Saturday, July 25, 2015

In Defense of White Dudes

On at least one prior occasion I stated my antipathy toward the subject of race and the progressives' incessant calls to talk about race,
Unlike liberals who see what they believe, conservatives tend to believe what we see. We do not see a country in the grip of racial tension, at least not until the charlatans begin to act. I always harken back to my years in Sri Lanka; now, my friends, there was a country ripped open by a genocidal ethnic hatred stirred up by politicians. I saw the same process in Guyana and throughout much of the Caribbean: ordinary people getting along until rabble rousers arrive and drive wedges between them. 
In sum, we have had way too many conversations about race. Let's stop talking about race, stop giving opportunities to those who would divide us.
Let me be blunt: I find that discussions of race quickly get boring, idiotic, inconclusive, and, often, verbally and even physically violent. Race tells you very little if anything about a person and his or her attributes except, perhaps, for some inconsequential physical ones. (Culture is a much more interesting topic, but, progressives don't want to talk about that.) To keep pushing the topic of race can and will force even the most tolerant and open of people (as discussed here, for example) eventually to reach their limit and fight back. As mentioned in the citation above, I have seen that phenomenon personally and it is not a pretty sight.

In sum, little or no positive purpose gets served by discussing race. "Conversations" about race in Western countries become one-way progressive harangues deriding white people and their "privilege," calls for more government action in the name of "social justice," and, of course, more power for the progressive elites. In our befuddled times, such "conversations" get infused with yet another noxious theme, to wit, "white male patriarchy." Racism and sexism become one huge pulsating Death Star that requires, you guessed it, more legislation, more government control, more censorship, more repression, and more of all the other hallmarks of progressivism to defeat it.

So, of course, having said that we should not talk about race and its associated sin sexism, I will discuss race and sex, well, mostly I will rant about White Dudes. The contributions of "Pale Dudismo" are considerable, worth recalling, and--dare I say?--defending without shame. That, I will do.

I am a proud White Dude. Mind you, I say this as somebody who had zero ancestors on the Mayflower, in addition, nobody in my family tree was a Viking, or sat in King Arthur's Court. I am ethnically an Ibero-North African-Jew whom some might consider, at best, only a member of the White Dude Junior Varsity Team. To those "some," I would say, "Hey, don't be too picky about your allies." At a minimum, Dudes, if Elizabeth Warren can be Cherokee,  Rachel Dolezal black, Bruce Jenner a woman, Al Sharpton a Reverend, and Donald Trump a Republican, well, I think you should let me into the White Dude Club. Deal done? OK.

White Christian Dudes (WCDs)--especially English-speaking ones--make the best countries and civilizations. Horrors! There. I've put the spotlight on the elephant in the Race Conversation Amphitheater.

Let me crank up the wattage on that spotlight: The peoples of the world want to live where White Christian Dudes (WCD) hold sway. Here in our own increasingly frazzled USA, the anti-WCD, PC elite want us to forget that White Christian Dudes founded our country. Look at the Declaration of Independence; you won't see too, too many Mohammeds or Moishes among the signatories--sorry to report that none of my relatives signed-- and, likewise, with the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers, all of them British and the epitome of White Christian Dudes, drew their moral and philosophical outlook, their concern for human rights and limited government, not from Asian or African philosophy, but from British, French, and Greek philosophers--all White Dudes, most Christian. Were our Founding Dudes perfect? Nope. Did they tolerate slavery, albeit reluctantly, when they should not have? Yes. White Christian Dudes can act out of step with their own principles. They are human. Yes, some White Christian Dudes from Europe ended up collaborating with African and Muslim Dudes to traffic in slaves. White Christian Dudes, however, do their own policing. It was overwhelmingly White Christian Dudes, we should note, who laid down their lives to end slavery. In more recent times, it was overwhelmingly White Christian Dudes who tore down European Nazism, liberated the concentration camps, and, by the way, also defeated racist Japanese Shinto militarism, freeing millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Malays, Koreans, and others from a brutal existence. It also was largely White Dudes, most of them Christian and Republican, who dismantled the Democrats' Jim Crow regime in the American South. White Christian Dudes gave America a new commitment to freedom and equal justice.

