If you oppose slavery, then you oppose radical Islam

This is taken from the poster for the upcoming movie The Birth of a Nation. The movie is probably controversial. But I’m not talking about the movie today.

I am talking about slavery. Most people like to think that they would have opposed slavery if they had been around in the 1800s. And most of those people are fooling themselves. I doubt that more than a handful of those movie­makers would have fought against it.

Very simply, if you oppose slavery, then you oppose radical Islam.

If you do not oppose radical Islam, then you do not oppose slavery. Do not pretend you would have opposed slavery in the old South.

If you want Guantanamo closed before the war ends (and I mean really closed, and not just moved), then you support radical Islam. That means you are willing to compromise with slavery.

If you want more for Guantanamo detainees than we’d have given unlawful combatants in WWII, then you’re willing to compromise with radical Islam.

If you’re willing to compromise with radical Islam, then you’re willing to compromise with slavery.

There was a time when we would look back on the history of slavery, and imagine that we’d have fought against slavery if we lived in 1850. Maybe we’d have opened our homes to escaping slaves as a rest stop on the Underground Railroad to freedom. We might even like to think we’d have joined the Union Army in the Civil War.

But that’s history. All we really know is where we stand on slavery today.

Much is made of ISIS and Boko Haram and their overt practice of slavery. But all of radical Islam supports it. Saudi Arabia (considered by Islamists to be an apostate government) outlawed slavery in 1964, but it still goes on there. It is in the Koran. You won’t get an Al Qaeda member or sympathizer to denounce slavery. Few, if any, former Guantanamo detainees will denounce it without qualification.

I realize that some people say there is no “radical Islam.” That’s a discussion for another day. We all know who and what I’m talking about.

If you oppose slavery, then you oppose radical Islam.


FBI Source: Clinton Foundation can bring down the entire government

From Tom Fernandez’s blog, with a hat-tip to Peppermint blog:

The Clinton Foundation is a “massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people,” according to an anonymous insider who revealed why the FBI stopped short of indicting Hillary Clinton.

Before FBI Director James Comey announced the FBI wouldn’t recommend pressing charges against Clinton, an insider with “intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case” hosted an little-publicized AMA session on 4Chan, and the statements he made on July 2 corroborate with later developments of the scandal.

It’s not so much that the Clintons have their tentacles everywhere, which they probably do. It’s that whatever hurts the Clintons is bound to hurt those they’re connected to. They protect each other because they need to.

This is a useful reminder that the story isn’t really over yet. They will all have to be watching each others’ backs for a long, long time.

What “commonsense” really means

First, I see that left-winger Jeff Sharlet retweeted Congresswoman Yvette Clarke:

She claims to want “commonsense gun legislation.”

The latest scheme is to stop gun-sales to those on no-fly lists. It’s a dumb idea, seeing as how no-fly lists usually affect honest flyers more than terrorists. It can be justified for air travel, but barely. There is no due-process. We put up with it because flying isn’t actually a right.

Then Sharlet allows a little bit of the truth to slip in:

He knows it’s crap that would accomplish nothing. The word “commonsense” means nothing at all to these people.

Via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

Congressman John Lewis, who took part in the sit-in, was
“Once Erroneously Placed on No-Fly List He Wants to Use to Deny Due Process.“

Gun control is all a sham.

How I would close Guantanamo

Camp X-Ray in 2007, five years after it closed.

My plan for closing Guantanamo would be rather different than President Obama’s.

I would first restrict the detainees’ access to news, and then stop their lawyer visits.

Then I’d feed them fake news. Make it look like Hillary wins the election, and that Al Qaeda is winning the war on terror. Make them think the war is ending, and Al Qaeda is victorious. Give them better food, and more benefits, as we’re ostensibly remorseful.

Tell them they’ll all be leaving soon, now that the war is ending. Promise each of them millions of dollars in reparations upon their return to the new Caliphate.

Our guards will need to audition so that they can act suitably humble.

Park a 747 at the airfield with a black-and-white color scheme suitable for an Al Qaeda airline. They’re going home in style. Some would surely have tears in their eyes. This is everything they dreamed of.

Finally, tell them the truth. Guantanamo is not closing. They’re not going home. Maybe, if we’re lucky, President Trump can deliver this news personally. Take away all the new benefits we gave them. Make Guantanamo worse than ever before.

Like Trump, I see no reason to close Guantanamo. The war’s not over yet.

The critics can whine all they want, but my idea isn’t really all that much worse than telling people you’re going to “close Guantanamo” when you’re really only planning to move it to a prison in the U.S. — the Obama plan.

It’s a pity they don’t do stuff like this in real life. Not precisely, anyway.

I am aware of one trick they did, reported in the file of detainee Jamal Al-Harith (ISN 490):

[D]uring a recent PSYOP/JDOG experiment in Camp Delta called “Dining Out” (where ethnic food was prepared for a select group of detainees), the detainee was noticed calling out to other detainees in other blocks that the food tasted just like that from a restaurant in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. According to the detainee’s story, he has never been to Saudi Arabia.

