Yes, today I’m going to talk about Hillary Clinton, who does indeed feel entitled and also seems to believe that the law is only for “the little people”. There are others who feel entitled to the presidency (on both sides) that I don’t want anywhere near it as well, but this is one person who would essentially be an Obama third term if she were to win … and her actions prove that.
Right now we have a man in the Oval Office who is, frankly, a scofflaw. If a law is inconvenient, he simply ignores it, or issues his own in the guise of an executive action or, working through his “executive agencies” sees that unelected bureaucrats produce regulations that do his will, all without Congress. Or oversight. Or the Constitution for that matter.
Now we have a contender for his position who has demonstrated the same sort of inclination to ignore the rules and laws that are designed to keep our elected and government officials on the straight and narrow and provide a vital record of their doings.
Hillary Clinton, did, with malice aforethought, conspire to work around the law and the rules that required her to do government business on a government email account. There’s no disputing this. The email server is in her home. It was set up prior to her becoming Secretary of State. And we know, thanks to a hacker, that she received highly sensitive emails from various cronies and State Department personnel on that account. An account that wasn’t at all secure enough for such traffic (that point made obvious by the hack).
Just last week, the Washington Post shocked the public with the news that the Clinton Foundation had “accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments” during Hillary’s “tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.” In and of themselves, these gifts were highly abnormal.
But, as Charles Cooke continues:
“Rarely, if ever,” the Post noted drily, “has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments.” But the infringement is made even worse when one acknowledges that these donations were never so much as reviewed for eligibility by the powers that be within the State Department. There really is no other way of putting it than to record bluntly that, while she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was making private deals with foreign governments via private e-mail, and then declining to request the requisite approval from the U.S. government.
So, let’s see if we have this straight. Private email account, knowingly refusing to use the government one, and soliciting foreign governments for donations while Secretary of State?
That’s definitely, at a minimum unethical and an abuse of office. So who does she think she is?
Cooke answers that:
The answer to that question is as it ever was: She is Hillary Clinton, and she believes, with some justification, that she will get away with anything and everything she tries. “Why,” supporters grumble, “knowing full well how effective the charge of elitism can be during a presidential campaign, does she continue to take $300,000 per speech?” Answer: Because she’s Hillary Clinton. “Why,” others inquire, “when tempers are still hot and nerves are still frayed, does she continue to take money from the outfits that are widely blamed for the financial crisis of 2008?” Answer: Because she’s Hillary Clinton. “How could she possibly believe that her ex-president husband’s temporary inability to buy a multi-million-dollar house rendered her ‘dead broke’”? Because she’s Hillary Clinton, and she has a sense of entitlement that would make Imelda Marcos blush. And so, having been championed and overpraised for years, lionized more for her immutable characteristics than for any concrete achievements, and allowed to pretend that her few successes have been the product of her own ability and not her husband’s uncommon political talent, Clinton has of late fallen disastrously deep into the professional celebrity’s most pernicious trap: She has begun to believe her own hype. How long can it be before her fellow disciples begin to lose faith in more than just the small hours of the night?
Supreme arrogance, and a willingness to take a chance that this will all come to nothing. After all, we’re talking about the era of politics and government where no one is really held accountable for anything. The smartest woman in the world probably also figured we’d never put two and two together (i.e. private email, foreign donations). And if we did? Heh … they tried that out yesterday and it failed miserably:
The strongest argument in favor of this behavior — legally, at least — is that Clinton is a clueless, confused, and out-of-touch old woman who struggles to grasp basic technological concepts, and that she therefore had not the first idea what was expected of her. In the immediate aftermath, this was the first defense offered. It’s “worth remembering,” a former Clinton administration staffer assured me quickly on Twitter, “that Hillary didn’t have email until she was in her forties. She was clueless.” “I just mean,” he added, desperately, that “she’s no dummy — except possibly with computers — where she kinda is.”
Bulltacos. There have been countless stories and battles over the use of official emails that this is a complete non-starter. As Cooke notes, it’s “desperate”. This wasn’t some technodunce-granny completely befuddled by this new age. This was a deliberate and calculated attempt to circumvent the system:
Digging a little into the story today, Business Insider’s Hunter Walker recorded today that Clinton did not so much inadvertently continue to use her previous account as she had her team build and configure an alternative system over which she had full and unadulterated control.
Exactly. And now, she should pay the price.
If anyone can find it in themselves to hold people like Hillary Clinton accountable for her misdeeds.
