Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Yes, folks, there’s blood in the water, the sharks are circling, and there’s talk of IMPEACHMENT! Don’t ya know. High crimes and misdemeanors. All manner of gross malfeasance and treasonous machinations. A threat to our very Republic he is. So. Let’s take a look at: The Case Against Trump.

1) Trump Said Mean Things About Obama

According to PoliticsUSA, Pres. Trump may have committed an impeachable offense by claiming that Obama wire-tapped him. Apparently this violates some legal precept not actually named in the article, but clearly, making a “false” claim about a previous President is the next best thing to selling secrets to Wikileaks. Except…

As it turns out, Pres Obama didn’t have to order the surveillance of Donald Trump and his election team, because he knew it was already ongoing. So, as President, all the honorable Mr. Obama had to do was request the intercepts of illegal NSA spying on American citizens, and get anything that had “Trump” meta-tagged on it. So, yes, while technically correct that then Pres. Obama did not “order the wire-tapping” of the Trump transition team, it’s a simple, demonstrable fact that he acquired surveillance information on them. So, yes, please, let’s talk about the impeachability of impugning the reputation of a former President, while completely ignoring the fact that the NSA, operating under the Obama administration, conducted illegal surveillance on US citizens, and then “unmasked” said citizens names in violation of both precedent and federal law. NONE of which, but the way, was related to Russia.

Impeachment Score: Weeeeak.

2) Chinese Trademark Keffuffle

And again, our friends from across the pond, with their keen and insightful grasp of US Constitutional law, insist that, after a 10-year legal battle, the Chinese finally granting a contentious trademark decision to Trump, Inc. within days of Trump becoming President is impeachable. Like, totally, dude. As a side note, this same article suggests that being mean to the media is an impeachable offense because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or something. You know what, I’m not even going to talk about this ridiculous smear of yellow journalism anymore. Ptooie.

A slightly more credible source (no, seriously, read this article, it’s incredibly informative and well-balanced) highlights the fact that the this potential conflict of interest could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause which, “prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.(Wikipedia)”  HOWEVER!

This arguably deals with the practice of naming an US government official as an officer, noble, or other binding title to a foreign nation, thus engendering a conflicting loyalty or claim to a foreign power. The question then becomes, is the granting of a trademark equivalent to the awarding of a Duchy? Or perhaps more germane, was the granting of this trademark intended as a “gift” to the President? Was it intended as a bribe to curry favor? In order to make this an impeachable offense, one would, I suggest, have to provide compelling evidence of both the former and the latter. Neither of which has, to date, been presented.

The other question I would propose, in my role as a woefully uneducated layman, is what would Pres. Trump’s detractors have him do in this situation? Trump Enterprises is an ongoing concern. Management of this enterprise has been transferred to his son. Is it the expectation that if a business man becomes President for four years, he must divest himself of all business-related holdings acquired over a lifetime? Should Pres. Trump have rejected the Chinese government’s approval of the trademark after a ten year legal fight? How do you “not accept” a trademark decision like this in your favor? The simple reality is that while there may be a suggestion of impropriety here, it may also be completely circumstantial. If there was a compelling case to be made, would it not have already BEEN made? More importantly, can it be proven that Donald J. Trump used the influence of his Office to influence the Chinese in order to secure these trademarks? If so, such evidence has yet to surface. The fact that Trump turned right around and played nice with Taiwan thereby stretching and bending China’s long-standing “One China” policy suggests otherwise.

Impeachment Score: Really Weak.

3) President Trump’s “Travel Ban” Was Unconstitutional. Or something.

So, to state the painfully obvious, let’s at least get the terms and conditions straight here. It was not a Muslim ban. It was not a travel ban. It was 120-day moratorium on travel (Click it. No, really. Have you actually read the thing? Didn’t think so.) from seven specific countries that bleed jihadists like a hemophiliac Imam. So, to review: Ban = permanent, i.e. – a revocation. Moratorium = temporary, i.e. – a suspension. Any questions? No? Good.

