Borders Versus The Quest For World Peace

See: Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants - what a draft government memo said could be "a non-legislative version of amnesty."

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to "reduce the threat of removal" for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

On the surface, it is about the politics of illegal immigration.

But there is something happening here that is working below the surface. It is a "Big Picture" thing. It is something that is working on an emotional level in the Modern American Left.

It explains much of the way the modern American Left feels about the problem that we have with illegal immigration.

*Primarily, the Modern American left. along with their European counterparts, have a problem with National borders. They see Nationalism as the cause of much of the warfare and strife of the last one hundred years. They believe that a world without borders would necessarily be a more peaceful one. Without countries, they reason, there could be no war, there could only be peace and love.

John Lennon's Imagine is not just a silly pop song. It is their prayer, their hymnal, their anthem. It is a dream that the Modern American Left hopes is our future and the whole worlds future.

(Yoram Hazony's Israel Through European Eyes explains why Israel is hated by much of the European, and by extension, the American Left. The core of his argument is compelling and it has important implications for all of the Western Nations that fought in WWII.)

Oliver Stone - Shaping The Things To Come

Oliver Stone is an influential shaper of public thought.

His movies, which include Natural Born Killers, Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Nixon, and W will be viewed by hundreds of millions of people, not just in the US, but all over the world. The people who see his movies, see the world through his world-view.

What is his world-view? What does the man think?

See: Oliver Stone: US should nationalize oil resources

LONDON – The Gulf of Mexico oil spill shows that the United States should follow the example of South American socialists in nationalizing its energy industry, filmmaker Oliver Stone said Tuesday.

The Academy Award-winning director of "Born on the Fourth of July" and "JFK" said that America's country's natural wealth was too important to be left in private hands, telling journalists in central London that oil and other natural resources "belong to the people."

"This BP oil spill is typical" of what happens when private industry is allowed to draw revenue on what should be a public good, Stone said.

"We shouldn't make this kind of profit on oil or on health or on war or on prisons. All these industries should be public industries."

Stone, 63, is in the British capital to promote his documentary, "South of the Border," which tells the story of firebrand Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his left-wing Latin American allies.

This man makes movies. His movies shape people's understanding of reality. What kind of world will his viewers make for our future?

Hosni Mubarak And The End Of Peace In The Middle-East

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is not a nice man. Egypt owes him much. The world owes him much. And all the same, he is not a nice man.

Advancing in age, and reported to be suffering from terminal cancer, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will soon be unbound from this mortal coil. His long, difficult, and sometimes extremely unpleasant leadership of the people of Egypt will soon come to a close.

From those days long ago, immediately following the assassination of Anwar Sadatt, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has kept Egypt a relatively sane Muslim nation.

Egypt's peace with Israel, while strained and at times uncomfortable, has held.

How long will this peace last after Mubarak passes?

Would you give it days, weeks, months or optimistically, years?

When Mubarak leaves this world, the peace that we have enjoyed in the middle east, what little peace there was, may come to seem a golden age long past.

Pray for Egypt.

Pray for Israel.

Pray for all of us.

Singling Out Israel

Two paragraphs that tell the tale.

From: Israel rejects call to join anti-nuclear treaty

Early in the article:

All 189 parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, called on Friday in a declaration that singled out Israel for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Later in the article, the following is admitted:

Iran was not mentioned in the NPT declaration.

Significant.

Would a Republican Adminstration have participated in this farce? Something to think about when you vote.

Israel, Existential Threats And The Loss Of American Support

See: Mood Is Dark as Israel Marks 62nd Year as a Nation

“There is a confluence of two very worrying events,” said Michael Freund, a rightist columnist for The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview. “One is the Iranian threat, an existential threat. Add to that the fact that for the first time in recent memory there is a president in the White House who is not overly sensitive to the Jewish state and its interests. You put the two together and it will affect anyone’s mood, even an optimist like me.”

Obama's and the American Left's failure to be supportive of Israel will have serious repercussions. Serious meaning war and bloodshed.

The Islamic nations that surround Israel had been largely reluctant to attack Israel because of the support that Israel received from the US. That support is now tepid at best.

Syria's recent gift of SCUD missiles to Hizb'Allah is an indicator of what the future holds in store for Israel. Hizb'Allah will have these weapons of terror at their disposal. Can the same Hizb'Allah that has already fired thousands of rockets into Israel resist the temptation to likewise launch their SCUDS into Israel? If so, for how long? Would you hazard a guess at one month or two? One year or two? Can you even imagine that Hizb'Allah will sit on their SCUDS and not fire them?

