Thursday, September 12, 2013

Waking a Sleeping Giant in Colorado


Democrats knew what they wanted in Colorado, but they overreached. 

September 11, 2013

May 24, 2013: Paradise Firearms owner Paul Paradis holds a flyer depicting Colorado's State Senate President, Democrat John Morse, together with a petition to recall him, right, at his gun shop in Colorado Springs, Colo.AP


Two weeks ago, the Washington Post declared the recall elections of two powerful state senators in Colorado a national “referendum on guns.” Indeed, the defeat of state-senate president John Morse and fellow state senator Angela Giron will cause some Democrats to rethink their push on gun control.

But of course, many Democrats have reacted by shrugging off the results. Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has dismissed the losses as the result of “voter suppression, pure and simple” (orchestrated by the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers, of course). Mark Glaze, executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, predicted that the victory by gun owners would be short-lived at best and that gun-control legislators would take comfort in knowing that his group “will have their back.”

In reality, it is hard not to appreciate what was accomplished. The difficulties facing the recall were overwhelming:

 Both state-senate districts were overwhelmingly Democratic. In 2012, President Obama carried Morse’s district by 21 percentage points and Giron’s by 19 points.

 These were the first recalls of legislators in Colorado history. Nationally, recalls of state legislators, particularly state legislative leaders, has been very difficult. Morse and Giron were only the 37th and 38th state legislators in U.S. history to face recall votes (before this vote, precisely half the efforts had succeeded). Prior to Morse, there had only been four recall elections against legislative leaders, and the legislative leader was retained in three of those four races. Giron was also a powerful senator, serving as vice chairman of the very important, especially for her rural district, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy Committee.

 Not only did getting a recall on the ballot require a number of signatures amounting to 25 percent of all the votes in the previous election, but the Democrats didn’t take even that battle lying down. During the signature-gathering effort, recall proponents were outspent by the groups backed by billionaire Mayor Bloomberg that went in earlier with ads to discourage signature gathering.

 In their last races for the state senate, in 2010, Morse raised $163,972 and Giron $68,710. By the last filing for the recall, on August 29, Morse had raised $658,230 and Giron $825,400. While the NRA had donated $361,700, just two billionaires, Bloomberg and Eli Broad, donated a total of $600,000 between them. Left-wing organizations such as the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org continually bombarded their members with requests for money. Of the $3.5 million spent on the recall election, almost $3 million came from its opponents.

Despite all that, the two Democratic state senators were decisively defeated. Morse’s race was close, with him losing by only two percentage points. But Giron was demolished by twelve points.

The votes weren’t about some abstract idea. As part of its gun-control push this spring, the Obama administration made the extremely unusual move of lobbying Colorado’s governor and its state legislators. If they could show that strict gun control could be passed in a western state such as Colorado, the administration thought, they could get it passed anyplace. The Colorado bills, like the ones in every place from Connecticut to New York to Maryland to California, had one central goal: to reduce gun ownership by making it costly to own guns.

In Colorado, one new law charges people a transfer fee whenever they obtain a gun. Democrats voted down Republican amendments that would have capped the fee and exempted people below the poverty level from paying it. How many other taxes or fees would Democrats refuse to exempt the poor from paying?

Democrats feel that the struggle to reduce gun ownership is important for a simple reason: The issue that most divides conservatives and liberals is not taxes, not abortion, but gun control. Liberals trust government to make decisions, while conservatives tend to trust individuals. Letting people possess weapons is the ultimate form of trust in individuals. Democrats also know that gun ownership and familiarity with firearms go a long way toward determining how people feel about gun control. Democrats may believe that gun control enhances safety, but they also believe that it will weaken Republicans and conservatism in the long run.

It wasn’t just gun-owner groups that cautioned Democrats about these bills. Colorado state senator Lois Tochtrop warned her fellow Democrats by saying, “I feel like all these gun bills have done — to quote the last words in the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! — is to awaken a sleeping giant.”

9/11: America’s unfinished business


By Michelle Malkin
September 11, 2013
The second tower bursts into flames
The second tower bursts into flames (Sara K. Schwittek/Reuters)