I certainly have no qualms about doing it. At a minimum, she should be shamed, shunned and dismissed from public life. She’s demonstrated she isn’t fit to hold the highest office in the land. And we certainly don’t need and probably couldn’t survive an Obama 3rd term anyway.
Stories like this absolutely inflame me.
The Maryland parents investigated for letting their young children walk home by themselves from a park were found responsible for “unsubstantiated” child neglect in a decision that has not fully resolved their clash with authorities over questions of parenting and children’s safety.
Danielle and Alexander Meitiv hoped the nationally debated case — which has lit up social media and brought a dozen television film crews to their Silver Spring home — would be dismissed after a two-month investigation by Montgomery County Child Protective Services.
But the finding of unsubstantiated child neglect means CPS will keep a file on the family for at least five years and leaves open the question of what would happen if the Meitiv children get reported again for walking without adult supervision.
First, what in the hell is “unsubstantiated child neglect?!” How can it be anything if it is “unsubstantiated?” Does the state of Maryland even know what that word means?
Secondly, who gets to determine whether or not children are responsible enough to do what they were allowed to do? Good parents, that’s who, and that doesn’t include the state or some busybody.
What we get from the state, however, is a “one-size-fits-all” approach and a nonsensical charge of “unsubstantiated child neglect?”
We, as a culture, whine and complain that the young are irresponsible, and then when parents actually try to teach responsibility, we charge them with a doublespeak charge?
In reality, the charge is there to give “Child Protective Services” a legal reason to intervene in the future should they so decide.
But there’s no crime here. Nor did CPS or the police prevent one. This should be a non-issue.
However, it’s not, because the state has decided it knows best and has passed a law – with the best of intentions, of course:
CPS officials have said they are guided in part by a state law that says children younger than 8 must be left with a reliable person who is at least 13. The law addresses children locked or confined in a building, dwelling, motor vehicle or other enclosed space, but does not mention children outdoors on a walk.
And that law overrules any parent’s right to actually teach a child younger than 13 responsibility. Because, you know, all children are the same. That explains why when I was 10 I was allowed to walk anywhere I pretty well pleased as long as I was home by supper. And you know what, I always was. How in the world did I survive “unsupervised” activities like that?
This is Hillary Clinton, who would love to be your next president, talking about the power grab over the internet by the FCC and Obama administration. She’s fine with it:
“For the FCC to do what they want to do, to try to create net neutrality as the norm, they have to have a hook to hang it on,” Clinton said. She said it’s the only hook the FCC’s got. But that she’d vote for regulating the Internet.
And despite her husband’s administration not taking such action, Clinton suggested the Internet had developed in such a way that something needed to be changed.
“I would vote for net neutrality, because as I understand it, it’s Title II with a lot of changes within it, in order to avoid the worst of the utility regulation,” Hillary Clinton said.
She said President Obama was “right” on the issue.
“It’s a foot in the door, it’s a value statement, I think the president is right to be upfront and out front on that.”
“It’s a foot in the door …”.
To understand her and the left’s mindset, that’s really all of the quote you need to read and understand. The exponential expansion of government power with her and her ilk at the helm.
A pretend problem (that no one was complaining about) and the usual solution (of which 61% disapprove according to the most recent poll I’ve seen). I.e. more government, more rules, more power and more powerbrokering. It’s another beachhead on the sands of freedom. An unelected commission just took over one of the largest and most innovative entrepreneurial engines we’ve ever seen and has decided to impose 20th century utility regulations on it by fiat.
And the gutless GOP Congress? Well, just like immigration, DHS, and ObamaCare … they’ll talk about it, stick their fingers in the air, monitor a hostile press and in the end … well, look where we are and figure it out for yourself.
That’s the apparent intent of a BATFE proposal as it applies to 5.56 ammunition. The left, for years, has been trying to ban “assault weapons”, which are, essentially dressed up semi-automatic rifles. Assault weapons, as you might imagine are capable of fully automatic fire. Such weapons are already illegal without a very difficult to get permit.
Nevertheless, it is a long cherished dream of the left to implement gun control, because, well the key word is the second one – control.
So, having been absolutely and totally rejected when they tried to impose such laws, they’re decided to take what Marie Harf would surely characterize as “a more nuanced approach“.
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.
The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.
But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.
And, according the the article, there is no proof to provide. None exists.
Of course, the AR15 is one of America’s most popular weapons and hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions are in the hands of Americans. Certainly not a hard weapon for a criminal to get and use on police. However, they rarely do. They tend to eschew small caliber arms for those which have a bigger punch in a handgun.
So, logically, that makes little if any sense. As for the armor piercing capability, while I’m sympathetic to the point, a little proof of it being a problem would be helpful. To this point, everything I’ve read says it hasn’t been a problem to this point.
