PowerLine – Easter Greetings from the TALIBAN – 69 Christians Murdered

PowerLine – Easter Greetings from the TALIBAN – 69 Christians Murdered

Easter Greetings From the Taliban

Posted: 27 Mar 2016 03:33 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)In Lahore, Pakistan, a Muslim associated with the Taliban bombed a park where Christians were celebrating Easter, murdering at least 69, mostly women and children, while injuring more than 300 more. A spokesman for the terrorist group explained, “Members of the Christian community who were celebrating Easter today were our prime target.”


President Barack Hussein Obama, meanwhile, warns us against “stigmatizing” Muslims. (To be fair, his precise reference was to Muslim-Americans, although the context was the Brussels bombings.) Actually, you and I have no ability to stigmatize Muslims. The problem is that a great many Muslims are stigmatizing themselves, by committing terrorist acts, by applauding terrorist acts and supporting terrorists, and by failing to take action against terrorists and terrorist groups. President Barack Hussein Obama demands that we maintain the absurd fiction that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, on the theory that pretending will make it so. Unfortunately, it won’t.

Obama on freedom vs. totalitarianism — whatever works

Posted: 27 Mar 2016 02:46 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)President Barack Hussein Obama didn’t just tango during his visit to Argentina. He also addressed a Young Leaders of the Americas Initiative meeting.

During his remarks, Obama stumbled through an embarrassing discourse on “capitalism vs. communism.” The would-be leader of what used to be called the Free World treated the issue as just another false choice, sort of the way he used to speak of Red States and Blue States before he figured out that the dichotomy was central to his election and reelection.

Obama seems to have been nervous during this presentation. At times, his hand gestures resembled those of the person who was translating for the deaf.

I guess the question of capitalism vs. communism is a puzzler for this president. Or maybe he was just embarrassed by what was coming out of his mouth. If not, he should have been.

Obama instructed his young listeners that the question isn’t this system vs. that system, but rather “what works.” In Cuba, he claimed (falsely), communism is working great when it comes to health care. On the other hand, he acknowledged, the country looks like it’s stuck in the 1950s.

The lesson, said Obama, is that markets tend to generate wealth. Thus, they meet his “does it work” test, though they must be heavily regulated. Such is the wisdom imparted by this (once-thought-by many-to-be) towering intellect.

Scandalously, the only argument Obama was willing to make in favor of freedom is its tendency to generate wealth. If communism produced just as much, apparently it would be just as good or better, given the more even distribution of the wealth it purports to produce.

To argue in favor of freedom as a good in itself would, in Obama’s thinking, mean succumbing to ideology. He is much too cool for that.

I infer that during the heyday of the Soviet Union, Obama might well have been a communist. Then it was thought, based on successful propaganda of the kind some now accept when it comes to health care in Cuba, that communism was working fine.

I also infer that Obama may well be a fan of the current Chinese regime. Until recently, many thought it was working quite well.

As for the U.S., Obama’s crude pragmatism militates in favor of some reliance of free markets. However, this doesn’t mean that socialist or communist solutions should be ruled out. It depends on the particular problem your addressing, Obama told his young audience.

Because freedom isn’t a big deal in an of itself, Obama’s “pragmatism” militates in favor of — for example — telling people what kinds of communities they must live in. On such matters, government diktat will “work” better than freedom in producing the kinds of neighborhoods Obama favors.

Obama doesn’t want to kill the Golden Goose of free markets. He just wants to put it in a cage with as little sunlight as is consistent with the continued laying of eggs. And he hopes we will overlook the fact that the eggs are losing their luster.

Obama’s entire speech is below. His remarks regarding capitalism vs. communism begin at around the 41:00 minute mark.

Hillary does counterterrorism

Posted: 27 Mar 2016 11:33 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)On Wednesday Crooked Hillary Clinton gave her previously scheduled speech on counterterrorism at Stanford University. The Brussels attacks had taken place the day before. She both commented on the attacks and criticized Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the course of her remarks, the C-SPAN video of which is posted below and here.

Her speech was treated seriously as a major statement of policy by the news outlets, but it was almost laughable in substance and in delivery. She read the speech off the teleprompter, robotically turning her head from side to side at predicable intervals. She read the speech in a monotone and pace suggestive of automated speech. The speech is dead and deadening. As in her thoroughly false statement at the United Nations about her private email server, she struggled to impersonate an authentic human being.

Elsewhere in the campaign she presents herself as an ardent supporter of President Barack Hussein Obama. In the Democratic primaries, at least, she seeks to ride his coattails. Dissent from his views is something like an offense against majesty. In her speech, she described the defeat of ISIS as urgent and laid out a three-point plan. It’s a “comprehensive strategy.”