Just a taste:

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”(emphasis mine)

But wait. TRUMP MYSOGONIST RACIST HOMOPHOBE GURGLE CHOKE FROTH!! Right?!  Ooooops.

The chest beaters on this one imply that it was either, a) a violation of the First Amendment, to whit, the free exercise of religion (yes, it hurts my brain, too), or b) Pres. Trump “exceeded his Constitutional Authority (yes, it’s those UK Constitutional scholars again).  Well, for starters, the travel moratorium did not identify a specific religion. Because the restriction dealt with predominantly Muslim countries, it was heralded as a “Muslim Ban!11!!11!” Except that, there are upwards of 50 Muslim-majority countries, and this travel restriction deals with only…seven.

Immigration and travel restrictions are nothing new. And while it can certain be argued that Pres. Trump blocking existing green card holders was both ill-considered and incredibly poorly implemented, is it really outside the power of the President? Is it really a violation of the President’s Constitutional authority? No. While potentially distasteful, it is not illegal.

Newsflash folks: As a sovereign nation, we get to decide who can come in.

Impeachment Score: I can’t even.

4) Comey Over.

And, of course, mean ol’ D.J. fired FBI Director Comey right before he was ready to drop the hammer on the Trump administration with a full-blown investigation into collusion with Russian meddling in the election. So, let ring forth the calls for a Special Prosecutor to…uh…uh…find out some stuff!

The move to fire the sitting FBI Director during a contentious period where investigations into the Trump-Russia connection were actually underway, but had revealed no actual evidence of collusion, is seen as a “Constitutional crisis.” Except, (insert money quote):

But neither thinks that the Comey firing counts, since there’s absolutely no dispute over Trump’s legal authority to remove Comey from his position. “This is not (yet) a constitutional crisis, since there’s no doubt about his authority to fire Comey,” Levinson told Politico.

Oops. Would appear not to be impeachable. Damnit.

But wait! That paragon of objective journalism (trigger warning) Think Progress, lets us know that it can be both legal AND impeachable! Somehow.

“Constitutional law experts say that while President Donald Trump’s decision to fire Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey was legal, it appears to be an abuse of power that could constitute an impeachable offense.”

The problem I have with this approach is two-fold. One, Pres. Trump did not disband the FBI. He did not place a gag-order or any other restrictions on agents within the FBI from conducting or continuing any investigation into any potential “Russian Connection©.” Moreover, less than a year ago the same Democrats who are now calling for Trump’s head over Comey’s firing, were calling for Comey’s head over his release of Hillary Clinton emails just prior to election day. So, Director Comey effectively outed himself as both partisan and politicized. Despite his arguable competence, he had lost the confidence of those both within and without his organization as to his objectivity. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a Very Bad Thing when it comes to the top law enforcement official in the land.

And, oh by the way, President William Jefferson Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions in 1993 for what he felt to be “ethical lapses” in his conduct. So this is not “unprecedented.” Strangely, there were no cries for impeachment then.

All that said, the FBI Director is a political appointee, and serves, “at the pleasure of the President.” So, despite the long-standing precedent that the Director serves his 10-year terms, the President, legally, doesn’t need a reason at all to fire him.

Impeachment Score: Close, but no cigar.

In Conclusion:

Every bit of research  I made into this post was rife with hypotheticals and technicalities. A lot of “mights” and “coulds” and “feasiblies.” I searched news sites, blogs, academic analyses, wikis and archives. The simple fact is this: as much as you may want it to be true, as much as you NEED it to be true, President Donald J. Trump, however morally corrupt or bankrupt you find him, however distasteful you find his policies and politics, however much you long to see him strung up from the yardarm or boiled in oil, simply hasn’t done anything (yet) that’s truly impeachable. He’s walking a fine line, and we can only wonder what tomorrow will bring, but from what I can so, so far it’s a lot of reaching and innuendo without any prosecutable evidence.

