New York Times, "Arabs Give Tepid Support to U.S. Fight Against ISIS" (via Memeorandum):
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Many Arab governments grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.More.
As the prospect of the first American strikes inside Syria crackled through the region, the mixed reactions underscored the challenges of a new military intervention in the Middle East, where 13 years of chaos, from Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring revolts, have deepened political and sectarian divisions and increased mistrust of the United States on all sides.
“As a student of terrorism for the last 30 years, I am afraid of that formula of ‘supporting the American effort,’ ” said Diaa Rashwan, a scholar at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded policy organization in Cairo. “It is very dangerous.”
The tepid support could further complicate the already complex task Mr. Obama has laid out for himself in fighting the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: He must try to confront the group without aiding Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, or appearing to side with Mr. Assad’s Shiite allies, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, against discontented Sunnis across the Arab world.
While Arab nations allied with the United States vowed on Thursday to “do their share” to fight ISIS and issued a joint communiqué supporting a broad strategy, the underlying tone was one of reluctance. The government perhaps most eager to join a coalition against ISIS was that of Syria, which Mr. Obama had already ruled out as a partner for what he described as terrorizing its citizens...
'I feel morally compelled at a serious personal level to call for and defend the development of weapons of overwhelming power and sophistication and then to call for their employment against all nation states and ideologies currently waging wars against any liberal democracy...'
Heh, my friend David Swindle gets personal in the name of national self-defense.
At PJ Media, "When the Grandchildren of the Atom Bomb Wake Up, There Will Be No More 9/11s":
At PJ Media, "When the Grandchildren of the Atom Bomb Wake Up, There Will Be No More 9/11s":
Whether Jew, Christian, secularist, or a tech-minded, neo-pagan confabulation of all three like myself, the broad reading of the history of war against nature-worshipping slavemasters from the Canaanites to the Nazis reveals that the way to achieve peace is to impose it on the enemies trying to destroy you with weapons which make surrender the only viable option.And at the post --- indeed, what inspired the post --- is this clip from Prager University:
Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Hammers Obama's Cowardice, Incompetence, and Indecision
The irrepressible Ralph Peters.
Via RCP, "Ralph Peters: Obama 'A Terrified Little Man In A Great Big Job He Can't Do'."
Via RCP, "Ralph Peters: Obama 'A Terrified Little Man In A Great Big Job He Can't Do'."
He's not going to get neutral states and others in the Middle East to step up. Why? Because they cannot trust Obama. He's screwed over the Eastern Europeans on missile defense to get a crappy arms deal with Putin. He's bailed on our allies in Iraq. He's run NATO all over the map in Afghanistan. He's drawn red line after red line and never lived up to any of it. He won’t call an invasion of Ukraine an invasion. He won’t call a war a war. He won’t call Islamist terrorists Islamist terrorists. This president is a terrified little man in a great big job he can’t do.
First Lady Michelle Obama Commemorates 9/11 with KaBOOM!
Sounds like she wants to blow some shit up on September 11.
And man, we still have two more years of this bull.
And man, we still have two more years of this bull.
@AceofSpadesHQ If this tweet and pic does not prove that the Obamas hate American children, what does https://t.co/KjNmMo1f2V
— KBDaBear (@kbdabear) September 12, 2014
The Democrat Radical Left is Destroying and Wussifying the American Military
An astonishing segment.
John Stossel interviews former Marine Aaron MacLean:
You'll be fuming by the time you get to the $150.00 a gallon for green fuels for American military aircraft. Obama did that. Something he actually did, the f-king treasonous scumball.
John Stossel interviews former Marine Aaron MacLean:
You'll be fuming by the time you get to the $150.00 a gallon for green fuels for American military aircraft. Obama did that. Something he actually did, the f-king treasonous scumball.
'Scottish independence would seriously weaken Britain as America's most important ally and as one of the key pillars of the Western world's security posture in the Middle East and Eastern Europe...'
An awesome piece, from Brendan Simms and Jason Pack, at the Los Angeles Times, "The Scots have little to gain and a whole lot to lose with independence":
The gravest immediate threat to the West's long-term security does not emanate from Vladimir Putin or from the militants of the Islamic State. Rather, surprisingly, it comes from peace-loving Scots.Keep reading.
With polls now showing a majority of Scots supporting independence in the referendum set for Sept. 18, it's suddenly clear that Scotland might actually break away from Britain. In the words of Lord West of Spithead, former First Sea Lord, "A 'yes' vote for Scottish independence would make it more difficult to defend Britain. It would diminish NATO and the West's ability to do things."
