Monday morning links

Preventing Attacks:
I know it is counter intuitive but defensive wars may be just as costly and long as offensive wars. Think about defending everyone, everywhere, 24/7, and the costs involved in hardening every potential target. Then consider the resources it would consume and multiply that exponentially by the lost opportunity costs, just as you would for offensive war. No one has the resources to sustain that indefinitely. In the USA, there are 9,000,000+ square miles, 300+ million soft targets, 10s upon 10s of thousands of public and infrastructure targets, thousands of entry points, and multiple means of attack (dirty bombs, biological threats, poison gas, planes, IEDs) to bring death and destruction OR economic disruption.
It is an economic war, as well. Besides the human cost, think what 9/11 cost the American economy; then consider child hostages on school buses, bringing in Ebola, contaminating a reservoir, attacking a nuclear power plant, major bridges or terminals, containers or LNG tankers.
I also find the effort by ISIS to provoke us and draw in the USA, highly suspect. Cui bono? What do they get out of it? Supplies? A Scapegoat (a symbol to unify Muslims, world wide, against a common external enemy, us)? Publicity, (and funding)? That said, it is hard for me to ignore genocide, and I don’t discount, at all, how lethal dopey histrionic unemployed ”youts” can be. Is anyone even waging a propoganda war? I don’t have confidence in the powers that be to thread the needle and avoid the traps, or accomplish much of anything.

I am unsold on any intervention. Controlling immigration seems to be a no brainer, providing that you don’t rely on it as a magic bullet. The failure is emblematic of the same mindset revealed in the Kathryn Steinle murder. It is not that most immigrants are depraved or murderous but rather that the elites require regular, working, everyday Americans to roll over and whizz in the air in deference to the self-aggrandizing, social engineering aspirations of their betters.

#1 Exasperated on 2015-07-20 08:38 (Reply)

You know how many armed American citizens would be more than happy to help with patrols, guard recruiting stations and other 'soft' targets if that was what was needed? People are itching to help!

Instead, we are given gun-free zones, people going apoplectic with any mention of conceal carry permits, and college kids fainting if they hear a trigger word. It is just ridiculous.

The FBI does not have to do this alone without any help. Many Americans would be more than willing to volunteer their time. The problem are laws, people's unwarranted fears of armed, normal citizens and the unwillingness to get up off the couch.

#1.1 MissT on 2015-07-20 11:51 (Reply)

the concept of my fellow citizens stooging around Main Street with their Mosschester Blastinators protecting anything makes me cringe.

#1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-20 16:47 (Reply)

Miss T: Yes. I have no doubt that there are many people as you describe, though how effective they’d be in the case of IEDs (counter measures are expensive and have to be upgraded regularly) or an attack on infrastructure, I’m not sure.
I was in a rush this morning, however, and didn’t finish my thoughts on the trade offs. I was leading up to the kernel of truth in the old adage. “the best defense is a good offense”. When you are on the offense, you are holding the cards; since you know why….. where…….when……. and……..how, therefore you consume less man power and resources. It is a win, win because you simultaneously compel the enemy to consume their resources and widely disperse their manpower, in order to cover any and all potential targets, 24/7, against any one of many potential surprise attacks. Not to mention, that if the enemy is tied down defending his home and family, he is not attacking you.

#1.1.2 Exasperated on 2015-07-20 20:49 (Reply)

Me on Muslims

While all is being said, not much is being done.
To address a scourge such as Islam we must think in terms of extermination.

Think: Dresden; Think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki;

Collateral damage? Every time some unfortunate guy gets beheaded and the video goes viral?
Really, collateral damage? You're worried some kids or old people are gonna get killed?
When they kill one of ours, we kill one hundred of theirs.
It has been seen and experienced in most every other country in the world, from the "super-powers" to the Third World yocky-dock countries: Islam is not a good thing. It benefits nobody, apparently not even the adherents.

We are all listening to rumors that something bad is gonna happen. Instead of cowering and hoping that it won't happen near us we should be fire-bombing Baghdad and other concentrations of Muslim terrorists. Can't find 'em? Enlarge the target area.

Justification

We have no problem executing a heinous killer, baby raper, mass murderer, so forth;
we have no problem killing an unborn child in mother's womb in the last trimester of pregnancy;
we have no problem carrying a concealed weapon or having a weapon in the home to stop a threat to life and limb which usually leaves the perpetrator dead.

We have a problem, it seems, waging war on a radically psychopathic ethnic group that has killed, raped, maimed, enslaved, brainwashed and destroyed other people since oh, about 1200AD.