When war comes to Israel, what will Obama do? With whom will have the most sympathy? If Obama sides with Israel's enemies, what will you do?

We will have to prepare ourselves for that test.

The Price Of Obama's Weakness

Iran smells weakness in Washington. They have been playing Obama and the EU states for idiots and cowards over their Nuclear Weapons development. Obama and the rest of the West have done nothing but whimper and whine.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has decided to up the stakes. Iranian troops have marched into Iraq and have siezed an Oil Well in Iraqi Territory.

This is an act of war.

The Iranians are betting that Obama has no balls.

An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: "An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

"It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory," the official added.

What will Obama do?

Will he do anything more than just whimper and whine?

Lula's Unserious And Infantile Response To The Iranian Nuclear Weapons Problem.

While it might be breathtakingly stupid, it is all too commonplace on the left to argue that nations that have nuclear weapons should just crumple them up and toss them away in order to achieve a moral high ground when dealing with other nations that have or are attempting to develop Nuclear Weapons.

I suppose it is possible for someone to be so naive as to really believe that such a strategy is anything more than madness.

From the Chinese Xinhua News Agency

Brazilian president: only countries without nuclear weapons can criticize Iran

RIO DE JANEIRO, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) -- Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Thursday that the countries which criticize Iran's nuclear program should get rid of their own nuclear weapons as well, according to news reaching here from Berlin.

In order to have the moral authority to criticize Iran, "It is important that those which have a (nuclear) arsenal let go of it, so that we will not have any more arguments," he said during a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had said that negotiations with Iran were not progressing.

Lula, if the world was run only by Gandhi's, such a strategy might even work. Gandhi is dead. There was only one of him and he only had the success he had because the British did not have it in them to fight and kill several million Indians in order to maintain an expensive and unprofitable empire.

Either Lula is a fool of the first order or he is just bloviating out of his gaseous ass to make himself a figure on the world stage. Dangerous loons like Lula end up provoking wars that other people have to fight and die in.

If Lula is not willing to commit Brazilian troops to a land war in Iran, he should not be allowed anywhere near the discussions on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program.

~

Hat tip to Correspondence Committee: C2 Saturday A.M. Bulldog Edition

Massacre In Texas

Is this a Jihadi attack?

Twelve people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting spree at a Texas military base by what officials believe was possibly carried out by an Army officer.

The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said.

Later in the article

Cone said the motive for the attack, which took place just after 1:30 p.m. CT, is unclear.

Some things come to mind.

The Obama Administration Considers Letting The Taliban Win In Afghanistan

The Obama Administration will certainly go down in history as one of the worst in US Forign policy history. Worse than even the Carter Administration.

From an AP article:

WASHINGTON - Senior al-Qaida leaders are forging deeper relationships with Pakistani militants and often operating from their camps inside the Pakistan border, fueling Obama administration arguments for a shift in the Afghan war strategy that more narrowly targets the terrorists.

For eight years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has focused mostly on Afghanistan's Taliban as an unabashed ally of al-Qaida.

Now, however, forced to choose between sending more troops in an intensified counterinsurgency campaign against Afghanistan's Taliban or largely maintaining troop levels and using more drone strikes to take out al-Qaida along the border, U.S. officials must first determine which enemy is the greater priority.

The Obama Administration will lose Afghanistan with this kind of thinking. I am inclined to think that they would be less bothered by losing Afghanistan to the Taliban then be perceived as pursuing victory. Victory over the enemy is something that the modern day left can’t seem to stomach.

If the Obama Administration fails to defeat the Taliban, or at the very least, fails to keep them out of power in Afghanistan, then Afghanistan will return back to the stone age country that it was when it was executing woman in Soccer fields for showing a wee bit too much of ankle or daring to leave their homes without a male relative as an escort.

If Obama does not choose to pursue victory over BOTH the Taliban and al-Qaida, then his legacy will be one of surrendering to despair and misery from the farthest corners of the world to the very windows of our skyscrapers.

NATO Backs McChrystal In Afghanistan

Thom Shanker at the New York Times Reports that Nato backs General McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan.

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia - NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and on their own governments to commit more military and civilian resources for the mission to succeed.

