ISIS Is A Storm We May Not Weather RL Nov 16 15

Paris

• Paris terror attacks: The West is at war with a death cult – we must join together to stamp it out - Telegraph
• Paris police and ISIS gunmen fight outside Bataclan in video | Daily Mail Online
• Paris attacks show U.S. surveillance of Islamic State may be ‘going dark’ - Yahoo News

• Texas Congressman Introduces Resolution to Invoke NATO Article Five After Paris Attacks
• Obama: Paris Attack a ‘Setback’ in Battle Against Islamic State
• In Paris Massacre’s Aftermath, Here’s One Important Truth We Must Apply From History
• Why Even the Thinking Left Owns Paris
• France’s Answer To Terrorism: The "Law Of Suspects"

Immigration

• EXCLUSIVE-House Freedom Caucus Chairman: No Commitment From Paul Ryan To Block Import of Muslim Refugees - Breitbart
• Congress Learned Of Syrian Refugees Entering The U.S. Just Recently | The Daily Caller

• Governors of Michigan, Alabama reject resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states - The Washington Post
• 13 state governors start refusing Syrian refugees in wake of Paris attacks | Daily Mail Online
• Gov. Jindal ‘Demands’ to Know How Many Syrian Refugees Have Been Accepted Into Louisiana — and He Gets an Answer

• Why It’s Virtually Impossible to Vet Refugees
• Since 9/11 U.S. Has Accepted Over 2 Million Migrants from Majority Muslim Nations
• Stop the Bleeding
• Krauthammer: The Only Time Obama ‘Showed Passion’ Was Attacking Republicans On Refugees

Media

• PolitiFact Shock: Obama Claim ISIS ‘Contained’ — ‘True’11
• 11Watch: Fox News Anchor Hears What Obama Says About Paris, Can No Longer Contain Himself
• As GOP Governors Announce They Won’t Take Refugees, Shep Smith Delivers This 90-Second Message | Video | TheBlaze.com
• Watch: Fox News Host Reveals The 4 Controversial MUSTS For America To Defeat ISIS

• CNN’s Christiane Amanpour Gives Surprisingly Brutal Review of Obama’s Islamic State Claims at G-20 Summit
• Watch How Seemingly Annoyed Obama Reacts to CNN Reporter’s Tough Islamic State Question at G-20 Summit | Video | TheBlaze.com
• Glenn Beck Offers New Definition of a Real ‘Islamic Radical’
• The Liberal Media Is Turning On Obama – His Strategy Against ISIS Isn’t Working

Islam think

• Geller: The West Has Lost the Will to Live - Breitbart
• The Crisis Is Islam
• Propaganda And Islam: What You’re Not Being Told
• ISIS Is A Storm We May Not Weather
• Democrats’ PC Refusal to Name ‘Radical Islam’ Betrays a Deeper Weakness John Fund

Leadership

• A Serious War Calls for a Serious Strategy
• After Paris, Obama’s Abandonment of Leadership
• Obama Insists ISIS Is Contained Joel Gehrke
• In Search of a New Free-World Leader
• America’s Brave Soldiers: Lions Led by Donkeys David French

 BtF:Think, Obama, Campus, Islam, the Mess, Refugee, Foreign, Clinton, 2016, and the Others

A Personal Second Declaration of Independence.

It has been cold from where I type. It is a problem that I have been unable to fix myself so it persists. The cold creeps in through my fingers and nose and leaks an apathy to my mind. So I have been away. Pacing, frustrated at what I do not understand. At having been away for a short time I come to find that we now can threaten legal action for the bad taste of a cartoon. I am beginning to believe that I do understand all to well. This was once a free society. I can be held responsible for violations of others rights. Not being offended is not a right. Having bad taste is and its costs can be calculated in a free society. Those costs are calculated in a court when societies that are oppressed by the ideas of suffocating social and economic justice.

We are called cowards for wishing not to be called something we are not. Further still our leaders have enshrined in law that we are not allowed in our "free society" to judge people by the content of their character.

We are told that the pain of the restorative fires of failure are to great. That government must at unsustainable cost lessen the pain. The must spread pain over the rest of time. We must all live with the nagging pain until it consumes us. We are left small apathetic lives with no chance of restoration.

