Ron Paul’s 9/11 (with Helpless Comments from True Believers)

I have been pointing out for months on this blog that Congressman and Republican presidential candidate candidate Ron Paul frequently volunteers statements that are false, or incredible, or too difficult to verify. I have stated repeatedly that I distinguish between inaccuracies politicians may make when surprised by a question for which they are not prepared and pseudo-information they volunteer freely to aggrandize their cause or themselves. My several postings on the topic have been greeted by rational discussions as well as by bouts of insanity. There has also been innocent, stubborn denial, of the kind you would expect when reasonable adults get caught in flagrante of hero worship.

I have suggested several times that Congressman Paul is himself cracked. I based my judgment not on the nature of his followers but on the sum of his own many nonsensical statements. I was also impressed by the fact that Ron Paul asserted that Ron Paul did not read the Ron Paul Newsletter that published racist statements several times in the nineties.

Today, I am going to depart from the distinction outlined above. I will refer to statements Mr Paul made off the cuff, on the spur of the moment, and videoed on the spot. He was responding to a woman who I think was a supporter not a hostile party attempting to entrap him.

As he was standing a in an identified room surrounded by people, Mr Paul was trying hard to discuss the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the alleged sinister relationship between them. A youngish woman who seemed to me like an enthusiastic well-wisher interrupted him and asked:

“Why can’t you come out and tell the truth about 9/11/”

Ron Paul replied distinctly, “ Because I can’t handle the controversy… I have too much on my plate.”

And then he resumed talking about banks.

What can the woman have meant? Are there any other interpretation than the one that comes to your mind instinctively?

Here is what Ron Paul did not say in response, “ What truth?” “What do you mean?”

The video is embedded in an article by Bryan Preston, a conservative who is evidently hostile to the Paul candidacy. The article is on the REAL CLEAR POLITICS  website and  dated December 10^th 2011. I viewed it on April 27^th 2012. It is only one of several reports from people who are themselves of a libertarian bent about Ron Paul and 9/11. The main witness is an long-time aide who, of course, would be called a “disgruntled employee” by true believers

I emphasize the video because it allows me to say that I heard Dr Paul myself utter those words. I have no doubt that it was Ron Paul I was watching and listening to. If someone wants to argue that what my eyes saw and my ears heard was just a movie production with an actor or otherwise a montage and not what I think I saw and heard, I hope he will take the trouble to do it on this blog. But if you are one of the people who really believe that any part of the the US government took a part in setting up the 9/11 aggression against our society, please stay away. We have nothing to talk about if you think this is tenable. If wish you well though wherever you may be, in a large enclosed park with tall trees and white-smocked attendants.

In the meantime, I believe more then ever that Ron Paul is cracked. I am disappointed and very sorry that he has succeeded in representing libertarian thinking to the rest of America. Libertarian ideas are unconventional, radical enough on their own. The last thing we need is a spokesman of dubious sanity.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/12/27/ron_paul_is_a_911_truther_amp_that_disqualifies_him_269938.html

Syria: Our Shame, Arab Shame

President Obama and the mainstream libertarians I know agree with dictator Assad of Syria that if its bloody tyranny fell, Syria would soon be dominated by Islamists, enemies of America and of the West in general.

I don’t think anyone ever believed that the Kofi Annan “peace plan” for Syria would do any good. The UN is for the most part an ineffectual organization, (for which ineffectualness I am grateful most of the time). Kofi Annan was just one of the ineffectual non-leaders of that non-effectual organization organization. I remember his administration well. The best I can say about it is that his French is pretty good.

His peace plan was always a transparent excuse for doing nothing while pretending to do something about the on-going massacre of women and children by a modern army. The official US policy is a cynical ploy to pretend that the plan would somehow work in stopping the killing. I wrote months ago that the least we Americans could do was to shoot Syrian tanks (and now helicopters) from the sky without warning. I argued then, I argue now, that it would make Assad’s wobbly army nervous, a good thing any way you look at it.

The Assad regime has supported terrorists for thirty years. It is responsible for the death of many Americans in Iraq. It’s the main ally, a useful ally, of a regime of which the Obama administration says it should not be allowed to get a nuclear bomb while that same regime is working hard to get exactly that. It should be an easy call for any US government. It’s not because?

Whether or not the post-Assad Syria will be run by Islamists, no one knows. It could happen. What do you expect? That Arabs who detest tyranny will automatically go back to the good old days of the Magna Carta and of the US Bill of Rights, to the good old days that aren’t their good old days, in other words? The current murderous situation is not acceptable. Therefore, the risk of some sort of Islamist take-over is worth running. If you don’t believe this, think of what you actually believe: Why not maintain this stance, “not our business,” until every Syrian who is not a supporter of the Assad regime is murdered? Would three million slaughter victims be alright with you because we are so afraid of Islamists”? How about six million? (That’s not even a third of the population of Syria.)

