.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
And I am Dagny. I too am in day school and though I hate to wear hats every once in a while my mommy sneaks one on me and snaps a picture .
.png)
========================================================================
Now enough corny humor and pictures of our beautiful youngest granddaughters. Back to Syria! Obama and the Weiner family!(See 1, 1a and 1c below.)
Obama's tossing the ball to Congress and asking them to send him a life raft reminds me of the corny story about John Henry.
There was a football game between two teams and John Henry's team was losing badly and his team' mates were also getting injured and being carried off the field. The crowd kept yelling to the Coach send in John Henry. Finally the Coach sent in John Henry and as Henry's team huddled the Coach sent in a play saying give the ball to John Henry. A voice came out of the huddle: " John Henry sey he don't want the ball!" (See 1b below.)
==
I have never watched Duck Dynasty but I have heard about it from a lot of friends who do watch it. We actually were in Duck Dynasty town when we recently visited Branson. As I noted, it is the America I remember growing up in where Aunt Bea and Oppie could be found. It is an America where bible toting folks are not ashamed of espousing their patriotism and are more than willing to display a flag, acknowledge the sacrifice of their fellow citizens and enjoy wholesome comedy etc, They are genuine people and sincerely friendly. They are comfortable in their own skin, proud of their country and see no reason to apologize for it but recognize we are not perfect. However, they believe remain he world's best hope for good.
We have a president who also has many Duck Dynasty similarities. He consistently ducks the buck that stops at his desk and his leadership is that of a quack. His goal is to diminish America. He is embarrassed by America and its achievements. I do not share his vision of America.
That said, Obama does not embarrass me. He was elected by those who embarrass me, those who blindly voted for him because they were too shallow to see through his pomposity . They were captured by his blandishments, his false promises, his stage presence and shallowness They were afraid to see him for what he was for fear of being considered racist and he played them as a violin.
Yes, McCain and Romney ran poor campaigns and we have a history of rejecting talented and decent candidates - Adlai Stevenson comes to mind.
Well here we are. Hung on the petard of his red line crossing which he now disavows were of his own doing. How pathetic and yet , I believe Congress must force his hand and give him the authority he does not need but seeks because he fears having the tail pinned on him. Partisanship must be put aside simply because America's word has been placed on the line by a gutless president. (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
It is about time. Kudos to Dr. Hamid! (See 3 below.)
===
YOU CAN EITHER AGREE WITH ME OR BE WRONG - YOUR CHOICE!
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Hobgoblin of Little Minds?
By Ambassador Henry F. Cooper
For years, I misquoted Churchill as saying “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” . . . He may have, but if he did he surely would have credited Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote a century earlier, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines” apparently to argue against too much consistency and for new thinking and self-reliance. Whatever . . . recent U.S. policies will never be criticized for being too consistent—except in their inconsistency.
I recently quoted KT McFarland on Fox Business News: “We were for Mubarak before we were against him; we were for Morsi before we were against him; and we were for General El-Sisi before we were against him.”
Would that our policies regarding Egypt were the only inconsistencies in our seemingly never-ending entanglement in the inscrutable Middle East and its centuries—even millennia—old conflicts between its families, tribes, states and alliances. These alliances include connections with the cacophony of proliferation that includes Russia, China, North Korea and others who at various times change their pragmatic views re. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
And all these entanglements also involve the intersection of the conflict of our Judeo-Christian heritage and multiple strains of Islam at war with each other and uniformly hostile to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There is no apparent answer to this dilemma, and especially to inform the current deliberations on next steps regarding Syria—given the numerous inconsistencies of our past and current (if anyone understands them) policies, public statements and naïve failed aspirations for an “Arab Spring” in the entire region.
Legacy of the Red Line Warning.
It is good that some of our representatives are returning to Washington to consider these issues, given the President’s belated request that they join in his decision to launch a limited strike on Syria in response to Syria’s (at least second) use of chemical weapons after his “Red Line” warning a year ago. But consider the swamp they are in as they try to find a sensible way forward from our current position illustrated by just a few of President Obama’s statements and actions.