we head to Syria to avenge the mass murder of their kids, how about we finish avenging ours?
When I say “finish,” of course I really mean “start.” A dozen years after the 9/11 attacks, the trials against the jihadist plotters who incinerated pregnant women, firefighters, grandparents, newlyweds, toddlers and schoolkids on their first-ever plane rides have yet to begin.
Justice not only has been delayed and denied. Justice has been demoted, disowned and deserted. Justice for the 9/11 victims and families isn’t blindfolded. She’s gagged and hogtied.
The terror-coddling Obama White House squandered precious years trying to shut down Gitmo to appease the peaceniks, transnationalists and Muslim grievance-mongers. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder arrogantly attempted to shove civilian trials of terrorists — which would have been held a stone’s throw from Ground Zero — down New Yorkers’ throats. Ever since, Team Obama has dragged its feet on military tribunals for the al-Qaida crew.
If we’re lucky — that’s a big if — the death penalty war crimes trials for KSM and his co-conspirators may begin in the fall of 2014. Maybe. Thanks to cunning delays, made-for-media theatrics and stomach-turning whining by the Gitmo detainees, the journey to hold the 9/11 plotters accountable has become a vulgar joke.
The last time pretrial hearings were held, defendants used their international platform to complain about bathroom breaks and Navy food, which one accused terrorist equated to “torture.” Despite being supplied with fresh halal meals that comport with their Muslim dietary requirements, one member of KSM’s posse complained that his lunches did not include extra condiments such as olives and honey.
Back at Club Gitmo, other jihadi suspects continue to enjoy taxpayer-subsidized movie nights, art and English classes, and Nintendos and PlayStations. And if the clogged wheels of justice for 9/11 victims weren’t bad enough, don’t forget: In 2009, the Obama administration dropped the charges against 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing suspect, Gitmo detainee and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — and has made no progress on bringing him to justice since reinstating the charges (only under public pressure) in 2011.
How is it that America is poised to use our military — the American people’s, not Obama’s — for a humanitarian intervention that may very well aid and abet the same barbaric forces that brought unprecedented death and destruction to New York City, Shanksville, Pa., and Washington, D.C., just 12 short unavenged years ago?
How is it that we prosecuted 2009 Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan quicker than his bloodthirsty Islamist brethren who orchestrated the 2001 terror plot that killed more than 2,700 innocent men, women and children?
Remember: The Bush administration first brought military charges of conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, hijacking aircraft and terrorism against KSM and his Koran-inspired killing crew in 2008. Obama recklessly aborted those military tribunals in his bleeding-heart social justice bid to provide full U.S. constitutional protections for the foreign soldiers of Allah.
It took the united stand of 9/11 families, veterans, anti-jihad watchdogs and first responders in Manhattan in late 2009 to force Obama and Holder to retreat. They raised their voices to keep 9/11 war crimes trials out of civilian courts, foreign terrorists off of U.S. soil and America from returning to pre-9/11 days when the feds responded to deadly terrorist attacks with arrest warrants. The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition refused to stand on the sidelines while Obama’s soft-on-jihad lawyers moved to grant war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of New Yorkers.
Debra Burlingame, founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America and sister of American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Charles Frank “Chic” Burlingame III (the flight the jihadists crashed into the Pentagon) sounded the alarm and warned the Obama/Holder brigade: “We will fight you all the way.”
That’s the unapologetic vigilance America was supposed to have adopted after the towers fell, the planes crashed and the ashes choked the air. Instead, America’s leaders have allowed jihadists to make a mockery of justice. Muslim Brotherhood radicals waltz freely in and out of the nation’s capital. Border security remains a joke. A functioning entry-exit program for foreign visa-holders is still nonexistent. There still is no systemic, coherent and unapologetic plan to keep Islamic radicals from spreading their hate and endangering Americans in our military, prisons and schools.
I’m sick of 9/11 anniversary ceremonies by politicians who pay lip service to peace and justice for our country, but refuse to secure them all the way, every day. Remembrance is worthless without resolve. Resolve is useless without action.
Want to honor the 9/11 dead? Take care of unfinished business here at home. Put America first.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Myth of Live-and-Let-Live Liberalism


Social liberalism is the foremost impulse for zealous regulation in America. 

Matthew Knopp, owner of Tattoo Paradise, listens to testimony at the hearing. Several tattoo artists told committee members that reputable businesses already adhere to standards incorporated in the regulations being considered. (T.J. Kirkpatrick/The Washington Times)


In Washington, D.C., the city’s department of health wants to subject people seeking a tattoo or body piercing to a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before they can go through with it. That’s just one of the regulations in a 66-page proposal of new rules for the tattoo and piercing industry.

Reasonable people may differ on the wisdom of these proposals, but as someone whose interest in such establishments begins and ends with keeping my daughter away from them, I can’t get too worked up either way, save to say D.C. has bigger problems to worry about.

What did catch my eye was this line from the write-up in the metro section of the Washington Post: “The body art rules are the latest product of a city government that has occasionally struggled to reconcile its socially liberal sensibilities with a zeal for regulation.”

As a conservative resident of Washington, D.C., where registered Republicans are outnumbered by about 9 to 1 and where truly conservative Republicans are outnumbered on a scale comparable to the predicament faced by Frodo and Sam when they sneaked into orc-infested Mordor, I find such statements hilarious.

There is a notion out there that being “socially liberal” means you’re a libertarian at heart, a live-and-let-live sort of person who says “whatever floats your boat” a lot.
Alleged proof for this amusing myth (or pernicious lie; take your pick) comes in the form of liberal support for gay marriage and abortion rights, and opposition to a few things that smack of what some people call “traditional values.”

The evidence disproving this adorable story of live-and-let-live liberalism comes in the form of pretty much everything else liberals say, do, and believe.

Social liberalism is the foremost, predominant, and in many instances sole impulse for zealous regulation in this country, particularly in big cities. I love it when liberals complain about a ridiculous bit of PC nanny-statism coming out of New York, L.A., Chicago, D.C., Seattle, etc. — “What will they do next?”