Here is a simple ethical rule: If you have the means to stop or impede great evil and you don’t you are evil yourself.

Today, I am ashamed to be an American because of our passivity with respect to the slaughter of Syrian seekers for freedom. And if I were an Arab, from any country, I would be twice more ashamed.

Where are the brave volunteers who were so eager to kill the American killers of the monster Saddam Hussein? Where are they when the time comes to protect their brothers from yet another one of their home-grown monsters?

Nuclear Radiation: Japanese Plants and French Nuclear Tests in the Pacific

I read yesterday that the Japanese government resisted the demand to re-open some Japanese nuclear plants. I was surprised because I did not know they were all closed.

Of course, Japanese citizens are resisting because they cannot forget the thousands of their neighbors sickened and killed by radiation leaks last year, right after the tsunami.

In this connection, it is noteworthy that the French authorities still keep under lock and key thousands of specimens of two-headed fish and several hundred octopuses with legs coming directly out of their heads from their South Pacific possessions. The French had more than 200 atmospheric nuclear tests in that area in the seventies with the expected consequences on the local fauna.

PS There were no Japanese citizens sickened or killed by radiations last year. There are no two-headed fish anywhere. Octopuses with legs coming out their mouth do abound in the South Pacific. In fact, that’s what they look like everywhere, always have looked that way.

Why would you believe that kind of stuff? Worth asking yourself, isn’t it?

Some Unimportant Comments On the French Election

I have not said much about the first round of the French presidential elections because there is either little to say or because no one I know is interested in going as far as I would have to go to say anything interesting. The Wall Street Journal for one has done a fine job of covering the election and of commenting on it. Here I go, nevertheless. I followed the campaign and I thought it was surrealistic or maybe, like a Club Med performance.

Three topics that never got any traction during the campaign: 1 What to do about national indebtedness (90% of GDP, no worse than ours today); 2 What to do about non-existent economic growth; 3 In the long run, is there a connection between the two issues

It’s not the case that there was no debate, just not that debate. On the tarmac: Keep the Euro, to what extent? Retirement at 62 or back to 60, again? Is Pres. Sarkozy rude? Are the rating agencies including the one that took away France’s AAA rating anti-French? Should the Europeans, the French, start their own rating agency? (Would I make this up? Maybe the European Rating Agency could be in the charge of Greece.)

The big surprise – which should not have been one – is the good showing of Marine Le Pen’s Front National. It’s reputed to be racist but I think that’s the after-image from the bad old days when her loudmouth father was running the show. She has cleaned up her party’s act. Now, I think she won big because she speaks to frustrated, ordinary French people a language they understand. That’s the language of economic fallacy focusing on trade protectionism and the state control of capital movements. It’s the same fallacies that many people in this country carry in their heads. The difference with France is that there, they have their own party! That’s more democratic, in a way.

There is a essay I am thinking of writing but don’t because I am afraid it would turn into a thick book: In today’s world, if you don’t know English, you are liable to be systematically misinformed.

Here is a reaction to the news of the Florida shooter being freed on bail I picked up in the readers’ mail of the major French paper Le Figaro: “Money allows you to buy yourself out of anything!” (My competent translation.) The person who wrote this thinks that by posting bail, the shooter has put an end to all his trouble. If you told her that there is going to be a trial and that the shooter just might do time, she would probably tell you she does not believe in the tooth fairy.

Back to the French elections: Sarkozy will lose. It won’t be because of what he did or didn’t do. It will be because every politician who was in power in the fall of 2008 bites the dust the first time there is an election. That’ regardless of party affiliation or left/right orientation.

François Hollande will become president of France. He is all skim-milk, not even 2% milk. He is a lifelong Socialist Party bureaucrat whose main connection to power is that he used to share a bedroom, with the woman, Ségolène Royal, who lost the election the last time around. Like our president, Hollande has never accomplished anything in his life. And he is not even black!

For a short time, the French Socialist party looked like it was going to put forth ideas different from those it has been pushing for the last thirty years. Then, a New York City hotel chambermaid complained loudly and it was back to the old days for the Socialists. But you know that story already.