Around the world we see that just about everybody wants to live with the White Christian Dudes. We see this drive to live with White Christian Dudes every day along our southern border; Australians see it on their coasts and in the changing make up of their cities; Britons in the unceasing wave of migrants besieging their island. Canada's beautiful Vancouver in even more beautiful British Columbia has become a largely Asian city. Everywhere, it seems, the civilization built by White Christian Dudes is the magnet. Non-WCDs don't leave; my family certainly didn't.

White Dudes--most Christian, many Jewish--invented our modern world. The technology, the medicines, the engineering marvels, the stunning scientific discoveries, the great art and literature, etc., are all products of White Dudes, thank you very much. Even the unhinged feminists who seem to be everywhere spout a degraded form of Marxism--and, uh, Marx was a White Dude . . . most of us White Dudes are not too proud of him.

The mad progressives of our era create and promote all sorts of cryptids: the White Christian Dude as rapist, as racist mass murderer, as hater and killer of gays, as denier of women's rights, as all around abuser of women (poor little gals can't handle that liquor, doncha know?) The real world, of course, does not see White Christian Dudes that way. As I have noted, that world wants to live under the blessings of White Christian Dude rule. Why else do they come in such huge numbers every day to WCD countries?

One more elephant: if progressives get their wish and destroy White Christian Dude civilization, where will Third World migrants go? If, for example, the USA becomes like Mexico, why would Mexicans and Central Americans come here? If Australia becomes another Asian country, why would Asians risk their lives to go live there? Would Chinese immigrants want to live in a Third World pit? They can stay home for that.

I like being a White Dude. Long live White Christian Dude rule! It's the only hope for the rest of us . . .

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

On McCain

This will be a quick one.

I just want to weigh in a bit on the issue of Senator John McCain and the criticism of his war record by Donald Trump.

I voted for McCain in 2008. I saw him as much preferable to the destructive, anti-American, anti-West calamity who now holds the presidency.

He, of course, ran a horrid campaign in which he pulled his punches, refused to engage head-on with Obama, sabotaged his own running mate, Governor Palin, and chased after, as I have written before, what Tom Bethell called that "strange new respect." He subsequently has taken positions especially on foreign affairs that made little to no sense, again, I believe, as he sought that "respect" from the progressive media. McCain who loudly had proclaimed himself a "maverick" in the GOP, quickly showed himself as a critic of the GOP base as he searched, again, for that "strange new respect." He seemed genuinely to think that because the NY Times and the Washington Post, as well as the legacy broadcast news shows, praised and praise his "courage" in defying conservatives, and saying some very harsh and unfair things about folks such as Senator Ted Cruz, that they would back him against a true-blue progressive icon such as Obama. Wrong. Very wrong. He just doesn't learn that bowing to progressivism only gets you a sore backside.

All that said, Trump's comments on McCain's war record were idiotic. Trump, as noted before, is loud, brash, and has the ability, occasionally and opportunistically, to tap into issues of great concern, such as illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism. He is also a publicity-seeking thin-skinned egomaniac with a spotty business record who seems incapable of holding a coherent view of the world. He has a strong tendency to self-destroy.

Trump, of course, said, referring to McCain, “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” That is an imbecilic thing to say. McCain might be many things we conservatives do not like, but he put his life on the line in the skies over Vietnam, and suffered over five years of abuse and torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese, refusing early release, and staying with his fellow prisoners.

Those of us who have never gone through the sort of torment and sacrifice endured by McCain, and others at the Hanoi Hilton, have no right to mock, degrade, belittle or otherwise ridicule those who did endure that pain and terror. We can disagree with their views, but we should respect them as heroes.

I might say back to Trump, I like businessmen who don't declare bankruptcies . . .

Friday, July 17, 2015

Chattanooga Murders: Progressives Get the Credit

As this is being written the news reports continue to come in re the shooting in Chattanooga at two military-related facilities. It seems four Marines have died, one sailor has been seriously injured, and one policeman also wounded. The shooter is dead--not clear at this moment if by police or his own hand.

The MSM covered itself in its usual PC glory on this one. Initial reports, of course, emphasized that the shooter was a white male with an automatic weapon. When the killer's name came out (I won't print that scum's name here) well, doncha know, the word Mohammed is right in there. Surprise! The media engaged in its usual rush to exonerate, citing anonymous sources who said--within minutes of the shootings, mind you--that there was no evidence linking the events to terrorism. We saw the same pattern after the Ft. Hood killings.