Al-Harith was released to the U.K. in 2004. He told stories of being served old food and dirty water — and the beatings. The human rights movement repeated those stories without a hint of skepticism. The British government gave him one million pounds for all his trouble.

The money must have run out. His last reported location was in Syria, where he now resides as a member of ISIS.

Peace protesters not so bright

But you knew that. Not exactly headline news.

I spotted an article today about a peace protester couple in New London, Connecticut.

Her parents were also peace protesters, then against the U.S. side of the Vietnam war. So’s her husband:

She’s married now, to Patrick Sheehan-Gaumer, who was raised in Norwich by parents Rick Gaumer and Joanne Sheehan, who founded the New England chapter of the War Resisters League in 1985 and are still active in the cause.

Here’s the funny part:

They are “purposely poor,” Sheehan-Gaumer, 34, said, explaining they are “a family of five living below the taxable income level on purpose, so that we don’t pay federal taxes.”

Asked why, he said, “Because about 50 cents of every dollar paid in taxes goes to the Pentagon.”

It’s really only about 16%, plus a portion from an additional 8% if you include veterans’ benefits — although that number includes retirees from other federal departments.

But they didn’t entirely make their number up. Left-wing groups like to play games with the number, first pulling the Social Security surplus from the budget (not unreasonably), then (very unreasonably) allocating all the debt to Defense.

Assuming we were going to take them seriously (always a big mistake), there are several problems with this. First, health and welfare alone are enormous (and we’re not even counting the portion paid through state taxes). And to lump all those debts to Defense simply forgets the fact that our budget has been almost entirely in the red since the Great Society. We used to spend a much larger portion on Defense in the 1950s.

If you think the government spends a lot on health care, that’s not even all of it. The state budgets come out to a similar amount.

Regardless, I’m not so sure they have to be that poor. It sounds like they work at non-profit charities. If the Clintons didn’t teach them how to skim money off of that, they’re missing out.

Then again, I said they’re not so bright.

This election is too important not to have a second choice

This is a difficult election.

First off, I’m a Trump supporter.

I set aside a ton of baggage to remain a Trump supporter. It’s another nuisance when a few other Trump supporters add to my difficulties, but that’s just the way things are.

Now Roger Stone of the DailyCaller, adding to my grief, says GOP-establishment money is going to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and RedState.com’s Erick Erickson. Citing ad revenue, Stone says, “Don’t fool yourself. They’re doing it for the money.”

The article is here, but I give you the link only out of general principle.

The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord, also a Trump supporter, states the obvious: Stone and his source are off their rockers:

In addition to being a Trump supporter, I am also a friend of Mark Levin, having known him since we both worked for Ronald Reagan. Precisely because of this I know with certitude that my friend Mark has been an outspoken conservative since he was, yes indeed, a teenager. He is the real deal. Those best-selling books are best sellers not because of the Senate Conservatives Fund but because Mark is a serious thinker who works long and hard at writing these books. As someone who knows him and has read and reviewed his books, I know exactly why they have so much appeal to conservatives all over America. Take a look at this Levin book signing from seven years ago in Tysons Corner, Virginia. See that long… long, long, long… line of Americans waiting to see Mark and get a signed copy of Liberty and Tyranny? You can’t manufacture something like that.

As Jeffrey Lord said, Mark Levin is the real deal. I understand his position regarding Trump. I just disagree on how bad things are. We shouldn’t be tearing each other apart over this.

As for Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson, they were both solidly anti-Trump long before #NeverTrump became a thing. There’s nothing odd that Trump’s opponents would choose these venues for advertising. They are where the conservative listeners and readers are.

We’re in trouble, folks. Benjamin Franklin is attributed to have once said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” I hope we can all bear that in mind.

Jeffrey Lord is a Trump supporter who still likes Ted Cruz, who remains my second choice as well.

This election is too important not to have a second choice. Support your candidate. But don’t sink your #2 if your #1 doesn’t get the nomination.

Never charged with a crime

Note: This could be a post I’ll be referencing in the future — not just a thought for the day. I could be making changes periodically. Apologies in advance for the length.  [shortcut: http://wp.me/p71dva-7V ]

A guest of Bill Maher recently complained of Guantanamo, “people have not been charged, or tried, and what happened to rule of law? That’s the whole principle of the Constitution.”

She apparently has been lied to, and it’s about time we clear this up. We see a lot of articles about Guantanamo detainees being “released without charge” or “never charged with a crime.” They want us to believe we’d have convicted them if they weren’t innocent.

The short answer is: The founding fathers knew charges and trials are for crimes. This is a war.

That’s not a flippant answer either. Where the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless…,” — right there you can see they are obviously talking about crimes. They were very careful about the words they used (much like the way they outlawed torture but only as punishment).

Then in the Sixth Amendment, it begins, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Again, they were very specific that this was about crimes.

People have gotten the mistaken idea that one can either be a civilian entitled to due process, or a prisoner of war entitled to the rights and privileges of the Geneva Conventions, but nothing else. Well, that’s not true. We have often held people without trial during wartime without POW status — and in peacetime as well.

Continue reading “Never charged with a crime”