- The President’s “Red Line” warning over a year ago threatening “enormous consequences” probably never made sense, but when no response followed Syria’s first use of Chemical Weapons months ago, his inaction set the stage for the current dilemma.
- The President’s announced intent to strike Syria, positioning armaments to do so, and days later deferring that announced attack while he consults with congress for a week or so eliminates most if not all elements of surprise our troops might have had—it is well known that Syria is to the extent possible taking counters to President Obama’s assurances of a “limited attack,” apparently on targets that cannot easily be shielded or moved.
- The President’s metaphor of a “shot across the bow” as the purpose of the attack only makes sense if he is prepared to “sink the ship” if his warning is not heeded—pray tell how does he intend to do that? Especially if he lives up to his companion promise of “no boots on the ground.”
- Claims that we must act now because of its horrific precedent are clearly exaggerated—Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people during the Iran-Iraq war—and killed an order of magnitude more people than Assad’s recent attacks—in full view of the international community without notable consequences beyond talk.
- By the way, many believe Hussein moved his weapons of mass destruction to Syria in the run-up to the 2003 second Gulf War—which would account for their absence after the war.
- While claiming Syria is a “danger to our national security,” the President did not even once mention Iran in Saturday’s speech—in my opinion, the single greatest Middle Eastern threat to U.S. national security, well on its way to gaining nuclear armed ballistic missiles that can reach U.S. territory—see below.
- Iran’s acquisition of the world’s most dangerous weapons of mass destruction, while leading state sponsors of terrorism, dwarfs the importance of Assad’s use of chemical weapons—and our and Israeli intelligence estimates suggest Iran is gaining a nuclear capability very soon.
The President’s spokesmen have the audacity to ask Congress about the message “we” will send if congress does not agree to go forward with whatever is his highly circumscribed attack on the Syrian regime. According to press accounts, the President’s proposed language to be considered by congress is more open-ended than the resolutions that set in motion the Vietnam War (1964) and our war in Iraq (2001).
The proposed language involves no end date and would give the President approval to use the military “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria.” And the President would be authorized to act “to prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of the weapon or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners” from the weapons.
The real question, in view of the mixed messages the President has already sent by his deeds and words: “Is there any way, in our national interest, to achieve a viable strategy from his paralysis and verbal scams?”
Turning to Congress now may seem like a brilliant political move to the President. If Congress votes yes—and it all turns out badly—as seems likely and as have most of his other initiatives in the Middle East, he will say we are all in this together. And if Congress votes no, he hopes still to be seen as a good guy for trying.
The greater problem is how this debacle can improve America’s perceived role as the free world's leader. There are a number of Obama decisions on the use of U.S. armed forces that have turned out badly.
- Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead, but al Qaeda is certainly not on the run . . . indeed its strength grows daily—and what we are doing in Syria could strengthen its role.
- The President’s publicized withdrawal from Iraq is rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory as the violence there is worse now than when he came into office—and growing.
- The President’s announced withdrawal from Afghanistan will be welcomed by the Taliban.
- The President’s “lead from behind strategy” in Libya ended in failure and a debacle in Benghazi costing the lives of our Ambassador and three other Americans—which is still unexplained . . . and it does matter, regardless of the claims of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
These acts and others show that President Obama has not learned his lessons very well. His Saturday speech just makes his shortfalls as commander-in-chief even more glaringly apparent. America’s apparent weakness is dangerous. Putin mocks our President and Beijing ignores him.
In thinking about notable inconsistencies, recall that several former senators, now senior officials in the Obama administration, have changed their previously outspoken views on dealing with the Assad regime. As pointed out by Rowan Scarborough's article in today's Washington Times, Former Senators Kerry, Hagel, and Biden opposed President George W. Bush's "get tough" efforts to counter Assad's brutal dealings with the people of Syria and his ties to Hezbollah and Hamas—terrorist groups with known links to Iran—and al Qaeda. Perhaps most notably, Secretary of State John Kerry now calls Assad "a thug and a murderer" . . . back then, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he applauded Assad for being "very generous" and argued he would change for the better.
In any case, we should not play “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” game in the Middle East . . . where we have but one true friend—the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will employ whatever forces he can to underwrite the Red Line he has drawn on Iran’s nuclear program. We should be standing with him. Yet, the President’s dealings with Israel have been lukewarm at best.
And, while congress deliberates on these and related important considerations before they officially
return next week from their August recess, President Obama is headed to the 5-6 September G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, hosted by that former KGB agent and again Russian President, Vladimir Putin—who in 2005 said “the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”Beware the meetings on the margins.
Putin, of course, sides with Assad in Syria and with Rouhani in Iran against U.S. interests. Wonder what's new of President Obama’s pre-election promise of “flexibility” on negotiating away our missile defense interests he is willing to trade for help on Syria and other possible “reset” ideas. Some of these “reset” issues that may arise in St. Petersburg were discussed by Steven Blank last Tuesday—before Syria distracted Washington’s interests in things strategic.
China, Russia’s partner in blocking any help from the United Nations via their joint veto power, will also be there to “help” President Obama find solutions, of course. Among the “hobgoblin of little minds.”
Meanwhile, the clock ticks on—to the first anniversary of Benghazi and the twelfth anniversary of 9/11. Wonder what will happen this year?
Distractions from the Looming Danger from Iran.
We should assure we can respond to the growing existential threat from Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Red Line,” when Iran gets enough critical nuclear material to build nuclear weapons, is urgently important for Israel and the United States. The Israelis are preparing to deal with this threat, though they don’t discuss how—especially how they might preempt Iran’s getting nuclear weapons. But it is well known that they also have been diligently building ballistic missile defense systems that could intercept ballistic missiles, including from Iran.
The U.S. should follow suit—as quickly as possible. If/when Iran gets nuclear weapons and can mate them to ballistic missiles that they already have, they will pose an existential threat to the United States in any of the following ways:
- Nuclear-armed ICBM attacks over the North Pole—we need to strengthen our current defenses, especially for the Eastern Seaboard; congress is aware of this problem and pressing for improvements.
- Nuclear-armed satellite attacks over the South Pole—we are vulnerable to this mode of attack, which they may have practiced; and it appears to be being ignored.
- Nuclear-armed short, medium, or intermediate range missiles launched from vessels off our coasts—we are vulnerable to this mode of attack, but could employ Aegis ships normally near or on our coasts to provide limited defenses if we trained their crews to do so. Aegis Ashore sites, like those to be built in Romania and Poland, also could address this problem. The administration is supposed to address this issue next year in response to a congressional directive.
- Nuclear-armed short, medium or intermediate range missiles launched from the south—from the vessels in the Gulf of Mexico or from Latin America—and we are totally vulnerable and will require the deployment of effective defenses to counter such attacks. Aegis Ashore sites could provide this defense. The administration is also supposed to address this issue next year in response to the same congressional directive.
Any of these attack modes can detonate a nuclear weapon above the United States to create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that could cause irreparable damage to the key large transformers of the electric power grid—and under certain well known conditions that could cause a complete failure of the electric power grid for an indefinite period. The ultimate result anticipated by credible experts could be that the consequent chaos would lead to the death of several hundred million Americans within the following year.
It is very important to harden the electric power grid so that if an attacking missile gets through the defense and detonates its nuclear weapon high above the United States, we will not lose our electric power indefinitely. If we can accomplish this hardening of the electric power grid, then we will have a good chance of reinstating other critical infrastructure upon which our survival depends. Such hardening will also protect us against EMP from the solar storms. For a more complete summary of these issues, see our August 2nd email.
In addressing these concerns, it should be emphasized that the federal government’s first duty is to provide for the common defense. Providing effective missile defenses and hardening the electric power grid as quickly as possible should be a national priority.
High Frontier Plans.
We at High Frontier will continue to interact with the “hobgoblin of little minds,” by seeking to inform the powers that be of existential threats to the American people—as we have discussed in our emails for many months—and to urge them to “provide for the common defense” as charged by the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Hopefully, key federal authorities and members of congress will soon begin to deal more effectively with this existential threat.
Key initiatives are to urge the Washington powers that be to undertake both the Shield Act andefforts to enhance our ballistic missile defenses, especially for our citizens on the East Coast and around the Gulf of Mexico, where they are completely vulnerable to ballistic missiles launched from vessels in the Gulf—or from Latin America, e.g., Venezuela.
But frankly, we have come to doubt that Washington will act in an expeditious way. Thus, we are also taking the message to grass roots America. Our local and state authorities need to understand these issues and what they might do if their federal representatives continue to fail “to provide for the common defense.”
It would be wise for other state legislatures to follow Maine’s initiative and harden the electric power grid in their states, while holding the Washington authorities accountable for their oath to provide for the common defense.
1a)The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime
By Doug Patton
“Speak softly and carry a big stick.” — Teddy Roosevelt
“The buck stops here.” — Harry Truman
“I didn’t set a red line.” — Barack Obama
Barack Obama is, without question, the most embarrassing president of my lifetime — and that is saying something, since my life so far has encompassed 12 presidencies, some of which have brought a lot of embarrassment to the nation. Even Richard Nixon, with his Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter, with his malaise, and Bill Clinton, with his lewd behavior in the Oval Office, could not top this president for pure, unadulterated disgrace.
Of course, in Obama’s case, it is not a matter of personal scandal like it was for Clinton. By telling the world a year ago that he was drawing a red line in the hot desert sands of Syria — that red line being the use of chemical weapons — he created the debacle that currently threatens to engulf the Middle East. He blustered at the time that if the regime of Bashar al-Assad crosses that red line, there will be a price to pay. No one yet knows what that price will be, but from the current discussion, it appears that it will involve the destruction of at least three camels, four sheep, a half-dozen goats and an abandoned aspirin factory. That oughta show ‘em!
What it will do, in all likelihood, is unify the Islamic crazies in the Middle East and turn Assad into a regional hero, emboldening him to attack Israel secure in the knowledge that the United States has no stomach for a wider war.
Congressional offices on Capitol Hill are reporting phone calls coming in at a rate of more than 200 to 1 against approving Obama’s plan to attack Syria. Republican and Democrats alike are being bombarded with negative responses from their constituents. Still, there are those among the insulated legislative class — John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, etc. — who have not gotten the message that the American people are about as enthusiastic about Obama’s proposed war plans as they are about undergoing a quadruple root canal. In fact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve a resolution to allow Obama to use force.
Meanwhile, Facebook postings from members of our military are appearing with sentiments like this: “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al-Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.”
Yet there was the ever-arrogant Barack Obama, standing at the podium in Stockholm on Wednesday, embarrassing himself yet again (and, by extension, the fools who elected him) by announcing in response to a reporter’s question about his crumbling credibility, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything. Therefore, when something goes wrong among his cockamamie plans, it must be someone else’s fault. Usually, of course, it would be George Bush’s fault, but even Obama couldn’t bring himself to tell that one again, not in this case. No, this time it’s the whole world’s fault. And Congress. And America. It’s American credibility that will suffer, he told the world, not his. Unbelievable.
The questions that need to be asked are these: What is the national security interest of the United States of America in attacking Syria? Will our intervention accomplish anything more than assuaging the ego of an arrogant president who has no knowledge of military matters? Will the consequences for the wider region, and for the interests of the United States, be improved if we attack Syria? And the most frightening question: have we elected a president who so admires Islam and so hates Israel that he would deliberately aid al-Qaeda while provoking a brutal Arab tyrant to attack our tiny but crucial ally?
I fear the answers to these questions are as follows: none; no; no; and, unfortunately, yes.
1b
The Benching of Uncle Sam
A GOP Syria vote shouldn't ratify U.S. decline at home and abroad.
By Daniel Henninger
David Axelrod on Saturday gave his opinion on the situation in Syria with a tweet on Twitter: "Congress is now the dog that caught the car." On Wednesday, the president of the United States retweeted Mr. Axelrod's 43-character analysis. He said in Stockholm that the credibility at stake in the decision on Syria isn't his. Instead, it is "America's," and "Congress's credibility," and the "international community's credibility." Mr. Obama looks like the dog who ran away from the car.
The purpose of Mr. Obama's fantastic statements Wednesday could not be more obvious: He is trying to drive the Republicans into a "no" vote on the Syria resolution. He is shirking presidential responsibility for the U.S.'s role in the world. He doesn't want that responsibility.
The GOP should not be a party to this abdication. It should vote for a resolution authorizing Mr. Obama to act militarily in Syria. After that bipartisan vote, it will be Barack Obama who caught the presidency.
With the presidency comes the job of commander in chief. He never wanted that job. He wanted to let the U.S.'s global status decline while he dallied at home with windmills, college rankings and health data.
Now he has to step up. An authorization vote on a discrete world crisis will force the inconstant Mr. Obama to focus and think about the world with the seriousness it requires from the president of the United States.
Republicans should support an authorization on Syria for the same reason they are opposing him on ObamaCare: to stop America's decline. Whether by design or incompetence, Barack Obama's policies are putting in motion a historic American reversal at home and abroad.
If this were September 2015, it wouldn't matter. But we are little more than eight months into Mr. Obama's second four years. A responsible and loyal opposition would recognize that it is not in the interests of the U.S., or the world, to have an irreparably damaged U.S. president this early in his second term.
Americans, including those in Congress, wake up every day to a country that was handed to them by earlier generations of Americans after World War II. The United States had become the world's pre-eminent nation. Great nations, however, are not like planets passing through the sky in fixed orbits. They can drop.
Republicans understand the dangers of domestic economic decline. That is why they are opposing this president on ObamaCare, spending and the national debt.
Growth in the Obama years has hovered around 2%, way off the century-long average of 3.3% that produced abundance and prosperity for the U.S. Signs of economic revival have begun to appear, but the Obama economic agenda is a structural impediment to the sustained, higher growth rates that produced the American Century.
A less prosperous America is acceptable to Barack Obama and his progressive supporters, who have convinced themselves that the distribution of wealth in the U.S. since its founding has been "unjust." If public policy can forcibly redistribute U.S. wealth, a lower level of economic growth is acceptable. Relative to America's achievement, this will be decline.
What is unique about the Obama presidency is that American decline as a world power won't, as with Europe, be the unhappy result of wealth redistribution. It is part of Mr. Obama's agenda. In future crises, Mr. Obama said in his 2009 Cairo speech and elsewhere, the U.S. would act only after building "international consensus," which meant the United Nations or the faded European allies. An Obama aide called this "leading from behind." That is what the U.S. did in Libya. This partnership-of-equals policy was the basis for the failed Russian reset.
In short, Barack Obama's view of the U.S. role in the world is that the time has come to bench Uncle Sam.
The end of what they call "the American imperium" is a policy goal progressive activists have sought for decades. If Republicans vote to defeat a resolution on using military power against Assad, whose victory may let Iran and Russia achieve hegemony in the Middle East, it will be a vote to take Uncle Sam out of the world power game.
That will give Barack Obama a reason to proceed with the downsizing of America at home and in the world for the rest of his term. The depressed GOP hawks on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted on Wednesday against authorization are merely enabling this outcome.
This will put the U.S. in a very bad place. Those who think their president can begin reversing all this in 2017 are dreaming. A sinking world power is the heaviest lift imaginable. Ask Winston Churchill.
Legitimate questions exist about a Syria resolution—about goals, means and the status of the opposition forces—and they should be addressed. But that's not the issue being raised here. The American decline put in motion under this presidency is real, not speculative. We are not at the edge of the cliff, but in September 2013 we are at a serious inflection point.
As they vote, the Republicans in Congress should make clear that they understand the historic stakes. The American people, who the last time I looked weren't interested in throwing in the towel, will appreciate hearing something that sounds like leadership.
1c)
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Adam Chandler: Why 'Duck Dynasty' Viewers Heed Its Call
Hard work, solid values and a sense of humor have fueled the biggest show in cable-TV history
By ADAM CHANDLER
Fans of reality TV have long tuned in to gawk at the curiosities of American subculture. Unfortunately, the country on display is typically a blooper reel of drunken brawling ("Jersey Shore"), cutthroat competition and casual racism ("Big Brother"), and amateur singers enduring needless pain for cash prizes ("Killer Karaoke").
Is there any show that paints an admirable, more accurate portrait of life in the U.S.? Unlikely as it might seem, "Duck Dynasty" might fit the bill. The A&E show, now in its fourth season, has managed to become the most popular reality program in cable history. The season premiere on Aug. 14 captured 11.8 million viewers, double the number that tuned in for the season premiere of "Breaking Bad" earlier that week.
Set in northeast Louisiana, "Duck Dynasty" follows the Robertsons, three generations of swamp-trawling, long-bearded duck-hunting enthusiasts who also happen to be millionaires. The entrepreneurs have built a business empire on duck-hunting gear and, especially, on duck calls made from Louisiana cedar.
The family patriarch is Phil Robertson, who, according to popular legend, was the first-string quarterback ahead of future NFL Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw at Louisiana Tech University. Mr. Robertson likens himself to Col. Sanders, having spent decades fashioning his patented duck calls before his company, Duck Commanders, took off. Phil's son Willie is the CEO of the family company and narrates much of the show's action. Willie's brother, Jase, and his Uncle Si are largely around for comic relief and their riffs on fishing and romance
What separates "Duck Dynasty" from most reality shows is how quickly we see that the money hasn't gone to anyone's head. Early in the first season, Jase and Si Robertson happen upon two dead nutria rats in the middle of the road. In Louisiana, they explain, the state pays $5 for nutria tails because of the damage the rodents do to the marshes. The men pull over, Jase takes out his knife and cuts off their tails.
"Roadkill is a redneck's paycheck," he proclaims. "Just cause I got money in my pocket, that don't mean I'm too good to stop and pick up a five-dollar bill that's laying in the middle of the road."
As they ride off with their bounty, the stench of the roadkill drives the two men into fits of coughing. It's a funny scene—and a bit gross. Behind it, though, is the show's central theme: Be self-sufficient and, in the words of Phil Robertson, live off the land.
The Robertson clan does just that: shooting at beavers and dismantling dams that restrict water flow, catching a boatload of catfish to fry for dinner, and hunting for bullfrogs at night in gator-infested waters.
A major criticism of reality TV is the footage is edited to create better drama, often by making participants seem clumsier, more vapid or simply mean-spirited. In lesser hands, "Duck Dynasty" could easily be a carnival of deep-fried Louisiana caricatures. But much to the producers' credit, the characters seem in on the joke, and they remain their camo-wearing, Bible-toting selves anyway.
In that first episode, the bullfrog hunt leads to an exchange between Phil and his grandson Cole as Phil shows him how to chop and skin bullfrogs. Phil offers Cole what he calls "river rat counseling," which includes a warning not to "marry some yuppie girl" and to not fixate on a woman's appearance. "Find you a meek, gentle, kind-spirited country girl," Mr. Robertson says. "If she knows how to cook and carries her Bible and lives by it and she loves to eat bullfrogs, there's a woman."
Another "Duck Dynasty" theme centers on a family-wide disdain for technology, especially cellphones. But the Robertsons are generally skeptical of modern life. In one of the best moments of the series, Si Robertson imparts this piece of wisdom. "America, everyone is in too big of a rush," he offers. "Lay back, take a sip of tea, mow a little grass, and if you get tired, take ya a nap." Sure, it's sappy. But Si means it.
At the end of each episode, the entire family gathers for dinner, a meal prepared with much care by Phil's wife, Kay. Phil says grace as Willie narrates a lesson distilled from the events of the episode. However formulaic, it's both a tender family moment and a savvy way for the Robertsons to convey their values.
In an era when many American television shows are imported or adapted from programs created in other countries, "Duck Dynasty" is unabashedly American. The best news is that watching a real family driven by hard work and rooted in faith is apparently far more interesting to viewers than following the latest machinations of the "Real Housewives."
Mr. Chandler is a staff writer at Tablet magazine.
2a)
2a)
Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
Is Vladimir Putin Outmaneuvering Us, Every Step of the Way?
I don't know how much stock to put in this assessment by David Samuels in Tablet magazine, but it sure is thought-provoking:
We can quibble with the details, but the general thrust makes quite a bit of sense, doesn't it? Anybody doubt that Putin wants to see the United States reduced to an irrelevant afterthought in the Middle East, and for Russia to dramatically expand its sphere of influence?
Meanwhile, NBC News turns to body-language analysts to assure their readers that all is well, and that President Lightworker is immanentizing the Eschaton right on schedule:
Right. The lifelong KGB officer is quaking in his boots at the sight of the community organizer.
No, Romney wasn't right about everything. But his assessment of the problems facing America, both globally and domestically (hello, bankrupt Detroit!) was a lot more accurate than Obama's, and the press reflexively dismissed Romney's arguments from word one.
The press was so determined that their hopey-changey idol had to be right that they never seriously examined what Romney was saying.
And now we're here.
'Credibility'? It's Gone. It's Not Coming Back Until January 2017 at the Earliest.
Here's the thing: even if we launch some cruise missiles and blow up some Syrian military buildings our credibility is still in tatters. Everybody knows our president makes promises he can't keep, threats he doesn't intend to carry out, bluffs and then gets mad when others call his bluff.
President Obama is who we thought he was. He is who we said he was. And we let him off the hook! (storms away from podium)
Except that you did set a red line, Mr. President. And we know "the world" didn't set that red line, because "the world", with the exception of Turkey and France, has decided they're not willing to do anything militarily to punish Assad.
You notice Obama and Kerry keep insisting other nations are with us because they've issued statements denouncing Assad's use of chemical weapons. Let me be clear: When a brutal dictator uses poison gas to kill hundreds of people, including children, issuing a denunciatory statement is almost literally the least you can do.
Lost credibility? We have a president who couldn't persuade the British Labour Party to support unmanned airstrikes against a dictator who used sarin. It sounds like a joke. Diplomatically, that's a six-inch putt, to put it in terms the president can appreciate. This is the salesmanship equivalent of selling beer in Ireland.
Ed Morrissey, over at that site I can't link to because it gets this e-mail caught in spam filters:
The NR editors wrote, "the Obama policy of passivity has, so far, proved a disaster." Even if the tomahawks started flying, Obama's inclination towards passivity will probably return with a vengeance, the moment everything went wrong. (Reminder: we still haven't arrested, killed, or as far as we know, even pursued anyone for the attack in Benghazi.) It's unlikely that Obama is transforming his entire worldview as a result of this painful experience.
He's caught between a war he doesn't really want to fight and his fear of being exposed as a guy who draws red lines but doesn't enforce them. So he's splitting the difference by pledging to bomb Syria, but not that badly. That won't restore our national credibility.
Washington Post on Obama's Red Line: Just a Bungled Talking Point
Come on, Washington Post Fact Checker. This is what makes people lose faith in the nonpartisan, fair, even-handed approach you claim to take:
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)From the Heart of an Honest Muslim
By Dr Tawfik Hamid
3)From the Heart of an Honest Muslim
By Dr Tawfik Hamid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am a Muslim by faith, a Christian by spirit, a Jew by heart, and above all I am a human being." ~ Dr. Tawfik Hamid.Dr. Hamid is an Egyptian scholar and author of this article.The world needs more people like him---ones who have the courage to face-up to reality.I was born a Muslim and lived all my life as a follower of Islam.
After the barbaric terrorist attacks done by the hands of my fellow Muslims everywhere on this globe, and after the too many violent acts by Islamists in many parts of the world, I feel responsible as a Muslim and as a human being to speak out and tell the truth to protect the world and Muslims as well from a coming catastrophe and war of civilizations.
I have to admit that our current Islamic teaching creates violence and hatred toward non-Muslims. We Muslims are the ones who need to change. Until now we have accepted polygamy, the beating of women by men, and killing those who convert from Islam to other religions.
We have never had a clear and strong stand against the concept of slavery or wars, to spread our religion and to subjugate others to Islam and force them to pay a humiliating tax called jizia. We ask others to respect our religion while all the time we curse non-Muslims loudly (in Arabic) in our Friday prayers in the mosques.
What message do we convey to our children when we call the Jews "descendants of the pigs and monkeys"? [Yet, both Arabs and Jews are descendants of Ibrahim (Abraham)!] Is this a message of love and peace, or a message of hate?
I have been into [Christian] churches and [Jewish] synagogues where they were praying for Muslims. While all the time, we curse them, and teach our generations to call them "infidels", and to hate them.
We immediately jump in a 'knee jerk reflex' to defend Prophet Mohammad when someone accuses him of being a pedophile while, at the same time, we are proud with the story in our Islamic books that he married a young girl seven years old [Aisha] when he was above 50 years old.
I am sad to say that many, if not most of us, rejoiced in happiness after September 11th and after many other terror attacks.
Muslims denounce these attacks to look good in front of the media, but we condone the Islamic terrorists and sympathise with their cause. Until now our 'reputable' top religious authorities have never issued a fatwa or religious statement to proclaim Bin Laden as an apostate, while an author, like Rushdie, was declared an apostate who should be killed according to Islamic Shari'a law just for writing a book criticizing Islam.
Muslims demonstrated to get more religious rights as we did in France to stop the ban on the hijab (head scarf), while we did not demonstrate with such passion and in such numbers against the terrorist murders. It is our absolute silence against the terrorists that gives the energy to these terrorists to continue doing their evil acts.
We Muslims need to stop blaming our problems on others or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. As a matter of honesty, Israel is the only light of democracy, civilization, and human rights in the whole Middle East.
We kicked out the Jews with no compensation or mercy from most of the Arab countries to make them "Jews-free countries" while Israel accepted more than a million Arabs to live there, have their own nationality, and enjoy their rights as human beings. In Israel, women cannot be beaten legally by men, and any person can change his/her belief system with no fear of being killed by the Islamic law of 'apostasy,' while in our Islamic world people do not enjoy any of these rights.
I agree that the 'Palestinians' suffer, but they suffer because of their corrupt leaders and not because of Israel.
It is not common to see Arabs who live in Israel leaving to live in the Arab world. On the other hand, we used to see thousands of Palestinians going to work with happiness in Israel, its 'enemy.' If Israel treats Arabs badly as some people claim, surely we would have seen the opposite happening.
We Muslims need to admit our problems and face them. Only then we can treat them and start a new era to live in harmony with human mankind. Our religious leaders have to show a clear and very strong stand against polygamy, pedophilia, slavery, killing those who convert from Islam to other religions, beating of women by men, and declaring wars on non-Muslims to spread Islam.
Then, and only then, do we have the right to ask others to respect our religion.The time has come to stop our hypocrisy and say it openly: 'We Muslims have to change!
No comments:
Post a Comment