Sunday, October 11, 2015

Putin's Russia may be trouble, but it is not necessarily wrong

Carly Fiorina must surely be barking mad. On September 30, the Republican presidential candidate opined that we should provide a counterattack against Russia in Syria. After Russian president Vladimir Putin began his bombing campaign against anti-Assad rebels in the Middle Eastern country, Fiorina told Sean Hannity of FOX News that we must be prepared to use force against Putin's forces if necessary.
"I believe we must tell the Russians that we will conduct and secure a no-fly zone around anti-Assad rebel forces that we're supporting," Fiorina said.
Hannity asked, "Does that mean we might use force against Russian jets?"
"Well, hopefully not," Fiorina replied. "But if it does come to that, I think we must be prepared."
Marco Rubio agreed. Bad enough that Rubio is a sell-out and hardly the conservative we all thought him to be, but he too wants to stand up to Russia? He'll risk the tipping point into World War III, with the Chinese and Iranians being brought into the mix, and to what end? To protect the rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad? Even Ben Carson, regrettably, is spouting nonsense regarding the need to weaken al-Assad along with fighting ISIS.
There is no "Syrian Free Army". It is a myth. It collapsed long before it could even dream of being effective. The Syrian Free rebels are a figment of fools' imaginations, namely the Obama administration and the gender-bending play generals that make up what's left of our military command structure.
Did you hear that we spent $580 million to train these so-called Syrian good guys? Do you know how many we have? Nine. I mean, God bless 'em. Seriously, though, dude. Nine men for 580 million smackaroos. So the U.S. has abandoned this "training" program in favor of supplying rebel leaders with weapons. Apparently, according to the Pentagon, American authorities have vetted them to ensure that they do not have links to Islamist groups. Like, gosh, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra.
Last year, Stephen Gowans, in an excellent piece appearing on the Global Research website, wrote:
What separates the rebels in Syria that the United States and its allies arm, train, fund and direct from those it seeks to degrade and ultimately destroy is not a secular vs. Islamist orientation. Even the so-called 'moderate' rebels are under the sway of Islamist thinking ... The US-backed rebels coöperate with the Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda operating in Syria, which the UN Security Council denounced this summer along with ISIS for their 'gross, systematic and widespread abuse of human rights' but which the United States has left out of its war on the Islamic State, even though its origins and methods are the same as those of ISIS, and its goals similar. Accordingly, the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria will continue to coördinate operations with CIA-directed rebels, unhindered by US strikes.
Yes, the U.S. has vetted these rebels. We aren't inspecting any of the tens of thousands of Muslim refugees invaders that the Obama administration is allowing into the country. But we've got a vetting policy in Syria? Don't even.
After three years of watching the United States and Obama's ineffective tip-toeing around the conflict in Syria, Putin was not going to wait anymore. He told America, in no uncertain terms, I'm getting involved, I will cripple the rebels in addition to ISIS—and we're going to secure some national interests while we're at it. After all, hasn't that been the end-game for you Americans?
I know that cynics can say that Putin is not really interested in saving Christians and Yazidis and that it's all about installing a new sheriff in town, an alternate power in the Middle East, a new, hegemonic world superpower taking the reigns. We can deal with and negotiate with Putin once we have a real president in the Oval Office. Putin will talk with and show respect for a strong American leader. Obama is anything but and Putin knows it, which is why he's making his move.
In his loathing for Barry Hussein, Putin is far from alone. I don't give a damn that he's a former KGB agent. The fact is, Mr. Putin is determined to not let al-Assad fall. In a strident speech he recently gave to the U.N., the Russian president asked, "Do you realize what you have done?" He was referring to the West's obsession with toppling dictators and trying to stamp democracy on the region. After encouraging the Arab Spring, and seeing what became of Libya after dispatching with Gaddafi, it is insane to try to do the same thing with Syria, he has argued.
Bashar al-Assad is not a nice man. He's a murderous weasel. But, bastard though he is, Putin is telling us, He's our bastard. Like him or not, he protects the Christian and Jewish communities in Syria. He is largely a secularist. He wants to fight radical Islamists. Putin has other reasons for supporting al-Assad, naturally, but that is irrelevant right now.
Let Putin and his Russia take over the fight. At least something is finally getting done to make some sense out of and restore some order in Syria. That was never going to, is never going to, and will never happen under the term of the big-eared bozo in the Oval Office. Putin is winning at chess while Obama struggles at checkers.