The implication is that her views would take her in a different direction than the one in which President Barack Hussein Obama is headed, if he is headed anywhere. What would she do differently? I think it is more of the same. Her neurasthenic delivery belied the alleged urgency of the problem. Weirdness rules the day.

Among the statements that pretend to distinguish her from Obama: “It’s understandable that Americans here at home are worried.” This is immediately followed by a laughable concession: “The threat we face from terrorism is real, it’s urgent, and it knows no boundaries.” It’s deep stuff:

“Brussels demonstrated we need to take a harder look at security protocols…”

“We need an intelligence surge…”

“Slogans aren’t a strategy. Loose cannons tend to misfire.”

“We have to be smart and diligent about how we process people into our country.”

“We have to do what actually works.”

“Inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t work.”

“Torture doesn’t work.”

I’m not conceding that torture doesn’t work until we have tried force feeding this video to our adversaries.

“Europe Might be Dying”

Posted: 27 Mar 2016 10:37 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)Last night it was all over the news that a planned rally against fear today in Brussels had to be canceled because of . . . fear. Not enough security available to allow it to go forward. This really is a literal case of the terrorists winning.

Another leading French intellectual, Bernard Henri-Levy, gave an interview to the BBC on Thursday that is very bracing in its conclusion that “Europe might be dying.” Among other things, Henri-Levy is very harsh about Obama’s neglect of the Middle East. (About eight minutes long.)

America First, how sweet the sound

Posted: 27 Mar 2016 07:01 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)I’m in the “relax and enjoy it” phase of Donald Trump’s candidacy for the GOP nomination. If he wins it, so be it. His prospects are certainly good, but I rate his chance of winning the general election as asymptotically approaching zero. All I can do is observe the scene honestly.

I won’t enjoy watching the damage that Trump’s candidacy will do to the Republican Party in the general election, but there isn’t much I can do about that. I do hold the prospective damage against Trump and his enablers. When Senator Sessions loses his chairmanship of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I vow to remember to wish him all the best as ranking member. I’m sure Senator Sessions will miss colleagues including Senators Ayotte, Johnson, Portman, Toomey, and others.

Donald Trump embarrasses the views that have attracted many supporters and should be an embarrassment to his supporters. Although Trump can do many things, there is one thing he can’t do. He is apparently incapable of embarrassing his supporters.

I’m not sure why Donald Trump should choose to expound his deep thoughts on foreign policy to the New York Times, but he has done so. David Sanger and Maggie Haberman report the results in “In Donald Trump’s worldview, America comes first, and everybody else pays.”

As I relax and enjoy it, I wonder about Trump’s knowledge of modern American political history. I wonder if he is aware of the checkered history of the America First movement that preceded America’s entry into World War II. Trump told Sanger and Haberman that he agreed with what must be their “suggestion that his ideas might be summed up as ‘America First.’”

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.”

Sanger and Haberman add that Trump “said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. ‘We will not be ripped off anymore,’ he said.”

America First has unfragrant associations for people like me. I assume that Trump is unaware of the associations. He just doesn’t know that much. If he is aware, he obviously doesn’t care, but my guess is that he isn’t.

As a bona fide American hero Charles Lindbergh threw the weight of his reputation against all efforts to lend assistance to Great Britain and France in opposing Germany as World War II got underway. Lindbergh spoke frequently on behalf of the group that went under the name of America First. He was the group’s biggest draw, as Scott Berg puts it in his biography of Lindbergh, “making thirteen public appearances as its featured speaker in practically every region of the country.”

In October 1939, Lindberg gave a speech in Chicago in which he confided the result of his first-hand research on the causes of the conflict in Europe:

The underlying issue was clear. It was not the support of “democracy,” or the so-called democratic nations would have given more assistance to the struggling republic of post-war Germany. It was not a crusade for Christianity, or the Christian nations of the west would have carried their battle flags to the confiscated churches of Russia. It was not the preservation of small and helpless nations, or sanctions would have been followed by troops in Abyssinia, and England would not have refused to cooperate with the United States in Manchuria. The issue was one of the oldest and best known among men. It concerned the division of territory and wealth between nations. It has caused conflict in Europe since European history began.

As events unfolded in Europe, Lindbergh continued to turn up the heat against the Roosevelt administration. In September 1941, for example, Lindbergh helpfully explained to a Des Moines audience: “If any one of these groups– the British, the Jewish, or the administration — stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.”

After Pearl Harbor, Charles Lindberg’s reputation never recovered. Trump’s standing with his supporters, on the one hand, and with the rest of the American people, on the other hand, is such that no particular harm will be done.

Leave a Reply