“Because the Taliban are not able to muster groups of more than several dozen fighters, they have been unable to mount offensives on anything more than small checkpoints.
Afghan and coalition officials said security forces have been able to hold terrain despite the high casualty rate among soldiers and police.”
“We do not have any way to escape,” and “If we get any means of escaping, I will not stay for a second in the district. The government is failing in their governing, and it’s better to let the Taliban rule.”
I think that a good question to ask would be what is the purpose of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan? Are we there to break the will of the Taliban? Are we there just to help the Afghan government hobble along? Is victory the goal? Who are we even calling our enemies in Afghanistan?
One of the things that I must disagree with in the following video is the idea of a “War on Terror.” Terror is a tactic, a means to an end; not an entity to be fought, broken, or conquered. One could declare a war on a country, or the Taliban, or some actual group of people. But a war on the tactic of terror makes no sense and would be never-ending.
I’ve always found the idea behind “rules of war” as seen by many to be most curious. War by its very nature is not something that lends itself to nice rules. No matter what kind of Rules of Engagement you attempt to enact, innocent people will die. Quite horrible things often have to be done to break the enemies will to fight. A war effort should be a “Total War” effort to break the enemies will to fight, or simply not be fought at all.
I wonder if the President really thinks that he can control events in the Middle East with “red-lines”, drone attacks, and bombing campaigns, or if he’s simply doing what he must to show that he cares about what happens? If the threats in the Middle East are not going to be taken seriously, why waste the time, money, and lives on fighting a war where victory is never intended to be achieved? Perhaps the President will turn to the U.N. for help? Afghanistan seems to be falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and few really seem to care.
Bonus Round: Can you tell the difference between real news and satire?
Feminists have achieved another victory in the People’s Republic of California. Senate Bill 358 was just signed by Governor Moonbeam Brown, under which “Female workers in California will get new tools to challenge gender-based wage gaps…”
One of the most interesting parts to note about this bill is that employers accused of discrimination will have to prove themselves innocent, which is the complete opposite of how the U.S. Justice System is supposed to work. Men are no longer innocent until proven guilty under this legislation.
“The bill by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Santa Barbara Democrat, expands California’s existing equal pay law and goes further than federal law by placing the burden on the employer to prove a man’s higher pay is based on factors other than gender.”
No longer is it the burden on the accuser or prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one is guilty. The burden of proof is now on the accused. Let’s look at more of what is in this news article.
“‘The stratification and the pay disparities in California and in America, probably in the world, are something that really eats away at our whole society,’ Brown said…”
Has Governor Brown looked into why there are “pay disparities” in the workplace? Is it really that businesses simply pay women less for doing the same work as men? Why would so many business waste their time hiring men if this was true? Capitalists are evil and money-grubbing in the eyes of progressives right? I suppose that doesn’t apply if we’re talking about the Patriarchy. Damned male privilege.
It’s also interesting that progressives never really talk about liberty or freedom that often. They’re more likely to use the words equality or fairness. I think that this shows where the priorities of progressives lie. It’s not about allowing individual citizens to make their own choices, but rather, a guaranteed equality of results. If the government has to use significant force to do what progressives believe should be done, so be it. Let’s look at what Ezra Klein had to say about liberty in her article: “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it.
“Every discussion of the Yes Means Yes law needs to begin with a simple number: A 2007 study by the Department of Justice found that one in five women is the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault while in college.
“Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success.”
What business do college administrators have in adjudicating any such matters? Rape is a matter for courts to deal with, not for college administrators to decide that someone needs to be deprived of their liberty. She is just talking about “sexual assault” and not rape though. What does Ms. Klein define as sexual assault? The innocent being punished doesn’t seem to matter to feminists.
“Or take another common situation: consent that may or may not have been delivered by someone who may or may not have been too drunk to deliver it.”
What if they’re both drunk? Is no one able to give consent? Did they rape each other? Why would the onus be on just the man?
“Then there’s the true nightmare scenario: completely false accusations of rape by someone who did offer consent, but now wants to take it back. I don’t want to say these kinds of false accusations never happen, because they do happen, and they’re awful. But they happen very, very rarely.”
Of course, the author offers no proof to back up her assertions. She’s made it apparent that she doesn’t care how many innocent citizens are imprisoned.
“Colleges have settled into an equilibrium where too little counts as sexual assault, where the ambiguity of consent gives rapists loopholes in which to hide, and forces women to spend their lives afraid.”
The author doesn’t take the time to describe what “sexual assault” is herself. I notice that she only once used the word “rape” in her article, and even then, it was in reference to false accusations. I wonder why? No need for progressives to think of liberty or freedom, the State and Party™ will determine what is best for individual citizens. It’s getting close to the world of Next Tuesday™ in California.