Buy hey, keep trying. Never know, you might get lucky yet.

Advertisements

Remember, back in the day, when a foreign country said that they were going to track down and try to kill an American citizen on American soil, we’d all sort of band together regardless of what we thought of that particular individual, link arms, rack back the charging handle and say, with a firm, quiet conviction, “Just try it, asshole.  Go ahead.  Make my day.”

Yeah, good times.  Good times.

Nowadays, it seems, the preferred course of action is to give thoughtful, pensive consideration to the frothing, manical ravings of sword-waving camel humpers, apologize for offending their unwashed sensibilities, and subsequently reformulate and tune our foreign policy to ensure that the Champions of Sharia have more say about how we live our lives that our own laws and Constitution do.

Whodathunkit?

So, apparently, under the Obama Administration, it’s more important to placate xenophobic islamicist temper tantrums than the defend one of the foundational tenets of our political system and way of life known as “free speech.”

Can we impeach him NOW?!?!

Is it just me, or does the political rhetoric and milquetoast responses we seem to be getting out of the current administration in response to current events unfolding in the Middle East seem almost like the responses of a battered spouse?  An angry mob storms our embassy and desecrates our flag, and our embassador apologizes?

I can’t help but picture some drunk, ill-bred mouth breather in a sweat stained t-shirt who rolls in after a particularly bad bender and just lays into his poor wife, beating her and throwing her around.  “WHY do you MAKE me DO this?!” he screams, with blow after blow.  “You JUST. DON’T. LISTEN!!!!”

She cowers in a corner, covering her face, and sobs out, “I know, I know.  I’m sorry. It’s my fault.  I’ll try harder. I promise!  Just…please…don’t hit me again.”

Time and again radical islamic terrorists attack our people, our facilities, our country’s honor, and “we” opt for a “measured response.”  We don’t want to make them angry.  We strike a conciliatory tone, hoping to “defuse” the tension and forestall another confrontation.

Which only ensures that there WILL be another confrontation, because, really, what’s to stop them? Time and again we prove that we won’t fight back, that we won’t respond with the kind of overwhelming, crushing force which would actually serve as a deterrent.

In other words, we act like a victim.  Hoping to placate our attackers so they won’t hurt us.  Or at least, won’t hurt us as often, maybe.  Or, you know, as bad.  If we just make sure to say the right things, to do the right things, to make sure we make his dinner just like he likes it, and don’t dare talk to him during his football game, because we know how angry he gets when we forget our place.

Me, on the other hand, I’m thinking it’s time for a little “Burning Bed” action instead.

The always engaging Sobek has a brilliant post up over at Innocent Bystanders that pretty much says it all.  Highly recommended reading!

In betwixt and between all the impassioned outcrys both from within and without Iran regarding their most recent “election,” I find that all the intensity and furor suddenly begs the question:

Why all of a sudden do we see such a fervor from the voting public in Iran?

More importantly, why are we HEARING about it, from within what has traditionally been a country with a very tight hold on not only its media, but its people?

My personal opinion is that this is the result of the very kind of “domino theory” that Iran and the other countries of the Middle East feared would result from a successful Iraq.

There was more at stake than meets the eye for Iran, Syria, Jordan, and yes, even our “ally” Saudi Arabia.  There was a reason that a large (disproportionately so) number of the “insurgents’ we were capturing or killing in Iraq were from these countries.   They saw very clearly the threat posed in the Middle East by a stable, US-friendly democracy.  And it wasn’t because of the oil.

As Pres. Bush and his advisors correctly surmised, in the context of the “Long War” perhaps the best way to defeat the violence of militant Islamic extremists — despite the hardships we might face in the relative short term — was to establish a country where freedom, not fear, ruled the day.  To show that the “Great Experiment” could even work within the context of Islam. (more…)

Terror Group Leader Takes Control of Somalia- Obama Approves

Ask Britain how trying appeasement worked out with Hitler.  Ask the Israelis how appeasement worked out with Hamas, or the Syrians.  Ask the Marines how appeasement worked out in the initial stages of Fallujah.