Liberals, Honest Ignorance, and a Left-Wing Conspiracy

This weekend, I attended a charity gala in a liberal-liberal part of my generally liberal region. It’s a good charity, by the way, no complaint here. And I was glad to be there with my elegant wife even if we were only acting as extras because we can’t afford to bid on…. Here you go, I was going to say something bitchy. I stopped myself in time. And, by the way is “bitchy” inherently sexist? I can’t very well say “doggy” every other time, or can I? Here, the very language is making it difficult to sound innocent. But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that the evening helped me remember the obvious fact that when people tell untruths, they are not necessarily lying. I keep forgetting because I have been straightening out people for so many years, I feel they should know by now. I am getting impatient. Like many old teachers, I tend to forget that there is a brand new batch of students every year!

Anyway, I found myself in closer proximity to conventional liberals than I normally do. And I enjoyed no courteous latitude to cause them to flee by inflicting pain on them. Sometimes, I just have to sit still and smile and often, suffer through the telling of their last trip to Paris. (And why am I not allowed to charge them for listening, I ask?) That evening, there is a sweet-faced woman in her fifties sitting to my left (to my left by chance, I am sure). She is one of those people I like on sight. Perhaps their faces carry the mask of many years of goodness, of thinking good thoughts, and that makes them attractive. The lady is a third- grade teacher. She is married to a lawyer who, strange thing to say about a lawyer, has a kind face too. Our host at the event, an old friend, is not beyond making trouble, out of curiosity, or to excite other guests’ interest. He must have told others at his table that my wife and I are ogres, genuine, real, not-for-cute-effect conservatives. Toward dessert, the sweet-faced lady initiates a political conversation with me.

She starts by asking me courteously what I do. I think she already knows the answer. I tell her I am retired and I blog. Following more inquiries, I further tell her that my seemingly most successful blog posting is entitled: “Why Young Women Are Stupid.” What could I do, lie? She asked. Besides, my intuition tells me that a part of her enjoys temporarily the company of a really bad boy. I give her the short version of the essay. Regretfully she more or less agrees with me about why  young women are stupid. Then, because I am kind in my heart (and also because of the Vichy side of my personality), I volunteer that the political analysts with the most influence on me are both women. How about Maureen Dowd she asks? I tell her that Maureen has not had an original thought in her life. At this points the lady stops beating a round the bush:
“What I hate about Republicans,” she says, “is what they do to women.” (Bolding mine.)

‘Well, what do they do?” I ask sweetly.

She tells me of several things that Republican presidential candidates have said, plus several that she thinks they have said and that I think they have not said. She cannot come up with anything any Republican has actually done that is cruel or inhuman or worse, to women. This is more interesting than it sounds. The lady is old enough to remember the radical welfare reform, under Clinton but crammed down the liberals’ throats by a militant Republican Congress. There were going to be hungry and sick children lying in the streets, her political sisters predicted at the time. I would bet she, personally said it too. There were not, children, I mean. Maybe she knows it, maybe she does not. Maybe she half-knows it without really knowing it. She has forgotten.

This liberal teacher is angry about what conservatives (supposedly all Republicans) “do” to women but she can’t think of even one such thing. But, she is not lying, just at a loss. I fear this exchange has been in vain. So, reading her mind about what Republicans would do if they could, I volunteer this information: I tell her that there is not a single elected Republican who advocates making abortion illegal. This, at least, will force her to keep thinking.

This morning, driving from the gym, I have my car radio set on one of the FM stations that broadcast both good music and National Public Radio shows. There is a this rare thing on, a liberal talk-show. It’s rare because liberals are always boring. They run out of anything to say in weeks if not days. I catch a woman caller complaining about an acquaintance of hers, an old lady, who is forced to chose between paying for her prescription medicines and eating every day. I heard this before. I am a little puzzled because the old lady is on Medicare and her prescription medicines are heavily subsidized. (Mine are too.) And subsidization of prescription medicines is one of those unfunded benefits that have got the Federal Government in the hole for many years to come. Then the woman caller makes this clear statement:

“What kind of government do we have that can bail out bankers but fails to bail our ordinary working Americans?”

Then, I have one of my rare epiphanies. I realize suddenly that the woman means it literally, that she really thinks that it was bankers, people who own banks and who manage them like say, a bakery, that the Obama administration bailed out in 2008. It dawns on me – and it’s really like a dawn breaking through an ink-dark night – that the caller does not understand that the really important banks, Wells Fargo, Citibank, etc., are owned collectively by ordinary people through their shares. If I were in front of the caller and if I told her that “ordinary working Americans” can own the banks any time they want, she would dismiss my assertion as silly. She lives in a mental world, with thousands like her, in which rich people own banks and that’s all there is to it. And rich people also own “the corporations,” of course. Millions of American exist mentally in the pre-Karl Marx 19^th century. If they were not, I wonder how many liberals would be left at all in this fundamentally fair and honest nation. If I said aloud,” Those who don’t own a piece of a bank or a piece of a corporation only have themselves to blame,” I might be thought off as a comic extremist although the statement is as true as can be.