I suppose that Hillary and the President won’t talk about the religious angle of the shooting. They’ll talk about “common sense” gun controls laws. But of course, Dear Leader hasn’t actually said during his speeches what such legislation would look like. He just complains that Congress isn’t doing what he wants it to and that the majority of citizens want “common sense” gun control laws.
Let’s hear Dear Leader Obama discuss his thoughts on the shooting:
Let’s break down some of what the President had to say about this matter:
“It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America,”
“Somebody somewhere will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue,'” and “This is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”
At least this part of his speech is honest. Is the President going to politicize the gunman’s hate for Christians? Silly thought, only Muslims and persecuted LGBT party members receive such consideration from progressives.
“The notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns – it’s not borne out by the evidence,” and “We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.”
Of course, Dear Leader doesn’t take the time to cite any evidence. I wonder how citizens of Chicago feel about this? In 1997 Australia enacted the National Firearms Agreement in response to the Port Aurthur massacre. There were actually “mass shootings” in Australia prior to In the years immediately following the extremely tight (though not complete ban) gun control laws, violent crime didn’t go down. Perhaps the reasons for crime are more complex than simply allowing citizens to carry guns?
Let’s take a look at some of what is written in this document:
“Because of the large proportion of violent crime that is unreported (that is, what criminologists call the “dark figure of crime”), the dramatic increases observed in violent crime as measured by the police may be directly related to improved effectiveness and efficiency with which the police record crime. In other words, the police may be recording more crimes of violence because they are recording crimes that in previous times would not have been recorded. Increases in police records of violent crime might reflect the shrinking of the dark figure of crime rather than an increase in underlying violence in the community.”
So with better technology and better enforcement crimes are simply being reported more often? Seems reasonable enough.
“Furthermore, the increase that did occur between the 1951-70 period and the 1971-88 period is most likely explained by the changing demography of the Australian population. The proportion of the population accounted for by young males was at an historically low ebb during the middle part of the century and the resurgence in the strength of this sector is the most conservative explanation for the observed change in the homicide rate.”
People commit crimes, not guns. People can commit crimes with blunt objects, knives, vehicles, or make bombs with common chemicals. Crime occurred before the advent of handguns, shotguns, and “assault rifles”. One needs to look at why people are committing crimes, not just say that they did so because they had guns.
“A number of criminologists have argued that it is police productivity and not real increases in violence that explain increases in police recorded violence. For example, and most recently, O’Brien (1996) examined the differences between police records and victimisation survey findings in the United States. As in Australia, it is only the police figures that are suggesting increasing levels of violence, both the homicide rate and victimisation survey findings suggest the level of violence has not changed over the last 20 years.“
As stated earlier in the publication, changes in data collection and police enforcement can also affect crime statistics.
“Compared with other similar western countries such as New Zealand and Canada, Australia’s homicide rate is moderate, suggesting the prominent role of socio-cultural factors rather than any particular or peculiar aspect of Australia’s policy, practice or population.“
Progressives would apparently disagree with this statement. According to them, we could stop murder if we could just pass some laws.
“Australia’s homicide rate increased by a third between the 1951-70 period and the 1971-88 period. Similarly, between 1955 and 1971 the proportion of Australia’s male population that was aged 18 to 24 increased by a third. It is interesting to note that throughout the 20th century the proportion of Australia’s population accounted for by this sector has been steady or falling slightly.”
I’m OK with blaming rises in crime on baby boomers.
“Gartner and Parker’s analysis is important in illustrating that violence is not the result of a single cause or even a single category of causes. Rather, the rate of violence, as reflected in the homicide rate, is an expression of multiple factors and complex interactions. The pressure to conceptualise violence as the result of simple or singular phenomena needs to be resisted. Some of the relevant factors may be changing in such a way as to reduce violence while others are pushing in the opposite direction.“
Someone needs to inform the President of this. I would think that a college educated man would’ve heard that “correlation doesn’t prove causation” at some point. That’s not important when you need to politicize something before you have any facts though.
“This brief consideration of trends in violent crime in Australia has emphasised the complexity of the task and the inadequacy of the data. The limitations discussed point to the need for cautiousness in interpreting the rates. Certainly, and most importantly, the popular understanding that violence in this country has increased dramatically and consistently in recent years is unfounded. “
Really, someone needs to inform Mothers Demand Action about this. I guess that reason and logic aren’t as important as emotion though.
Back to what the President has to say though.
“I would ask that news organizations put facts forward, have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who have been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who have been killed by gun violence; and post those side by side on your news reports. This won’t be information coming from me it will be coming from you.”
Why would the President care to present his own data or evidence on this matter? He’ll get the media to do it for him. I’m sure that MSNBS will be more than happy to comply.
“If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views. And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are properly being represented by organizations that suggested speaking for you.”