All appeasement does is give your enemies more time to arm and equip.  Giving the Shariaists of the world what they want only emboldens them to demand more.   Trying to make friends with militant Islamicists does two things:  1) Convinces them that you are an idiot, and 2) Proves them right.

There can be no “dialogue” with these people.  They are not interested in rational discourse.  The are interested only in subjugation, the rule of Sharia, and the expansion of Islam to every corner of the globe, through influence, coercion, deceipt, or force of arms.

And if you haven’t figured this out, you ain’t been listening.  To them.  To their own rhetoric. 

I simply do not understand people who can listen to the fervent, frothing intensity of these virulent, caustic leaders of Islam who freely and unabashedly state that they want nothing less than the deaths of those who refuse to follow Islam, the destruction of countries who refuse to bow to their demands…people who then turn around and propose with naivete’ and incredulity, “Well, they can’t really MEAN that.  It’s just because they don’t understand us.  If we try really hard to be friends, to make nice, well, I’m sure we can make them see the light.”

Folks, the only light that will help Islamic fasicsts “understand” the realities of a 21st century world is the flash just before the boom.  Remember, these are people who profess to hate technology so much that they refuse to develop any themselves…and yet have no compunctions about selling heroin to buy weapons technology from countries they one day hope to destroy.

These….THESE are the people with whom Pres. Obama want’s to “open a dialogue?!”   In this uncertain day and age, with the influence of a barabaric and reactionary islamic fundamentalism gaining increasing sway throughout large swaths of Europe, Asia, the pacific rim, and even the United States, the willful ignorance, the deluded naivete, and the misguided idealism of the current administration towards the threats we, as a country, face from our enemies, gives Barack Obama the potential to be the single most damaging President this country has endured in our history.

Between his fiscal irresponsiblity, his rampant expansion of government powers, his embracing of bellicose antagonists as “respected” world leaders, and his fumbling inability to appoint a cabinet not plagued by controversy and scandal, one has to wonder what else is in store for us?

Hope and Change, eh?

UPDATE:

Ooooh.  Looky Looky.  Geert Wilders agrees with me.  I must be, like, famous our smart or something.

I’m sorry, but if you have a burning molotav cocktail in your hand, arm cocked back to throw, you have lost your status as “peaceful protestor” or even “activist” and moved right up into “combatant.”  And I will shoot you dead’r-n-shit.  Twice.

If you charge at me, bandana over your face, screaming unintelligible gibberish about allah akbar and his cousins fatwah and jihad, all the while swinging a club, baseball bat, or tire iron, I will assume that you intend me grievous bodily harm, and will respond accordingly.   In the form of shooting you dead’r-n-shit.

Perhaps someone ought to pass these ideas and concepts along to the many police forces currently getting their collective asses kicked, or at least, being complete marginalized and utterly mocked as rioters run rampant through the streets smashing, looting and burning.  You know, all those tradtionally “peaceful” ways to express your angst.

They are not protestors. They are terrorists and violent thugs, and should be dealt with accordingly.

In a related corollary:  Name me ONE time that Hamas has EVER honored a cease-fire for longer than a week?  Yeah.

Ya know, I was all set to pen some snarky post about how people just need to get over themselves, highlighting all the manner of mental flatulence surrounding peoples’ bizarre and over-compensating back-bending with regards to political correctness and not “offending” anyone with the grim specter of a baby in a manger.

But then I figured, screw it.  Screw them.  They aren’t worth the trouble.

If you are so insecure in your personal beliefs or religious convictions that the sight of someone else celebrating their faith traditions is just THAT unsettling, then you’ve got a lot bigger problems than just being “offended.”  I’m sure extensive counseling and perhaps an aggressive course of psychotropic medication could be helpful in dealing with your “issuses.”

