Tuesday, August 6, 2013

About that last post....

In my last post, I presented the reasons that the embassy closings were possibly real, and speculated that the closings portended the start of WWIII.  Anthony Martin at the Liberty Sphere has an entirely different take , saying that the embassy closings are a way to take the heat off scandals at home. I must admit that it seems equally probable.  By pointing to the embassy closings they are saying "See, we need to spy on you to find out about these bad guys!"  Except, of course, that the embassies are all over there, and have nothing to do with the 300 million American citizens at home who will never in their life times visit these countries, or even have a phone conversation with such people.  But if the NSA can identify someone who has called a terrorist, or vice versa, then the government has  probable cause to obtain a warrant to snoop into that persons telephone records and internet usage.  Since they know these things are happening in real time, they don't actually need to scoop up everything everybody says and does electronically. 

After some consideration, I think Anthony's analysis is correct.  The embassy closings are nothing but a red herring drawn across the trail to distract us.  This is nothing more than the typical misdirection by the left hand so we don't see what the right hand is doing.

Oh, and too the NSA agent assigned to read this blog, "The package has been delivered."  Repond in the comments. 

Sunday, August 4, 2013

The Real Reason Embassies are Closing

Friday, the news came that the government was closing a number of embassies and consulates in the Middle East. We were told that an unspecified, but very likely terror threat had been detected, and that the level of "chatter" among known terrorists had greatly increased. Most of us probably received the news with a yawn, and went back to whatever we were doing. But, not so fast, America. As Fay Voshell points out today at the American Thinker in an article entitled World War III?, such closings usually signal something ominous. Mere terrorist threats don't usually result in closing embassies. Indeed, the closing of an embassy signals that any hope of a diplomatic solution has been lost, that the talking is done, and now the only thing left is armed conflict. Ms. Voshell:
For some time, the power-struggles of the listed nations have been largely characterized as civil wars among various Muslim factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood. But civil wars are confined within national boundaries. Once the boundary lines have bled into one another, as is presently the case with Syria, the wars become a generalized struggle, with various factions joining with the likeminded of surrounding nations. As World Wars I and II demonstrated, when war escapes national boundaries or aggressive entities invade other national boundaries, nations with a vested interest in maintaining or extending their power bases begin to team up with one another according to ideological empathies. The fighting then spreads as more and more nations get sucked into a black hole of conflict.
Now, however, the national boundaries established in 1919 are becoming increasingly meaningless, as the Islamist movement is more about empire-building than nation-building. The West, with its long tradition of democracy, has never fully grasped the Islamist preference for authoritarianism and empire, and so it has believed that the national lines it drew would encourage the growth of democracy. What the Islamist impulse for empire means, however, is that war among the Middle East and North African nations is inevitable, as national boundaries mean nothing to those determined to re-establish the equivalent of a caliphate.
So, how does all this affect us here at home?  A lot of people believe that we should just put enough nuclear bombs on countries like Iran and the various Arabian countries to turn their deserts into glass, and be done with them. Of course, that is not the Christian way, and we are, despite what the President has said, a Christian nation. What must be understood, is that Islam is a twisted form of Christianity turned into a political authoritarianism for the purpose of giving the ruling elite at the time a divine basis for ruling, and increasing their empire.  You can read more about that here. But note well that whether or not it is as I have characterized it, the faithful to Islam believe it. They believe it because it clearly sanctions their killing of anyone who doesn't submit. They believe it because it gives them an excuse to pursue a global caliphate.  That means, of course, that sooner or later they will bring the fight to us.  When they do, they will no longer be merely terrorists, but nation states with the full sovereign power to bring resources and people to bear.  The only way to survive such a war is to well and truly beat them until either they surrender, or the lose the ability to carry on the fight.  There can be no half measures, for this enemy to too dangerous.

With that in mind then, I want to bring in Doug Hagmann of the Canada Free Press in the article Unmasking the Embassy Threat. Hagmann has been on the Benghazi story almost from the beginning. With the evidence Hagmann has uncovered, and the recent CNN reporting on the subject, I think it fairly certain that far from being a random act, the attack on our consulate at Benghazi was planned to stop the United States from running guns and other weapons, illegally I might add, to the Syrian rebels. The attack had the desired effect as it stopped or greatly reduced such weapons smuggling. But why would these terrorists want to do that? The answer apparently is that they are allied with Russian and Chinese interests in Syria. So we find ourselves currently involved in a proxy war with Russia and China. Hagmann:
It is vital to understand that the embassy closures are a signal of the rapidly escalated intervention in the region by the US. It is a modern day equivalent to the Bay of Pigs, except Barack Hussein Obama is no John F. Kennedy. Those old enough might recall that the CIA trained and inserted a group of “freedom fighters” into Cuba to oust Castro. Exactly like the rebels in Syria, those fighters could never overthrow Castro without direct U.S. military intervention and assistance. The situation is exactly the same in Syria today.