Uh, sorry to tell you, but you are “they.” Outside of a Law and Order script — or an equally implausible MSNBC diatribe about who ruined Detroit — conservatives have as much influence on big-city liberalism as the Knights of Malta do.

Seriously, who else do people think are behind efforts to ban big sodas or sue hairdressers for charging women more than men? Who harasses little kids for making toy guns out of sticks, Pop Tarts, or their own fingers? Who wants to regulate the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink? Who wants to control your thermostat? Take your guns? Your cigarettes? Heck, your candy cigarettes? Who’s in favor of speech codes on campuses and “hate crime” laws everywhere? Who’s in favor of free speech when it comes to taxpayer-subsidized “art” and pornography (so long as you use a condom, if liberals get their way) but then bang their spoons on their high chairs for strict regulations when it comes to political speech? Who loves meddling, finger-wagging billionaires like Michael Bloomberg when they use state power and taxpayer money to herd, bully, and nudge people but thinks billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shrink government are the root of all tyranny?

At the national level, who bypassed Congress to empower the EPA to regulate the atmosphere? Oh, and who pushed Obamacare on a country that didn’t want it? Who defends bending the entire country — including religious institutions — into a national health-care scheme dedicated to the proposition of live and let live so long as you live the way the Department of Health and Human Services says you should?

Did legislative and bureaucratic gremlins sneak into government buildings at night and pass all of these rules and regulations while the social-liberal free-thinkers were off not judging people and refusing to harsh anybody’s mellow?

Sure, today’s liberalism does carry within it some genetic lineage to the classical liberalism — i.e., libertarianism — of J. S. Mill and John Locke. But genetic ties are overrated. After all, humans share half of our genes with bananas. (Look it up.)

Social liberalism — better understood as progressivism — is a worldview that seeks to use the state to support its preferred values and culture. That isn’t libertarianism. Support for abortion rights does not make you a libertarian; it makes you someone who wants very lax regulations on abortion for ideological reasons. Which is why socially liberal bureaucrats in D.C. want to make you wait 24 hours to get a tattoo of a baby on your arm, but there’s no waiting to have an abortion.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés, now on sale in paperback. You can write to him by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

9/11: Twelve Years Later


Posted By Bruce Bawer On September 11, 2013 @ 12:18 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 3 Comments


9/11 was a moment of utter moral clarity that has been succeeded by twelve years of moral chaos. Twelve years of duplicity, flim-flam, double-dealing, humbug. Twelve years of timorousness, incompetence, impotence.

Thousands of lives have been sacrificed in vain; inconceivable amounts of money have gone to waste. America’s financial security and its international standing have been imperiled. And all for one simple reason: because, from the very beginning, the powers that be, in both political parties, chose to lie about the nature of the enemy we were up against.

In the years before World War II began, Winston Churchill spoke up again and again in the House of Commons about the danger that the Nazis represented. His colleagues responded to his eloquent, passionate warnings with ridicule. He was considered a bore, a nag. Some of his fellow Tories viewed his preoccupation with Hitler as an embarrassment. But he didn’t waver. He knew whereof he spoke, he saw what was coming, and he did what he saw as his duty.
On September 11, 2001, only a couple of hours after the planes struck the World Trade Center, President Bush went on TV and promised the nation that we’d get the “folks” who did this. “Folks”? Would Churchill ever have called the Nazis “folks”? The tone was wrong, right from the start. Tone matters.

In the same TV address, Bush asked everyone to join him in a moment of silence. But it was not a time to bow one’s head in silence. It was a time to be enraged, to speak the facts firmly and clearly, and to plan appropriate retributive action. It was time for a moment of truth.
But nobody wanted to speak the truth.

Three days later, Bush was at the National Cathedral for an “interfaith service of prayer and remembrance” that had been jointly planned by the Cathedral and the White House. An account of the service at the Cathedral’s website recalls that the participants “spoke English, Hebrew, and Arabic” and “stood side by side—Jew, Muslim, Christian.” At the service, the Dean of the Cathedral offered up a prayer to “God of Abraham and Mohammed and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” Muzammil H. Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) said a prayer. “Today,” pronounced Bush, in his comments at the service, “we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called the warm courage of national unity. This is a unity of every faith, and every background.”

And there, in that service, just a few days after 9/11, you can see it all – the seeds of everything that has been so terribly, tragically wrong about the last twelve years. I remember watching Siddiqi pray on TV that day and thinking: “OK, who is this guy?” The Investigative Project on Terrorism has since answered that question at length. Siddiqi’s group, the ISNA, is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and his mosque hosted a lecture by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the man behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In a 2000 speech, Siddiqi said that “America has to learn that because if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.” In 1996, he told followers that “Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.” He’s also praised jihad as “the path” to “honor” and expressed support for the death penalty for gays in Muslim countries.

And yet there he was, in that pulpit, at that service. His presence there was an obscenity; to invite his participation was an act of either utter ignorance or sheer dhimmitude. But it was only the first of many such acts. It was the template for the post-9/11 era, the new American order, during which we were told by everyone, from our president on down, that the 9/11 terrorists had hijacked not only airplanes but their religion as well, which, of course, was a religion of peace. That, we were told, was what Islam means: peace. Those of us who knew better and who dared to say so were vilified as bigots, even as the likes of Saddaqi were celebrated as noble bridge builders.