I taught for thirty years in the social sciences, broadly defined. You would think I had plenty of opportunities to explain capitalism. In fact, I didn’t. I was seldom able to spend any significant time on the topic because another academic specialty was supposed to do that particular job, economists were. In my experience, they mostly fail; they routinely fail in a big way. I guess that economists are rarely interested in explaining the nuts and bolts and the basic definitions of capitalism. I think they think it’s beneath them. Or else, they don’t understand how far removed the concept of a market is from the intuitive experience of ordinary people.

Once, only once, Brother Fate gave me a chance to do something significant about the problem. It was fluke but it happened. I was offered the job of writing the entry “Capitalism” in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology – 6^th Edition (make a note of the edition). I did exactly what I wanted within the space allotted: Definitions and nuts and bolts and historical references. All was based on the assumption that the reader needed to start on the ground floor. When the time came to write the paperback version, there was a new Managing Editor, a well-connected, upstart, mere graduate student who proceeded to tell me that what I was writing about capitalism didn’t “correspond to what he knew.” The man was a real scholar at heart! The problem of course was that I had written in the hard copy edition an objective description, including some of the historical achievements of capitalism. And, unlike all my predecessors. I had done no kowtowing to the ghost of Karl Marx (now dead more than a hundred years and thirty years). It was unheard of, it was a gross mistake that someone in American sociology could write an entry that did not perspire poisonous sweat against capitalism. As I said, it was fluke that I was able to do it. That was one time; it felt really good. I decided then that winning against terrible odds even once was good enough, I withdrew from the paperback edition. I told the upstart editor to commit an anatomically impossible act on his own person. I felt too old to engage in a war against what I knew to be a vast conspiracy. It’s a conspiracy of leftists and of liberals who are extremely tolerant of leftists’ prejudices although they know better.

Those who know me among readers of this essay, tell me: How often have you heard me use the word “conspiracy”? And of course, I don’t mean that there was a conspiracy against me, personally. There is an ongoing left-wing conspiracy to keep the discipline of sociology and several of its derivatives with eyes firmly fixed on the year 1850 (Not a typo: 1850). And this is not a dig at old Charlie Marx himself. Marx was a creative thinker at least and he did not know what we know now: 1 Capitalism works; 2 Nothing else works.

© Jacques Delacroix 2012

Un adolescent noir assassiné! (mise a jour le 27/3/1 et de nouveau, le 13/4/12, corrige le 19/4/12, mis a jour le 26/4/12.))

Cette premiere partie fin Mars 2012.

Gros tumulte mediatique partout aux Etats-Unis à cause d’un homicide. En Floride, un jeune adulte tue un adolescent, un cas de légitime defense selon le tireur. Il n’ y pas de témoin. La victime est un jeune Noir.

Il y a scandale parce que la police locale n’a pas arrêté le tireur. Ce fait ne constitute en rien une décision de la police de considerer le tireur comme innocent. La police fait son enquête et donne ses observations au procureur (“District Attorney”) qui décide ou non de poursuivre. Pour le moment, il n’y a pas vice de forme, Cela n’empêche pas l’opinion de gauche de s’émouvoir en masse et de crier à l’injustice, et d’accuser la police locale de racisme . (“Vous avez assassiné un jeune Noir? Pas de problème.”)

Si vous avez lu jusqu’ ici vous vous êtes surement déjà representé le tireur comme un homme blanc parceque, étant francophone, vous avez été nourri de films imbéciles sur l’Amérique. De plus, si vous êtes exclusivement francophone, il y a de bonnes chances pour que vous soyiez chroniquement mal informé. (Désolé, mais j’annonce la couleur telle que je la vois.

En fait, le tireur est ce qu’on appelle “hispanique” et de surcroît, Juif. “Hispanique” est une catégorie ignare, sociologiquement parlant mais c’est une catégorie légalement valide. En gros, il s’agi de tous ceux dont un parent au moins a un nom espagnol, sauf les Philippins .(Je n’invente rien!) Les “hispaniques,” à l’instar des Noirs jouissent d’un régime juridique protégé spécifique tant en ce qui concerne l’état fédéral que l’état de Floride. Ce sont des “minorités.”

Pour retourner à l’homicide en question: Cela devait arriver: un membre d’une minorité opprimée opprime un membre d’une autre minoritée opprimée en le tuant.

