He landed in Libya, checked into the local Benghazi hotel, looked around, and saw that the war was good, and then he spoketh:
“The [rebels] are my heroes,” exclaimed John McCain, senator for Arizona. And a hero deserves “every appropriate means of assistance,” including “command and control support, battlefield intelligence, training and weapons.”
From the pollution he has left along his political path McCain can run but cannot hide. Republicans once wisely rejected war in Kosovo. McCain, back then, jettisoned party loyalty to call for bombs from above and “more boots on the ground.” Not so long ago it was “bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran,” and the promise of a 100 year war in Iraq, which was bound to break the bank that McCain once vowed to make solvent.
Under the loving gaze of the media, McCain’s jingoism is ever evolving.
UPDATE I: You want to watch former CIA Counterterrorism analyst Michael Scheuer tell the teletwits of CNN that they are “carrying water for Obama.” Scheuer shone on Freedom Watch too, telling the Judge’s viewers that drones give you nothing but a body count, but no progress on the ground. “Why are we there; why do we care?” he asked, while pointing to “confusion, ignorance and even arrogance in the way the U.S. has handled the unrest in the Middle East so far.” I’ll say!
UPDATE II (April 26): McCain Gives Succor To Terrorists. Jack Hunter at the American Conservative:
“Who says there is evidence of a link between the Libyan rebels and Al-Qaeda? US and British intelligence, NATO leaders, and the Libyan rebels themselves. Who says there is not a link? John McCain, who calls the rebels ‘heroes.'” MORE...
Despite animated discussion on the cable networks about the guest list for the British Royal wedding, I noticed that both anchors on FoxNews and MSNBC avoided mentioning the absence of the Obamas. I would have thought that Fox might gloat, but no. Could this be so because the official Left and the Right equate national greatness with the degree to which our political officials are courted across the world? To both official factions, our national honor is wrapped up in our political elites, and not in the common American. Perhaps FoxNews and MSNBC were equally embarrassed? Granted, to substitue for the Obamas’ absence, there are many other odious characters on the list. Still, Margaret Thatcher has been invited, but not Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the last two god-awful, Labor-government prime ministers.
The official line is good for a laugh: “[O]nly crowned heads of states and and political leaders from the 54-member Commonwealth of nations [are] traditionally invited to royal weddings.”
Maybe the young couple is afraid of the “Gangsta Gifts” Michelle Obama might have brought along?
From the grandeur of her White House Crib, the FLOTUS is famous for giving Prime Minister Brown a box of 25 DVDs including “ET,” “The Wizard of Oz,” and “Star Wars,” “a cheap gift which spoke to the giver’s impoverishment. The DVDs were also region-encoded for North America and could not be played in Britain. Brown gave Obama ‘a pen holder carved from the timber of an anti-slave ship.'”
“Before the DVD and gift-shop gaffes, there was the weightier matter of the bust of Winston Churchill. ‘The valuable bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein had been loaned by the British government to George W. Bush,’ wrote syndicated columnist Diana West. ‘One of President Obama’s first acts as president was to consign that symbol to a box and send it packing.'”
Most recently, as Daniel Hannan noted, Obama “used the Louisiana oil spill to attack an imaginary company called ‘British Petroleum’ (it has been BP for the past decade, ever since the merger with Amoco gave it as many American as British shareholders). … He managed, on his visit to West Africa, to refer to the struggle for independence, but not to the Royal Navy’s campaign against slavery.”
Whether you like Churchill or not is immaterial. The return of the Churchill bronze confirmed the suspicion that Obama was anti-Occident. The habit of giving inappropriate, thoughtless presents—despite the fact that he and his family were deluged with wild effusions of love and lavish gifts—this showed Obama to be, well, a bit of a pig.
Maybe Prince William and Kate Middleton think that inviting the rude American duo to their wedding is infra dig.
[Oh, I learned something new from all this: Tonga is a monarchy.]
“[Ron] Paul chose to use the new Congress’s ceremonial reading of the Constitution — a tribute to him — to chastise his colleagues for the hollowness of the stunt. ‘Will there be no more wars without an actual congressional declaration?’ he asked. ‘Will the Federal Reserve Act be repealed? Will only gold and silver be called legal tender? Will we end all the unconstitutional federal departments, including the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor? Will the Patriot Act be repealed and all the warrantless searches stopped? Will the TSA be restrained or abolished? Will the IRS’s unconstitutional collection powers end? Will executive and judicial quasilegislative powers be ended? Will we end the federal war on drugs? Would we end the federal government’s involvement in medical care? Will we end all the federal government’s illusionary insurance programs? Will we ban secret prisons, trials without due process, and assassinations? Will we end our foreign policy of invasion and occupations?'”
The feature about Ron Paul is well-worth reading. (While you’re at it, here’s a defense of Representative Paul, one of many, written during the heyday of the attacks against him launched by Beltway libertarians.)