The difference is that Kennedy saw the plan for exactly what it was - a globalist plan not to defeat communism, but to engage us in a larger war to the benefit of the globalists and the military-industrial complex. He refused to take the bait and in so doing, bought the world time by avoiding World War III.
Note in the last paragraph the belief that Obama is not sufficiently his own man and continues to follow the plans of others. I don't think so. I think Obama wants this precisely because it will destroy the United States. He believes we are an unjust country established by evil rich white men for the benefit of evil rich white men, who stole and looted the rightful wealth of the poor. This is what he was raised to believe. At the end of a WWIII, no matter who ultimately wins, and the odds are not in our favor, America will find itself like England did after WWII. What brought the English back was support from the United States. But there is no one to support us, and no one will try. This country, if it survives at all, will need several generations to return to anything resembling prosperity. That's if we return at all.

Pray for our country, and pray for Israel.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

It Never Hurts to Put Yourself in Someone's Shoes

An article appearing today at the American Thinker entitled After Zimmerman: Lessons for a Citizen Carrier by Paul Jacobson is worth a read. He makes some good points that Zimmerman didn't do everything right, though the law doesn't require a person to do everything necessarily right. Rather, the law asks whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done what Zimmerman did. Still:
So then, what would I have done in George Zimmerman's shoes? First of all, Zimmerman fell right into the middle of the Rule #1 trap the moment he lost sight of Martin. The 911 transcript makes it clear that Martin had seen him and that Zimmerman knew it; Martin's disappearance alone converted the location to high-risk. But Zimmerman seems to have naively, absentmindedly let down his guard, making himself a sitting duck for Martin's sudden, close-up reappearance and criminal assault with no way for Zimmerman to back off.

When Martin disappeared, Zimmerman should have resorted to Rule #2 while continuing to wait for the police: get in the truck, make sure the windows are closed, lock the doors and start the engine... and put the Kel-Tec PF9 over on the passenger seat. This situation would have provided something of a barricade if Martin had reappeared with, say, a crowbar and started bashing windows. It would also have provided a possible means of escape; if Martin had showed up with a gun, that gas pedal would have been down there on the floor waiting to be tromped. Shooting accurately at a moving target is notoriously difficult.

How about Rule #3? In short, it has no relevance to this incident, notwithstanding AG Holder's bogus attempt to link the case to stand-your-ground laws. The prosecution tried all the facts -- and lies -- it could muster but failed to prove beyond a reasonable or even unreasonable doubt that Zimmerman stalked Martin with intent to kill. The charge was utterly baseless: when the 911 operator said, "We don't need you to [follow Martin]" Zimmerman's response was, "OK." This is one thing Zimmerman did right. However, observing Rule #2 as elaborated above would obviously have eliminated all possibility of making the stalking charge.
Well, maybe, and maybe not, but it never hurts to play Monday morning quarterback and try to put ourselves in a situation, and play it out in our heads. I particularly remember on admonition by my own instructor: "Whenever you get into a confrontation, you know there is at least one gun." What he meant by that is that one should avoid confrontations at all costs.

There was a time, not so long ago, that when a man's honor was impugned, he was duty bound to prove to the world his honorable nature by fighting a duel. Now, if the slanderer was confronted, and immediately apologized, then a gentleman was duty bound to accept the apology. But, if our slander raised the defense that what he said was in fact true...well, there's the rub. After the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression) the law began to take over such private disputes, and these matters more and more were settled in courts.  In general, I agree that fighting it out doesn't really prove who is in the right, only who is the better shooter.  After I started carrying, I found there were all sorts of situations that I had previously gotten in peoples face over, that now I don't even acknowledge.  I just walk away.  I am the most careful of drivers, the most agreeable of partners, because of what my instructor admonished his students.

In the movie  Sling Blade the main character says that "Some folks just need killin'." That may be, but the Lord says "Vengeance is mine." My old Karate Sensei said that you will never lose a fight you don't have. All good advice.