Monday, February 08, 2016

Broncos' dominant defense officially superb with Super Bowl win


Broncos defense had held three high-scoring offense ineffective during playoffs


February 7, 2016

Von Miller sacked Cam Newton and ripped the ball free to set up a defensive touchdown for the Broncos. AP Photo/Charlie Riedel

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Super Crush 50!
The Broncos became the supreme defensive team in NFL postseason history by orange-squeezing three of the league's paramount offensive units — the Pittsburgh Steelers, the New England Patriots and, ultimately, the Carolina Panthers — and constraining Ben Roethlisberger, Tom Brady and Cam Newton to only three touchdowns, with just one passing.
The trio of offenses that scored a combined 86.8 points per game in the regular season averaged just 11.3 points against the Broncos' Tour de Force.
Super Bowl 50 was the magnum opus for the Broncos, who prevailed over the Panthers 24-10 on Sunday at Levi's Stadium and won their third world championship and first in this millennium.
From Orange Crush in 1977 to, as Super Bowl MVP Von Miller said afterward, "we just wanted to be the Orange Rush."
Miller, who had two strip sacks and an extraordinary performance vs. the Panthers after an astonishing game against the Patriots, led the way as the dynamic, dynamo defense dominated again.
"I'm so proud of my buddies," Miller said. "It feels great. Peyton (Manning) and DeMarcus (Ware) and coach (Wade) Phillips have been deserving their whole careers. I did this for them. I put my neck on the line for those guys."
With Peyton Manning holding on for dear life in his final game (although he would not announce his retirement publicly yet), the offense managed a meager 194 total yards (and one touchdown), but the defense, as it has done all season in 15 victories, took command by scoring its own touchdown, setting up the final touchdown, causing four turnovers (three fumbles and an interception), sacking Newton six times (and Ted Ginn Jr. on a thwarted trick play) and incessantly harassing the Panthers' quarterback, who felt like he was trapped in a waffle maker, just as it did Brady two weeks before.
The Broncos produced one of the 10 best defensive performances in Super Bowls, and analytical experts proclaim this modern-day, updated Orange Crush as one of the top five ever. Their run through the postseason has to be No. 1, according to this guy, who has seen the Seahawks and the Ravens and 41 others.
It is interesting to note that the second overall selection in the 2011 draft, Miller, ran rampant against the No. 1 pick that year, Newton.
Manning has won two of four Super Bowls. His boss, John Elway, won two of five and finished with back-to-back victories. Now, Elway has become one of the pre-eminent NFL general managers with two Super Bowls in five years. He picked Miller; he assembled the game's most proficient offense in 2013 and football's premier defense in the 2015 season. Most valuable player to most valuable executive.
Miller finished with 2½ sacks, two forced fumbles, six tackles and a pass defense way down field.
The league's two superlative defensive teams gave the world a defensive game. The Panthers were able to convert third downs into first downs only 3-of-15 occasions (20 percent), and the Broncos were just 1-of-14 (7 percent). The Panthers had 18 first downs by pass and rush, the Broncos nine. There were barely 500 yards total offensive yards by both. Newton was the Panthers' only rusher to surpass 30 yards.
C.J. Anderson toughed out 90 yards — one for 34 — on 23 carries, punctuated by the one 2-yard touchdown with 3:08 remaining that finally determined that the Broncos would win.
Until then, the outcome certainly was indefinite.
The two offenses were juggernauts.
Denver did little; Carolina did less. At halftime the Broncos were up 13-7 on two field goals and a fumble recovery in the end zone by Malik Jackson, the other Broncos fellow from the University of Tennessee. The Panthers had their only touchdown drive 4:35 into the second quarter.
They had squadoosh from then until a field goal with 10:21 was left in the fourth quarter, but still were only six points away (16-10).
The Broncos seemed to be playing "four corners" offense for four quarters, and the Panthers obviously were afraid of the Broncos' body-hugging, unyielding defense. Cam couldn't throw or run or hide from the Miller-Ware attack and the blitzing, swarming, crushing defense.
The Panthers' suffered six presnap penalties, as if they didn't want to start any play.
Anderson praised his teammates on the other side of the ball.
"Man, we've got the greatest defense on the planet," he said.
Linebacker Brandon Marshall was more effusive.
"In my opinion, we're the greatest defense to ever play the game. Greatest," he said. "It's a bold statement, but from top to bottom, we have the greatest talent — from (pass) rushers to safeties to linebackers. Better than anybody who's ever done it.
"All we really need is 17 points."
The Broncos got 24.
The Panthers had only 10.
The Broncos have been crushed in Super Bowls by Dallas, the New York Giants, Washington, San Francisco and, two years, ago Seattle.
But the Broncos were the Orange crushers on Super Sunday.