Yes, shocking but true, the killer is a Muslim. This time an immigrant from Kuwait. The killer was enjoying all sorts of privileges here, including education as an electrical engineer, and a nice middle class life in a nice middle class suburb. Some reports indicate he even become an American citizen. Well, yes, folks we have yet another triumph of our progressive immigration policy. Another Dreamer achieves his goal . . .

Make no mistake about it. The progressives who run our institutions own this mass murder as much as they do the murder in San Francisco and the daily toll of murders in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, East Los Angeles, etc. They own it from their encouragement of Muslim immigration all the way to the "gun free zones" in which our military are forced to operate unarmed despite mounting evidence that they are targets of terror. We have highly trained Marines forced to "duck and cover" and run for their lives instead of doing what they do better than anybody else: send terrorists off to their appointment with seventy-two virgins or raisins or whatever the idiocy is.

We also have, of course, a desultory statement from a bored and even irritated-looking President Obama reciting some pro-forma boiler-plate words about sympathy for the victims. He can't rouse anywhere near the energy he did for the shooting in Charleston or for his imaginary son Treyvon Martin. These Marines are his; he is their Commander-in-Chief; he, however can't be bothered as he is too busy making sure Iran is safe.

So as the progressives march about our country tearing down 150-year-old Rebel battle flags, and digging up the graves of long-dead Confederates, Islamic killers run amok in that same country, and more get their visas as we speak.

Progressives, you built this, you own it.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

The Great Con: The Iran Deal

We live in a time of government by con men, women, and those of flexible and reassignable gender. In the last few days this bitter truth has become even more obvious than it was after Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Syrian Red Lines, Obamacare, gay wedding cakes, and Rebel flags.

In these past few dark days, we have seen two enormous cons run on the world by our "leaders." These cons will have direct and negative impact upon the lives of tens-of-millions of people around the world. One, of course, is the Greek Deal which avoids all the issues of how Greece and the world's fiscal and monetary policy have fallen into the abyss, and merely perpetuates the EU's Three Card Monte game. In the end, of course, Greece must default, walk away from the euro, and let the market set the true value of its currency and economy. Nothing else will work, but that's not the way, at least for now.

The Greek Con, however, fades into Junior Varsity status, into high school amateur theatrics, when compared to The Greatest of The Cons announced, appropriately, enough just in time for Bastille Day--commemorating another of history's Great Cons, the French Revolution. I speak, of course, of  the Iran Deal. I have written before about the negotiations with Iran (herehere, and here), and nothing stated then seems to have proven wrong.

I have read the entire Deal. You can, too, right here. It proves a grim and enfuriating read. Go ahead, you'll see.

The Deal is a fiasco for the West.

Having negotiated a lot of stuff during my time at State, I note, simply put, nothing this complex and convoluted is enforceable in the real world. Which means, therefore, that it is not meant to be enforced.

Let me start with a minor technicality. It is not clear the Deal is a treaty. I can almost guarantee that the Obama misadministration will go back and forth on that. Sort of akin to Obamacare: was it a penalty or a tax? When convenient, e.g., for public opinion's sake, the Obamistas will call it a treaty; when not, e.g., Senate ratification, they will call it a Joint Plan of Action or some other name implying Congress has no legal and binding role. In a way, that does not matter; Congress will have little to nothing it can do about this Deal. The UN Security Council will rubber-stamp it, and once all the other countries start freeing Iran's frozen assets, lifting sanctions, and making deals . . . game over. The U.S. Congress can rant all it wants.

Even all that, however, does not comprise the biggest problem. Assuming Iran complies with everything in this convoluted hash of a document--and Iran does not comply with international agreements--even then, Iran gets the bomb--assuming it doesn't have it already. Yes, that is correct, Iran gets the bomb no matter what; a little later perhaps if it fully complies with the Deal, but Iran gets the bomb--not to mention ICBM capabilities, and gets years of NPT violations swept under the rug, gets a pardon for its sponsorship of terror, doesn't have to give up its stated objective of destroying Israel, and . . . any wonder the Iranians celebrate? Some, however, might find convincing the graphic below put out by the White House yesterday. It, after all, is an intellectually powerful document; hard to refute its tight logic . . . well, maybe, for a not very bright six-year-old, raised as a vegan, maybe, just maybe.