“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.
Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”
Another manufactured “crisis” and another “solution” which involves government using its coerscive power to ban something that a particular political ideology finds odious – beside you being free, that is. And, of course, it opens the door to more invented problems solved by more bans.
This is called “democracy”. One side gets enough votes to seize power and then they force their ideology on you – if not by legislative means, then by executive action. The document that is supposed to protect your freedom from government has been declared null and void. Your freedoms? Well, let’s just say that they’re up for interpretation depending on which faction is in power. But what is for sure is they’re eroded and will continue to erode under this system of politics. Government gets larger and more intrusive and as it does, it squeezes out your freedoms in the name of the “greater good”, or “for the good of police” or “the children” or whatever bit of gimcrackery they can use to attract enough votes.
Your freedom suffers the consequences.
A couple of economic notes and an environmental question.
On the econ side, unemployment. The Mercatus Center explains our current unemployment situation and why the “official number” is a feel-good fantasy:
In case you missed it, the real unemployment rate is in the 11% range. Also note that before the recession, we were at around 9%. We’re certainly doing better but why they continue to publish misleading numbers on the unemployment front is a mystery … oh, politics. Never mind.
It’s better to be lied to and feel good about it than to know the truth.
Also, as a followup, the $15 minimum wage in SF and Seattle continues to take victims. While neither has fully implemented the wage at present, its enough to push business owners into making decisions which are unlikely the intended consequence of the wage raise. We told you about Borderland Books in SF. Here’s an example from Seattle:
Cascade Designs, an outdoor recreational gear manufacturing company based in Seattle, announced it is moving 100 jobs (20% of the workforce) later this year to a new plant it is leasing near Reno, Nevada. The company has offered some employees positions in Reno, but others must reapply.
Founder John Burroughs and Vice Chair David Burroughs blamed Seattle’s new $15 minimum wage, indicating it “nudged them into action.” According to the owners, Seattle’s new minimum wage would “eventually add up to a few million dollars a year.”
Once established in Reno, you may see further moves. And:
The San Francisco Eater, a local publication following the city’s restaurant scene, predicts that the impact of the $15 minimum will likely lead many restaurants to close their doors this year. Abbot’s Cellar and Luna Park, popular locally owned restaurants, already made the decision to shut down. The owners both blamed the $15 minimum wage.
What’s $15 times zero?
Finally on the enviro front, where’s the outrage? From CATO:
Nicaragua’s plan to build an Interoceanic Canal that would rival the Panama Canal could be a major environmental disaster if it goes forward. That’s the assessment of Axel Meyer and Jorge Huete-Pérez, two scientists familiar with the project, in a recent article in Nature. Disturbingly, the authors point out,
“No economic or environmental feasibility studies have yet been revealed to the public. Nicaragua has not solicited its own environmental impact assessment and will rely instead on a study commissioned by the HKND [The Hong Kong-based company that has the concession to build the canal]. The company has no obligation to reveal the results to the Nicaraguan public.”
In recent weeks we have seen similar opinions aired in the Washington Post, Wired, The Economist, and other media. In their article, Meyer and Huete-Pérez explain how the $50-billion project (more than four times Nicaragua’s GDP), would require “The excavation of hundreds of kilometres from coast to coast, traversing Lake Nicaragua, the largest drinking-water reservoir in the region, [and] will destroy around 400,000 hectares of rainforests and wetlands.” So far, the Nicaraguan government has remained mum about the environmental impact of the project. Daniel Ortega, the country’s president, only said last year that “some trees have to be removed.”
Some trees?! Where are the enviros whackos on this?
Interestingly, despite this potential massive threat to one of the most pristine environmental reservoirs in the Americas, none of the leading international environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club, has issued a single statement about the Nicaragua Canal.
We know for a fact that this is not out of lack of interest in Central America. After all, some of these organizations were pretty vocal in their opposition to CAFTA. Why isn’t the Nicaragua Canal proposal commanding the attention of these international environmental groups?
Why? Because as Insty points out, “commies get a pass” on this sort of thing.
He’s been called a “scientist” for years, but his training is in industrial engineering. He’s about as much a climate scientist as I am. However, we’ve been constantly told that he and the IPCC speak for “science” when it comes to “climate change”.
Well, today he stepped down, submitting his resignation amid allegations of sexual harrassment.
I’m talking about Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, of course. Head of the IPCC that has published scare warnings for years, few if any of which have come true.
So why is an industrial engineer seen as some sort of an authority on climate?