Bluntly put, there is no rational upside for a 'yes' vote. In Scotland, the independence campaign runs on emotions alone. Abroad, its supporters are the postcolonial left who will revel in Britain's resultant weakness. Independence may increase Scotland's national pride, but its economy will suffer as companies and jobs flee south amid uncertainties about currency and taxation.
There will be no political dividend either. Unlike the "Irish problem" of the 20th century, the Scottish question is not a running sore in European or transatlantic politics. It does not involve a serious terrorist threat, nor would independence eliminate a destabilizing political movement — as would Corsican independence from France or Basque independence from Spain.
Simply put, Scottish independence is a solution in search of a problem. It would unwittingly destroy history's most successful political merger, the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707, which enabled Britain to punch above its weight in the world, served as a model for the United States Constitution, and provided a dynamic core for a fiscal-military state that defeated its illiberal and undemocratic opponents in World War I, World War II and the Cold War.
Scottish independence would seriously weaken Britain as America's most important ally and as one of the key pillars of the Western world's security posture in the Middle East and Eastern Europe...
Obama Honors 9/11 Victims a Day After Announcing New Mission Against Terror
At the New York Times, "On a Day Devoted to Past Events, Focus on New Terror Link":
WASHINGTON — The morning after committing the nation to an expanded military campaign against Islamist terrorism, President Obama honored the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as the White House argued that he had the right to wage his new fight under the same legal authority he used to hunt down Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.Keep reading.
On a day suffused with memories of four hijacked planes and the war they ignited, the president’s new mission seemed less a break from the past than the continuation of a long national struggle.
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the administration said, was formerly the Iraqi affiliate of Al Qaeda, and has maintained ties with Al Qaeda even after its very public falling-out with Qaeda leaders. It uses brutal tactics that are out of the Qaeda playbook, and is viewed, even by some members of Al Qaeda, as the legitimate heir to Bin Laden’s legacy.
The argument, laid out Thursday by Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, could spare the president’s lawyers from having to negotiate a new legal authorization from Congress, should Mr. Obama decide to ask lawmakers to approve a prolonged military campaign.
But it ties his efforts against ISIS more firmly to the war on terrorism waged by him and his predecessor George W. Bush in the decade after the 2001 attacks, even though Mr. Obama insists they are different. In his prime-time speech to the nation on Wednesday, Mr. Obama drew a distinction between the ISIS campaign and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying it was a new kind of counterterrorism operation that would rely on bolstering local troops rather than deploying American ones.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama paid tribute to the service members and civilians killed at the Pentagon. Speaking before a giant American flag draped over the part of the Pentagon wall where one of the hijacked planes crashed, Mr. Obama said, “Thirteen years after small and hateful minds conspired to break us, America stands tall and America stands proud.”
The president hailed the “9/11 generation” of soldiers who have served in the years since the 2001 attacks, noting that “three months from now, our combat mission in Afghanistan will come to an end.”
Mr. Obama made no mention of ISIS, speaking only of challenges facing the country. But his description of a nation coping with the threat of terrorism seemed entirely relevant today. “We carry on because as Americans, we don’t give in to fear — ever,” he said.
Mel Brooks Wore Fake Finger for Six-Finger Hand Print at Chinese Theater
Well, I thought he had six-digits on the left hand.
But it turns out he faked six fingers to do something different for history.
At LAT, "Mel Brooks' Chinese Theatre cement handprint has six fingers."
But it turns out he faked six fingers to do something different for history.
At LAT, "Mel Brooks' Chinese Theatre cement handprint has six fingers."
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Barack Obama, You’re No Ronald Reagan
From Dimitri Simes, at the National Interest:
Continue reading.
Obama’s new sweeping pronouncements are dangerous. If they don’t prove hollow, further discrediting the United States in the process, they compel him put the United States in very dangerous territory. Obama appears to think that he can threaten to do anything, anywhere, against American enemies without any consequences for what he says, does, or doesn’t do. It is precisely because Obama is weak that he has a propensity for offering sweeping inflammatory pronouncements that deter no one but can be exploited by anyone looking for an excuse to disregard sovereignty of others whether in Ukraine or elsewhere.Man, this is a stupendous takedown! Utterly brutal.
Continue reading.
Supermodel Exhibition from Victoria’s Secret Photographer Russell James
At the New York Daily News, "Lensman Russell James achieves a naked ambition with book featuring Gisele Bundchen, Heidi Klum & more":
Also at Gotham, "PHOTOS: VICTORIA'S SECRET HOSTS PHOTOGRAPHER RUSSELL JAMES' ANGELS BOOK LAUNCH."