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Film Review - 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi


By Mark Steyn
http://www.steynonline.com/
February 6, 2016


Paramount Pictures

Michael (Transformers) Bay has now made two feature films about real-life military attacks on US sovereign territory - in 2001 Pearl Harbor, which was enough to have you rooting for the Japs, and now 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. Happily, the latter does not have much in common with the former, save for a reprise of what evidently Mr Bay regards as his signature - a rocket falling from the skies to its target, but shot from the rocket's point of view. If you object that a rocket is an inanimate object and can't have a point of view, well, it's all comparative: in Pearl Harbor, the rocket was a lot less inanimate than Ben Affleck. Here the director has a grittier and hairier cast, and makes a good-faith if not wholly successful effort to dial back the prettifying devices of blockbuster film-making.

As for the point of view, the rocket has one. But Bay doesn't. This is a visceral, sensory, pulverizing, you-are-there slab of action - all twitchy cameras, sudden edits, jerky cross-cuts - in which the context of the fireballs all around is left for another day. The director describes 13 Hours as "my most real movie", but it doesn't have to be that real to be more real than the official version. Film-making and storytelling have been part of the Benghazi fiasco since the evening of September 11th 2012, when the US Government decided to tell its own story about a film-maker whose all but unseen video had, they insisted, led to the death of a US ambassador. In the Hillary Clinton version, four Americans died at the hands of (as I put it at the time) "a spontaneous class-action movie review". Three days later, when the President, the Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to the United Nations were all still lying to the American people about what happened and why, my characterization of that night holds up better than the Government's:
As Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher's teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That's not a spontaneous movie protest; that's an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower's response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise. 
One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a "safe house," and switched their attentions accordingly. How did that happen? The United States government lost track of its ambassador for ten hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they've investigated Mitt Romney's press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.
In the end, the court eunuchs chose to continue fanning Sultan Barack. Three years later, based on a book by five of the survivors, Bay's film belatedly provides answers to some of the basic questions the media never asked. It's not a political film at all: Hillary is never mentioned by name, and for the whole 13 hours the Government of the United States - indeed, in a more basic sense, the entire global hyperpower - is an unseen character confined to the end of a telephone that no one ever picks up. There are occasional glimpses of nearby assets - a US air base across the Med in Italy - but in this western the cavalry never come. Three years ago we were told that they couldn't have got there "in time" - so, in Hillary's words, what difference would it have made? But as I wrote:
It's easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last. A terrorist attack isn't like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it's more like a tennis match: Whether it's all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down.
That's the story as Bay tells it: For two-plus hours, you feel only the absence of the global superpower - as, indeed, many beleaguered Americans and American allies around the planet have felt these last years. The background is sketched efficiently enough. John Krasinski, the nice bloke from the US version of "The Office", lands in Libya hirsute and bulked up. He's playing Jack Silva, a private security contractor for whom this is just another gig in just another Krappistan. He's met at the terminal by his old Navy Seal buddy Tyrone Woods (James Badge Dale) and even on the drive back from the airport it's clear that Benghazi is a town where the Libyan government's writ doesn't run and turning left instead of right can have serious consequences for your life expectancy. When they run into trouble at an ad-hoc militia checkpoint, Woods has a well-rehearsed line to hand, pointing to the sky and telling the dimestore jihadist that every aspect of the encounter is currently being watched by the all-seeing drone. As we'll discover, the world's first drone superpower sees everything ...but doesn't do anything.

Woods and Silva work for GRS - the Global Response Staff - whose job is to provide security for the CIA operatives in the city. There are six of them, with monosyllabic nicknames - Rone, Tig, Oz, Boon - and a trait apiece: One of them is a bookish type partial to Joseph Campbell, which provides Bay with some voiceovered philosophical musings in the final moments. Otherwise, this is where the director descends to his traditional caricatures: in contrast to the hairy muscular tattooed GRS guys, the CIA types are clean-cut pocket-pen pansy-assed snooty desk-jockeys with Ivy League Master's in Nation-building Studies, all under the command of a Head of Station jobsworth called "Bob" (David Costabile) on his last posting before retirement. Because there are no girls in this story, one of the CIA agents is female, a thankless role well-played by Alexia Barlier.

The pointyheads don't want these dumb lummoxes causing any trouble. When the CIA occasionally ventures out from its crusader fort to meet with local bigwigs, Jack goes along as protection, posing as Mlle Barlier's hubby, but sneeringly instructed not to say a word. In the course of the film, Mlle Barlier's character comes to see that, when the chips are down, you need these hard men. Whereas the dweebiest of the desk-jockeys, on being instructed to grab a gun and head to the roof, responds, "He's joking, right?"

