Friday Afternoon Roundup - In the Fields of Cain

Name the UN affiliated organization chaired by Jimmy Carter that's teaching your kids to put American presidents on trial in front of international courts?

That would be the Model UN.

The UNA-USA’s agenda includes AMICC or the American Coalition for the International Criminal Court​, whose goal is to push through American ratification of the Rome Statue which would place the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and would preempt the Constitution.

To that end Model UN’s also teach students to act out roles in the International Criminal Court bringing world leaders to trial. One of the world leaders who will be brought to trial at the Hilton Model UN is George W. Bush. At the MUNCH 2012 Model UN ICC, President Harry Truman will be brought to trial by American students answering to a panel of foreign judges. It does not take much imagination to see what the best and brightest are being readied to do to their own country.

See the rest of it in Teaching Your Child to be a Dictator’s Lackey, my Front Page Magazine article.




THE GOOD WAR

We all know war is bad. Really bad. Except for the Viet Cong's war against the American occupiers. But what does the left think a good war looks like?

Bad War: A bad war is fought in response to an attack on the United States, the mass murder of American civilians, an attempted assassination of an American president and attacks on American aircraft.

Good War: A good war is fought on behalf of Islamic interests to the detriment of American interests.


Bad War: A bad war is a unilateral action fought by a coalition of 48 countries without United Nations approval.

Good War: A good war is a multilateral action fought by 16 countries under a fraudulent United Nations mandate that called for a cease fire and a no-fly zone, not the overthrow of a regime.


Bad War: A bad war is when we overthrow a government and then oversee the transition.

Good War: A good war is when we overthrow a government and let Al-Qaeda handle the transition.


Bad War: A bad war is when the dictator is brought to trial by a tribunal that had been convened three years earlier and through a judicial process lasting over a year where the defendant is allowed to testify and has a multinational team of attorneys at his disposal, and is finally convicted and sentenced to death.

Good War: A good war is when the dictator’s convoy is attacked by American and French aircraft in yet another attempt to assassinate him, and then he’s captured, beaten and sodomized by a mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” until he is dead.

See the rest of the guide to the left's good war in A Good Progressive War, my other FPM piece.




DER TIME

Some time in 2007 or so, I picked up a copy of Time Magazine, something I hadn't done in a long time and was shocked to see that a mildly boring magazine that for a long time had been the political version National Geographic, had turned into something out of North Korea.

Like almost all publications, Time was biased towards the left. The bias wasn't particularly subtle, but nor did it make you feel like you had stumbled into an alternate version of history where the USSR won the Cold War. At least until then.

There's a difference between bias and propaganda. It's the same difference as between that liberal professor you had in college explaining American history with his class warfare overlay and that same professor shouting slogans through a megaphone and demanding the death penalty for the enemies of the people.

Most people have learned to tolerate the former, but the abrupt descent of the media into the latter was disturbing, especially with its lack of transition.

The radicalization of the press accompanied the rise of Sturmeresque voices. There's not that much difference anymore between a Glenn Greenwald and mainstream media figures like Joe Klein. It's not so much their politics, which are extreme enough, but the unreasoning hate, the open assault on enemies in language that you normally see in the press organs of totalitarian regimes.

So maybe a Time Magazine article which openly mocks and justifies the firebombing of a French satirical magazine for satirizing Islam shouldn't be shocking anymore. It wouldn't be shocking in North Korea, or Cuba or Nazi Germany. Why should it be shocking in a media that now looks like its socialist counterparts.

What the Bruce Crumley piece really does though is show that the Islamophobia scam is a justification for violence.

We've gone well beyond the pretense that crying Islamophobia protects Muslims from bigotry. No, it serves to justify Muslim violence and atrocities. The charge of Islamophobia is now a license to kill.

Anyone who cries Islamophobia, and I don't mean Muslims, I mean people like Bruce Crumley, has an agenda. And that an agenda is to take a match to the Constitution, to Freedom of Speech and to declare that Muslim violence is justified so long as it can be linked to some perceived offense.

Again, why should we be surprised? How often has the media justified terrorist attacks on Israel as retaliation? Terrorists today are described as "militants" even by FOX News. But it doesn't there. It never does.

Charlie Hedbo is the new Israel, occupying Muslim sensitivities with tanks made of cartoons. And "resistance" in the form of arson is justified. Oh Crumley makes the obligatory, "violence is wrong" statement that every single other word in his column disavows-- but if he really thought violence was wrong, he would be writing a column blaming the perpetrators, not the victims.

Instead in the year 2011, Time Magazine has adopted the values of Iran, arguing that anyone who criticizes religion is to blame for attacks that religious fanatics make against him.

Of course it's not just any religion. If Charlie Hedbo had put out an issue mocking the Catholic Church and been firebombed for it, Time Magazine would be furiously denouncing Christians. There's only one religion whose violence is sanctified, both within its ranks and by the media.

