In brief — the EU has no leverage if the UK “negotiates” from a position of independence. EU tactics are only effective when the EU still has a grip on the UK.
Heaven knows that the UK will be fine without the EU, and suffers in its grip. Only committed EU project aficionados argue that the UK will somehow lose out just because it isn’t stuck in a just-so set of “deals” with the Eurocracy.
of note — the fearsome “no deal” options doesn’t mean “no deal ever”. it means UK gets the Hell out of the EU and then negotiates as a free, sovereign nation — like any other on the planet. This is advantageous to the UK and a terrible prospect for the EU, which is exactly why the EU claims (unconvincingly) that the UK had better grab a deal quick before there’s no deal to be had.
Any deal concuded before Brexit will be to the EU’s advantage, or it will not be accepted by the EU. Any deal concluded after brexit will be to the advantage of the UK, or it will not be accepted by the UK. This is because the power shifts from the EU to the UK upon Brexit.
So despite the EU’s laughable “warnings” to the UK, the EU will in fact accept any extension, any delay, any any anything other than a no-deal brexit. “Mon Dieu, anything but zat! Zat vould leave us viz — nothing!“
The perpetrator of the New Zealand mosque shooting wrote a so-called manifesto. Much is being said about it, and dishonestly, much is being said about us, ordinary Americans who support Trump. That is wrong and should be set straight.
I read it, I have digested it for a bit, and here is the through-line, along with the patented Haakon Dahl analysis.
The kook, who shall remain un-named here, was
“… a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.”
He describes himself as preferring neither left-wing nor right-wing, he despises conservatism as a front for corporatism, he supports socialism if defined carefully, and parts with the enviro-left for their refusal to seriously limit population growth, especially in the most fertile segments of populations; conveniently enough for him, non-whites in general.
He has three main pillars (it seems) to his current position; white separatism (supreme but equal, if you will), eco-radicalism, and fascism as a means to both of those ends. The government he most admires is the Communist Red China. He admires Donald Trump
“as a symbol of white identity and common purpose [but] … As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”
So much for supporting Trump.
His manifest purpose in shooting up a mosque full of unarmed Muslim civilians is to discourage non-white — especially islamic — migration to white (culturally and racially) countries. A second (but perhaps equal) purpose is to accelerate and strengthen the progress of western societies to civil war.
His over-arching rationale is pure Alinsky:
“To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.
To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic, powerful and revolutionary action can occur.
To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further
destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought.
Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states. This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.”
Understanding that his methods are, like Breivik before him, intended to cause just the reactions that we see now, we may better understand the intent behind his slanderous citation of Candace Owens as his main radicalizing influence.
… the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens.
Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes.
His seeming non sequitur in singling out Candace Owens as a figure of admiration, radicalization, and calls to excessive action is worth examining. After all, it is already being examined in great detail by those hostile to Owens, and to us, and who at any rate grew up in the same fever-swamps of communism and anarchism that the kook did.
Why would he say this? He sees himself as a “uniformed combatant” in a race war which he admits that few see as legitimate. His answer here is disingenuous, which is not only a handy thing for a supporter of Candace Owens (I am, I do) to say, but it is demonstrably true. Even if he is open-minded enough (he is evil, not stupid) to listen carefully to what Owens says despite her obvious (don’t tell anybody!) uh, blackness, his quip that she calls for actions too extreme even for him is a dead give-away. He is not merely trolling, as claimed by many half-correct analysts who unconvincingly attempt to dismiss this passage. Instead, this is a targeted attack against a very successful movement which is eroding one of the greatest racial divides in American history — the fifty-year political divide between blacks and whites. The last thing this kook wants is harmony, accord, and teamwork between people of different races. He winkingly refers to her “extreme” desires, while viciously painting her in his own uniform of racial hatered and polarization. His weaponized “claim” upon Owens affiliates him with her in the same way that grabbing a person to use as a bullet shield constitutes a friendly hug.
The action — the atrocity itself — is designed to terrorize potential Muslim migrants. The document, however, is designed to confound western democracies. Our corrupt western media’s refusal to cover this event honestly is falling right in line with the kook’s desires — as predicted.
Only honest and forthright discussion and analysis of the document and the evil kook who wrote it can defend against the inevitable abuse of good people by bad ones in positions of power.