This is the CIA we're talking about, remember. They can't really be that effete and disconnected, can they? They surely can't have that little sense of their vulnerability - of their precarious toehold on a disintegrating landscape. Next door to their compound itinerant herders graze sheep and doe-eyed boys skim stones, but there seems to be a method in their comings-and-goings, as if it's the intelligence agency that's under surveillance. A mile away, inside the diplomatic compound, things are even more surreal. There's a pool, and the lobby looks like the Benghazi Hyatt, but the State Department security are rank amateurs and their local guards are unarmed and the foreigners lack the language skills ever to be entirely sure about the natives they've hired. As one American marvels, after watching his militia comrade on his cellphone, the so-called good guys mysteriously have the bad guys on speed-dial.

The "friendlies" fade into the shadows, the "hostiles" metastasize: As the night unfolds, you get the sense that everyone - the goatherds, the grease-monkeys watching TV soccer, their shrouded womenfolk - knows what's going on. Except the Americans. The CIA are tourists in the heart of darkness. The world over the wall has a lazy sensuality, confident that, when the infidels with the guns and the money depart, it will be as if they were never there.

And so on September 11th US Ambassador Chris Stevens (Matt Letscher), described as a "true believer" in the new Libya, arrives for a private meeting with the mayor - at which half the town shows up. Instead of being upset by the security breach, "Bob" is more irked at a GRS guy dozing off during Stevens' happy-sappy remarks. When it all goes pear-shaped back at the compound, Bay is unsparing in showing Stevens' panic and fear at the disintegration of his illusions: He and Sean Smith are hastily shuffled into a "safe room", which, of course, thanks to the attention to detail of the money-no-object State Department, is entirely unsafe. Unable to force their way in, the invading army simply lights up the adjoining room, and the smoke under the door does the rest.

The decision to let their ambassador die appears to have been taken early on. Was it just "Bob" back at the CIA annex rushing into the yard and ordering GRS to stand down? Or did it come from higher up? Half-a-dozen brave men plus a goofy Libyan interpreter decide that, unlike the CIA, they're going to do what's right, and off they set.

The GRS guys are well-cast by Bay. The one misstep is Toby Stephens, playing Glen Doherty. The son of Maggie Smith and Robert Stephens, Toby is best known as the baddie in Die Another Day, a very overripe performance even by Bond-villain standards. He enters the picture back at the embassy in Tripoli, when the diplomats are fretting that they have no assets in country. Oh yes you do, says Stephens, stepping forward and fixing his gimlet eye on the camera: "I need a bagful of money and a flight to Benghazi." His face is too strong and his presence too actorly and the line too portentous, and just for a moment the entire enterprise trembles on the brink of Robert Stack in Airplane!

Glen Doherty was a singularly brave man. He was the guy who didn't shrug "What difference does it make?" And so he made a difference: He got his flight, and he landed in Benghazi in the early hours, and made it to the roof of the compound to save American lives, and sacrifice his own. While the commander-in-chief went off to party in Vegas, and the Secretary of State put her phone on voicemail, and the UN Ambassador hit the TV circuit to peddle the official lie, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods chose to act in defiance of the government that abandoned them. Bay does not eschew the conventions of the genre, but Lorne Balfe's hitherto percussive score finds an appropriate dignity for these final scenes.

We all know how the story ends, as perhaps they did, too, in the last of those 13 hours. It was a thankless task, a charge of the Light Brigade necessitated by the absence of all the heavy power. But they did it, and their sacrifice deserves to be honored. There are other stories to tell about Benghazi - of self-serving duplicity by shameless hollow nothings unfit for public office - but Michael Bay has chosen to focus on heroism and sacrifice by men whom too many Americans have forgotten. I hope his film makes a difference.


Friday, February 05, 2016

A (much) better year


US President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Islamic Society of Baltimore mosque in Catonsville
US President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Islamic Society of Baltimore mosque in Catonsville, Maryland February 3, 2016.. (photo credit:REUTERS)


By Caroline Glick
4 February 2016

On Wednesday the US media interrupted its saturation coverage of the presidential primaries to report on President Barack Obama’s visit to a mosque in Maryland. The visit was Obama’s first public one to a mosque in the US since entering the White House seven years ago. The mosque Obama chose to visit demonstrated once again that his views of radical Islam are deeply problematic.

Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. During Operation Protective Edge, the leaders of the mosque accused Israel of genocide and demanded that the administration end US support for the Jewish state.

