Andrew McCarthy has some questions for John McCain and Speaker Boehner:
So I was hoping maybe the speaker could explain to us: Hypothetically, if Huma Abedin did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?
Yes, I’d like to see an explanation of that, too. But Huma’s not really the problem — Barack Obama is.
Why does it still exist?
It outlived whatever usefulness it may have ever had decades ago.
Eight ways that black do so. Including Barack Obama.
The outrageous farm bill.
Time to clean up DC, on both sides of the aisle. Just a little over three months until our next opportunity.
The taxpayer loss on GM hits $35B.
Does Obama really want to run on this issue? Romney should make it clear that he didn’t save the auto industry — he saved the UAW. Temporarily.
[Update a while later]
“This isn’t investing. This is welfare.”
The science is settled:
With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.
The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was illegal to carry guns into the theater.
This applied to all nonlaw enforcement personnel, including individuals with concealed handgun permits. In other words, despite more than 4% of the adult population of Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a gunman intent on killing a lot of people could be confident that law-abiding citizens there would be sitting ducks.
Isn’t it funny how no one ever shoots up a gun show?
And yet morons like Mike Bloomberg are willing to break the law in order to disarm us, while he has his own police bodyguard.
[Update a few minutes later]
Bloomberg’s fascist suicide cult. No, I don’t think that’s too harsh a description.
Thoughts on the recently deceased Stalinist, Alexander Cockburn.
More publishing and transparency could go a long way toward cleaning up the climate “science” mess.
Paul Hsieh writes about their idiocy and bias.
Andy McCarthy, on how political correctness has taken over both major parties, to the detriment of our security.
The Obama administration and the Republican establishment would have us live a lie — a lie that endangers our liberties and our security. The lie is this: There is a difference between mainstream Islamic ideology and what they call “violent extremism.”
The vogue term “violent extremism” is chosen very deliberately. To be sure, we’ve always bent over backwards to be politically correct. Until Obama came to power, we used to use terms like “violent jihadism” or “Islamic extremism” in order to make sure everyone knew that we were not condemning all of Islam, that we were distinguishing Muslim terrorists from other Muslims. (In a more sensible time, we did not say “German Nazis” — we said “Germans” or “Nazis” and put the burden on non-Nazi Germans, rather than on ourselves, to separate themselves from the aggressors.) But now, the Obama administration and the Republican establishment prefer to say “violent extremism” because this term has no hint of Islam.
According to the Obama Left and the Republican establishment (personified today by the likes of Sen. John McCain and many, but by no means all, former high-ranking officials from the Bush 43 administration), the only Muslims we need to be concerned about are terrorists, and there is nothing relevant in the fact that they happen to be Muslims. “Violent extremists” are not motivated by a coherent ideology, much less by scriptures from “one of the world’s great religions.” Instead, they are seized by a psychological disorder that inexplicably makes them prone to mass-murder attacks.
The fall-out from this line of thinking is that we must conclude mainstream Islam, everywhere on earth including the Middle East, has nothing to do with violence, and therefore, it is “moderate,” and even “admirable.” Sure, it may be advocating the adoption of something called “sharia,” but we needn’t worry about that. After all, we have Western scholars of Islamic studies (mostly working in university departments created by lavish donations from Saudi royals) who will tell you that sharia is amorphous and evolving — such that nobody really knows exactly what it is, anyway. Consequently, nothing to see here, move along. You are to accept as an article of faith that there is no reason to believe people steeped in mainstream Islam will resist real democracy or that they will remain hostile to the United States. And, yeah, sure they are opposed to Israel, but that is just a “political dispute” about “territory”; it has nothing to do with ideology or mainstream Islam per se.
This reminds me of Jonah’s thesis in his new book of how full of it leftists are when they claim to have no ideology. No, they’re just “pragmatists,” who just want to do “what works.” If we continue to deny that sharia is the goal of our enemies, then we will not fight it, and we will lose. We have to recognize that the “Arab spring” is giving way to a new form of Nazism in the Middle East, except one of Arab supremacy rather than Aryan, but just as totalitarian.