Wow! Is that convincing or what?

Yes, my friends, despite the powerful imagery presented above, under the most optimistic of all circumstances, thanks to The Great Deal, the Iran of crazed Ayatollahs gets the bomb--and does it all real nice and legal and respectful. No fuss. No mess.

Iran will get perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen assets released to it, and will use those funds to build up its economy and military, and sponsor terrorism--then after a few years the deal expires anyway, and Iran can build its bomb quite openly. Iran being Iran, of course, it will not comply with the deal and will get the bomb much sooner than that. The Deal's inspection provisions are a joke. The process for dealing with any detected violation is so obtuse, complex, and drawn out that we will never see an effective condemnation. Forget about "snap back" sanctions. With its new  billions in unfrozen assets, Iran will build lobbying interests in key countries. Once, for example, Iran orders 200 Airbus planes, ten thousand Mercedes trucks, ten thousand Komatsu bulldozers, one hundred thousand Apple laptops, etc., who will argue for cracking down on some "minor and irrelevant" violation of The Great Deal? From what powerful sectors will those calls come? The Iranians know that the West will not do anything. The West has gone into retreat mode.

The Great Con guarantees war, a big war in the near future. The Israelis and the Sunni Arabs, Iran's most immediate foes, got cut out of the negotiations, their vital security interests ignored, and will not take the result quietly. I wrote some time ago that given Obama's calamitous Middle East policy we would see Israelis and Saudis coming together in a bid to stop Iran. That is happening. I will go further. Do not be shocked if Israel and Saudi Arabia end up backing ISIS against Iran. They rightly see Iran, not ISIS, as the biggest threat to the region and the world. Let's also not forget, dear friends, that Israel is a potent nuclear power, right now, not 30 months from now, not ten years from now, but right now, today. Please keep in mind that Israel is not a country predisposed to suicide, even for the White House. In addition, of course, expect the oil rich Sunni Arabs to go for their own bomb--probably purchased from Pakistan or some other willing vendor. The Non-Proliferarion regime of the past many decades is dead. A new and very dangerous nuclear age looms.

All of this confusion of games within games will produce war. It bears repeating: We will have war, and it will be horrendous.

As I was finishing this piece, I found Israeli Ambassador Dermer's speech on the Iran deal. It is worth reading. He points out, for example, that Iran's insistence on ICBM technology and capability is not so much a threat to Israel as it is to Europe and America. Iran does not need ICBMs to hit Israel. In particular, I was struck by the following portion of his address,
And when Israel and the Arab states are on the same page - which happens about once a century – pay attention. 
Ask yourself why Israel and its neighbors are so opposed to this deal. 
After all, we have the most to gain by peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. 
We have the most to gain by a deal which truly blocks Iran’s path to the bomb. 
The reason why we oppose this deal is because it doesn’t resolve anything, because it doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. 
It makes Iran’s illegal nuclear program legal. 
It provides billions in sanctions relief for Iran to fuel the fires of war that it is spreading across the Middle East. 
And it rolls out the red carpet for Iran to become a military nuclear power – a power that would threaten Israel with annihilation and threaten the peace and security of the entire world.

Monday, July 13, 2015

The Republican Presidential Menu

I might have lost count of how many gentlemen and lady have jumped into the GOP presidential contest. Those much wiser than I might say the Republican party now has too many candidates on offer. Perhaps. Who knows? The Wise Ones must get it right at least once, mustn't they? No? I guess a restaurant can provide a menu that offers TOO much choice to the consumer. That problem  certainly does not exist in the Democrat cafe over in Progressive Land. In that messy and greasy establishment, so far, the choice comes down to Column 'A' consisting of one old corrupt zero accomplishments white woman, or Column 'B' comprised of one old crazy-as-a-loon zero accomplishments white man. If, therefore, you get stressed by making choices then go with the Progressives. They'll make them for you: red beets with cabbage, or cabbage with red beets.

The Republicans have some excellent candidates. I think this is the strongest field we have seen from the ol' elephant party in a long, long time. Any one of them would make a far superior President than the calamity now occupying 1600 Pennsylvania, and better than Hillary or Bernie, by far. All of them strike me as patriotic and genuinely horrified by the leadership in DC. I have favorites, of course, and although it's a bit early, in keeping with full disclosure, I will say that I am inclined towards several of the governors.