Before too long, the all-important goal of seeking out and destroying the people who had carried out the 9/11 attacks – and sending a lesson to any others who might be tempted to mount similar operations – morphed into a dubious effort to democratize the Muslim world. For a time, Osama bin Laden himself got lost in the shuffle. In the immediate wake of 9/11, Bush committed the U.S. to capturing him “dead or alive”; just a year later he said offhandedly that getting bin Laden really wasn’t a priority.

Meanwhile much of the political left, driven not by a reasoned critique of the administration’s arguments for war but by a fierce partisan animus that in some cases seemed to border on psychosis, made fools like Cindy Sheehan their spokespeople and equated Bush with Saddam Hussein himself.

The brief interlude of national unity on 9/11 soon became a distant memory. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia University in 2007, the audience of PC students and professors cheered him, a bloodthirsty tyrant – partly to prove that they weren’t Islamophobes, and partly because he was the enemy of their enemy, Bush, and thus, presumably, their friend. Many antiwar groups were little more than fronts for jihadist organizations.

In the name of wartime security, a massive national surveillance apparatus was put in place, and airports were staffed with TSA screeners whose solemn task it was to make sure we weren’t carrying fingernail clippers or overly large tubes of toothpaste. Yet while these clowns were busy patting down wheelchair-bound octogenarians from rural Vermont and babies in diapers, Army officials were issuing commendations to a major at Fort Hood who’d made clear his jihadist sympathies and who, in 2009, ended up slaughtering 13 people in a clear-cut act of Islamic terrorism. Major Hasan explicitly affirmed that he was a jihadist – but his superiors, the media, politicians, and ultimately the judge and lawyers at his trial refused to treat him as one, insisting instead on characterizing his massacre as workplace violence. This sort of Orwellian lie was not the exception but the rule: in 2013, even John McCain was capable of saying, with a straight face, that “Allahu akbar” means “Thank God.”

The antiwar movement was ardent, vehement, cutthroat – and evaporated almost instantly the moment Obama succeeded Bush. (“A lot of people,” Ed Asner said the other day, by way of explaining the disappearance of so many Hollywood celebrities from the antiwar ranks since 2008, “don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.”) Meanwhile, the level of disinformation about Islam intensified. Bush, while seeking to strengthen America’s ties to its allies, had massaged the Muslim world with insipid rhetoric about our shared heritage as “people of faith”; Obama, while kicking our allies in the teeth, spun outrageous fantasies about Islam, transforming, in his famous 2009 Cairo speech, fourteen centuries of primitive brutality into a glittering parade of moral, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual triumphs.

As the years after 9/11 went by, other major acts of jihadist terrorism occurred around the world. Each time, the mantra from on high was the same: these crimes had nothing to do with Islam. Government officials, military leaders, authors, filmmakers, journalists, teachers, professors – all played their part in obscuring the truth about Islam. When the “Arab Spring” came along, only the systematically enforced ignorance about Islam made it possible for so many Americans to respond enthusiastically to the overthrow by religious fanatics of relatively secular, America-friendly regimes.

Most disgraceful of all is the fact that even American servicemen and women were lied to. Many of those who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq thought they were going there to protect good Muslims, who embodied the innate peacefulness of Islam, from bad Muslims, who had betrayed the faith of their fathers by claiming to kill in Allah’s name. These soldiers thought they were going to bring freedom, equality, and secular government to people who truly wanted those things and who would be grateful for them. These soldiers went into harm’s way unaware of the vast gulf between their own Western mental world and the Islamic mental world of the individuals, both “friends” and “enemies,” with whom they’d be dealing. That was the greatest crime of all: keeping the soldiers on the ground in the dark about the true nature of the enemy.

During the Cold War, America was governed by men who’d fought in World War II and who thus knew how fragile freedom is and how serious their task was. American voters, who had also lived through World War II, got it as well. They understood responsibility. Too many Americans today, alas, live in a historyless, present-obsessed fog of peace, privilege, and prosperity. Some of them barely grasp the difference between voting for president and voting for the People’s Choice Awards. And more than a few are driven by a concept of morality that isn’t about making tough decisions in the name of what’s right but is, rather, about doing whatever makes them feel non-racist, non-judgmental, non-prejudiced. It’s all about image – the way they appear to others, and the way they appear to themselves.

9/11 was a day of heroes and of villains, of stark contrasts between good and evil. Yet how quickly the politicians, journalists, and others in positions of power managed to make a muddle of it all. Instead of witnessing a democratization of the Middle East, we experienced a steady Islamization of the West. Instead of seeing freedom bloom in the Islamic world, we saw a rise in Western censorship and self-censorship on the subject of Islam. Some high-profile figures in the West have been put on trial for speaking the truth about Islam, while others have made sophisticated arguments for limiting freedom of expression and for introducing sharia law into Western courts.