We have a problem administering the kind of military actions that will be decisive in eliminating the threat. Think: Dresden, no problem there. Think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no problem there.

We have a problem over-reacting to the situation the way we did at Waco and the Branch Davidian compound, the way we did at Bundy's ranch.

Folks, as unpleasant as it may appear, going against spiritual principles that I and many others espouse in Christianity, the only solution for the Muslim threat is to kill every last one of them, their families, their friends, their neighbors; to lay waste to their crop lands and salt their wells, to destroy their buildings such that no two stones lay atop one another.

The justification, if one is needed, is that the Muslims are Evil. Whether we are spiritual or worldly, believers or atheists, young, old, gay or straight, male or female, White or Black, or any other combination of the above, the paradigm in which we all repose dictates that some things are good, some bad, and some Evil.

Found in Revelation about the Millennium: The leader of the wicked is destroyed with the brightness of Christ's coming and the rest of the wicked are killed by His sword.

At the close of the 1000 years the Holy City of God will descend from Heaven to Earth.
With the wicked resurrected and Satan released they attempt to take the City of God. Then they are destroyed by hell fire.

Revelation 20:9, NIV: "But fire came down from Heaven and devoured them."

#1.2 chasmatic (Link) on 2015-07-21 02:49 (Reply)

Re: Words no longer have meaning

I've commented before that I like Harry Browne's first question of a potential Supreme Court Justice should he become president: "Can you read?" The fact is that twisting statutes and the Constitution has been sport among justices for a long time. I suspect that it tracks the country's devotion to the Constitution. The truth is that though we would like to think we are governed by what the Constitution says, we are actually governed by what five people say it says. And the more it is dissected and edge conditions resolved, the further we get from what it truly says just like the game of gossip we played as kids.

#2 mudbug on 2015-07-20 09:46 (Reply)

come on, admit it, "though we would like to think we are governed by what the Constitution says" codes for, "though I would like to think I am governed by I want the Constitution to say".

and don't take that personally, that's what 9 out of 10 commentators think.

#2.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-20 11:19 (Reply)

I think you're right. We all would like to be governed by what we think the Constitution says. There are certainly issues that require interpretation as with anything that is written, but then there is the plain text of the Constitution. For example, the Tenth Amendment reads:

QUOTE:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Is there anything in the Constitution that gives the Federal govt. power to regulate marriage or the killing of unborn babies? The Kelo decision changes the definition of "public use" to mean a private project that might benefit the public such as a factory or shopping center (arguably almost any private project). Would the welfare state be an example of "public use"? According to Wickard v Filburn, growing a crop on my land for my own consumption is interstate commerce. Penalizing me for not buying a product from a private company is now considered a tax. But the subject of the article was the new meaning of "state" in King v Burwell. Does "state" really mean "Federal government" in contradiction to the chief architect. So in this case, the intent of the law was used for the decision, but it was actually ignored. Some would believe that the "intent" of a law would only be pertinent if the text was not clear... Silly people.

It's the problem of self government by Constitution. I offer no solution, but I maintain that the facts are as I stated.

#2.1.1 mudbug on 2015-07-20 12:20 (Reply)

Exchanges like these are why MF is the dumbest quasi-conservative blog on the net.

...and thoroughly illustrate just how "conservatives are useless, cowardly failures", above. As if things could be more ironic.

#2.1.1.1 Ten on 2015-07-20 14:00 (Reply)

Thanks for sharing, Ten.

#2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-07-20 14:09 (Reply)

No offense intended, actually. But if you're going to discuss the Constitution, please grasp what it is, how it works, and how it's commonly circumvented, starting in local conversations and from them, concessions and defeat. You have ample evidence of all three, especially the latter.

Rule 2: Ignore your resident troll and his interminably unrestrained, Montana-sized, child's ego and all the commensurate ass-waving. It's hard not to gawk but when you do it achieves his aim, not yours.

Part of knowing what the Constitution provides is having the awareness to be conservative about its origins and functions. Be literal. Be concise. (Try Jeff Goldstein on language and intent.) Act like it counts.

Stay on focus like it mattered because up until about three years from today at this rate, it still may matter. Kindly don't prove right the author of the piece on the utter failure of conservativism.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2015-07-20 14:27 (Reply)

At the risk of seeming obtuse, maybe you can tell me where using the plain text of the Constitution to show where it was circumvented or a list of times where words were giving new meaning was not being conservative about its origins and functions.

I plead guilty to being wordy but it is a target rich environment.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-07-20 14:59 (Reply)

It certainly is a target rich environment, and it has been for some time. Roberts, for example.