According to The Daily Caller, the mosque’s former imam Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh was active in the Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity deemed a terror group in 2004 after the US Treasury Department determined it had transferred funds to Osama bin Laden, Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

El-Sheikh left the Baltimore mosque to take over the Dar el-Hijra mosque in northern Virginia. He replaced Anwar al-Awlaki as imam after Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2003. In Yemen Awlaki rose to become a senior al-Qaida commander.

Awlaki radicalized many American jihadists both through direct contact and online. He radicalized US Army major Nidal Malik Hasan, and inspired him to carry out the 2009 massacre of 13 US soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood in Texas. Awlaki was killed by a US drone strike in 2011.

In 2010, a member of the Islamic Society of Baltimore was arrested for planning to attack an army recruiting office. According to the Mediaite news portail, the mosque reportedly refused to cooperate with the FBI in its investigation.

Obama’s visit to the radical mosque now is a clear signal of how he intends to spend his last year in office. It tells us that during this period, Obama will adopt ever more extreme positions regarding radical Islam.

Obama’s apologetics for radical Islamists is the flipside of his hostility for Israel. This too is escalating and will continue to rise through the end of his tenure in office.

The US Customs authority’s announcement last week that it will begin enforcing a 20-yearold decision to require goods imported from Judea and Samaria to be labeled “Made in the West Bank,” rather than “Made in Israel,” signals Obama’s intentions. So, too, it is abundantly clear that France’s plan to use the UN Security Council to dictate Israel’s borders was coordinated in advance with the Obama administration.

Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.

On the Democratic side, neither candidate is a particularly energetic supporter of Israel or counter- jihad warrior. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recently released email discussions of Israel with her closest advisers indicate that all of Clinton’s closest counselors are hostile to Israel.

For his part, Vermont’s socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders harbors the far Left’s now standard anti-Israel attitudes. Not only did Sanders – like Clinton – support Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the Joint Houses of Congress where Netanyahu laid out Israel’s reasons for opposing the deal. Sanders gave television interviews condemning Netanyahu for making the speech, accusing him of electioneering on the back of the US Congress. Sanders criticized Israel during Operation Protective Edge and supports decreasing US military aid to Israel.

For all their anti-Israel sensibilities, though, neither Clinton nor Sanders gives the impression that they are driven by them as Obama is.

Unlike Obama, neither appear to be animated by their hostility toward Israel. Neither seem to be passionate in their support for Muslim Brotherhood- affiliated groups or in their desire to realign the US away from Israel, from its traditional Arab allies and toward Iran. This lack of passion makes it safe to assume that if elected president, while they will adopt anti-Israel policies, they will not seek out ways to weaken Israel or strengthen its sworn enemies.

On the Republican side, the situation is entirely different. All of the Republican presidential candidates are pro-Israel. To be sure, some are more pro-Israel than others. Sen. Ted Cruz, for instance, is more supportive than his competitors. But all of the Republicans candidates are significantly more supportive of Israel than the Democratic candidates. So it is simply an objective fact that Israel will be better off if a Republican is elected in November no matter who he is and no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

It hasn’t always been this way. And it doesn’t have to remain this way.

Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush.

Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel.

On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel.

Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably.

Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel.

Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points.

The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites.

Last summer, pollster Frank Luntz conducted a survey of US elite partisan opinion on Israel. His data were devastating. According to Luntz’s data, 76% of Democratic elite believe that Israel has too much influence over US foreign policy. Only 20% of Republicans do.

Nearly half (47%) of highly educated, wealthy and politically active Democrats think that Israel is a racist country. Thirteen percent of their Republican counterparts agree.

And whereas only 48% of Democrats believe that Israel wants peace, 88% of Republicans believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors.

These trends affect voting habits. According to Luntz, while only 18% of Democrats say they would be more likely to vote for a politician who supports Israel, 31% said they are less likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate. In contrast, 76% of Republicans say they want their representatives to support Israel.

Forty-five percent of Democrats said they would be more likely to vote for a politician who is critical of Israel and 75% of Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for an anti-Israel candidate.

These data tell us two important things. Today Democratic candidates will gain nothing and may lose significant support if they support Israel.

In contrast, a Republican who opposes Israel will have a hard time getting elected, much less winning a primary.

Partisan sensibilities aren’t the only reason that Israel is will be better off if a Republican wins in November. There is also the issue of policy continuity.

Even though neither Clinton nor Sanders share Obama’s anti-Israel passion, their default position will be to maintain his policies. Traditionally, when an outgoing president is replaced by a successor from his own party, many of his foreign policy advisers stay on to serve his successor.