Curse his name, but read the document, in order to understand how it is already being used against you.
The days when we could ignore things to any positive effect are gone. If you do not wish to view the doc, don’t worry — you don’t have to. After all, I did not view the video of the massacre*, but I am grateful for the efforts of those who did and were able to characterize the contents. But it is already widely viewed, and the “experts” in the media who do not share your interests, but who instead hate you and want to defeat you, will be more than happy to explain why it is your fault, and you should shut up , not read the document, and just let some more big government laws erode your remaining rights. As intended by the kook who wrote it.
He’s evil — not stupid.
* When video of the gruesome murder of Daniel Pearl surfaced, I decided not to watch it no matter what the various value might have been, and have never knowingly, intentionally watched the death of any human being except in say firefighting and damage control classes, or on the news or in similar settings. As Dennis Prager says, the real environmental catastrophe is the pollution of the soul. I am grateful for those who relate the facts from that particular frontier which I will not breach.
This is actually as huge moment in the ebb and flow of Liberty, for which we are ever indebted and attuned to our common-law progenitors in the Scepter’d Isles.
This gets better and better as it goes, and the closer attention you pay, the more rewarding it is.
Listen to this, lie back, and think of England!
As the Speaker points out, he is not closing anything off here, but throwing down a glove. If the government does not come up with something better to talk about, they will face the prospect of sailing past March 29, the legally required Brexit date, with no deal, and without the fortitude to actually go. This would leave the UK, Ireland, the EU and the rest of the world in an awkward position, similar to the declared but largely unfought “phoney war” preceding main hostilities.
The government is overwhelmingly likely to come up with “something different” and then have it voted upon, but that does not change what happened here. A representative body has once again had enough of being worn as a prophylactic for the centralized government to dork the populace under cover of representation.
I once had a history teacher who said that all of history is the story of the centralization and decentralization of power. I have found this an immensely informative, illuminating lens through which to view the various factual accounts of history. It sheds light not only on the events of the times related, but on the biases of the person telling the story.
As the Speaker points out, this rule has not needed enforcing in over 100 years. This is, as he says, not because it is held in low repute, but because the rule (that you don’t drag the same damned thing through for vote after vote “until they get it right”) is held in such regard that it has not been necessary to block a vote on those grounds. Centralized government has either not dared to treat the representative body so poorly, or (as in WWII), House and Crown were probably aligned before a second vote. This event and its fallout over the next couple of weeks should reverberate through history.
Meanwhile, it’s nice to see it as it happpens. Click-bait headlines are everywhere. I feel that this time, the cheese is worth the snap.
Okay, here’s what I think. I think that the MCAS (which pushes the nose down, even right into the ground), whether it’s an AoA sensor failure or a logic error, is such a late-breaking addition to the aircraft that it did not fit into promised benefits of the plane — namely (and this is the baseless part) a promise that pilots would not have to re-certify, or extend their type rating, or whatever it’s called.
If Boeing sold the planes based in part on the commonality of the platform not just in a general sense (parts, infrastructure, training, etc) but on a specific claim that pilots would not need to upgrade on some critical training piece, then this might explain why Boeing was so reluctant (as it seems) to disclose the new behavior of the aircraft.
Remember that the addition of MCAS only came about after certification testing for the airplane itself showed an unwanted nose-high moment at high angles of attack. Everybody agrees that’s a bad thing, like being drawn to a fall. So in order to get the airplane back into regs, they had to add this logic to the control machinery just to counteract this new upward-pithing moment, and only under specified conditions. Of course it was supposed to be invisible to the pilots — of course it was. So Boeing decided that pilots need not be bothered with additional training. After all, none of us get additional training when the anti-lock brake system on the new model of car is changed — we just keep driving, and let the regulators keep us safe.
Which is where this story really starts to go south. So to speak. Boeing convinced the FAA that the addition of MCAS made the plane safe without requiring pilot re-training. If this is the way it happened, then this is the real failure. It might also explain why the US was the last to ground the plane — the FAA also would very much like for this story to not be happening, in light of their involvement.
Boeing has over 5,000 orders for this plane. I suspect that figure is now out-of-date high.