Have we forgotten that Russia has been tipping the FBI for a while now? They tried several times to warn us about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI thwarted many attempts by mainly Russian smugglers working in Moldova to give dirty bombs to Islamic groups. How did we find out about this? Why, our comrades in Putin's government.
Isn't it odd that the same country that called the Soviet Union a godless nation, which it was, is now being called out as a "godless sewer" by a former Soviet? A "Russian Insider" blog reports:
"Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values," Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. "Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation." In his state of the nation address in mid-December, Mr. Putin also portrayed Russia as a staunch defender of "traditional values" against what he depicted as the morally bankrupt West. Social and religious conservatism, the former KGB officer insisted, is the only way to prevent the world from slipping into "chaotic darkness."
How ironic. Say what you will about Putin and the political power structure in Russia, but the gay mafia isn't putting Christians out of business over there. And neither is there any kowtowing to the Muslim community. In fact, many Chechen leaders are backing Putin.
While Russia strategically and effectively bombs the stuffing out of ISIS and the anti-Assad rebels, sorting out yet another mess caused by lack of American and Western leadership, France is busy pursuing a war crimes inquiry against al-Assad as the U.S. bombs a hospital in Afghanistan run by Doctors Without Borders. Will there be any war crimes investigation for that? No, of course not, because Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, you see!
The administration, with its cadre of puppet generals in tow, denied the attack happened. When that didn't work, they threw NATO under the bus. Then, eventually, they came clean and said "sorry". So that's alright then.
Americans have got to stop embracing the fallacy of "free Syrian rebels" and that any plan for combating ISIS has to be connected to toppling Assad. It is nonsense. Why are some Republicans so defensive of Obama's dumbfounded so-called strategy in Syria?  The rebels are not "our" guys; they are treacherous and will likely turn on us if they do manage to finish off Assad. Why are Fiorina, Rubio, and, to a lesser but certain extent, Carson, so beholden to a policy that seeks to remove Assad?
If we had a genuine president and a strong military, Putin would not have parked himself into this conflict along with his long-term strategic gains. Russia is not a strong country. Its economy is very weak.  Putin is puffing up himself up on fumes. Despite that, Putin is much more of a true leader than Obama has ever been.
It is alarming when the Russian state steps up to become the world's leading superpower, but it is equally alarming to hear presidential candidates speak like war hawks, dangerously naïve ones at that.
Time to sweep these neo-conservatives and their blind rah-rah patriotism/jingoism back under the rock. Their time has come and gone.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

The predictable overreaction to the latest mass shooting

There's been yet another school shooting in America, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. The shooter, whose name this blog will not provide as it will validate the attention he sought, killed nine people, it has been confirmed.
As usual, the President stepped up to the podium, in this instance only four hours after the incident, in which the full facts of the case had yet to be released by authorities, and opined once more that it's all our fault because most of us—you and me—the law-abiding public, refuse to allow the government to take the purest form of protection out of our hands.
The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the Constitution's Second Amendment upholds the right of an individual to possess a firearm for the lawful purpose of safeguarding one's person or home. In other words, the Court ruled, correctly, that the Second Amendment addresses one's right to self-defense.
This does not matter to Obama. I'm not saying the man encourages such slaughters, but it is evident that he licks his lips and rubs his hands together at the opportunity to lecture us about gun control. As his former protégé Raul Emmanuel has noted, never let a crisis go to waste.
He mentioned the need to politicize the issue. He said his ceaseless imploring and insistence that Americans surrender their guns is not about him seeking to control. Well, sorry, dear leader ... er, Mr. (So-Called) President, but you have a track record of bold-faced lying to us. You have expanded government above and beyond what the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights—you know, those evil white men who founded the country—intended. Why should we believe you?
In the wake of the massacre, you said "Each time this happens, I am going to bring this up." And Americans who believe in the ability to protect themselves with the ultimate equalizer will fight you every time, Mr (So-Called) President. Because we know damn well that you do not propose simple gun-control measures; you want outright confiscation.
By referencing Great Britain and Australia in his speech, Obama hinted at what he considers as no less than acceptable. The UK and Australia banned guns in response to the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres respectively. I cannot attest to the sheep-like response of the British or Australians, but Americans will not so willingly walk down the path toward being stripped of their right and duty to look after themselves, especially by a leviathan that cares nothing about them.