Moreover, if American voters elect a Democrat to succeed Obama, their decision will rightly be viewed as a vote of confidence in his policies.

Obama has radicalized the Democratic Party in his seven years in office. When Obama was inaugurated, the Blue Dog caucus of conservative Democratic members of the House of Representatives had 54 members. Today only 14 remain.

Obama’s Democratic Party is not Bill Clinton’s party.

A party that isn’t forced to pay a price for its policies isn’t likely to change them. If the Democrats are not defeated in the run for the White House in November, their party will not reassess its shift to radicalism and reconsider its increasingly hostile stance on Israel.

That then brings us to the state of the presidential race following the Iowa caucuses and ahead of next Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses showed a significant gap in enthusiasm among partisan voters. Participation rates in the Republican caucuses were unprecedented.

Cruz shattered the record for vote getting in the state that saw participation rates up 30% from 2012. On the Democratic side, participation rates were below the 2008 level.

On the Republican side, the three top candidates – Cruz, businessman Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio – are all backed by committed, fervent supporters. On the Democratic side, Clinton’s supporters are reportedly diffident about her. And while Sanders enjoys enthusiastic support from voters under 45, he can’t seem to convince people who actually know what socialism is to support him.

If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, on the face of it, it is difficult to see his path to victory in the general election. Whereas Obama was elected by hiding his radical positions, Sanders is running openly as a socialist and attacks Obama from the Left. Whether America is a center-right or center-left country, the undisputed truth is that it is a centrist country.

As for Clinton, the likelihood grows by the day that by the general election, her inability to inspire her base will be the least of her problems.

The FBI’s ongoing probe of her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state is devastating her chances of getting elected.

The State Department’s revelation last week that 22 of Clinton’s emails were too classified to be released, even with parts blacked out, makes it impossible to dismiss the prospect that she will be indicted for serious felony offenses. Yet, as Jonah Goldberg argued Wednesday in National Review, with her narrow victory in Iowa, Clinton blocked the opening for a less damaged candidate – like Vice President Joe Biden or former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg – to step into the race.

In other words, the Republican nominee will have an energized base and will face either a legally challenged or openly socialist Democratic opponent.

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, before Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, he asked the FBI for its opinion of the mosque. FBI investigators informed Obama of the mosque’s ties to terrorism. They urged him not to confer it with the legitimacy that comes with a presidential visit.

Obama ignored the FBI’s advice.

The next 11 months will be miserable for Israel.

But we should take heart. By all accounts, next year will be better. And judging by the way the presidential race is shaping up, next year may be a much, much better year.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

OBAMA AT MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-LINKED MOSQUE: “MUSLIM AMERICANS KEEP US SAFE”


And: “Islam has always been part of America.” Really?