And Egotastic!, "Candice Swanepoel, Alessandra Ambrosio, Kendall Jenner, and More Naked Models in Russell James’ Angels Photo Book."
Supermodels are famous for looking great when they’re almost naked. Turns out they look pretty good when completely naked, too.More.
Photographer Russell James makes that point — repeatedly! — in his latest book, “Angels,” the fourth in his series of coffee table tomes about the Earth’s most beautiful places, things and, most profitably, women.
James has shot plenty of sexy images over the years, but he’d never done a full volume inspired by nudity — not that the public hadn’t been calling out for it.
Also at Gotham, "PHOTOS: VICTORIA'S SECRET HOSTS PHOTOGRAPHER RUSSELL JAMES' ANGELS BOOK LAUNCH."
And Egotastic!, "Candice Swanepoel, Alessandra Ambrosio, Kendall Jenner, and More Naked Models in Russell James’ Angels Photo Book."
Colleges Reject Charge That Freshman Reading Lists Have Left-Wing Political Bias
Actually, I don't have a problem with most of the readings cited at this piece, at the Los Angeles Times.
Some of the greatest in classical literature is inherently progressive and humanistic.
The problem is when leftist professors indoctrinate students with an endless stream of race, class, gender and homosexual advocacy, at the expense of a broad pedagogical approach. And there's really no debate on whether that's happening.
In any case, here's this from the article:
FLASHBACK: "How California's Colleges Indoctrinate Students."
Some of the greatest in classical literature is inherently progressive and humanistic.
The problem is when leftist professors indoctrinate students with an endless stream of race, class, gender and homosexual advocacy, at the expense of a broad pedagogical approach. And there's really no debate on whether that's happening.
In any case, here's this from the article:
Freshmen at colleges around the country for years have been assigned to read the same books as a way to bond at orientation and to encourage intellectual interactions rather than just social ones.More.
But this year, some of the reading selections are coming under attack.
In South Carolina, for example, the state Legislature tried to cut funding for two state universities that selected books with gay themes.
The conservative Young Americans for Freedom compiled a list of those books that they contend offer only left-leaning perspectives, including "Americanah," a novel by a celebrated Nigerian writer that was picked this year at Pomona College, Penn State, Duke University and Macalester College.
The National Assn. of Scholars had another beef. It advocates the classics and argued in a recent report that by frequently selecting contemporary literature, "colleges are implying that students have little to learn from the past. Or perhaps they simply think students' attention spans are too limited for them to want to pick up such a book and read it on their own."
The group suggested schools should instead assign such alternatives as James Fennimore Cooper's "The Last of the Mohicans," Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man," Shakespeare's plays, and selections from the Bible.
Colleges deny any political intent. They say they seek high-quality books that provoke debate and that they are encouraging it as an academic experience amid all the other events and parties during those first few days on campus. Because many schools invite authors to campus, classics by long-dead writers don't fit the bill and there are other opportunities to study them, colleges say.
A common book "is a tangible bond but it has intellectual heft as opposed to just wearing the school colors," said Cheryl Spector, director of academic first-year experiences at Cal State Northridge, where this year's common reading is "The Postmortal," a futuristic novel by Drew Magary about possible immortality and a cure for aging.
Critics misunderstand the programs' goals, she said: "The fact is we are not trying to pick literary masterpieces primarily, although we don't mind it if we hit them. But we do want engagement with students. We want to invite them to a love of reading."
Nearly 40% of colleges ask students to participate in such readings, according to a recent survey by the Assn. for Orientation, Transition and Retention in Higher Education.
UCLA this year chose baseball hero and former Bruin Jackie Robinson's autobiography, "I Never Had It Made;" the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is tackling Louise Erdich's novel "Round House," about violence on a Native American reservation; Williams and Trinity colleges selected Rebecca Skloot's "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks," the history of how cancer tissue from a poor black woman influenced science.
At Pomona College, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's "Americanah," a novel about Nigerians who emigrate to the U.S. and Britain and return home, was selected from 40 nominated books by a panel of faculty, students and others. Copies were mailed to incoming freshmen's homes.
Pomona's dean of students, Miriam Feldblum, said Young Americans for Freedom badly mischaracterized the book. The novel, she said, offers multiple perspectives of racial topics and American and Nigerian societies and emphasizes that people should not make assumptions about culture and history. Beyond its cross-cultural themes, it's a good book for young people because it examines long friendships and life's unexpected turns, she said.
The college aims for political balance, Feldblum said, pointing to the 2008 selections of autobiographies from both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain...
FLASHBACK: "How California's Colleges Indoctrinate Students."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