I suggest too that we not get too wrapped around the axle defending against projected charges of constitutional subjectivism and whimsy. Better to ask evidence for proofs, as you just have.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2015-07-20 15:17 (Reply)

hey, kid, 01, Toon, or whoever. stop poasting here and the blog's IQ goes up a few points. seriously. this is no shi'ite.

#2.1.1.1.2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-20 15:58 (Reply)

this is the problem. you argue what the Constitution should be, instead of what it is and then assume that's supposed to mean something. while I agree that the USSC's reasoning in Roe v Wade and other opinions is flawed, it is a fact that the Constitution is what the USSC says it is. you don't have to like it, but this is how it is. judicial review has been a fact of constitutional law for 200 years.

if you want to change it, you've got to start with acknowledging this fact. and then what are you going to doing about it? let's assume that complaining, even on MF, accomplishes nothing.

#2.1.1.2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-20 16:07 (Reply)

You miss my point, Donny. There are lot of decisions I don't like and some of them may be "legitimate" as in they embody the stated intent of the Constitution. There are others that do not. Either way, we are bound by them until they are overturned.

I'm not arguing judicial review. I am stating the obvious - that the Constitution says what a majority on the SCOTUS says it says whether it says it or not. If you look, you are saying the same thing. The examples I listed are where something was read into or out of the original intent. If you disagree, explain how the decisions are supported by the Constitution. I am especially interested in how "state" in the ACA really refers to the Federal Government.

#2.1.1.2.1 mudbug on 2015-07-20 18:50 (Reply)

Yes.

We'd never admit it, but what we all really want is to have everything our own way of course.

So a political construct such as a constitution is a marvellous guarantor of our rights when it reinforces our own cherished notions and an archaic, outdated hindrance when it does not.

#2.1.2 JJM on 2015-07-20 12:30 (Reply)

Stop muslim immigration. Stop all immigration from countries that historically hate us. Deport all who have come here and have not received citizenship. Encourage the rest to leave. It was a stupid suicidal mistake to accept muslims and refugees. Fix it, send them home and don't take any more in.

#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-07-20 10:47 (Reply)

Agreed. When talking about what to do with illegal immigration, some like to put up the straw man that we can't deport 20M (or 11M or whatever their favorite number is) people. You wouldn't have to. If you deported illegals as you find them and kept them from coming back in. A lot of them would get the message and go back home on their own.

#3.1 mudbug on 2015-07-20 11:18 (Reply)

"Stop muslim immigration. Stop all immigration from countries that historically hate us."

So you're a "DemProg" then? Your statement above appears to support JK Brown's Ayn Rand quote at #7:

"(T)hat a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

#3.2 JJM on 2015-07-20 12:39 (Reply)

No. Not a dem prog.

Sheesh.

Quote doesn't hold up in this instance. All we have to do is judge them by the action of their peers.

#3.2.1 feeblemind on 2015-07-20 13:10 (Reply)

"All we have to do is judge them by the action of their peers."

Ah. What you're saying then is that every Muslim is to be judged by the action of (in this instance) Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez?

So, in similar fashion, every white Southerner is to be judged by the action of Dylann Roof?

#3.2.1.1 JJM on 2015-07-20 13:23 (Reply)

Sample sizes of one (1) are bogus.

#3.2.1.1.1 Sam L. on 2015-07-20 15:46 (Reply)

"Sample sizes of one (1) are bogus."

Oh, I'm confident it wouldn't be too difficult to find a larger sampling if the aim is simply to vilify white Southerners as a group.

As with Muslims, it's just a question of treating all white Southerners (perhaps even "GoneWithTheWind" - that moniker certainly suggests unsavoury Confederate views) as a predictable monolithic bloc of murderous ideologues instead of focussing effort on the fanatically violent element.

#3.2.1.1.1.1 JJM on 2015-07-20 16:55 (Reply)

I once crunched the numbers.

I took the past 20 years. And I decided to be ruthlessly fair.

I took the total number of all Muslims in the world, and the total number of sourced Muslim terrorist attacks in that period. Divided attacks by population.

Then I found the number of Republican WHITE MEN (not all- just men, not just republican men) in the United States. Then I took all non-muslim terrorist attacks in the US (Including the environmental radicals, which are most non-muslim attacks) I threw in all the mass shootings.

So I took the largest possible population of Muslims and compared it to the smallest possible group of right wing men, while simultaneously increasing the number of Right wing white dude attacks as high as possible.

Even with this, muslims were approximately ten times more likely to be terrorists than White Right Men.

If you expanded it to say "All Republicans" or even more "All whites in the US" that number would be even more skewed.