As points out, in 1994, the number of privately owned firearms was 192 million. In 2009, the number had jumped to 310 million. However, the firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide rate decreased from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011. Coincidence? I think not.
Progressives pontificate that we should re-think the Second Amendment as it was a product of its time. Well, golly gee, sure we should—just as, under this President, we're re-thinking the First, Fourth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Mother Jones has posted on-line a full list of American mass shootings from 1982 to the present. Breaking this down according to White House administrations, we see that eight occurred while Reagan was in office. Six occurred under George H.W. Bush, seventeen under Clinton, sixteen under George W. Bush, and twenty-five, so far, under Obama. There was a sharp rise during the Clinton years, that was maintained during Dubya's administration, that has truly blossomed during Obama's reign. Draw what conclusions from this that you will. But I have to ask: Where's been the hope? Where's been the change?
If firearms are so evil, then why do even the leftiest of the Left-wing politicos out there have armed bodyguards?  Why doesn't Obama request that the Secret Service disarm?
There's so much that we could do to try as much as possible to prevent massacres like this without violating "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms," as stated by the Second Amendment. 
Perhaps our response to gun massacres should not be so silly, time-wasting and counter-productive. We have banned the Confederate flag and are busying ourselves digging up the bones of the generals who fought for Dixie, and those of their wives, based on the actions of one inbred, psychotic nutcase who had at one time posed with a small Stars and Bars. But when a Rainbow Flag is found on the wall of the apartment of a fruit loop with a massive chip on his shoulder who shot three people in Virginia, no-one dared speak of that flag as a potential symbol of hate. That would be ridiculous, of course, as only one person who embraced that flag carried out the atrocity. So why the effort to rid ourselves of the Confederate flag? These dumb-ass liberals never shut up about slavery, but they're going to attempt to completely whitewash Civil War history so that we have no reference point regarding this tireless debate? Someone please tell me how this makes sense, please?
Let us shed ourselves of another example of inane behavior regarding gun massacres: The establishment and existence of gun-free zones. Notice how these whackjobs intent on slaughtering other people with their often illegally purchased and unregistered guns avoid places where people are bound to be packing? A gun-free zone is the perfect place for cowards to carry out their sickening attacks. If we cannot even agree that the security guard at Umpqua should have had a firearm at his disposal to deal with potential armed troublemakers, then can I say that I am a lot more frightened of this level of ignorance than being caught up in a mass shooting on American soil.
Why is social media never to blame when these nutjobs post their intentions on-line? Facebook will not coöperate when it comes to taking down terror-abetting postings and most social media users are either silent or actively complicit in encouraging these people to act out their stated urge to murder and commit mayhem.
How about having a law-and-order justice system that will severely punish miscreants who violate gun control statutes such as the Sullivan Act? Shall we finally break the chokehold on the courts by the far Left and send criminals down for hard time who offend gun laws, instead of making excuses for them? 
And finally, for those mental rejects that take their parents' guns to commit these massacres? Maybe, just maybe, the authorities should heavily investigate said parents? Why do we not go after the parents or guardians of these young people once it is discovered that they used firearms registered to them to slaughter innocent people?
If the President wants to help, perhaps he could stop dividing Americans along manufactured fault-lines and encouraging victimhood? Maybe he could talk about the common bond of Americans and how those need to be strengthened?
We bring youngsters up in households with unstable family structures, with no belief in God or any sort of Higher Power, with insufficient, often downright negligent social support services, and pollute their growing but vulnerable brains with sex, drugs and violence. And more violence on top of that. We see 8-year-old kids playing Grand Theft Auto or listening to the worst filth that the rap industry can market to them, and we honestly wonder why we have not only a big increase in mental illness among young people, but misfits who ultimately lash out in homicidal rage.
And yet somehow it's always about the great majority of sane, non-violent owners of legally purchased and fully registered guns that are the problem when massacres take place. If this isn't the argument of a power-hungry demagogue, then I honestly don't know what else could be.
By the way, don't hold your breath that even if the petition calling on Obama to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Chris Mintz, who is the only guy to have acted with any level of bravery against the shooter, got shot seven times in the legs and who will have to learn to walk again, gets the required number of signatures, that it will happen. Mr. Mintz is a white army veteran. 'Nuff said. If he should somehow convert to Islam during his time in the hospital, however, I am confident the proposal will be considered with due diligence and executed with the utmost expediency.