When Osama bin Laden finally was taken out in 2011, almost ten years after 9/11 – an event that one might have expected to restore at least some degree of the national unity we experienced that day – it just brought on more fractiousness. Some on the left thought it had been criminal to kill bin Ladin (or, at least, unseemly to celebrate his demise); some on the right complained that Obama had taken too much credit for the Navy SEALs’ work.

The last twelve years have underscored the vital importance of real leadership. It’s impossible not to compare the leaders we have had during these years to Churchill – and impossible not to dream of what might have been. Even now, Americans in positions of authority are still telling lies about Islam. As a result, millions of Americans still don’t understand the meaning of what happened that day. For many of them, a mere ten-minute lesson in the basics would make a huge difference. But they’ve never had that ten-minute lesson. Instead they’ve been inundated with untold thousands of hours of disinformation. It doesn’t just hamper their understanding of 9/11; it renders them incapable of fully comprehending, and intelligently addressing, every new challenge that comes along in the Muslim world, such as the question of whether the U.S. should bomb Syrian government installations – thus effectively allying itself with some of the very people who attacked us on 9/11 – or should, rather, focus its energies on trying to protect what is left of the free West from the ever-spreading toxin of Islamic rage.

It’s one thing to say “never forget.” But unless you have some sense of the strong, deep ideological roots of what happened on 9/11, remembering the horrific images themselves doesn’t, practically speaking, really amount to much. Rarely, if ever, has the truth of Santayana’s sober warning about knowing the past or being condemned to repeat it been so starkly manifest.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/911-twelve-years-later/

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Today's Tune: Van Morrison - Tupelo Honey (Live 1980)

Considerate Racial Predators


Posted By Colin Flaherty On September 10, 2013 @ 12:20 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 4 Comments

Massive Brawl Mob Violence Epidemic: 400 Teens Brawl in Downtown Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina (July 2013)


Before he bashed the 62-year-old Jeffrey Babbitt in the face this week in a New York park, leaving him with permanent brain damage, LaShawn Marten proclaimed: “I hate white people.”
He saved us the trouble of wondering if the attack was “racially motivated.”

Same for Nkosi Thandiwe. Last year in Atlanta, Thandiwe testified he learned to hate white people in college and that is why he killed one white person and hurt a few others.

And if anyone had any doubts about why a car full of five black people drove through the French Quarter just a few days ago assaulting white and gay people, they cleared that up by announcing their intentions with racial and sexual slurs.

But that is not how most racial violence happens.

Most does not come gift wrapped with racial expletives or press releases or Tweets that say “90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.” As was the case in the recent Oklahoma killing of Chris Lane.

Neither do most perpetrators leave behind clues like a senior thesis at Princeton, where they accuse their white classmates of racism.

That’s why a crowd of 50 black people in Norfolk could beat up two reporters last year. And why their editor refused to even report the crime for two weeks. He said he had no evidence it was “racially motivated.”

Let’s give the trolls their due. A single episode of black mob violence in New York, or Atlanta, or New Orleans or Norfolk or Burlington, North Carolina is hardly enough to merit national attention.

But when these episodes of black mob violence continue over and over again; and when they happen exponentially out of proportion; and when many are on videos featuring the bad actors bragging about their exploits; even the brightest star in the MSNBC line-up is hard pressed to answer two questions:

What is going on with this epidemic of black mob violence all over the country? And how can so many editors ignore it?

Not just the racial violence in the Baltimores, Chicagos, Detroits, Phillies, and New Yorks. But also the Peorias, Springfields, Dovers and even Burlingtons of the world.

More and more people in these tiny corners of the world want to know too.

The Greensboro – Burlington area of North Carolina used to be Andy of Mayberry country. Today this area is a center of racial violence — and official denial. As was documented in White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.

In the upcoming new edition, readers can use their smart phones to scan QR codes so they can see the riots on video as they read about them in the book.

Over the last two years, Greensboro has been the site of more than a dozen  episodes of large-scale black mob violence. Some of it on video. It got so bad prior to the Fourth of July this year that the Greensboro city council met in an emergency session to slap a curfew on the downtown area.

In addition to violence earlier this summer, they were afraid of a repeat of last year’s Fourth of July mayhem: 1000 black people rampaged through the streets of Greensboro, beating people up, destroying property, attacking police.  Tear gas and tasers took care of that. Some of it, anyway.

This was hardly the first episode of black mob violence, as the local TV news breathlessly reported in July 2012:
“We’ve uncovered a series — a series! — of mob attacks in the heart downtown Greensboro,” said the anchor for the WFMY news. “All of them planned through the social media. And I know it sounds unlikely but it has happened in Chicago and Philadelphia and Milwaukee and now right here in the Triad. Every single weekend this month.
Some might think it strange that hundreds of black people were storming through the busiest part of  a usually quiet city, creating epic levels of violence and mayhem, and it took the local news more than a month to notice.

Even then, never once reporting the race of the culprits: There were no printed signs. No epithets. No racist tweets. So it never happened.

At least one city council member acknowledged it in a back hand way: She said she hated to play the race card, but she had to point out the curfew would disproportionately affect black people.