February 4, 2016


MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
When Barack Obama visited the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, he said: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.”
While Obama has been President, Muslims have murdered non-Muslims, avowedly in the cause of Islam, at Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino, and attempted to do so in many, many other places. Imagine if armed Baptists screaming “Jesus is Lord” had committed murder, and explained that they were doing so in order to advance Christianity, in four American cities, and had attempted to do so in many others. Imagine that those killers were supporters of a global Christian movement that had repeatedly called for attacks on U.S. civilians and declared its determination to destroy the United States.
Imagine how incongruous it would be in that case for the President of the United States to visit a church and say: “The first thing I want to say is two words that Christian Americans don’t hear often enough: Thank you.” And imagine how unlikely it would be that Barack Obama would ever have done that.
But his visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore was the apotheosis of the Muslim victimhood myth, as he signaled yet again to the world (and worldwide jihadis) that in the U.S., Muslims are victims, victims of unwarranted concern over jihad terror, and thus that concern is likely to lessen even more, as Obama dismantles still more of our counter-terror apparatus.
“We’ve seen children bullied, we’ve seen mosques vandalized,” Obama claimed. “It’s not who we are. We’re one American family. And when any part of our family begins to feel separate or second class, it tears at the heart of our nation” – he said to his gender-segregated Muslim audience, with the women sitting in the back. In reality, Muslims are not victimized in American society: FBI hate crime statistics show that the hysteria over “Islamophobia” is unfounded, but that matters not at all to Barack Obama. At the mosque, he said: “If we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m talking to my fellow Christians who are the majority in this country — we have to understand that an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths.”
Once again Obama felt free to scold and admonish Christians, but said nothing about Muslims in the U.S. needing to clean house and work for real reform that would mitigate jihad terror. And his premise was false: there is no attempt to restrict Muslims’ freedom of religion. Donald Trump hasn’t called for that; nor has Ben Carson or any serious analyst. But the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (a representative of which accompanied Obama to the mosque Wednesday) and other Islamic advocacy groups have consistently charged that counter-terror efforts and attempts to restrict the political, supremacist and authoritarian aspects of Sharia that are at variance with Constitutional principles were tantamount to restricting Muslims’ religious freedom.
Now the President of the United States has endorsed their false narrative, which will only further stigmatize initiatives to understand the jihadis’ ideology and counter it effectively. He further criticized those who dare to suggest that Islam might have something to do with Islamic terrorism by criticizing those who say that the U.S. is at war with Islam: “That kind of mind-set helps our enemies,” he intoned. “It helps our enemies recruit. It makes us all less safe.”
The U.S. certainly isn’t at war with Islam, but segments of the Islamic world are at war with the U.S., and Obama did not explain what might be done to counter the beliefs that have given rise to that idea. He is, of course, against studying the beliefs of the enemy. Yet he said proudly: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Qur’an,” without bothering to mention that they had them in order to understand the ideology of the enemy the new nation faced in the Barbary Pirates. They held, of course, the same ideology he ignores and denies today, the one he ordered all traces of removed from counterterror training.
“Islam,” Obama declared, “has always been part of America.” Really? There were Muslims at Jamestown? In the Massachusetts Bay Colony? At Roanoke? Obama’s statement is so wildly ridiculous that it doesn’t just invite parody; it pleads for it. Remember the Muslims among the Founding Fathers, Yahya al-Adams and Iskandar Hamilton? Remember the Muslims who told James Madison about Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina so that he could lay out the foundations of a republic in the U.S. Constitution? Remember the Muslims who fought so valiantly in the Revolutionary Jihad, and the Jihad of 1812, and the Mexican Jihad, and the Civil War, aka the Jihad Between the Caliphates? Remember all the controversies about whether Muslim soldiers in the Civil War could make sex slaves out of the wives and daughters of Confederate commanders? The jihad suicide attacks that broke the Germans’ will to fight on during World War I?
Burrowing deeper into fantasy, Obama proclaimed: “Generations of Muslim Americans helped to build our nation.” He didn’t mention the real contributions Muslims have made to our nation: you know, like rearranging the New York skyline, transforming government buildings into grim, nervous fortresses, making air travel into exercise in annoyance and humiliation that it is today, and draining the American economy with two futile wars and hundreds of billions spent on security and counterterror initiatives.
In detailing the contributions that Muslims have made to the U.S., Obama said: “Muslim Americans keep up safe. They are our police. They are our fire fighters. They’re in (the Department of) Homeland Security.” And remember: none of them were screened for jihadi sympathies. To have done so would have been “Islamophobic,” and transgressed against the prevailing dogma that Islam is a Religion of Peace that non-Muslims are wrong and bigoted to be concerned about.
The most ominous thing Obama said in this speech full of treacle and humbug was this: “We’re not going to strengthen our leadership around the world by allowing politicians to insult Muslims or pit groups of Americans against each other. That’s not who we are. That’s not keeping America safe.” So what is he going to do? Destroy the First Amendment and disallow politicians to insult Muslims?
Obama decried “phony tough talk and bluster and over-the-top claims.” Yet in the final analysis, that was all he offered.
 Tags: CAIRmosqueObama