Well it’s not because of his academic credentials, that’s for sure. Instead, its for his leftist credentials:
‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’
In other words, his “science” is faith based.
And, the left says we should take him seriously … because, you know, “the science is settled”.
‘One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.’
Anyone – do you really believe an actual climate scientist will be recruited to fill the job?
It appears as the climate alarmists and our political betters pursue global warming (with the “big meeting” in December of this year), some scientists are much more concerned about global cooling.
Why? Uh, the Sun?
“The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky – has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” echoes vencoreweather.com. “Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase.”
“There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity,” continues vencoreweather.com. “The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830.
“Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”.
“If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be more talk of another “grand minimum” for the sun.”
This, of course, will be roundly ignored in December when the “world” meets to decide on how to address …
global warming climate change. Because the conclusion has been determined before the meeting. The meeting is about how much to charge you for fixing this nonexistent problem and how to divide up the loot.
If, in fact, you believe that Marie Harf was winging it and stating her own opinion about Islamic extremists (oh, wait, “frustrated job seekers”) needing jobs, etc., get a load of Sec. of State John Kerry:
“Why do people make what to many of us would seem to be an utterly wrongheaded choice and become the kind of terrorists that we’re seeing?” he asked. “It’s a question that we need to approach with humility, but also with determination, because you cannot defeat what you don’t understand.”
“Certainly, there is no single answer,” Kerry continued. “In our era, poisonous ideas can come from almost anywhere – from parents, teachers, friends, preachers, politicians – from the pretty woman on a radical website who lures people or the man in the next cell who proselytizes while in prison.
“They might grow from pictures seen on the nightly news or from acts of discrimination or repression that you don’t think much about on the day of occurrence, but which come back to haunt. It could come from the desire to avenge the death of a loved one,” he said.
“In some cases, they may come from a lost job or from the contrast between one family’s empty dinner plate and a fancy restaurant’s lavish menu. The poison might even come from within, in the form of rebellion against anonymity, the desire to belong to a group, people who want a moment of visibility and identity, or the hunger for black-and-white answers to problems that are very complex in a remarkably more complicated world.”
In general, he has a point. Depending on the problem, people are motivated by all sorts of things to become part of that problem. And it makes sense to remove that motivation. Figuring that out is how you put a strategy to defeat the problem.
Specifically, however, it isn’t at all hard to figure out what motivates ISIS and THAT is the problem we face today.
The motivator? Islam. The “holy texts”. The desire for the Caliphate set up under precise rules set out by Islam’s founder. That is why they fight. That’s why they do what they do.
Sometimes you just have to apply Occam’s razor for heaven sake.
So, to recap: what motivates those who proclaim ISIS and the Caliphate is their religion. That’s it. How they were “radicalized” is less important than the fact that they were and are now a threat. And understanding what motivates that threat is how you put together a strategy to defeat them.
Instead we get this institutional load of liberal angst that, for the most part, is nonsense. Why can’t they bring themselves to face and name the problem? They don’t have any problem in identifying “right-wing domestic terrorists” Why not religious terrorists?
As I said, it certainly makes sense to remove the “underlying cause” of the problem … if that’s possible. But if we think we can somehow be a credible force in doing that, we’re wrong. We – the US, Europe, the West – aren’t in any position to do that since we are identified as the enemy of everything they hold dear. More importantly, it has nothing to do with jobs or dinner plates. It is a religious movement.
So when you finally realize that attacking the “underlying causes” of something like ISIS is a fool’s errand, what should you do?
Well, this will be unpalatable to some out there who have been raised in the “precious princess” society we’ve enabled, but you have to “go medieval” on them. You have to obliterate them. You have to make it not worth pursuing their fantasy and something that those who might choose it decide to reject.
Jobs won’t do that. Dropping packages of money on them won’t do that. They have the job they want and they’re the richest terror organization going.
What we have to do is systematically and completely destroy them – root and branch – by using everything reasonable at our disposal. Now, I understand that’s sort of difficult with a religious death cult, but I’d bet, once the reversals started and the ISIS death toll rose, the marginal jihadis would think twice about joining up. Right now, there’s little downside.
Bottom line? If you want to stop the “pretty woman on the radical website” from having an impact, destroy her story so thoroughly that she can’t spin her web of lies credibly anymore – and then take down her freakin’ website.
But as long as we try to avoid naming the problem and take half-measures while wringing our hands like a bunch of old women, the problem will both persist and get worse.
And trying to lay the load of “nuanced” crap Kerry pushed out there on the problem of ISIS avoids naming the problem and thus identifying a workable strategy which certainly guarantees it will persist.