I like Scott Walker a great deal: he seems a man who actually accomplishes things, e.g., breaking the power of the public sector unions in Wisconsin is no mean feat. Admittedly, he comes off a bit nerdy in this age of television and sound bites, but that is a minor sin. I also like Rick Perry, who seems to have put together a good campaign after his disastrous 2012 run. He has been giving some very interesting speeches and seems to have done a lot of thinking about the problems facing our country. He also has a sense of humor, and a strong record as governor of Texas. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is an interesting governor, too, although I think he's still a little rough around the edges for a national campaign. My least favorite of the governors is Christie of New Jersey. I still can't forgive him for his sabotage of the Romney campaign in the crucial closing days of the 2012 bout, and NJ's anti-second amendment policies leave much to be desired--still a helluva lot better than Obama or Clinton, however.

Senators Cruz and Rubio are charismatic, excellent speakers and debaters, and very strong on foreign policy. Either would eat Hillary Clinton's lunch in a debate; I just don't know about either one's managerial skills, and Rubio got himself sandbagged on immigration in his bid for "strange new respect." Carly Fiorina certainly talks a good game, seems a formidable debater, but probably comes handicapped by her controversial tenure at HP. I actually met Jeb Bush some years ago when he came to Indonesia and spent almost a full day with him. He is extremely smart, a very nice and funny person, but I am not fully convinced that he has the fire in the belly we need right now. His time might have passed. Ben Carson also seems a genuinely decent person and quite smart. I just don't know how he would do in the highly politicized world of DC. I am lukewarm on Trump, Huckabee, Kasich, and Paul for a variety of reasons, mostly revolving around my doubts about their conservative credentials. Senators Graham and Santorum, and Governor Pataki have not entered into my calculations much at all.

Anyhow, let's just hope they do not trash each other too much and give the MSM and the Dems ammunition to use in the general election.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

The Trump Card

Again, apologies to my three foreign readers: this comprises yet another post on the interminable US presidential campaign.

In today's this little ditty I shall sing a simple song about announced Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Well, actually, before I get around to The Donald, I start by relating a cab ride in Paris many years ago . . .

In the early 1990s, perhaps the late 1980s (the Diplowife is not here to ask), I found myself in a Parisian cab taking the long ride from the airport to our hotel. I have a habit of asking cabbies about the biggest problem they face, having found over the years that cabbies live much closer to the true social-political-economic situation than do journalists, politicians, entertainers, and other high-and-mighty savants. In addition, cabbies tend to relate what they see without the politically correct censorship that strangles so much discussion in the West. This cabbie proved very blunt: "Arabs," he answered. He described a hellish immigration situation in France and how he feared entering many parts of the capital. He supported Le Pen since the other politicians did not discuss real problems. Up to this point I had dismissed Jean-Marie Le Pen in much the same terms used by the MSM, "far right racist," "nut case," etc. As subsequent elections and other developments in France have shown, Jean-Marie and his daughter Marine have, indeed, tapped into a truth about life in France which the major parties would rather ignore. We have seen the same phenomenon at work in Spain where the political duopoly has come under threat from "rightist" and "leftist" populism dealing with issues ignored by the two comfortable big boys. I no longer dismiss Le Pen or other populist forces in Europe, "rightist" or "leftist."

OK, back to The Donald. A bit of clarification. I don't particularly like Donald Trump; I think him an ignoramus on many foreign policy matters, with an ignorance that matches that of Obama. I see him as a political opportunist and a self-centered glory hound of the first order. He, furthermore, has no track record as a conservative or even a Republican: he has admitted voting for Obama; given money to the Clintons and other Democrats; supported Obamacare; and made a supposed fortune with some deals that smell of crony capitalism and other non-Kosher practices--and, for all I know, his businesses might employ a lot of illegal aliens. He, at least, seems as much celebrity as serious businessman, and we could see him--allow some exaggeration--as Paris Hilton with weird hair.

All that said, however, he has drilled into a large subterranean pool of resentment, and unleashed a real political gusher over the 2016 presidential campaign. He has brought out the deep concern of many in America, myself included, over what clearly forms a deliberate progressive attempt to change the very nature of our society via massive immigration from poor countries. This humble blog has berated its six readers with this topic on several occasions (here and here, for example) well before Trump seized on the San Francisco murder as an example of what he had been saying about illegal immigration. This murder was apparently committed by a much-deported illegal Mexican enjoying "sanctuary" in that city in foggy-brained progressive California--a place more concerned about Rebel flags and Christian bakers than about illegal aliens committing murders, robberies, rapes, and sucking up public benefits and services.