If you restricted it to "only muslim Men"- far and above the most likely perpetuators of terrorist attacks you get an even more skewed number.

So, yes. The actions of their peers. And that's just terrorism. Add honor killings, spousal abuses, murders (on both sides).

Yes, the actions of their peers. Yes, yes, and again yes.

Or to put it simply.....based on the numbers of white supremacist attacks and the number of white supremacists known, it appears that the vast majority of white supremacists have never committed an act of terrorism in their lives.

When are you inviting the Kleagle over for dinner?

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1 CJB on 2015-07-20 17:17 (Reply)

Based on the numbers of Islamist extremist attacks and the number of known Muslims, it appears that the vast majority of Muslims have never committed an act of terrorism in their lives.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 JJM on 2015-07-20 17:34 (Reply)

No not a Demprog just pragmatic. If a pit bull attacks your children causing serious harm and you know the history of pit bull attacks would you let your children play with pit bulls?
Our government has a duty and obligation to protect it's citizens. There is no duty, no obligation, no reason to allow muslim immigration or any immigration. When our immigration policies hurt citizens our government is failing us. But ask yourself why? What nut in government first said "lets import mulims and foist them on American citizens"? How did that happen and why? We don't know. Most of this is done in secret because they know Americans would be pissed if they knew the truth. But I will give you a hint: Some people in government made a lot of money by allowing and encouraging this kind of immigration. Someone sold out the American citizens and everyone who cooperated in this is complicit in every murder and crime committed by muslims. (All of this applies to any and all immigrants legal and illegal. You don't have to restrict this to muslims to understand the problem.) I think it's time we shown daylight on this. Publish it in the papers; how many immigrants/refugees and illegals allowed to stay and where they were placed. Publish the exact amount it costs the tax payers. YOU and I pay aboout $5000 a month for a refugee family and this never ends. It was probably expected to end sometime but why would anyone give up $5000 a month for a minimum wage job. Let the government tell us what they have been doing in secret. Then let the FBI investigate anyone and everyone involved and if they took any money or favors send them to jail.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-07-21 20:36 (Reply)

RE: The Intellectual Intolerance Behind “Check Your Privilege”

Unless there's a race horse or a hockey team called "Your Privilege", I'm not checking anything. I worked too hard to get to the front of the line.

#4 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-20 11:14 (Reply)

We can't restrict A/C in third world countries. SJW do their internships there. And, you know, the mosquitoes have Malaria because they already restrict the DDT, which eradicated it in first world countries.

#5 JK Brown on 2015-07-20 11:31 (Reply)

Haven't been to a mall in 5 or 6 years. They don't have anything for men. Well, straight men.

#6 JK Brown on 2015-07-20 11:32 (Reply)

"Check your Privilege"

The other day at Instapundit, a post by Ed Driscoll included a quote of Ayn Rand regarding racism. In it, was the apparent new slogan of the Democratic party for 2016

QUOTE:

(T)hat a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Who knew the DemProgs would reach out to the writings of Ayn Rand for their guiding principles, even if he writing is to show the absurdity of the position.

#7 JK Brown on 2015-07-20 11:51 (Reply)

My husband bikes to work in the summer a lot of days. He has to cram his work clothes into a tiny bag on the back of his bike and leave a second pair of work shoes at his office in order to do this. He is also lucky that his work place has a changing room and showers.

It is much, much easier for a man to carry all he needs to get ready at work.

If I were to do the same, I'd have to find a bag that could carry my outfit, makeup, blowdryer, hair products, and shoes. Yes, the shoes would most likely be different several days out of the week. This is why most women are not biking to work. It is much more inconvenient for a modern, working woman to look how she wants at work and bike.

It has nothing to do with the way a bike looks or operates.

#8 MissT on 2015-07-20 11:59 (Reply)

you mean he drives a Harley, or an Indian, right?

#8.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-07-20 16:52 (Reply)

Tea: My fave is Lapsang Souchong.

I checked my privilege. I dotted it, too.

#9 Sam L. on 2015-07-20 16:10 (Reply)

Hey There. I discovered your current web site the use of ask. This is a wonderfully published write-up. We'll make sure to take note of this plus go back to discover more of the techniques. Appreciate the actual post. I'm going to certainly recovery. Hey There. I discovered your current web site the use of ask. This is a wonderfully published write-up. We'll make sure to take note of this plus go back to discover more of the techniques. Appreciate the actual post. I'm going to certainly recovery.

#10 TIPTON (Link) on 2015-07-23 03:58 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, July 20. 2015

Monday morning links