I do not know what constitutes a change large enough to require a significant re-training for the pilots. But I think we’ll hear it soon enough.
Never heard of this young man. Lord Pearson spells out a
common-sense noble-sense plan for telling the EU to get stuffed. And they can use the BBC as the actual stuffing.
I didn’t quite realize that this was not the House of Commons (I thought perhaps he was just old-fashioned with all the “your Lordships” being bandied about) until several minutes had passed and John Bercow did not once call the House to oh-daaah.
I went to a website, a blog referred by DuckDuckGo in pursuit of some work thing. The cookie banner required by the Eurocracy popped up — with a twist.
I love Boeing. I have always loved Boeing. I am not kidding, although this sounds like a great 1984 riff. Nobody builds a sexier airliner, and recent 737 MAX MCAS incident(s?) notwithstanding, I relax when I get on a Boeing, and I start coning when the door closes on anything made by Airbus.
I am Homo 727-200-icus.
You may have heard me rant about Airbus and their moronic anti-pilot (and therefore anti-passenger) decision-making. I detest Airbus as a leftist dauphin, part of the DNC/CNN/Apple/Airbus/U2 axis of weasels. I don’t like their ugly airplanes, their push-button and side-stick office environment school of cockpit design, or their malware called an autopilot. Screw Airbus.
But there comes a time to fire a broadside to starboard as well. This is that time. This is that thread.
Think of this thread as 4chan for insulting Boeing with regard to the 737 MAX. I have a pet project for anybody who is
good competent has a licensed copy of photoshop the GIMP. Inquire below and I’ll PM you a delicious, malicious idea.
Meanwhile, look what I found.
Sure enough — it’s nowhere near Bishoftu. It’s closer to Chefe Donsa.
I had the right area (was looking for a line of four wooded hillocks), but I couldn’t get to the pics in time to track down the right terrain features last night. Turns out the good people at airliners.net had this lat/long.
So I validated it for myself, and produced the above datagraphic.
I am assuming that the two dirt ejecta sprays (which also seem to limit the extent of other debris spray are symmetric about the axis of impact. No reason, just the absence of other reasonable assumptions. This *does* fit nicely with the expected flight path of ET302 trying to get back to the field, but losing control of altitude.
Reading the documentation on the MCAS, one of the barrier conditions for the system to operate is flaps up. This means that the problem would not appear until the pilot is well away from the airfield, picking up flaps before hitting (roughly) 200 kts. And then the trouble begins.
I imagine (just scenario-building) that in an MCAS-caused crash which did not simply plunge once and finish, but which did eventually crash, there must have been a period in which the pilot successfully fought off MCAS for an extended period of time. The most likely way I see this happening over a prolonged period is using the thumbswitch e-trim intermittently, which will stun MCAS for 5 seconds. But then it comes back. The only way I see this going on for minutes is that the pilot is not aware he is fighting MCAS at any point. Because once you know that, then you remember to disconnect MCAS/electric trim altogether, and use the manual trim (or forego trim of any sort and just strongarm the yoke all day).
So peculiar constraints for this scenario are the fact that the plane doesn’t crash right away, but that eventually it does crash.
It could well be the case that this crash has nothing to do with MCAS. Perhaps the initial difficulty was caused by an over-rotation, tailstrike on take-off with damage to tailfeather mechanisms, with attendant early altitude fluctuations, and degradation of flight control over the next several minutes as the damaged mechanisms aft give up the ghost. Again, there’s zero evidence for that other than the altitude difficulty, which is not proof of anything.
This is going to be very bad for Boeing (the case for Boeing being at fault):
“One high-ranking Boeing official said the company had decided against disclosing more details to cockpit crews due to concerns about inundating average pilots with too much information — and significantly more technical data — than they needed or could digest.”
Not cool for a system that forces the plane’s nose down and will not stop regardless of control column input. Boeing expected the MCAS system only to operate under the correct circumstances, when it would be a lifesaver. Of course. And if the system becomes confused? Say by a predictable-enough failure of an input sensor? You know, the same sort of thing that keeps killing hundreds of passengers at a time?
Welcome to 2019.