Another CTE case, another reason football needs dramatic change


Ian O'ConnorESPN Senior WriterFebruary 3, 2016http://espn.go.com/nfl/
Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler sprints away from lunging Pittsburgh Steelers defensive tackle Steve Furness. (AP Photo)
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Deep down we all wanted to be Kenny Stabler, right? We all wanted to play quarterback with flowing, rock-star hair, studying the playbook by a jukebox's light when we weren't shooting pool and knocking down a cold one with an adoring blonde nearby.
We all wanted to be the Snake, the boys-turned-middle-aged-men of my generation, because he was the ultimate rebel among Oakland Raiders rebels and because he played the sport with the same amount of restraint defining his off-the-field life. That is to say, none.
The game was never going to catch up to the Snake, not after his junior-high coach gave him the nickname for his ability to zig when the bad guys zagged. Despite bum knees and the body of a man who too often called it quits at sunrise, and who once wrote he needed "the diversions of whiskey and women" to survive training camp, Stabler always knew how to escape. Bigger, faster defenders would close hard on him, and the Snake would somehow emerge from a raging pile of humanity and sling it left-handed with hardly a care in the world.
But as it turns out, the game of football ultimately runs down and corners everyone. Stabler might be inducted posthumously into the Hall of Fame on Saturday, and if his legacy makes the journey to Canton, it will do so with the letters CTE attached.
Stabler is the most recent deceased NFL player found to have suffered from the progressive degenerative brain disease known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy. He died of colon cancer in July at age 69, and his family donated his brain and spinal cord to Boston University's CTE Center; Stabler was among the players who had sued the NFL over the occupational hazard that is head trauma.
The results surprised no football player or fan who followed the case of Frank Gifford, or knew of the suicides of Junior Seau and Andre Waters and Dave Duerson, or read about the accidental pain-medication overdose of Tyler Sash, who died with CTE at age 27 despite appearing in only 27 regular-season and postseason NFL games, and never as a starter.
A study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Boston University determined in September that 87 of 91 deceased players tested had CTE. Bennet Omalu, the groundbreaking doctor played by Will Smith in the film "Concussion," estimated that more than 90 percent of all NFL players have CTE.
"The game is not safe," Hall of Fame linebacker Harry Carson said by phone, "and there's no way around it. You only have one brain. If you injure it, you can't get replacement surgery for your brain like you can for your knee or shoulder."
Carson already has informed his daughter and son-in-law that his 6-year-old grandson is not allowed to play football. "My daughter is afraid to go see 'Concussion,'" the former New York Giant said, "because she fears her father might end up like those guys who committed suicide. But I've assured her I've already gone through that period in my life."
Carson was speaking before the Stabler news broke and relaying the story that he practically jumped for joy when his younger son once failed a physical in his attempt to try out for the Auburn football team. There's something terribly wrong when a Hall of Famer celebrates his son's failed bid to play at the major college level and forbids his grandson from even trying to find a little joy on a Pop Warner field.
That's why dramatic change is needed from the lowest participation level on up in order to save football from itself. To reduce the number of blows absorbed by developing brains, a reasonable plan enacted by reasonable guardians would go something like this:
Outlaw tackling through eighth grade coast to coast. (Plenty of boys can have plenty of fun learning the game through the rules of flag football.) Spend freshman year in high school in full pads for practice-only drilling on the fundamentals of blocking and tackling conducted by coaches with proper training. Spend sophomore through senior years in full-contact junior varsity and varsity games and practices, giving players three years to attract interest from college programs if they so desire.
Although he didn't offer his official endorsement of such a plan, Carson did point out that the Sash case should enlighten those focused on the biggest names in the CTE crisis.
"He only played two years in the NFL with the Giants," Carson said, "but he did play 16 years overall. CTE is not an NFL problem. CTE is a football problem."
Still, Roger Goodell's NFL has to do more than throw $1 billion at the thousands of players who have sued over head trauma and deserve a bigger cut. The league has to dedicate even more time, energy and money on helmet technology and player safety, and add to its enhanced concussion protocol a provision that a concussed player must miss at least two full games before returning to action.
Carson's own story explains why. He was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome in 1990 after suffering what he estimates to be 12 to 18 concussions over his 13-year career, and he believes his brain injuries contributed to memory loss, communication issues and a bout with depression that one day -- during the prime of his Giants career -- nearly compelled him to drive his car off New York's Tappan Zee Bridge before thoughts of his daughter stopped Carson from harming himself.
One former teammate with neurological issues called Carson to discuss his darkest thoughts, then sent him a follow-up text thanking the linebacker for saving his life. A fellow Hall of Famer called around Christmastime to say that he'd been diagnosed with a neurological disorder and that he considered Omalu a hero.
Carson also spoke with the son of the legendary defensive back Dick "Night Train" Lane, who died of a heart attack at age 74 in 2002, the same year Omalu began the examination of Mike Webster's brain that led to the discovery of CTE. Richard Lane said by phone Tuesday that he has no doubt his father had CTE in the final years of his life in Austin, where surgeons operated on what was described as fluid on the brain.
"He couldn't bathe or clothe himself," said Richard Lane, a Catholic evangelist and motivational speaker, "and he had a hard time remembering his grandkids' names. I had to take the car keys away from him. I remember getting a call in the middle of the night from the Austin police department that Dad was at a Denny's with no idea of who he was or where he lived.
"He suffered a lot and really lost all of his dignity. We went to the NFL [Alumni] Dire Need Fund; Dad was broke ... and they wouldn't help at all. He only got a $695-a-month pension from the NFL. It really pissed me off beyond belief, and what really gets me worse is that there are still guys out there freakin' suffering, and the NFL is putting a Band-Aid over a gaping wound. My dad sacrificed his life and his family just so he could be Dick "Night Train" Lane, because he loved the game of pro football, and the game screwed us over."
Lane is hardly the only family member of a fallen football star who feels that way, and Carson does what he can to reassure those who feel aggrieved. He speaks loudly on brain-damage issues without any financial incentive; he didn't join the lawsuit against the NFL because he wanted people to know this wasn't a personal money play.
"I know the league wants me to go somewhere, sit down and shut the f--- up about this," Carson said. "But I can't do that."