See, me, I don’t understand how the sight of cross around a neck is something to be avoided as being potentially “offensive,” but the sight of a traditional head scarf or a penitent on a prayer rug facing Mecca is just something I’m supposed to embrace as diversity.  Why I can celebrate Earth day in honor of defending Mother Gaia, but a jolly man in a red suit and a bunch of reindeer is of such deep concern because of the clear religious “undertones.”  Heaven forbid we have “undertones.”

Ah heck.  Here I’ve gone and done it.  That snarky post I was trying to avoid.

I just have a hard time taking seriously some twittering, hand-wringing Prog busy-body with nothing better to do with her time than worry about who might be offended by the idea of a Savior sent to earth by a loving God. 

Perhaps it is the overall disregard with which this crowd holds babies in the first place.  I’m sorry, I meant to say “unwanted fetus” there.  Of course, we have to realize that these are people that bring their kids to a pro-abortion rally.  Wrap your head around that one.

Because, you see, I really do understand.  I understand that this is not about preserving anything, it’s not about protecting anyone’s china-glass sensitivies or tender wittle feelings.  It can’t be.  It’s simply too preposterous to lend any credence whatsoever to the idea that someone is “offended” by Christmas. 

I’m offended by human sacrifice, genital mutilation, gassing the Kurds, grown men having sex with pre-teen boys, mass graves, car bombings, biological weapons, concentration camps, dumbass rioters burning cars, human trafficking, child prostitution, drug dealers and gang bangers.

I am NOT, however, offended by Christmas.  I’m not offended by Kwanza; amused perhaps, but certainly not offended.  I am not “offended” by Hanukkah or Eid al-Adha or Ramadan. 

To me, this isn’t about preserving anyone’s views…it’s about quietly, inexorably silencing one.

Let’s keep this in perspective, shall we folks?  And to help you all keep it in perspective, I’m going to engage in a little civil disobedience.  I’m going to wish you a Merry Christmas, and if you get all frothed up and offended, well, I’m just going to let that be your problem, not mine.  I’m going to wear my cross over the top of my green and red Christmas sweater when I go shopping at the “Holiday” sales at the mall.  I’m going to send out Christmas cards with a manger scene and angels and all that other chest-clutchingly disturbing religious imagery, and if it bothers you that much, you can throw the card away.

Cuz you see, my problem is that I expect people to act like grown-ups.  I expect people to learn to get along, and not required that I be censored and discriminated against just so they don’t get a bad case of the vapors when their precious little world view isn’t all coddled and stroked and cooed over.

I’m just wierd that way.  So, please.  Have a Merry Christmas.  Or don’t.  It’s a free country.

UPDATE:

Here’s last years post.  Jeez, I’m predictable. 

Merry Christmas…except for YOU!

Get over yourself.  I don’t require you to celebrate Christmas.  I DO require you to let ME celebrate Christmas.  That’s not called intolerance.  It’s called f-r-e-e-d-o-m.

Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!!

Offended yet?  No?

Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!!

How about now?

I’ve read several blog posts about the whole “War on Christmas” thing.  I especially like the one by Rachel Lucas, ‘cuz you see, I just flat don’t get it.  What, for all that is furry, soft and static-free, exactly is it that is so all-fired “offensive” about the phrase “Merry Christmas?!”  

Yeah, I can see how all that “Peace on earth, good will towards men” and “Joy To The World” stuff must really just get under your skin.  The gall! The temerity! How DARE you wish me a Merry Christmas!  FASCIST!

Honestly, what really is the difference between getting all huffy and “offended” if someone wishes you Merry Christmas, and getting all huffy and offended if someone names a teddy bear “Muhammed?”  Seriously.  Explain it to me, ‘cuz I’m really struggling with that one.