And if such a sensor should give an erroneous reading, that system will kick in and force the aircraft’s nose down, down, down, and it will not stop no matter what the pilot does with the usual stick-and-rudder controls. He *can* tranquilize the demon with the flick of the electric trim tab button on his stick, but the system will renew its downward pressure on the nose “within five seconds” says Boeing. Finally, the thing can be vanquished by disconnecting it entirely (there’s a switch for that), and then setting trim manually for the rest of the flight.
All of this stuff is covered in the “runaway stabilizer” checklist, and some of it is a memory item; steps required to be memorized, rather than looked up. The problem is that this sort of “runaway stabilizer” doesn’t zoom off and, well, “run away”. Instead, it second-guesses you, happening slowly, inexorably. It’s a “slow loris” attack against your control of the aircraft. It never wrenches control from you and bumps the nose down dramatically, triggering the thought “runaway stabilizer!” It just makes it impossible to fly.
And since Boeing saw fit to say so little about the pervasive nature of this malware, there’s every reason to believe that the pilot, even if he had used the e-trim thumbswitch and stunned the beast, may not have expected the problem to come back. And if the problem is intermittent, is it truly a “runaway stabilizer?”
Are there nuances in the English and not in host languages which vary the meaning of “runaway” to pilots for whom English is a second language?
Sourced from this article:
With a link pointing to this WSJ article, behind a paywall, but the visible lede seems to validate the quote above.
A comment on the Air Current site from a self-identified MAX pilot says:
“Boeing engineers have stated that they did not widely disclose the existence of the MCAS system, because they didn’t want to overwhelm pilots with excess data. From my perspective as a Captain who flies the MAX, I observe that the engineers sitting in their chairs on the ground have done a marvelous job overwhelming 189 innocents with the engineers’ arrogance and stupidity. If you’ve introduced a new system designed to exert authority over a primary flight control, well, that’s a nice thing to know.”
By the way, this was all from November of last year. Now they can add another hundred-odd deaths.
ET302 Flight data (not from flight data recorders). The two top traces are altitude, measured against the right scale. The lighter blue one is smoothed by scaling the last reported vertical speed to the second (tellow trace at bottom, against scale at left) and then applying that many feet each second. NOTE that it eliminates the initial downward dip (below the first reported altitude anyway) which is a product of the reported altitude (traced in purple), which is at odds with the reported vertical velocity. I think I accidentally corrected something.
The aircraft’s “speed” is in red, although I don’t know if that’s ground speed or airspeed. The heading is also reported, staying mostly on the runway heading of 073, but increasing (that is turning right) to about 085 by the end of the data. I will assume that the headings are reported in True, as opposed to magnetic.
Now that’s all well and good, but not really new. That’s all in support of this: something you won’t see anywhere else. A plot of vertical velocity in feet per minute against the altitude. At first it looks chaotic…
…but it’s actually simple, and tells a story. Beginning at the left, near 7200, is the take-off (with some shifty data that I do not trust and cannot validate near the beginning). Ending in the top right is the end of the data. Between there is not a random walk, but a series of clockwise orbits, splayed to the right as they go, so that they look like humps. This is a phase space diagram of a process in trouble.
This is the struggle for altitude.
You may safely presume that the data continues to describe one last clockwise arc, which must end somewhere between “three o clock and nine o clock” (altitude stable or falling, v spd stable or falling, and both cannot be stable at once).
Finally, a Google Maps, show you what I’m thinking:
Here, I have crudely highlighted the runway in Addis Ababa, Bishoftu (of “near Bishoftu” fame), a red marker where the data runs out, and Chefe Donsa, where my initial wild speculation puts the bird. Not in the town of course, but closer to Chefe Donsa than anything else mentioned.
If I can find that one picture of the crash site again, I’ll be able to rule some things out.
Anyway, it’s late.
FInally, there are reports now that there was “smoke from behind the airplane” on the way down. That would change things. If it’s credible.