Despite the curfew, the black mob violence in Greensboro continued with at least two major episodes after the curfew was imposed. Including one episode just a few blocks outside of the Maginot Line-like curfew zone.



Now quiet Burlington is trying to catch up.

In July, a mob of at least eight black people beat and robbed a man on a Saturday afternoon. Police soon arrested one person and are looking for the others.

The injuries may not have been “life threatening” as local police say, but to the victims, violent crime is life changing.

“If you look at the news accounts of this case of black on white violence, the police and press tell us this was not a major crime,” said Taleeb Starkes, author of The Uncivil War. “There was not much money involved. The victim lived. But one of the reasons these crimes happen so much is that we take them so lightly. This kind of violent crime is life changing and traumatic to the victim. If they lose a little money and no one gets hurt, its no harm, no foul. These predators are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such.”

Just two days before this robbery and beat down, a group of at least five black people broke into a Burlington home and assaulted several people.
“The victims described the intruders as five black males wearing black clothing; each had his face covered and was armed with a handgun.
According to police, several victims were physically assaulted with blunt force, and one was transported by Alamance County EMS to Alamance Regional Medical Center with injuries that weren’t considered life threatening.”
“Just another day,” said Starkes. “If you believe the city officials and the press.”

More and more do not.

“It’s not going to stop,” said reader David Troutman to the Times News in Burlington. “Are we another Detroit in the making?”

“Once again the culture of violence continues,” added Chuck Spring.

But for every commentator like Chuck Spring looking for answers, someone like Becky Thompson is willing to provide them: Conservatives are to blame for the racial injustice that has created the tsunami of black mob violence around the country.
“Chuck Spring and once again, you could help by paying living wages and start voting for jobs instead of voting against the people that need jobs by voting tea party. Obama has had a jobs bill since I believe it was 2011 but the republicans and the tea party are not interested.”
This home invasion was not too different from a robbery and break-in last July. A gang of black men robbed and assaulted a 79-year Burlington woman. Several of the men were eventually arrested and the victim said she would pray for them. She said she was thankful the men did not kill her.

Her Burlington neighbors were not quite as forgiving: “It took 7 of them to rob a 79-year-old woman,” said one reader to the local Fox affiliate. “Shame, they’ll probably get a slap on the wrist…’My boy a good boy. He ain’t do nothin’.”

And where media outlets permit comments on racially charged crimes like this — some do, some do not — self-defense is a popular them. “Break-in on me?” asked a reader. “As soon as the pistol is in my hands you had better be out of my range.”

But no matter how bad the crime, no matter how often leniency and clemency and more programs are tried and found wanting, some insist we have to continue. Danielle Smith posted her reply to the “get tough” crowd at the Fox News outlet:
You seem to have little faith not only in our justice system but in humanity as a whole. Perhaps these criminals aren’t the only ones to blame (though they ARE very much in the wrong and SHOULD be punished), but who is there to help them stop? Who will take the time to help rehabilitate?
Some version of this question has been asked over and over for 50 years. With still no answer.

More and more people are turning for answers to LaShawn and Nkosi, whom we may condemn for racial violence, but applaud for their illuminating and unflinching honesty.


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/colin-flaherty/considerate-racial-predators/

Monday, September 09, 2013

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure


The president may look incompetent on Syria. But his behavior fits his strategy to weaken America abroad.


By Norman Podhoretz
September 9, 2013
It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.
For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all.
Getty Images
President Obama on Friday at the G-20 economic summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, "Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States."
Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it.
The key to understanding what Mr. Obama has pulled off is the astonishing statement he made in the week before being elected president: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." To those of us who took this declaration seriously, it meant that Mr. Obama really was the left-wing radical he seemed to be, given his associations with the likes of the anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, not to mention the intellectual influence over him of Saul Alinsky, the original "community organizer."
So far as domestic affairs were concerned, it soon became clear—even to some of those who had persuaded themselves that Mr. Obama was a moderate and a pragmatist—that the fundamental transformation he had in mind was to turn this country into as close a replica of the social-democratic countries of Europe as the constraints of our political system allowed.
Since he had enough support for the policies that this objective entailed, those constraints were fairly loose, and so he only needed a minimum of rhetorical deception in pursuing it. All it took was to deny he was doing what he was doing by frequently singing the praises of the free-enterprise system he was assiduously working to undermine, by avoiding the word "socialism," by invoking "fairness" as an overriding ideal and by playing on resentment of the "rich."
But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country's power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic "isolationist" label abroad.
This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of "engagement." At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with "leading from behind" or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.
The consequent erosion of American power was going very nicely when the unfortunately named Arab Spring presented the president with several juicy opportunities to speed up the process. First in Egypt, his incoherent moves resulted in a complete loss of American influence, and now, thanks to his handling of the Syrian crisis, he is bringing about a greater diminution of American power than he probably envisaged even in his wildest radical dreams.
For this fulfillment of his dearest political wishes, Mr. Obama is evidently willing to pay the price of a sullied reputation. In that sense, he is by his own lights sacrificing himself for what he imagines is the good of the nation of which he is the president, and also to the benefit of the world, of which he loves proclaiming himself a citizen.
The problem for Mr. Obama is that at least since the end of World War II, Americans have taken pride in being No. 1. Unless the American people have been as fundamentally transformed as their country is quickly becoming, America's decline will not sit well. With more than three years in office to go, will Mr. Obama be willing and able to endure the continuing erosion of his popularity that will almost certainly come with the erosion of the country's power and influence?
No doubt he will either deny that anything has gone wrong, or failing that, he will resort to his favorite tactic of blaming others—Congress or the Republicans or Rush Limbaugh. But what is also almost certain is that he will refuse to change course and do the things that will be necessary to restore U.S. power and influence.
And so we can only pray that the hole he will go on digging will not be too deep for his successor to pull us out, as Ronald Reagan managed to do when he followed a president into the White House whom Mr. Obama so uncannily resembles.
Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960-95. His most recent book is "Why Are Jews Liberals?" (Doubleday, 2009).