Oh, but wait, we aren’t even talking about being offended anymore, are we?  According the article referenced in Rachel’s blog, the schreeching little shrew in question considered it the height of impoliteness to wish someone Merry Chrismas. Like there aren’t worse things in this world than occasionally being impolite. 

Okay, lets break this down fer a second.  Apparently we are excluding people by calling it a Christmas tree.  Who, exactly, are we excluding?  Muslims?  Buddhists?  Jews? Hey, newsflash….THEY ALREADY DON’T CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS, MORON!  So how is calling it a “Holiday” tree going to suddenly kick the door wide for them to deck the halls?

Who else? Non-christians?  Soooo….you’re telling me that in the roughly 230-ish years this country has been around, it’s only ever been orthodox, fundmentalist, hard-core Bible-thumping Christians what actually had a Christmas tree, and all the other scrooge-nostics out there had to grit their collective teeth with a bitter, seething rage as they bought their tree, secretly feeling all outcast and excluded, wishing deep in their hurting little hearts that they could just buy a Holiday Tree instead?  How does calling it Christmas exclude anyone

If someone wished me Happy Haunukah, or Joyous Kwanza or whatever it is, “Have a Mystical and Magical Winter Solstice,” I can say with utmost certainty I wouldn’t be offended by it.   Okay, no, no, you’re right.  I’d probably file a hate-crimes lawsuit against them for their willful and hateful failure to respect my religious beliefs which, of course, are clearly evident just by looking at me. 

Actually, being a rational individual, I’d likely just smile, wave, and wish them the same thing back, out of POLITENESS.  What. A. Concept.

Every time I hear that someone is “offended'” (yes, I’m going to put that in quotes every damn time) by displays, words, thoughts, graphics or songs with the words Merry Christmas in them, I have to think that we’ve really lost track of what “offended” means.  I am offended by people swearing like stable hands around my kids.  I’m offended when I see my faith mocked and derided in movies and television shows.  I’m offended by a really bad smell coming out of the sewer.  I’m offended by self-righteous blowhards who want to require that I think and act like they do or suffer the consequences.  I’m not “offended” by someone wish my a Happy Saint Patrick’s day even though I’m not Irish.

Hey, wait a minute.  Lessee if I got this straight…we have to remove every hint of anything which might be offensive to someone else?  So…there are only certain acceptable viewpoints, and all others must be supressed as unacceptable?  Isn’t that sort of the Liberals’ textbook definition of intolerance? Refusing to allow any viewpoints but your own?  Limiting access to the public forum only to those who conform to the mandated and “approved” views?

Approved by whom?  Why, the scroogenostics of course.

The modern celebration of Christmas has become so secularized that for a great many people it is a cultural tradition as much as a religious one, celebrated by a broad spectrum of people from a variety of backgrounds, both religious and ethnic.  Calling it Christmas only excludes those who have a vested interest in being offended in order to further their social(ist) agenda.  No one seems to care if I’m offended by Kwaanza or Ramadan.  There don’t seem to be any shrill cries about excluding or silencing them. 

No, that would be intolerant, right? Right?

Nuance.

Why did you take the job at the supermarket if you knew that you’d be asked to handle pork, alcohol and tobacco products?

Why did you decide to become a cab driver if you weren’t going to take fares from people who smoke, or drink, or have dogs, or have a juicy ham sandwich in their greasy little fist?

Now, you may consider it “intolerant” of us wacky westerners to ask you to do otherwise, but it’s not intolerance if you know ahead of time that it’s going to be a requirement of the position! One might begin to suspect that you had some sort of, how you say, an agenda?

Don’t want to get your mitts dirty handling “unclean” foods?  Don’t get a job in the %$&%*#’ing deli!

So, cry me a river, Muslim grocery clerks when we don’t seem too sympathetic to your “plight.”  Your brethren for years seemed to have little problem dishing out the warmed over hot dogs and MadDog 20/20 at 7-11.  Why so squeamish all of a sudden?