Juan Williams, a liberal commentator who was driven from NPR to Fox News a few years ago, was on the 6 PM Fox news roundtable. They were discussing Egypt and what should be done. Juan said that of the two sides in the Egyptian "disturbances" we ought to be backing the Egyptian Army against the Muslim Brotherhood. Juan got that 100 % right.
The Army may be a little heavy handed, but the Muslim Brotherhood are Islamist crazies. The Army has majority support of the Egyptian people in turning out Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood government.
All we can do in Egypt is pick a side. The Army, which we have been training and paying for 20 years, is much more sympathetic to our point of view than the Brotherhood, who assassinated Anwat Sadat.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Practice or Process?
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that US attorneys had be instructed to sidestep the mandatory minimum sentencing rules in regard to "low level drug offenders". Not a bad idea, Users and guys who deal just enough to support their own habits aren't that dangerous. But I don't like the process Holder used.
Those mandatory minimum laws were passed by Congress. The right way to change 'em is to go to Congress and get Congress to change the law. Doing it on just Eric's say-so ain't democratic, that's what dictators do.
Those mandatory minimum laws were passed by Congress. The right way to change 'em is to go to Congress and get Congress to change the law. Doing it on just Eric's say-so ain't democratic, that's what dictators do.
Al Quada will never win at the ballot box
Thus spake US senator Lindsey Graham on Face the Nation this morning. Well I got news for the senator. The Muslim Brotherhood, parent organization to Al Quada, did in fact win control of Egypt at the ballot box only a year or two ago. If the Muslim Brotherhood can win elections in Eqypt, Al Quada, a spin off terrorist organization, can win just about anywhere.
Too bad Senator Graham appears to be influential inside the brain damaged US Senate.
Too bad Senator Graham appears to be influential inside the brain damaged US Senate.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
How to prevent a Government Shutdown
Simple. Pass some appropriation bills. They way it ought to be, and the way it used to be, Congress would pass bills appropriating money for each department of the executive, State, Defense, Treasury, NASA, Energy, Commerce, and so on. If appropriations for one department failed to pass, the rest of the government could keep on running.
In the last 10-15 years Congress has been unable to pass appropriation bills. At the 11th hour Congress will pass one single humungous bill that funds everything. This trick neuters Congressional power of the purse. You can't refuse to fund objectionable programs because the only way to do it is shut the entire government down, which is perilous. Last time Newt Gengrich tried it, he was blamed for intransigence and driven from the speakership and from the House. We don't have anyone in Congress anymore with the kind of stones Newt Gengrich had. Newt was something of a loose cannon, but he had guts. Congress won't do a government shutdown over Obama Care this time. No guts.
What they ought to do is pass appropriation bills for every department EXCEPT Obama care. The house has the votes. The Senate could be wooed into passing reasonable appropriation bills, especially if they were skillfully larded with pork. If Obama vetoes them, then he looks intransigent. Then we could keep the government alive, and Obamacare unfunded.
In the last 10-15 years Congress has been unable to pass appropriation bills. At the 11th hour Congress will pass one single humungous bill that funds everything. This trick neuters Congressional power of the purse. You can't refuse to fund objectionable programs because the only way to do it is shut the entire government down, which is perilous. Last time Newt Gengrich tried it, he was blamed for intransigence and driven from the speakership and from the House. We don't have anyone in Congress anymore with the kind of stones Newt Gengrich had. Newt was something of a loose cannon, but he had guts. Congress won't do a government shutdown over Obama Care this time. No guts.
What they ought to do is pass appropriation bills for every department EXCEPT Obama care. The house has the votes. The Senate could be wooed into passing reasonable appropriation bills, especially if they were skillfully larded with pork. If Obama vetoes them, then he looks intransigent. Then we could keep the government alive, and Obamacare unfunded.
Friday, August 16, 2013
We don't want a democracy in Eygpt
In stead we want a stable, decent, humane government that will restore order so that the tourists will come back, protect minorities like Christians, Jews, Shia, and who ever else there might be, from prosecution by the Sunni majority, and have enough support to stay in power. If such a government is less than democratic, so be it.
And we don't really get our choice in the matter. Egypt will be governed by who ever can gain the backing of the Egyptian people, the Egyptian establishment, the Army, and what ever other important power blocks there might be. Or if not backing, at least acquiescence. The best we can do is pick sides and give the side we like what support we can. If we pick the losing side, the penalty is lasting enmity from the winners.
There are two sides in Egypt. One is the Muslim Brotherhood. The other is the Army. Both sides are powerful. The Army side was able to stage massive street demonstrations that brought down the Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood is staging massive demonstrations today to reinstate Morsi. Both sides are two big to ignore. Nobody knows which side is stronger.
One thing we do know. We don't want the Muslim Brotherhood to win.
The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in the 1920's as an anti British underground. The were outlawed by every Egyptian government from that day to last year. The British, Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak each outlawed the Brotherhood and jailed it's members. The Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat. They stand for imposing Sharia law, forcing women into burkas, cutting women's genitals, and killing all non Muslims. They want to drive the Israelis into the sea. Al Quada, Abu Nudal, Hezballah, Osama Bin Laden, and a bunch of other nasties learned the terrorist business in the Brotherhood.