Other good lines by Richardson: “Words that other politicians used like screeches of chimpanzee code, Paul actually meant and could explain so that everything from the economic collapse to marijuana legalization to terrorism actually connected and made sense. Like the words on everyone’s lips these days, small government. The way Ron Paul explains it, the U. S. Constitution was all about setting up a balance of powers in order to prevent a recurrence of government tyranny, a purpose emphasized by the Bill of Rights….”
A not-so-good line, because arguably incorrect (the accretion of the state has been the ruin of the USA): “He doesn’t care that it was a powerful American government, based in Washington and willing to invest in its people, that ultimately made the United States into the world-historic power that it is today, with a huge economy and a vast middle class. Nor does he care that it was that strong central government that ensured the survival of the young country” …
Finally:
The difference is that a lot of conservatives just say this stuff without meaning it. It was conservatives, after all, who said that you can have small government along with two wars and seven hundred overseas military bases. But Ron Paul goes the other way. Philosophical and systematic and pure in a way that young people may be best qualified to understand, he lays bare the contradictions. That is the reason his ideas have spread like hidden veins throughout our culture, the reason he has become such a stunning challenge to the existing order. He means the words that everyone else just uses. He’s flinty as a Founder and solid as the gold standard — not just the messenger but also the message.
This is the hue of hatred in America, and in South Africa, as I document in my book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (release date: May 10). I back this claim with lots of numbers. Watch this clip, if you can tolerate the focused, feral drive to extinguish a manifestly helpless, fragile young woman (hat tip to my young, Facebook friend Laura Fer):
Here is the transcript appended to the LiveLeak.com footage:
Here is another fine example of the trend of violence in fast food restaurants. Two females beating the hell out of a patron, while several employees stand by and watch. One male manages to provide the facade of assistance to the victim in this brutal attack.
The two females exit, then re-enter the store to continue the beating, until a an older woman attempts to stop them from dragging the victim outside into the parking lot. Note: the male employees have disappeared from camera view, even though they are plenty well capable of stopping the attack.
At the end, the white victim is beaten until she has a seizure, at which point the camera operator warns the female attackers to flee, because the police are on the way. Note: he makes sure to repeatedly tell the criminal attackers to flee, instead of keeping them there for the police to apprehend.
I expect the main objection to my characterization here to come from the prototypical liberal male. That’s been my experience, over the years. The “one-case-anomaly” “argument” will, invariably, be voiced by an ignoramus—a male with left-liberal instincts. There is almost nothing more immoral and unnatural than this specimen, for he misplaces compassion and forsakes the true–and most vulnerable—victims of aggression. In short, he is not a man.
When you condemn Al Sharpton or other such race baiters, remember this: the dangerous delusions about racism held in contemporary America are promulgated by WASPs. And, as night follows day, the progressive policies enacted by such people have led to a regressive society.
Dangerous racial hatred in contemporary America, and certainly in the New South Africa, is, for the most, unidirectional: whites do not harbor hared for blacks. And if they do, they seldom act on it like this.
UPDATE I: That the victim of this crime is allegedly a transgendered woman will allow the authorities, and the assorted identity activists, to skirt the real issue—a crime of racial hatred—and make it a crime motivated by homophobia.
The legal category of hate crimes is ludicrous; it should not exist. However, one should not confuse or conflate an objection to prosecutions granting legal privilege based in race, sexual orientation, or religion, with valid observations made about racism in the West. Crime statistics show quite clearly who hates whom.
UPDATE II (April 24): Cross-posted on Facebook: Many people pointed to the need to be armed in this situation. I agree, on principle. But you do know what would have happened to this poor waif of a girl had she been armed. The goons of government would have tackled her, tazed her, maybe hurt her just as badly, only …. LEGALLY.
UPDATE III: American TV news failed to report this crime; the newspapers finessed the onlookers’ indifference. The Mail Online tells it as it is, and does not fail to identify the culprits as “the black girls”:
The victim of a sustained attack in a Baltimore County McDonald’s has spoken for the first time about the beating she received, and how nobody came to her aid. Chrissy Lee Polis, a 22-year-old transgender woman, said she was afraid to go outside after the attack, and hinted that it might have been racially motivated – as both of her attackers were black.
She said: ‘They just hurt me really bad, and I’m afraid to go outside now because of stuff like this.’
She said the violence kicked off after she had used the ladies restrooms in the McDonald’s outlet, but denied reports that this was the reason why the violence erupted.
She said of her attackers: ‘They just seemed like they wanted to pick a fight that night.’
She said she was approached by one of the girls, who accused her of ‘looking at my man’.
When Miss Polis insisted that she was not even aware of the girl’s partner, the physical abuse began with the girl spitting in her face.
She said: ‘She started ripping my hair, throwing me on the floor, kicking me in my face
UPDATE IV (April 25): Glenn Beck took credit for speaking out, of course, when he is late to this story; it’s been on the blogosphere for days. He also blamed the general state of Godlessness for the crime and for onlookers’ indifference and approval. Above all, Glenn looked away with the rest when he had the opportunity to speak openly about real racial hatred (physical aggression), as opposed to impolite and impolitic speech (noose hanging, writing, etc).