We are told that it is an unrecoverable disadvantage in a global society predominated by failing states. State that syphon too much wealth into their governments to mitigate the the drives of individuals. They do it for the fairness and equality in all, not allowing for the exceptional. We must join them so we too can gains perceived advantages ignoring the slow lose of fundamental strength of our state.

We are told guns bring only chaos. We do not entertain the though of responsible balance of power in our "free" society. Protection of all people from of the evil of the gun is the only issue. Never speak of the deterring oppression of absolute equality the gun may bring.

"We the people" have become oppressed by the people. The people have lost the responsible curiosity vital to the building of ideals started so long ago. We have let the growth of this idea to be lead by those that trade in halve truths. They spout myopic details with no context and use broad unarguable concepts of fairness and morals, moving the people behind them. We have allowed the idea to grow into failed territory. The growth speeds up as the world does. We trust our leaders more, unable to bring ourselves to do the needed work. "We the People" see not the dead branches all around us.

Long this country has lived. Born from a revolution of enlightenment and rationalism. It is now dying from a revolution in oppressive equality by the people of the people. Born from 20th century philosophy and a 60's counter culture it has grown to slowly strangle us.

I will happily and forcefully fight to remove the people's oppression. Leadership, reason, education and enlightenment of all things are the weapons. They may now be woefully inadequate to force the idea to a sustainable course. There is no need for use of the gun as the time will have come and gone before they can be use to recover.

I live in the slowly dying light not yet doomed to just burn dimly on in the absence of freedom. Many dark days are ahead. The ideals of freedom can be stoked again now. When they are not years from now the gun will have to be used when glimmering light is seen clearly once again in the distance. This is where I reside. Not yet fully fallen into the dark chaos so many others are doomed.

I am not a citizen of a once Great Britain bullied to accept surrender to the EU. I am not a citizen of a France bending to the post modern will of its neighbors and people. I am not a citizen of a Europe with government socialized societies allowing ideals of multiculturalism to over write their own. I am not a citizen of a Cuba who in ignorance supported a dictatorial collectivist take over. I am not a citizen of a Venezuela slowly voting a dictator to permanent power. I am not a citizen of a China of a people given, out of necessity, economic freedom but will not yet fight for social freedom.

I will not be a citizen of 2009 co-opting the worst of the rest America. I will be a citizen of 1861 and 1941 fight and die for preservation of this noble experiment and freedom of peoples America. I will be a citizen of 1776 full of independent self-reliant people America. I will be a citizen of 1862, 1920 and 1964 intervene only if free society absolutely can not remove oppression of an unchangeable physicality America. I will be a citizen of the Late 1800's free use of both the backs and minds to leap us forward. I will be a citizen of the yet realized New Renaissance of American ideals.


It's a first draft any way.

Looking Around, Where Are The Libertarian Going?

Feeling boxed in to a conservative label by the stimulus arguments I went looking again. I am trying to find constructive disarming and well place with more traffic to link to. The first is is nearly impossible the second is nearly impossible not to find. So in my travels there is this: Econlog. Right at the top is an outtake from a libetrarian disscution an this:

"I confess to being an intellectual snob, but by the same token I claim to be able to differentiate between knowledge and educational pedigree. I respect a well-read self-taught individual more than a Harvard-educated narrow-minded one.

To put it another way, I see a difference between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. To the average lefty, both of them are morons. I think Reagan was genuinely engaged with profound ideas. Palin may have talent and charisma, but I do not think she could explain Hayek."

Great! I can explain Hayek either but I can learn. Parts of the back and forth are just about over my head as well as other parts of this blog. That's a good thing as long as I don't drown.

There has been an ongoing debate about where the Republicans should go after the election. It is largely settled now. Some of the fall out is discussions on libertarian ideas. I admit that I am a novice when it comes to the detailed intellectual (in the weeds) knowledge of libertarianism. The definition changes? Some times it is for anarchy and at time it takes more of a socialist bent?

It is still murky. Most of this discussion (I didn't read every word) is about who the libertarians will embrace now or who will embrace them. I would in a novice way that they should go there own way. Throw some of the craziness overboard and take power. Many cases have been make both way if RINOs could run on their own. Libertarians falls into same kind of place. I do believe the answer to both is yes.
I am not trying following their points exactly. This back and forth started in 06 with:

Brink Lindsey and:

"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind."(cont.)

"Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there."

It goes on to link changes in tax policy on the liberal side to what I consider conservative ideas in order to move the libertarians there direction. FASCinating.