Anyone who is surprised by that simply hasn’t been paying attention. After all, look who is in charge.
That’s what Ms. Harf did yesterday (see below), after she caught flak all over the place for her absolutely clueless argument concerning ISIS and … jobs. Appearing with Wolf Blitzer, here’s how it went down:
When Wolf Blitzer observed that the poverty-breeds-terrorism theory is hopelessly flawed and that high-profile attackers like Osama bin Laden and Mohamed Atta were relatively comfortable and privileged, Harf declined to acknowledge his point. Though she issued an emphatic “absolutely” so as to convey that she was, in fact, listening to Blitzer and understood the words that were coming out of his mouth, she instead plunged into a pre-canned attempt at damage control as her response:
“If we looked around the world and say long-term we cannot kill every terrorist around the world nor should we try, how do you get at the root causes of this?” she asked. “Look, it might be too nuanced of an argument for some like I’ve seen over the past 24 hours some of the commentary out but it’s really the smart way for Democrats, for Republicans, military commanders, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat it.”
There’s really no other way to interpret that. If you don’t think that statements like “we can’t kill our way out of this war” and asserting that ISIS militants “lack opportunity for jobs” oversimplifies the crisis in the Middle East, Harf does not believe that you are her intellectual equal.
Good lord, Ms. Harf – sometimes it is better to remain silent and be perceived a fool instead of opening your mouth and removing all doubt. Nuanced? Nuanced?!
It is a stupid and uninformed argument.
Sorry, I’m not feeling a “nuanced” rebuttal is warranted.
As Noah Rothman concludes:
That she would flatter herself into believing that she had spoken over the nation’s heads reflects the hubris that explains her insultingly naïve belief that this abhorrent ideology can only be defeated by an army of career counselors.
To describe our State Department (and it’s spokes person) as boneheaded is an insult to boneheaded people. Here’s State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf and, of all people, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: How do we stop this? I don’t see it. I see the Shia militias coming out of Baghdad who are all Shia. The Sunnis hate them. The Sunnis are loyal to ISIS rather than going in with the Shia. You’ve got the Kurds, the Jordanian air force and now the Egyptian air force. But i don’t see any — If i were ISIS, I wouldn’t be afraid right now. I can figure there is no existential threat to these people. They can keep finding places where they can hold executions and putting the camera work together, getting their props ready and killing people for show. And nothing we do right now seems to be directed at stopping this.
HARF: Well, I think there’s a few stages here. Right now what we’re doing is trying to take their leaders and their fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. That’s really where they flourish.
MATTHEWS: Are we killing enough of them?
HARF: We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether —
MATTHEWS: We’re not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s blowing and they’ll join. We can’t stop that, can we?
HARF: We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…
Good grief, these people don’t want better “governance” and they’ve got the job they want … building the Caliphate. For heaven sake when are these ass-clowns going to wake up?
I’m again going to recommend an article that does the best analysis and explanation of ISIS that you’re going to find. It is very clear that those who rally to the ISIS banner think they’re building a righteous future with the Caliphate and that what they’re doing is preordained by their religion.
But the fools who run this country and our foreign policy – that would be the White House and State Department – are terrified of facing the threat and calling it what it is. It’s absurd and cowardly. It makes them come up with the sorts of pitiful nonsense that Harf is told to go out and spread.
This is a religious movement which is based, at its very core, on Islam. It is as religious a movement as you can get. In fact, as explained in the Atlantic article I’ve pointed you too, it is based in a literal interpretation of Islam’s holy book and its history. Let me hit you with that one particular quote again:
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.
Note what the author points out – that “pretending it isn’t actually religious … has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it.”
See above! Harf is just a symptom of the idiocy and cowardice that infests our highest levels of government. When you refuse to actually identify the enemy and his motivation, you cannot hope to devise and develop a plan to counter his threat. History is littered with the failure such nonsense brings. Chamberlin thought Hitler could be reasoned with and would keep his word. He was clueless. And, as such, he developed a “strategy” that was an abject failure and, in fact, played right into Hitler’s hands.
Obama and Kerry are no different. They refuse to face the reality of the threat. That’s why we have no strategy, or at least no strategy (patience? really?) that will counter the threat. What they are doing is cowardly and reprehensible, not to mention being derelict in their sworn duties. This is unacceptable, but then neither Obama nor Kerry have ever been mistaken as leaders.
And when you elect or appoint people with no leadership experience and no real world experience, you get this. Something 50% of the idiots who live in this country approve of (sorry, I’m a little grumpy today).