The GOP establishment--of course--has been caught unawares by the strong positive reaction from the Republican base to Trump's brash, very politically incorrect comments about illegal aliens and the destruction they cause. He cleverly or by pure luck has turned the lachrymose progressive accounts of the suffering of Central American women migrants back on the progressives. We see progressive media accounts of how 80% of Central American women migrants get raped on their way to the USA. Well, as he rightly asks, "Who's doing the raping?" They are getting robbed, raped and otherwise assaulted in Mexico. That's an old story which the press has been reluctant to touch until they decided to make it an issue to encourage leniency towards illegal migrants from Central America. I can tell you from my own experience in Central America, migrants feared the long trek across Mexico above all else. Well now the progressives "own" the accusation against Mexico, and will have a tough time deriding Trump for having read their media. Trump also cleverly included black victims of illegal aliens in his recent appearances--a reminder to black voters that the illegal immigration policy of the Democrat party is no friend to their interests.

I don't know how long Trump's legs are--I suspect he has a tendency to "self-destruct"--and whether the other GOP and Democrat candidates will successfully pivot to take on this issue. But it is now an issue, perhaps a Willy Horton moment? I was sent the below picture by a friend. Could it become the defining theme in the election?

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Progressives and that "Lone Wolf" Definition . . .

I have read with horror the story of the murder in San Francisco of a young woman by a convicted, much-deported, illegal alien from Mexico. This murdering piece of filth should never have been on the streets, in fact, he should never have been in the country, not even in goofy progressive San Francisco. The story of this murder gets weirder and weirder as city and federal bureaucrats blame each other for this thug's presence on the streets. In addition, just as the expected assault on the NRA and "lax" gun laws was about to launch, it turned out that this piece of stinking flotsam used a gun stolen from a law officer, a federal officer no less. This story, of course, has gone political with the politicians blaming each other, most notably President Obama's despicable regime trying to blame Republicans because they have opposed his "immigration reform." As though this "reform" would have put this murderer behind bars or, at least, permanently in Mexico. Obama ignoring, of course, that this murder and so much other crime across the country is caused by illegal aliens who do not get deported and/or locked up. The Obama misadministration has refused to enforce the already pathetically weak immigration laws on the books, and has encouraged with words and deeds the current wave of illicit immigration we see pouring across our southern border. This violence is further abetted by "Sanctuary Cities," such as San Francisco, which declare themselves exempt from federal immigration laws. It is also aided by cretins such as the far, far-leftwing radical nut who holds the job of San Francisco sheriff (look him up, he is a piece of work.)

Just wondering, what city would serve as a "Sanctuary City" for bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding?

Among the most pathetic arguments we hear is that this killer's action should not reflect upon the millions of other "immigrants,"i.e., illegal aliens or, better said, invaders, who have entered our country in search of "free stuff" jobs and in pursuit of their DREAMS . . . This is the old argument of trying to paint those of us who want a real immigration system as racists and, more importantly, a rehash of the progressive "lone wolf" argument. The progressives fall back on this when they have nothing else.

That "lone wolf" stuff only is used when it benefits the progressive agenda. The piece of racist garbage who killed nine black church-goers in South Carolina, well, he was a part of a white racist culture that gets inspired by the Confederate battle flag; the shooter in Arizona who shot, among others, a Democratic Congresswoman, well, he was inspired by Sarah Plain and the vast right wing conspiracy whom we all know conducts most criminal acts in our country. In fact, I am terrified of driving through Republican areas of the country for fear those crazies discover that I am an African-Hispanic Jew . . . I live in terror of the Tea Party. When the Muslim murderer shot up Fort Hood, now that was a "lone wolf," as was the Muslim murderer who took hostages in Sydney, as were the Muslim killers in Canada, as was the Muslim sniper who terrorized DC some years ago, as was the Muslim who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, as was  . . . etc. We see horrendous crimes every day by Muslims and illegal aliens, but must not focus on the system that has allowed them to set up shop here.

After a bit, one begins to understand that lots of "lone wolves" make a pack . . .