Although he prefers it when people don't describe him as a sufferer and instead point out he's managed his life with post-concussion syndrome quite nicely, Carson has decided his charmed football career wasn't worth it.
"If I had to do it all over again," he said, "I wouldn't. I would fly planes in the military, my true calling."
Meanwhile, a quarterback who might join Carson in the Hall of Fame this weekend is no longer around to say whether he shared the linebacker's sentiment. Like the star who preceded him at Alabama, Joe Namath, Kenny Stabler was what every man wanted to be -- cool, fearless and elusive when necessary.
The Snake would never let his fellow Raiders see him treating his injuries in the trainer's room. But in the end, the unforgiving game of professional football caught up to him just like it catches up to everyone else. And now that game needs an overhaul from the bottom floor up.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14701874/kenny-stabler-cte-diagnosis-why-football-needs-dramatic-change-nfl

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Political Arrogance


John Stossel
http://townhall.com/
February 3, 2016

Christie in Atlantic City
Gov. Chris Christie (Danny Drake)

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November!
They lead the betting at ElectionBettingOdds.com.
This scares me. Neither candidate shows any interest in limited government. They scoff at anyone who suggests that their grand schemes do more harm than good. But big government does do more harm than good.
I shouldn't single out Rubio or Clinton, or even Donald Trump. Almost everyone running for office today declares himself a "leader" who "gets things done." There's no modesty, little acknowledgement that so much of what government does is costly attempts to fix problems that government created at home and abroad.
In the book "The Fatal Conceit," Frederick Hayek wrote, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
I wish politicians understood that. Chris Christie clearly doesn't.
He wins my vote for worst presidential candidate this week because of what he's doing to New Jersey's taxpayers in the name of "fixing" Atlantic City.
Six years ago, Christie promised to "reform" and "rebuild" Atlantic City "without government money."
Without government money? Good! It sounds as if the governor respects small government principles and would protect taxpayers.
Nope.
Christie had a few options. Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold points out that the governor could have done "nothing and let the free market drive out the weaker casinos, hope that the city government and the big casino corporations would innovate their way out of the problem."
That was the small-government option. There would have been upheaval. Some bills wouldn't get paid in full. But heck, Atlantic City "had been rendered fat and inefficient" by casino taxes. It paid "$1 million a year in pensions for long-retired city lifeguards who only ever worked four months a year," wrote Fahrenthold.
Time to cut fat. Instead, Christie partnered with Democrats to embrace a big-government option.
His advisers wanted to take over the entire city. Christie's concession to limited government was that he took over only half -- mostly the fun part: all 11 casinos.
Christie put them under the oversight of a state agency. He said those bureaucrats would restore Atlantic City and again vowed, "You have my word that it's going to be done without any government money."
Dream on. The agency used eminent domain to grab properties for development. Bureaucrats spent millions on public art projects, like a statue of a nude woman holding a dead deer. Somehow that didn't inspire tourists to rush to Atlantic City.
The state spent on TV ads and came up with a slogan: "Do AC."
It didn't help. Casinos kept going bankrupt, as did a giant unfinished hotel/casino, the Revel. Christie decided that the state should finish it. He got the legislature to promise $261 million in tax incentives and a $2 million grant.
That "no tax money" pledge? Gone. Now taxpayers were "investing." "We are going to make the type of investment," said Christie, "to make sure that we bring this city to a new renaissance."
The renaissance never came.
The Revel opened, lost money and filed for bankruptcy just one year later. It's now a 47-story hulk with 1,000 empty rooms. Its new owner considered naming it the Tower of Geniuses.
That would be a good name for Obamacare, "temporary" farm subsidies, Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" and lots of other boondoggles designed by politicians.
So is Christie apologetic after spending millions of taxpayer dollars on failure? No, of course not. Recently he was asked whether, in hindsight, he would have done anything differently. "Nothing," Christie replied.
Politicians never apologize. They charge forward. Their solution to failed government investment is more government. Last week Christie announced that the state would take over all of Atlantic City, claiming, "Greater state involvement makes sense."
He says the new Atlantic City will "be delivered at an affordable cost to the taxpayers."
Sure. And Mexico will pay for a giant wall, stimulus spending will revive the economy and arming Syrian rebels will bring peace.
The arrogance of the political class is endless.