The picture I sought is at this page, along with a bunch of other good info:
[ Having some trouble with the data. There’s a bunch of bad data floating around out there. Lack of reliable instrumented altitude for the plane on the runway, and much idiotic smoothing of “missing” data (the plane reports zero altitude until it believes its airborne, or something) to form a sea-level to 8Kft ascent somehow from a mountainous airfield. Stay Tuned]
[ Okay, here’s the trouble: I cannot identify the start altitude or the and altitude or lat/long reliably. The flight data (so far by telemetry — no FDR release yet) runs out three minutes into the flight. The flight crashed “six minutes after take-off”. Thr data runs out with the aircraft in a climb good enough that no rising ground could challenge it, yet clearly this is not the end of the story. So there’s a lot missing from the end of the data, AND the aircraft’s reported data cannot be synced with the known altitude of the airport at liftoff. The airplane stupidly reports “zero” altitude until it has established a positive rate of climb — or something). Here’s the thing — I don;t think the plane is where all the handy graphics show it. I think it is well east of there, by a good 10 miles. TIme will tell. Meanwhile, I saw, but now can no longer find, an aerial photo of the crash site, which showed two clear ejecta paths, a bunch of vehicles lined up, and a lot of the local patchwork of fields. If I can locate that picture again (found it!), I will match the field patchwork and establish the site. his is frustrating because there are people all over the damned site, but none of them seem to give coordinates. Most of them say “near Bishoftu”, which is about like every earthquake in Japan being “near Tokyo”. “Near Bishoftu” means “a place that has an airport and isn’t Addis Ababa. I do not think the plane is “near Bishoftu”. I think it’s closer to Chefe Donsa, which does not have an airport. But that’s awfully thin right now.]
Good Job, America.
Amidst all the back-slapping and high-fiving about the defeat of ISIS, we keep seeing a theme — they’re not dead, they’re not gone, and they’re not out of power.
All we have accomplished with this so-called defeat of ISIS is the equivalent of forcing them to re-organize under bankruptcy protection. They’ll be force to change the name, they’ll give up some branding, their debts will be assumed by a holding corporation (perhaps the John Kerry’s Khorasan Group, the “real problem”).
But the very not-dead-yet Jihadis will soon be back to pushing their not-reformed-yet ideology upon the not-free-yet peoples of the Middle East, and the not-learned-yet United States will send more not-bitter-yet Americans to fight a “new” threat and pray that you fool me once shame on you, and fool me twice; well… won’t get fooled again.
“When we first got to the State, everything was orderly. There was no differentiation between Iraqi or Syrian or foreigner,” she said. But in the final year, she said, the IS administration was monopolized by Iraqis who favored their own and kept all the jobs.
“I think this is the reason for the failure of the Islamic State … God protected us (from the international coalition.) But when there was corruption inside us, God stopped making us victorious,” she said, speaking while lying on a gurney at a makeshift open-air triage station, being treated by a U.S aid group. She had lost half her arm, and her leg was wounded from an explosion.
This woman has not been defeated, no matter what happened. She has been reinforced in her belief. Defeated by the US? America Schmamerica, she says, while America binds her wounds.
All this junk about humanity and women’s rights and democracy etcetera, and this terror-peasant isn’t even impressed. Nor should she be. No matter what victories we may win in the field, these will shortly be rendered useless by an American government which is not committed to doing what it takes, and never will be. America is no longer the type of country with the stomach to press a war and win. Instead, we effectively send the finest fighting force that the world has ever seen overseas to go round up some suspects and haul them into court. And not even criminal court, which was bad enough an approach, but now, we seem to be enforcing a sort of Intellectual Property concern.
Is this actual ISIS brand terror? No it is not sir, it is only Taliban terror. Ah, well that’s a bleeding peasant of a different color, then! As long as they do not use the stricken brand name Al-Qaeda; that trademark is defunct, but it will be tied up in courts for decades.
Somewhere in the bowels of Hell, a public relations firm is cooking up a new name.
Not the philosophy, so much. The more modern sense of a laconic toughness. Here’s a clipped fragment of a story [note: this is not my story]. It’s enough to get the point across.
I wasn’t back in the squadron building very long before my flight commander, a major, found me. “That was a bad scene, Jake,” he said.
I told him, “Yeah, scared the crap out of me. I couldn’t see a thing.”
The major replied, “I’m talking about your radio call. You sounded afraid. That is very unprofessional.”
Then there’s an often re-homed story that ends:
“Shut up and die like a man.”
Why should men not cry? First, that’s an ideal, not a requirement. Nobody expects that a man never cries. But we certainly expect to see it only rarely, certain occasions excepted, and exceedingly rarely in public. Second, fear is contagious. Melancholy is contagious. Failure is contagious, and that which gets rewarded gets repeated.