Wilkinson

"Many bloggers seem to be fixated on the immediate political feasibility of libertarian/liberal fusionism. But I think this misses the point. Feasibility is in part a function of the availability of a well-developed and broadly understood position, and a grasp of the kind of policy that follows from it. Fixating on the status quo balance of interest groups is a great way to go nowhere, or just to drift with the waxing and waning of constituencies wedded to superannuated ideas. I think Brink has opened an important conversation for liberals of all stripes genuinely concerned with helping people successfully exercise their autonomy and lead satisfying, dignified lives"

Jonah Goldberg responds:

"The first principles simply aren't aligned. The theoretical arguments in favor of the stimulus amount to rubbing the libertarian cat's fur backwards. And the so-called "libertarian center" hardly seems to be decisive or even relevant to the public debate. In the most important and fundamental debate about the role of government in a generation, the libertarians are lining-up with, and even marching out in front of, the conservatives."

John Hood follows:

"But that's not the same as suggesting that there is at least as much of a natural affinity between libertarians and modern-day liberals as there is between libertarians and modern-day conservatives, if not more. This statement just isn't true. The principles of liberty and virtue are certainly in tension within the broadly construed Right, but the principles of liberty and egalitarianism would be perpetually at war within a reconstructed Left."

Will Wilkinson's response:

"I think Obama and the Democrats are already in the process of screwing it up. The romance of transformative hope is going to wear off pretty quick as all-but-uncontested Democratic policy deepens and lengthens the recession. There’s a lot of culturally and psychologically liberal people out there who are, and are going to be, interested in a liberalism that actually works. I want to use this time of ferment to work on developing the missing option in American politics: an authentically liberal governing philosophy that understands that limited government, free markets, a culture of tolerance, and a sound social safety net are the best means to better lives.

So “whatever happened to liberaltarianism” is that it’s an ongoing project to change who talks to whom, to freshen the stale dialectic of American politics, and to create new possibilities for American political identity."

"sound social saftey net"? Private sector or governmental?

Then two posts: The Future of Liberaltarianism and The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)

"This is obviously a political gloss on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I think it's important to consider the correlation of forces when you set out on ideological projects - especially in a country where the two-party structure has been as durable as it's been in ours. I understand the impulse for smart, independent-minded libertarians to flee what seems like an increasingly anti-intellectual American Right and seek conversations and alliances with the friendlier parts of the left-of-center. But the vacuum on the Right also militates in favor of smart, idiosyncratic thinkers trying to fill it, instead of fighting for a seat at the crowded liberal table. "

As fun as all this is I still think you need a leader that would clarify libertarian positions for the party and run with it. Drag who you can from the two parties and go. With some wins those who are not wedded to the parties will leave for something more in their wheel house.

FREEDOM

What is at stake? How much are You willing to give?


You May Not Lead But You can not Follow until you can Answer The Questions.

US Leadership and the world

Call it what you will but i thought we are supposed to lead the world. Leaders take action in crisis. WWII and the Cold War just for a start. Not that democracy was original to us, but why has it spread so much in the past 200 yrs. i guess it was a just good idea. Our culture is pretty pervasive, a great thing to have so many ideas talked about all over the world. It used to be that way. So why isn't there a call to lead any more.

Why is their this need to think the rest of the world has it all figured out? They don't . We don't. We were ahead at one time in trying to find what works. did we find capitalism and decide that was good enough? It has problems. the biggest of which is the unknown long term stability, it needs a certain amount of growth and inflation to keep growing.

Why do we keep looking back at what we should have already rejected. Communism and fascism, isn't freedom too important? Did they fail? Socialism, has it really worked for anyone? Cuba, do you want everyone to live at a substance level? Great art, literature, philosophy, music and science come out of societies that have some leisure time. What came out of the dark ages? Very little. What has come out of 200 yrs of democracy. A lot.

We should lead and except that that is our place in the world. It's not that the rest of the world should look exactly like us. If Iran wants Islamic law fine. Have an election every few years that everyone gets to vote in and let those that want to leave, leave.

Either we lead or we shut ourselves in. Is it not clear that the shut in approach will not work. If you say we should go into Sudan to stop the horrific things there than you should agree that we should have gone into Iraq to stop the horrific things there(not the reasons given). It leads to a long list of places that need us to lead in what ever form that takes.