Considering that the Democratic Party did horrible in the 2014 election, I think that it’s safe to say that the Republican gains in Congress were a refutation of the policies Obama has instituted and wants to enforce upon the American people. I’m still wondering what “modest” gun control would look like to the President?
It’s probably good that Damon didn’t take the role of Daredevil in that horrid 2003 movie. Matt Damon had the following to say about being offered the role of Daredevil: “But when that one came along (in 2003) I chickened out, because I couldn’t tell. I hadn’t seen the director (Mark Steven Johnson’s) work and I didn’t know. So I just said, ‘No,…'” Ben Affleck had the following to say about that creative masterpiece known as the Daredevil movie: “It just kills me. I love that story, that character. And the fact that it got f—ed up the way it did stays with me,…” I know that I’ve already gone over Ben Affleck’s bad year (2003) filled with movies like Pearl Harbor, Gigli, and Daredevil, but certain things cannot be forgotten. At least Mark Steven Johnson has nothing to do with making Batman VS Superman.
Though when Keynesians do spend your money, kiss it all goodbye. Today’s post is dedicated to the glory of John Manyard Keynes’ economic beliefs. Once this capitalism thing is destroyed we will all be able to live in Utopia.
I know that I’ve already covered how People’s Economist Paul Krugman things that massive debt spending and war are good for the economy, but let’s cover that point from something other than his space alien invasion idea, shall we?
Nothing says economic prosperity like war, right? It’s as good as massive debt spending!
Then there’s this interesting tidbit from John Manyard Keynes himself as written in The Economic Consequences of Peace. This quote starts on page 235:
“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become “profiteers,” who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds [236] and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
Look at this proud Party member. She’s happy that socialism has brought 25% unemployment rates to Greece.
Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was victorious in his re-election bid with about 35.5% of the vote. The Syriza splinter group, Popular Unity, got about 2.8% of the vote. Since Popular Unity received less than 3% of the vote, they’re not even able to enter Parliament. The Guardian article that I’m getting this information from is pretty hilarious. One of the better statements was this gem: “Tsipras’s win in January marked the first time the radical left assumed governance in a country“. Was the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, which ruled the country for decades, not a socialist party? The New Democracy Party, which received 28% of the vote, is considered a “centre-right” party by The Guardian. Funny enough, the Wikipedia article calls the New Democracy Party a “liberal-conservative” party, as if the progressive concept of social justice is compatible with free markets and liberty. I suppose that if your not an overt socialist in Greece you must be right-winger.
Here stands the victorious socialist…
What’s in store for the Third Hellenic Republic? When will we find out? When will other countries give up on giving Greece more money? Will the Greeks finally dump excessive state intervention and socialism? Will another idiot start a CrowdFund campaign for the Greek government? Only time will tell…
OK comrades, the fine Kommissars over at Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016 have come up with some more Party propaganda to enjoy and spread amongst your progressive friends. But don’t be afraid to share them with your Neo-Kulak friends like: KKKonservatives, Losertarians, and RepubliKKKans who don’t believe in Communism Socialism. Don’t be afraid, any who oppose the will of the Party will be purged in the coming Cultural Revolution. Have fun proles citizens!
I put some pictures up from actual Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Don’t lie, you couldn’t tell the difference between reality and satire. Remember, we don’t need freedom. What we need as proles citizens is central government control of the economy to ensure that all citizen’s needs are met just like in: Detroit, Zimbabwe, Rhode Island, or Venezuela. Once the government controls political speech and spending, all will be fair in our elections. Indeed, it will be a true progressive utopia. Let’s close this post out with an actual debate with a Bernie supporter:
Stag Point is in the Foothills of Northern California northeast of Yuba City off of F.S. Highway 120. The actual trail leading to Stag Point is only a few miles long. To reach this trail: head left following signs for the Little Grass Valley Reservoir, continue north, drive over the dam, turn left onto F.S. 94, stay on F.S. 94 until a right turn appears for 22N72, and stay left until the trailhead is reached. The trail quickly gets steep as it descends about 3,000 feet with tight and narrow switchbacks.
I didn’t take any photos along the trail to Stag Point and forgot to save the video (from my dashboard camera) in time to prevent it from being over-written by proceeding loops. There are a couple of footpaths leading to the river both to the right and left of the campsite. It would be wise to bring insect repellent. Enjoy the photos! Click here to find the rest of them.
I recently found an interesting video concerning Communists in U.S. colleges. It’s a good history lesson that I would imagine most schools don’t talk about much. I certainly don’t remember learning much about the Students for a Democratic Society, Black Panther Party, or other Communist terrorist groups in such a manner. For all of the Socialists’ talk of peace they didn’t seem to complain much about the military operations of China or the former Soviet Union. I guess that’s a clue on where their priorities were and still are.
Conservativenuke's Weblog 
