Category Archives: politics

Above The law

  • Obama administration in contempt of court for withholding deepwater drilling permits
  • Obama administration declines to enforce immigration laws
  • Eric Holder drops charges against New Black Panthers (“my people”) for 2008 voter intimidation
  • Obama administration pushing Cap & Trade regulations via EPA despite lack of authority from Congress 
  • Obama administration continues to prosecute war against Libya without authorization of Congress ; also, George Will: Is Obama above the law?
  • Obama violated Constitution in bypassing Congress and using UN and NATO to authorize war
  • Obama administration’s “disruption of the bankruptcy laws will do long-term damage to the economy”
  • HHS grants Obamacare waivers without any authorization granted by the law
  • Barney Frank helped land a job at Fannie Mae for his then live-in boyfriend, Herb Moses
  • Obama continues to ignore presidential obligations under the Medicare Reform Act of 2003
  • Obama conducts covert war in Yemen without authorization of Congress
  • DOJ ignores subpoena for gunrunning, now being investigated for obstruction of justice
  • Will Obama use US taxpayer money to bailout foreign entities via the IMF without complying with the provisions of the Dodd-Frank law?
  • Obama violates law that disallows fundraising from White House
  • Obama DoJ harassing Gibson guitars using foreign laws, not even at the request of the foreign government
  • Obama DoD 2 yr late to issue Taiwan airpower report as required by law
  • Holder perjured himself to Congress when testifying about Fast and Furious
  • EPA violated Information Quality Act to regulate greenhouse gases
  • Obama Refuses to Release bin Laden Death Photos as required by FOIA
  • Emperor Obama: ‘We Can’t Wait’ for the Constitutional Process and the Representative Rule of Law
  • White House refuses to cooperate with subpoena requesting docs related to $535M loan to Solyndra
  • Eric Holder may be an accomplice to murder over Fast and Furious
  • DEA laundered hundreds of millions of dollars for drug cartels
  • Confessions of Perjury Inside DOJ to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional
  • DOJ prosecutors accepted bribes from corrupt finance execs, but never arrested or prosecuted
  • Obama’s FCC and SEC enforcing Net Neutrality in defiance of DC Circuit Court’s unanimous ruling
  • Obama seeks to fund UNESCO in defiance of Congress
  • Obama appoints fundraisers as ambassadors in violation of Foreign Service Act of 1980
  • Obama sends funding to Palestinian Authority terrorist organization against legal restrictions
  • Obama admin is tampering with witness in BP top kill sabotage by Steven Chu
  • Obama bribed Jeremiah Wright to be quiet
  • Obama admin suspends deporting illegal immigrants as required by law
  • Obama admin guts welfare reform work requirement
  • Obama ignored the mandatory work requirement under TANF welfare reform law by issuing waiver
  • Top White House political appointees use secret email accounts.

symmetry and asymmetry

I am completely supportive of stooping to the depths of whatever hell the opposition is willing to inhabit in retaliation. This principle applies to both intellectual exchanges and kinetic military action. As a civilized society, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that we are somehow “above” resorting to brutality to respond in kind to savages, who employ such tactics. Doing so invites asymmetric conflict, which the opposition will happily exploit to our detriment.

[Originally posted on 14 Jun 2004]

When did we start considering civilians to be non-combatants? In World War 2, cities throughout Europe were devastated with strategic intent. Innocent bystanders were not immune from the life or death struggle that dominated everyone. Germany surrendered unconditionally, because its nation and its people faced annihilation. Japan surrendered unconditionally, because annihilation was already upon them. The people were accountable for their nation’s deeds, and they acted accordingly.

What happens when we offer immunity from attack to civilians? Military power can be rendered combat ineffective. By disguising combat forces as civilians, they gain an advantage. If attacked, they claim brutality, and they accuse the military of war crimes. Meanwhile, they can conduct their offensive operations, and return to the safety of civilian life. More importantly, because civilians are immune from the consequences of financing, harboring, and otherwise supporting a campaign of terrorism, there is no reason to ever surrender to the opposition. There is no possibility of military defeat, so long as the people are willing to endure prolonged economic hardship to achieve a strategic political victory.  

Terrorism takes this to an extreme. Suicide bombers die as martyrs with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that their loved ones will be compensated by the terrorist establishment, and they will be immune from retribution. There is no accountability, because we allow terrorists to get away with having nothing to lose, except for their lives, which they don’t value.

In ancient times, leaders prosecuted a policy of capital punishment for the worst criminals. Knowing that family loyalties would lead to the criminal’s closest loved ones seeking to avenge the execution, a policy was implemented to also execute three generations of direct family related to the criminal.

To combat terrorism effectively, the consequences of violent action must be dealt with harshly, not only by exterminating the terrorists, but also by punishing the loved ones on whose behalf the terrorists are acting. Civilian immunity from combat breeds cultures, which will continue sponsoring asymmetrical combat, without any reason to surrender, because there is no possibility of defeat. The people who sponsor terrorism must be required to be accountable for their loyalties. Only then will they surrender.

In summary, the policy statements to effectively counter terrorism are as follows. Kill the terrorists. Kill their families. Kill their friends. Do not stop, until they surrender. Live by the sword, die by the sword. He who shall survive will have the biggest baddest sword and the will to wield it. In a world of terror, the most terrifying shall prevail.

war of words

If the pen is a weapon, words are the ammunition. Politics is marketing, and marketing is a war of words. In both realms, the goal is to sway public opinion with ideas. A good tactic for undermining the opponent’s position is to poison the language they use to identify themselves.

For decades, whenever a leader wishes to be resolute about a cause, they declare a war as a call to arms. We have seen the war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, war on AIDS, war on terror, and now even a war on obesity. The indiscriminate use of war parallels the prosecution of indiscriminate wars in Bosnia, Iraq, and Libya. This enables the term “war on” to become vulnerable to poisoning, so that future use of this term becomes toxic. Furthermore, “war on” is conveniently similar to “moron”, which makes for a perfect nexus of ideas (superficial and with substance) for contaminating the term “war on”. We can now apply “war on” as a derogatory adjective; for example, should the President declare another war on something, he can properly be identified as yet another war-on President. War-on decisions become acts of foolishness and symbols of an ignorance of unintended consequences.

rise of terrorism due to UN

New Scientist: You can’t fight violence with violence

This does not explain the success of achieving the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in WW2. I believe the rise of terrorism as a successful strategy for insurgency is due primarily to the rules of war promoted by the UN, which forbid the targeting of civilians. Surrender in war is not a military outcome; it is a political one. Without the civilian population being faced with total annihilation, there is no reason to surrender, and resistance by this protected class can continue indefinitely.

UN junk science

The UN awarded Al Gore and UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the Nobel Peace Prize.

On the IPCC’s report, the Cato Institute’s article Live Earth’s Inconvenient Truths explains why it is completely junk science.

The Telegraph’s article Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ punches a few holes in Al’s film.

Of course, the UN is a political body, so its motives are far removed from the principles of science.