I want to be able to walk to all four corners of the earth as a free man and not have to worry about being kidnapped, tortured, or killed. That doesn't happen on its own. I want to be around what the next revolution in political and social thought comes. That will only happen here and if we stop thinking that the world always knows best.

Our basic Bush problem and the long term fallout.

The man can't make solid decisions. That doesn't mean that they are always wrong. I agree with going into Iraq and some of the philosophy behind it, that is however it on Iraq. Why can't he? Its a mixed bag, exactly what mix, who knows. He isn't the sharpest knife in the shed. Yes, i know. It is hard separate that from management style or political calculation.

Organization, there are all these appointments that have to be made. He put in the person that fit, giving no thought to how those appointments fit together or how they fit into his administration. Factions proliferated much more than had been seen before. And as rarely seen before a mass of rampant activism kept the political divide wide open cutting off most ideas in the middle. One hopes a president has some grace under fire. In this case i suspect it had a much bigger role than it should.

The worst sin is having a leadership style of an absentee father. Delegation is a mark of a good leader, but waking away and not taking at least a passing glance back is not. Appointment of Bremer comes to mind. A leader must listen, build consensus and on a rare occasion take someone out to the wood shed. His leadership is often marked by " this faction is right you are wrong , now go away and get it done". This isn't rare wood shed use.

Our basic problem is his leadership of us, not the administration. We could recover if he just could not run the administration. The president and congress for that matter is meant to lead the people . You make decisions, explain why, listen to concerns and address them. Really the decisions should be made last, I'll take what i can get. Oh there is the wood shed to. Currently it is let someone else make the decisions, give a half explanation if any one has questions. If there are any more questions, restate and take them to the wood shed and beat them with the rolled up statement. Weak, Very Weak.

The US attorneys is one of those issues. Did he really make the decision, or did trust what others told him? Very little competent explanation has been given. Let the beating of rolled up paper begin. Just before the beginning of the war he did better with the people, internally it was an unholy nightmare. They explained, made a decision(rightly in my book), listen to some concerns and tried to address them. Concerns over troop numbers might have been pushed aside if latter mistakes had been avoided. The WMD stuff was a mistake. The rolled up paper was irrelevant. First it was wrong and leaning on the wall, several very nice bats. UN resolutions. Shootings in the no-fly zones. Oil for food. torture. There were even some around the corner we haven't talked about. Mainly Pressing our win in the cold war to stabilize the world and fix past mistakes.

It is idiotic to continue to dodge an issue in the light of facts, stand up, accept them and make a strong argument for your position. The decision may be right but you can't defend an idiot using his arguments. Conservatives tried for far to long not realizing that in this case no one listens to anyone except the idiot. Liberals have, i think, unbeknown to them created a useful idiot. Ask him a question and he starts waving increasingly useless rolled up papers around. Que the rest of the idiots and the power hungry from both sides and all levels. On the left idiots calling for war crimes and the power hungry calling for impeachment and promising the moon. On the right the idiots blaming our problems on gays and defending Bush and the power hungry over playing the fear card, gay marriage and oh some of that moon looks good. What?

In the chaos the argument finally shifted. Is been shifting for some time due to public apathy, continued pointless bickering, less transparency and an increasingly complex government and world. Pointing at the useful idiot in the White House and supposed helpless people being hurt by him the left was able to move the argument. Up until recently they just wanted to help a little more. A little has grown to a lot and is going from helping to taking care of. What do we call that, socialism. Call it what it is. It may not technically be but if the government is signing all the check, close enough. What happened to individualism and some personal responsibility. Massive hand outs didn't get us through WWII, Great Depression, Revolutionary War, the westward expansion and the cold war. Liberalism is fine but socialism is not well American.

Long term. Those that have become at lest somewhat politically aware after the 91 gulf war really started to pay attention after 9/11. What did they see. The idiot on one side the other promising the moon. This is were the last parts of an article from David Frum picks up. Just because he was part of the administration doesn't make him wrong. I will confess it got me thinking about all this. There was a time not that long ago that i could agree with parts of both sides, hopefully i won't be calling it the good old days. What really scares me is most in this group may not know any different and no one is talking core philosophy any more. Their idea of American politics are being set now, it can be changed down the road but it won't be easy. I am sicken by the though of a liberal vs leftist far far more than liberal vs conservative for the next 30 or 50 yrs or longer.