Small failures beget large ones if tolerated but not mitigated. Nobody actually cares if you can run a certain distance in a certain time in the Navy — ships aren’t that long, after all. Physical fitness is a proxy for several things, and so is a man’s ability to maintain his composure.
Stoicism in men, unlike crying, is a Good Thing for its effect on that man and on the men around him.
This is not to say that emotions or even that all emotional displays are out of place, wrong, or bad. But there’s a bar to meet in order for it to be acceptable, which is not true of things which are good in and of themselves.
Who said men aren’t supposed to cry? First, other men. Second, women. That pretty much covers the bases.
Just a quick take — I haven’t done my homework in a specific sense, but I think you’ll appreciate my take nonetheless. My take is that of Our Heavenly Father, Wm. F. Buckley:
“To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.”
Buckley was addressing a false moral equivalency between the KGB and the CIA for using shared methods, but in the pursuit of vastly different goals.
I understand there’s been some kerfuffle about Jews and Jihad and Congress. I’ll take as a source a Reuters article, just to make sure I’m getting the most anti-Israel source possible this side of Al-Jazeera, among “reputable” news outlets.
Of course the article is filled with weasel words and loaded phraseology such as “some viewed as”, “some have described”, “critics have denounced”, “Republicans have seized on”, and so forth. But the bias demonstrated by Reuters (evidenced since LGF was anti-Jihad) is not even the point I wish to make here. I think we may stipulate that Reuters hates America, hates Israel, hates Trump, and be done with that.
The problem, and it is a big one, is that *nobody* gets it right in this miserable Omar debacle. So even taking Reuters at their word, I am left with an unhappy picture to paint:
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a broad resolution condemning bigotry on Thursday after remarks by a Democratic member that some viewed as anti-Semitic exposed an ideological and generational rift in the party.
Yay for condemning bigotry. Well, except that we already have laws, more than sufficient to the task, to address this. We need fewer laws in general, better enforced in general, rather than a proliferation of laws which even with the best of intent on the part of their sponsors and supporters, only serve to create loopholes, to muddy once-clear issues, and to create demand for ever more new laws. Clarity and Justice are a mutually reinforcing pair. Heck, those would be good names for siblings. Uncertainty and injustice are likewise mutually reinforcing.
So this resolution is not a law. This is good, but still not great.
This apparently is the source of the trouble:
“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it’s OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), of fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policies?” — Statement made somewhere by Rep Ilhan Omar (D – Caliphate)
She says two different things and conflates them. Let’s look at them in turn. In the first part, she frames her complaint in terms of “pushing allegiance to a foreign country.” Were this her real topic, I would support her statement. Who among us would support such a thing? Americans — all Americans — should pledge their allegiance to the United States of America. This is the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance, when shorn of heraldry. Furthermore, officers and office-holders of the Government of that same United States must swear to support and defend the Constitution, not the government, not any office or office-holder, and not even “the country”. The regular citizenry is more free to define things for themselves than the servants of the people through employment in the government, who have that object of loyalty expllicitly specified for them — it is in fact a condition of employment for that latter group. So I support the first part of her statement. Yay for condemning foreign allegiances.
Except that she conflates this with a second, separate thing, which is “a poweful lobbying group that is influencing policies”. More power to them! That’s what lobbying groups do, and I support them! In general, this is the right and good function of lobbies. Not every citizen can or should be required to “march on Washington” to be heard, and our representative form of government does not stop at casting ballot. Influence should absolutely be brought to bear not only on election day, but on every day of a Congress-critter’s term, by citizens who are not required to personally tramp the halls of the Capitol, but who organize groups to lobby (v.t.) Congress on their behalf. Lobbying is good. Lobbyists are good, in the same way that parties are good, and representatives are good. I don’t approve of every representative, nor of each party, but I admit that each has the same right of access to this form of government. Woe betide us were it not so.
Republicans are about to get the wrong end of this thing, and this is the role of the progressive provocateurs. In Alinsky, the reaction is the thing. Provoking reactions from the upright and the moral is exactly, explicitly how the Alinsky model produces desired results. Rep. Omar goes out and causes a stink. Republicans jump to the moral parapets, laying down a withering fire of quotes to be used against them when convenient.