Obama seems to like the Brotherhood.
And we don't really get our choice in the matter. Egypt will be governed by who ever can gain the backing of the Egyptian people, the Egyptian establishment, the Army, and what ever other important power blocks there might be. Or if not backing, at least acquiescence. The best we can do is pick sides and give the side we like what support we can. If we pick the losing side, the penalty is lasting enmity from the winners.
There are two sides in Egypt. One is the Muslim Brotherhood. The other is the Army. Both sides are powerful. The Army side was able to stage massive street demonstrations that brought down the Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood is staging massive demonstrations today to reinstate Morsi. Both sides are two big to ignore. Nobody knows which side is stronger.
One thing we do know. We don't want the Muslim Brotherhood to win.
The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in the 1920's as an anti British underground. The were outlawed by every Egyptian government from that day to last year. The British, Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak each outlawed the Brotherhood and jailed it's members. The Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat. They stand for imposing Sharia law, forcing women into burkas, cutting women's genitals, and killing all non Muslims. They want to drive the Israelis into the sea. Al Quada, Abu Nudal, Hezballah, Osama Bin Laden, and a bunch of other nasties learned the terrorist business in the Brotherhood.
Obama seems to like the Brotherhood.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
First Amendment for Rodeo Clowns
Just so long as they don't mock Obama that is. I'm of mixed minds on this one. First amendment was put in to allow political opposition, which from that day to this includes mockery.
On the other hand, the president represents MY country (even a president I didn't vote for) and mocking the President is about the same thing as mocking my country, which makes me uncomfortable. But not so uncomfortable as to forbid it.
On the other hand, the president represents MY country (even a president I didn't vote for) and mocking the President is about the same thing as mocking my country, which makes me uncomfortable. But not so uncomfortable as to forbid it.
Bradley Manning vs the Rosenburgs
Discussion in Pajamas Media about differences between the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenburg, who got the chair, and Bradley Manning. I hadn't heard that Manning had actually been sentenced, but it's a good bet he gets off with a jail sentence.
The article begs the question of why the difference in sentence for essentially the same crime. Well, I can answer that. The Rosenburgs passed the secret of making atomic bombs to Stalin. They gave a ruthless dictator the ultimate weapon. No country can risk its cities to atomic destruction, no terrain feature can be held against nuclear bombardment. Two atomic bombs ended Japanese resistance and brought an end to WWII, the most destructive war in history. In 1945 the United States alone possessed atomic weapons. Things might have stayed that way for decades, but for the Rosenburgs. Thanks to their information the Soviets detonated their first bomb in 1949. This made the Cold War, which lasted forty years, possible. Forty years of tyranny, bloodshed, and misery for all trapped behind the Iron Curtain.
In short, the Rosenburgs caused incredible damage to world peace, US security, and caused untold human suffering.
Bradly Manning, not so much. The material Manning released was embarrassing, but compared to the Rosenburgs, fairly small potatoes. In fact, the Manning case is more embarrassing because it revealed US document security was non existant. No way should an Army private be able to access State Dept classified. The way you keep secrets secret is you don't reveal them to anyone you don't absolutely have to. The rest of the world, both our friends and our enemies, now knows that you don't tell the Americans anything that you don't want to appear on Wiki Leaks and the front page of the New York Times. And that isn't Manning's fault, it's the fault of who ever set up the system that allowed a private such wide ranging access to US secret information. That guilty bureaucrat hasn't even been named in the press. He, who ever it is, gets off free, when he ought to get the chair.
The article begs the question of why the difference in sentence for essentially the same crime. Well, I can answer that. The Rosenburgs passed the secret of making atomic bombs to Stalin. They gave a ruthless dictator the ultimate weapon. No country can risk its cities to atomic destruction, no terrain feature can be held against nuclear bombardment. Two atomic bombs ended Japanese resistance and brought an end to WWII, the most destructive war in history. In 1945 the United States alone possessed atomic weapons. Things might have stayed that way for decades, but for the Rosenburgs. Thanks to their information the Soviets detonated their first bomb in 1949. This made the Cold War, which lasted forty years, possible. Forty years of tyranny, bloodshed, and misery for all trapped behind the Iron Curtain.
In short, the Rosenburgs caused incredible damage to world peace, US security, and caused untold human suffering.
Bradly Manning, not so much. The material Manning released was embarrassing, but compared to the Rosenburgs, fairly small potatoes. In fact, the Manning case is more embarrassing because it revealed US document security was non existant. No way should an Army private be able to access State Dept classified. The way you keep secrets secret is you don't reveal them to anyone you don't absolutely have to. The rest of the world, both our friends and our enemies, now knows that you don't tell the Americans anything that you don't want to appear on Wiki Leaks and the front page of the New York Times. And that isn't Manning's fault, it's the fault of who ever set up the system that allowed a private such wide ranging access to US secret information. That guilty bureaucrat hasn't even been named in the press. He, who ever it is, gets off free, when he ought to get the chair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)