A version of this article appeared September 9, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama's Successful Foreign Failure.

The Very Sad Childfree Life


September 9, 2013


Time Magazine's recent cover story "the Childfree Life" has generated a good deal of controversy and commentary. The photo that graces the cover of the edition pretty much sums up the argument: a young, fit couple lounge languidly on a beach and gaze up at the camera with blissful smiles -- and no child anywhere in sight.
What the editors want us to accept is that this scenario is not just increasingly a fact in our country, but that it is morally acceptable as well, a lifestyle choice that some people legitimately make. Whereas in one phase of the feminist movement, "having it all" meant that a woman should be able to both pursue a career and raise a family, now it apparently means a relationship and a career without the crushing encumbrance of annoying, expensive, and demanding children.
There is no question that childlessness is on the rise in the United States. Our birthrate is the lowest in recorded history, surpassing even the crash in reproduction that followed the economic crash of the 1930's. We have not yet reached the drastic levels found in Europe (in Italy, for example, one in four women never give birth), but childlessness has risen in our country across all ethnic and racial groups, even those that have traditionally put a particular premium on large families.
What is behind this phenomenon? The article's author spoke to a variety of women who had decided not to have children and found a number of different reasons for their decision. Some said that they simply never experienced the desire for children; others said that their careers were so satisfying to them that they couldn't imagine taking on the responsibility of raising children; still others argued that in an era when bringing up a child costs upward of $250,000, they simply couldn't afford to have even one baby; and the comedian Margaret Cho admitted, bluntly enough, "Babies scare me more than anything." A researcher at the London School of Economics weighed in to say that there is a tight correlation between intelligence and childlessness: the smarter you are, it appears, the less likely you are to have children!
In accord with the tenor of our time, those who have opted out of the children game paint themselves, of course, as victims. They are persecuted, they say, by a culture that remains relentlessly baby-obsessed and, in the words of one of the interviewees, "oppressively family-centric." Patricia O'Laughlin, a Los Angeles-based psychotherapist, specializes in helping women cope with the crushing expectations of a society that expects them to reproduce. As an act of resistance, many childless couples have banded together for mutual support. One such group in Nashville comes together for activities such as "zip-lining, canoeing, and a monthly dinner the foodie couple in the group organizes." One of their members, Andrea Reynolds, was quoted as saying, "We can do anything we want, so why wouldn't we?"
What particularly struck me in this article was that none of the people interviewed ever moved outside of the ambit of his or her private desire. Some people, it seems, are into children, and others aren't, just as some people like baseball and others prefer football. No childless couple would insist that every couple remain childless, and they would expect the same tolerance to be accorded to them from the other side. But never, in these discussions, was reference made to values that present themselves in their sheer objectivity to the subject, values that make a demand on freedom. Rather, the individual will was consistently construed as sovereign and self-disposing.
And this represents a sea change in cultural orientation. Up until very recent times, the decision whether or not to have children would never have been simply "up to the individual." Rather, the individual choice would have been situated in the context of a whole series of values that properly condition and shape the will: family, neighborhood, society, culture, the human race, nature, and ultimately, God. We can see this so clearly in the initiation rituals of primal peoples and in the formation of young people in practically every culture on the planet until the modern period. Having children was about carrying on the family name and tradition; it was about contributing to the strength and integrity of one's society; it was about perpetuating the great adventure of the human race; it was a participation in the dynamisms of nature itself. And finally, it was about cooperating with God's desire that life flourish: "And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it" (Gen. 9:7).
None of this is meant to be crushing to the will, but liberating. When these great values present themselves to our freedom, we are drawn out beyond ourselves and integrated into great realities that expand us and make us more alive.
It is finally with relief and a burst of joy that we realize that our lives are not about us. Traditionally, having children was one of the primary means by which this shift in consciousness took place. That increasingly this liberation is forestalled and that people are finding themselves locked in the cold space of what they sovereignly choose, I find rather sad.
Father Robert Barron is the founder of the global ministry, Word on Fire, and the Rector/President of Mundelein Seminary.