General McChrystal, the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, landed here early Friday to brief NATO defense ministers on his strategic review of an 8-year-old war in which the American-led effort has lost momentum to a tenacious insurgency. The closed-door session — which had not been disclosed in advance — added a note of drama to the sort of NATO ministerial meeting that is often mundane.

“What we did today was to discuss General McChrystal’s overall assessment, his overall approach, and I have noted a broad support from all ministers of this overall counterinsurgency approach,” said NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

We can hope that NATO will give Obama the needed courage to work towards winning in Afghanistan over choosing to lose.

Sometimes, you just have to be willing to kill your enemies.

Something from one of the best essayists on the web, Bill Whittle. (If you have not yet heard of him, you should sit down and read through his archives.)

When the subject of Obama as a “peacemaker” comes up, people like Mary seem to think that the answer is to be nice and talk to people and the problem will go away. This is known as “mirroring,” and it is the blind spot that most people bring to negotiations — the idea that our opponents want the same things we do. In Afghanistan we are dealing with an enemy who insists on praying to Allah multiple times a day, who believes that women are subhuman, that homosexuals be killed on sight (preferably by crushing them under falling walls — look it up) and that any criticism of Allah, his Prophet (PBOH) or his clerics is punishable by beating or death. That is their IRREDUCIBLE CORE BELIEF SYSTEM and for that they are willing to die. We, on the other hand, believe in fundamental human dignity for all, the right to worship or not as we see fit, the right of women and homosexuals to live lives as equal members of society, and the fundamental right to say whatever we damn well choose. Those in turn are OUR IRREDUCIBLE CORE BELIEF SYSTEMS for which SOME of us are willing to fight and die.

Read the whole thing.
Hat tip to Pi Guy over at the Correspondence Committee.

~~~

Long ago, a University Professor I knew enjoyed shocking many of his students by making the observation that "Sometimes, you just have to be willing to kill your enemies."

In a civilized society, it is perhaps too easy for many people to forget that sometimes, it really may be necessary to fight for what is right, that sometimes, your enemy is not reasonable and cannot be dealt with like a reasonable adult.

Sometimes, it is either you, or him. Sometimes, you just have to be willing to kill your enemy.

The world is not a nice place. There are some very bad people in it. Worse yet, they may think that they and those like them are the good people of the world, while you and I are the bad people that need to be corrected or done away with.

They are not like us. They do not want the same things that we want. We are not compatible. When we meet them and when they meet us, there will be conflict. One side will prevail. just one.

Life is an existential struggle. There is no getting away from that fact.

Hugo Chavez Will make Barrack Obama pay dearly for the Nobel Peace Prize

Hugo Chavez only looks stupid. He is not stupid. His is response to Obama's hollow Nobel Peace Prize is proof of just how sharp he is.

Chavez, who has mixed praise for Obama personally with criticism of his government's "imperialist" policies, said he thought it was a mistake when he read the U.S. leader had won.

"What has Obama done to deserve this prize? The jury put store on his hope for a nuclear arms-free world, forgetting his role in perpetuating his battalions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his decision to install new military bases in Colombia," Chavez wrote in a column.

"For the first time, we are witnessing an award with the nominee having done nothing to deserve it: rewarding someone for a wish that is very far from becoming reality."

Hugo Chavez knows American liberals like the back of his hand. He knows that they are suckers for the “victims lashing out” routine. He knows that if he sucked up to Obama, he would almost certainly get nothing for his efforts. But if he were to insult him, he could have Obama eating out of his hand.

To Confront a Ruthless Adversary

The following is taken from Obama's remarks on having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies.

That part sounds good. I am worried that he is only referring to Al Qaeda and is excluding the Taliban.

Moon Dust and Nobel Peace Prizes

I woke this morning to the news that Nasa has bombed the moon and that Barrack Obama has Won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reality is just so weird. My dreams last night seemed to be more solidly based on reality than what I was hearing over the radio.

To be fair, I had heard about the Moon Bombing before hand. Ironically, one of the first semi-political websites that I happened across long ago had campaigned for bombing the moon. The site advocated using Nukes over simple kinetic systems like what Nasa used today. Well, I guess you have to start somewhere. Today the moon, tomorrow, the Milky Way!!!

And so that leaves us the Nobel Peace Prize to consider.

What is it for again?

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barrack Obama has to be considered in light of the fact that it has also been awarded to Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat. In retrospect, I think I would have been surprised if Barrack Obama was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at some point. Barrack Obama is in fitting company with his winning of this award.