Omar’s critics denounced the statement as playing into the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish Americans are loyal to Israel over the United States. Omar said opposing the policies of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not synonymous with anti-Semitism.
There’s a sticky problem here. Try this on for size:
Smith’s critics denounced the statement as playing into the anti-Arab trope that Muslim Americans are loyal to Shariastan over the United States. Smith said opposing the policies of Shariastan and of Supreme Leader Mullah Mohammed Jihad is not synonymous with anti-Arabism.
The edges need some sanding, and some will not fit regardless, because there is no exact analogy between the actual quote’s referents and those of the supposedly equivalent quote. So quibble away, and I’ll agree, but you get my point. And here’s the point: We cannot condemn one statement and not the other if we attempt to maintain a pristine consistency of form without recognizing that content matters.
It is not the case that all political lobbies are fighting for the betterment of the United States. As the Good Book says:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
In this passage, Our Heavenly Father warns against false prophets. It will never do to say merely that one prophet is as good as another if you have a moral claim on the outcome. And in our representative form of government, we have nmot only the right but an obligation to differentiate between proposals which would harm the United States or which would impair or degrade the Constitution, and those which are helpful, righteous and good.
It not the case that all opinions about the Constitution are equivalent. Some views are held by its supporters and defenders, while some are held by domestic enemies. Likewise, it is not the case that all foreign entities view the United States with the same aim, with the same friendliness or hostility. Some countries are our friends — indeed, some are family. And some are our enemies, regardless of any conditon of war. An enemy who is not shooting you at the moment is an enemy you may not have to shoot; but is an enemy.
No matter how we try, we cannot think our way past some obvious facts: America has a culture, a people, a place, and a history. We came from “somewhere” a nebulous term which includes very concrete historical places, persons, and things, to include ideas, wars, and previous forms of government. We, America, are the product of our history, and there are good and bad ideas buried in it. There are also good and bad ideas which are not ours, neither in history nor today. We need not argue that all good things are us and we are all good things, in order to argue successfully for the right, the duty to identify good and bad things in history and in the world today.
There’s been a lot of history, a lot of good and bad, and it would be foolish to disregard it as the progressives do, imagining every day to be a new beginning with neither shade nor light from the past to guide us. We have friends and we have enemies, foreign and domestic. Israel is a friend. Great Britain is a friend. The entire Anglosphere is a family of friends, and Israel is in the Anglosphere’s DNA is a way that Russia is not, China is not, Islam is not.
Socialists and communists in the United States are domestic enemies. That doesn’t mean we get to shoot them, but it does mean that they are not friends, do not support the United States as constituted, that is, as the Constitution literally lays down the law determining what is and what is not America. likewise, advocates for Sharia law are enemies — plain and simple.
The problem with Rep. Omar is not even that she conflates two things to tarnish the one (on one side of the ledger) or to absolve the other across the page. She should be so morally confused as to be an anti-Semite. Mere racial hatred is a character flaw, after all, the bigotry of a person who sees only the color of skin, and not the content of character. The outward frooom is not what matter, but the content, and conservatives should no tbe so cavalier about arguing for or against one form of argument or another. Deride bigotry, yes, and well said. But if we forego our right and duty to call an enemy what it is, we forfeit the ability — the opportunity — to fight it.
Hateful anti-Semite Representative Ilhan Omar is bad in her own right, but the key fact which marks her as an enemy is her support for leaping, bounding Islamization of the United States.
Sharia is bad. The burka is bad. Female genital mutilation is bad. Pedophilia, rape, honor killings, acid attacks — all bad. It is sophistry to separate the things which create aculture from the resultant culture. Islam, “submission” is not our history, and God-willing, not our future.
You can comment on a page that doesn’t exist. I think Doc alluded to this — if not; somebody did. The issue is that you then need to share the bogus URL. So click below to go to my custom-crafted bogus URL, and Voila! A conversation which cannot be accessed EXCEPT through GAB, and which needs specific knowledge of the link to find. It is not discoverable through the web until somebody links to it — D’oh!
Also, unless you are using good privacy measures (correctly) in your browser, Google and Facebook already know each bogus URL you have visited, including files on your own computer.
Welcome to China.