Islam. Sharia? Caliphate? Nothing of that sort to see here. And keep quiet about it, or you'll be burned out too.




THE ROMNEY STUFF

The story or non-story of the week is the sexual harassment accusations again Cain, which may or may not have something to them. The slowness of the rollout is deliberate, it's an attempt to keep the story going for as long as possible with "new developments" so even if there's not much to it, by the time the specific accusation is made, it will feel like Cain has been the subject of a sex scandal going on forever.

It's an effective enough trick.

The meme in much of the conservative media is that Romney is to blame, but that doesn't make much sense. Cain was Romney's road to the nomination. As long as there was a split between two popular candidates to the right, then Romney had a clear shot. If Cain is out, then the election boils down to a Romney-Perry slugfest, with the Anti-Romney vote solidifying around Perry.

Romney taking out Cain this early in the process makes as much sense as George W. Bush trying to get Nader to drop out. But blaming Romney adds to the negative image of mittens, while diverting blame from Perry who might look too much like the bad guy for pulling this, even if he is the one with the most to benefit... and the one being blamed by the Cain camp, which is determined to spread the pain.

All the facile, "It must be Romney because he has a history of dirty tricks" analysis don't stand up to the smell test, and I say that as someone who has no preference for either of the men. Most successful pols can and will do things like this. We're not dealing with a bunch of Jimmy Stewarts looking to go up to DC and champion camps for boy scouts. Except maybe for Santorum and Pawlenty, who ended up with the treatment that real life Jimmy Stewart candidates get.

Romney, Perry,  Gingrich, Cain and Bachmann are all tough campaigners. The people benefiting from a Cain implosion are in order of gain, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann and then everyone else. Romney last of all.

Not that Romney can be ruled out. Like a game of Clue, no one can be ruled out. The move doesn't benefit him, but politicians and their cronies have done dumber things before. For that matter it may all be a project of Team O, with the subsidiary intention of making the race uglier so that candidates start throwing as much dirt as possible at each other.



WEATHERING THE STORM

For Cain supporters, the limited good news in all this is that if there is a single candidate capable of bouncing back from this with some cheerful tough talk, it's him. And this is also part of what it's about. A trial by fire.

Whoever gets the nomination is going to get hit by scandals, real or imaginary, compelling or blown up up from nothing, and they are going to have to deal with them.

This is not a normal campaign, the media is Obama's research department and spin corps. They will run any story they can get no matter how baseless. And that means a major requirement is that Teflon quality that makes a candidate hard to tear down.

Is such a thing even possible in an atmosphere where no matter what the media will open up a barrage of smears and run hit pieces non-stop on every channel? Trump was more Teflon than anyone in the race, and he had trouble standing up to two weeks of it.

For now Cain is still standing and getting out there. And that's to his credit. The ugly Romney-Perry exchange made it clear that both men are not that great under pressure. Perry rigidly kept following a script and got his cues all wrong. Romney overreacted and slipped saying something that wasn't quite as bad as Kerry's infamous, "for it before I was against it", but that communicated to the opposition that he can be forced into making damaging slips if he's hit hard enough.

If Cain makes it through this, then he'll have shown a scandal is not enough to take him down.



THE ROUNDUP

The guy who isn't running, but is saying the stuff that nobody running is really saying.

"I believe that Barack Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement," Rudy Giuliani said at the Defending the American Dream Summit. "It would not have happened, it would not have happened but for his class warfare. And remember, as it gets worse and worse because it's going to get worse and worse, where it came from. Barack Obama. He praised it. He supported it. He agrees with it. He sympathizes with it. And as it gets worse and worse, I believe this will be the millstone around Barack Obama's neck that will take his presidency down."

"How about you occupy a job. How about working? Working. I know that's tough," Giuliani also said.

MSNBC's other idiots (no not that one, the other other idiot who isn't Al Shaprton or Ed Schultz) is declaring war on the NRA. Not that NRA, the National Restaurant Association.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on his primetime show last night shared names and photos of senior officials of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in order to intimidate them in ending the confidentiality agreements between the group and the two women it settled with that claimed they were sexually assaulted. O'Donnell also called for a boycott of the restaurants the group represents as well as an occupation of their headquarters. 

Larry has clearly not learned the lessons of Vietnam. Never fight a land war in Asia or try occupying a bunch of Asian restaurants.

But you know I bet worsening the economy by driving away businesses from restaurants will make people more eager to vote for the bozos.


Is Pelosi in trouble? Not according to O who wants her back running the House.

Bosch Fastwin responds to the Hedbo bombing.

Religion of child slavery still in business in America.

Summer of Recovery has led to Fall of Prosperity and Winter of 9.0 Unemployment.

More Islamic respect for women in Norway.

Human aid to Gaza? Not so much.

Enjoy the Weekend.