Book: Clinton's State told Benghazi was a 'terrorist attack' minutes after it began


September 3, 2013
Just minutes after 35 jihadists crashed through the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, nearly one year ago, the facility got word to the State Department, FBI and Pentagon that terrorists were attacking, according to a forthcoming book that provides the fullest review of the assault to date.
In “Under Fire, the Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi,” it is revealed that an unidentified security official in the Benghazi compound protecting Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens messaged the U.S. embassy in Tripoli: “Benghazi under fire, terrorist attack.” Stevens and three others died that night.
Twenty-five minutes after it began, the operation center at State received an electronic cable announcing the attack, according to authors Fred Burton, a former State Diplomatic Security agent and Samuel Katz, an author and expert on international special operations and counterterrorism.
Their findings in "Under Fire," based on exclusive interviews of those in the battle, refute days of claims by the administration that the attack was sparked by Muslim anger at a U.S.-made anti-Muslim film, and raise new questions as President Obama eyes military action in Syria that U.S. diplomatic posts in the region are properly protected.
The authors note that at the time of the attack in Benghazi there were riots against U.S. embassies in Cairo, Tunis and elsewhere related to the film, “Innocence of Muslims.” That could have been the cause of initial confusion about the attackers, but the eyewitness accounts by State and CIA agents in the battle — backed by live video feeds from drones — should have erased any doubt.
“Benghazi was a malignant symptom,” they wrote, “of a weakened and crippled al Qaeda seeking new battlefields.” They added that the September 11, 2012 attack, exactly 11 years after after al Qaeda’s assault on America, was “to be an opening salvo of a new jihad on the African continent.”
Also revealed for the first time: On her last day as secretary of State, Hillary Clinton summoned four of the five Diplomatic Security agents involved in the Benghazi attack to present them with State’s “Award for Heroism.”
Under Fire, while an unbiased timeline about the heroism of the Diplomatic Security agents, is sure to stoke more criticism of the administration’s handling of the politically-embarrassing attack. It provides a wealth of information that paints a night-long war at the poorly secured consulate and CIA annex that could not be mistaken for anything but a planned terrorist attack by men in vehicles displaying “the black flag of the jihad” and armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers.
It gives details of what drones controlled far from Benghazi flown over the two installations saw — armed attackers, not movie protesters. Sources told Katz and Burton that Images of mortar fire from a Predator drone left operators that night believing that the attackers were “Libyan military veterans of veterans of the jihadist campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen or Derna.”
It also gives the harrowing story of the firefight faced by those who escaped the compound and the two terrorist attacks that night on the CIA’s annex in Benghazi a mile from the diplomatic compound. “Their advance and assault were methodical,” the authors wrote of the terrorists.
The book reveals that none of America’s allies in the city provided any help. Many in the neighborhood watched the U.S. facility burn, some filming it on their cellular phones. Italy’s top diplomat “allegedly watched the attack unfold from his vantage point, a reserved table at the Venezia Cafe.”
It concludes: “So much about the night just didn’t make sense, but one question everyone was asking was, ‘Where were the good guys?’ Two and a half hours of war had been waged in the city of Benghazi and everyone in the know — and many who weren’t — were aware that the U.S. presence in the city was under full-scale attack. There were no cavalry charge of men in white hats eager to save the day and rescue the besieged American positions. None of the militias — not even the one on the State Department payroll — had mobilized their forces to mount a large-scale and deterring show of force.”
Paul Bedard, The Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted atpbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

Sunday, September 08, 2013

TIFF 2013: 'Enough Said' a bittersweet goodbye to James Gandolfini


September 7, 20133:29 p.m.


TORONTO -- It was a bittersweet first screening of Nicole Holofcener's "Enough Said" this afternoon at the Toronto International Film Festival. The writer/director's new relationship film, a fine one, stars James Gandolfini in his final turn, a fine one too.
In introducing the cast at the elegant old Elgin Theatre, and one of the film festival's main venues, Holofcener closed with just a line to note that the most beautiful of them wasn’t with us. Like her scripts, the understatement was perfect. The applause that met it was heartfelt.
The film has a great cast that includes Toni Collette, Catherine Keener, Ben Falcone and is wonderfully anchored by a whimsical Julia Louis-Dreyfus. As Eva, a divorcee, she finds herself having a second go at love with Gandolfini’s Albert. Complications arise when she finds out he’s the awful ex her new friend and client, played by Keener, keeps talking about.
Though Holofcener has written a comedy, a sad irony can be found lingering around the edges. "Enough Said" is ultimately a movie about second chances and making your own happy ending. So it's hard not to wish that Gandolfini's real story paralleled the film's.
I know they are actors, and they are not the roles they play, but it’s impossible not to see a lot of Gandolfini in Albert. He's a guy who worries about his weight, but loves food too much to do anything about it. He’s a big bear of a guy, who can be easily wounded. He's a bit of a romantic who loves deeply. He is a guy you would like to spend time with.
Gandolfini gives Albert such extraordinary sweetness and tenderness that if you don't already love his acting, “Enough Said” just might win you over.  I already did, so for me the performance was another chance to savor his singular talent.
When the film ends, a simple black and white title card follows. It reads: For Jim.  Enough said.
ALSO: