Category Archives: morality

The Democrat’s View of “Justice”

Posted on by
Reply

[State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D, MO)] predicted Friday that if prosecutors don’t win a conviction against the police officer who shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, it could trigger a new wave of unrest in Ferguson.

“There’s several people out there including the protesters that I’ve been with this morning who seem to feel as though there won’t be a conviction,” she told Fox News.

“If that happens, we’re going to have exactly what you saw two weeks ago, with a lot of tear gas going all over the place.”

There is, after all, only one Politically Correct outcome, and the facts don’t matter. Chappelle-Nadal will be sure and join the protestors to ensure the right outcome is achieved. Never mind a jury’s verdict.

And

[Senator Claire McCaskill’s, D, MO] office said Friday that the Department of Justice hasn’t given a timeline for the federal investigation, which centers on whether a civil rights violation occurred when officer Darren Wilson fatally shot the unarmed Michael Brown on Aug 9.

Nor will DoJ give a timeline. They’ll also not release their results until after the grand jury, and if necessary the subsequent trial, reach the wrong answer.

Because, votes.

The Terrorist Threat

Posted on by
Reply

UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron had some thoughts.

Stability. Security. The peace of mind that comes from being able to get a decent job and provide for your family, in a country that you feel has a good future ahead of it and that treats people fairly. In a nutshell, that is what people in Britain want

And

I agree that we should avoid sending armies to fight or occupy. But we need to recognise that the brighter future we long for requires a long-term plan for our security as well as for our economy. True security will only be achieved if we use all our resources—aid, diplomacy, our military prowess—to help bring about a more stable world.

And

The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home. Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago. It is our concern here and now. Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain. We already know that it has the murderous intent. Indeed, the first ISIL-inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place.

And

[W]e need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism, or uncompromising action against terrorists at home. On Friday we agreed with our European partners that we will provide equipment directly to the Kurdish forces; we are now identifying what we might supply, from body armour to specialist counter-explosive equipment.

And

We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime. We face in ISIL a new threat that is single-minded, determined, and unflinching in pursuit of its objectives. … It makes no secret of its expansionist aims.

And concluding [emphasis added]:

This is a clear danger to Europe and to our security. It is a daunting challenge. But it is not an invincible one, as long as we are now ready and able to summon up the political will to defend our own values and way of life with the same determination, courage, and tenacity as we have faced danger before in our history. That is how much is at stake here: we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.

I disagree with Cameron’s statement only to this extent: the terrorists have created a “caliphate” only to the extent we recognize it; otherwise, it’s only a figment of the fevered imagination of a mob of terrorists.

Beyond that, what he said. He also has some concrete ideas on how to deal with domestic and domestic-grown terrorists. RTWT.

If only our President had some thoughts….

“US special forces tried to rescue hostages in Syria but failed”

Posted on by
Reply

So screamed a recent Fox News headline. And

The Obama administration sent US troops to Syria recently to attempt to rescue hostages being held by Islamic State militants, including journalist James Foley, but failed to find them, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

But why is the Obama administration mentioning this now, just after the beheading of Foley by these terrorists? There’s no reason at all, other than as another self-serving claim to be doing something in order to show that they’re doing something in response (!) to an act of monstrous barbarity. This administration also claims ISIS terrorists were killed in the raid. Really? Where—in the aftermath of that failure, or now, in the aftermath of the claim of that effort—are ISIS’ braggings about having inflicted such a defeat on the Great Satin?

Also, why is the Obama administration giving up this classified (or it should be) information at all?

NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden said in a statement that the administration had not planned to release details of the operation, out of concern for the safety of the hostages. However, she said, it became clear Wednesday it would be reported in the media and the administration had “no choice but to acknowledge it.”

This makes no sense. If Obama’s administration didn’t leak any of this information, on what basis does it claim this information “would be reported in the media?”

Worse, giving up information about the raid (if it occurred), gives critical information concerning methods and sources to the terrorists, and to anyone else who’s listening, endangering friendly lives and hindering the ability to execute future ops of this type.

Of course, the Obama administration understands all of that. Which brings me back to that earlier purpose, mentioned above. This exposure is all about making Obama and his administration look good in the shower. As illogical as that seems, as immoral as that is, it’s entirely consistent with this administration’s performance these last six years. This act is all about Obama and his administration, and not at all about the safety of American troops or of American civilians situated overseas. After all, after his pretty speech about the beheading, and while Obama’s Own were blatting on about this failed raid, President Barack Obama went back to his golf game and his vacation.

 

Finally, a quibble. This butchery was by ISIS terrorists, not any nation. Full stop. The press really needs to stop muddying the situation, and it really needs to stop legitimizing these terrorists by euphemizing them.

A Child King

Posted on by
1

Kim Jong Un, the child, and the king, in question, is describing Secretary of State John Kerry as a wolf with a “hideous lantern jaw.”

He’s also termed President Barack Obama a monkey and Republic of Korea President Park Geun-hye a prostitute.

The AP thinks these are “crude insults,” and so they are, but it’s also important to keep in mind that these are, at bottom, the childish name-callings of a poorly raised adolescent. In the end, while any proper raising requires discipline, and Kim should be held to account for his misbehavior, the boy is more to be pitied for his condition than condemned for his behavior.

That he has an unstable finger on crude nuclear weapons also is a concern, the way any child playing with a gun is, but that’s a separate question.

Was the Palestinian Authority Ever Serious

Posted on by
Reply

…during the latest cease fire in its terror war against Israel [emphasis added]?

Israel has suspended talks with Palestinian factions in Cairo after three rockets from the Gaza Strip landed in southern Israel, breaking a cease-fire aimed at allowing negotiators to broker a long-term truce for the conflict-ridden territory.

The rocket fire came hours after Israel and Palestinian factions resumed negotiations toward a cease-fire deal. On Monday night, both sides accepted a proposal by Egyptian mediators to prolong their cease-fire from Monday to Tuesday midnight local time to give extra time to reach an agreement.

…Izzat Al Risheq, a senior Hamas official and delegate to the talks, expressed pessimism on Monday that more talk would produce a durable accord.

No, they never were. They just wanted the days in which to rest, recuperate, and reform so they could resume.

Neither, evidently, is the UN serious.

…Robert Serry, the UN special envoy to the Middle East, urged negotiators to agree on a durable cease-fire so reconstruction could start.

“Gaza urgently needs houses, hospitals and schools—not rockets, tunnels and conflict,” Mr. Serry told the council.

Sure. If he actually believed that, he’d be moving to stop UNRWA from warehousing the terrorists’ rockets for them, allowing the terrorists to dig their tunnels under UNRWA facilities, or participating in the terrorists’ staged propaganda.

No, this was all about buying time for the PA to get their rest, recuperation, and refitting.