Les minorités raciales et autres groupes opprimés jouissant d’un statut spécial constituent largement plus de 100% de la population américaine. Ils comprennent, en plus des Noirs et des Hispaniques, les Asiatiques, mais seulement ceux qui ont les yeux bridés (donc, pas les Indiens de l’Inde ou les Levantins), les Amérindiens, les femmes (50+% de la population totale), les handicappés, les homosexuels, les trans-sexuels, les hommes de plus de cinquante ans. Et j’en passe!

En fait, la police prend toujours un risque en relaxant un suspect d’homicide. On la critique quoiqu’elle fasse. Personellement, je pense qu’il y aura une enquête honnête et compétente. Je suis certain qu’il y en aurait une même si le Président avait su fermer sa grande gueule. Il n’a rien à faire dans cette affaire. Il s’agit d’un crime, si crime il y a, dépendant entièrement de la juridiction de l’état de Floride. Qu’il ait fait le moindre commentaire relève déjà de l’abus de pouvoir, (encore un). Je ne lui en veux pas. Contrairement à la plupart des conservateurs américains, je suis persuadé que le président Obama n’est pas foncièrement mauvais mais plutôt massivement ignorant, y compris de notre constitution.

Entre temps, comme d’habitude, je fais un détour vers ce qu’on devrait voir mais qui reste absent de nos écrans de radar. Il est vrai que se déroule un massacre de jeune hommes noirs sans fin et qui fait des milliers de victime par an. Il s’agit des jeunes hommes noirs anonymement assassinés par d’autres jeunes Noirs dans leurs propres quartiers. La population noire, qui constitue moins de 20% de la population totale, fournit la moitié des victimes d’homicide. A peu près 94% des victimes noires semblent être tuées par des Noirs. (Statistiques du FBI.) Comme le massacre se déroule presqu’ intégralement dans des municipalités Démocrates fermement tenues en main par des conseils municipaux noirs, on n’en parle pas, ou plus. Agir autrement ferait mauvaise impression, après tout.

D’ailleurs, seules les vcitimes d’homicide commis par les autres sont vraiment mortes. Les victimes noires de tueurs noirs font simplement semblant.

Mise a jour le 27 Mars:  Le tireur n’a toujours pas ete place en garde a vue. Une organisation noire fasciste a mis publiquement sa tete a prix. Deux temoins affirment que le tireur avait ete effectivement physiquement agresse par la victime. Moi, je n’ai pas d ‘opinion quant a la culpabilite du tireur.

Mise à jour le 13/4/12

Tandis que le tireur se cachait parce qu’il craignait pour sa vie, un grand cinéaste noir a offert une prix en argent, une récompense pour on ne sait pas trop quoi appartenant au tireur (pas sa tête, explicitement, l’offre était vague). Le cinéaste n’a pas été inquieté par les autorités.

La victime, que la presse avait d’abord presenté comme un pré-adolescent un peu joufflu, mesurait plus d’un mètre quatre-vingt dix. Le tireur est beaucoup plus petit.

Une grande chaîne de télévision a été prise la main dans le sac à triturer une bande enregistrée pour faire faussement apparaitre que le tireur avait proféré des insulted raciales vis-a-vis de la victime. Ceci ne pouvait qu’enflammer encore l’opinion en accréditant la thèse de l’agression raciale gratuite de la part du tireur. La direction de la chaîne a déclaré qu’il s’agissait d’une erreur malheureuse d’un sous-fifre qu’elle a d’ailleurs congedié. (Pourquoi congédier quelqu’un pour une simple erreur, je me demande?)

Le procureur local élu dont c’est normalement la fonction de décider comment traiter les homicides de toutes sortes s’est récusé, toujours sans avoir inculpé le tireur. Le Gouverneur de l’état de Floride a aussitôt nommé un procureur spécial pour traiter de l’affaire. Ce procureur spécial, une femme, a déclaré immédiatement qu’elle s’appuirait sur une procédure exceptionelle dans cette affaire. Normalement, le procureur présente les preuves contre le suspect a un “Grand Jury” représentatif de la localité où a eu lieu le crime potentiel. C’est le Grand Jury qui décide si les preuves sont suffisantes pour inculper ou non, et de quoi. (Ne pas confondre ce “Grand Jury” avec un jury ordinaire qui décide au bout d’un procès si le prévenu est coupable. Les deux sortes de “juries” proviennent du même pool de population mais leurs roles sont différents et on les recrute séparément.)

Ce qu’a décidé le procureur dans ce cas n’est pas illégal mais c’est exceptionnel. Et j’ai souvent du mal à distinguer procédure exceptionnelle et procédure d’exception.

Le tireur a été placé en garde à vue hier et aussitot inculpé d’homicide volontaire sans premeditation, pas d’assassinat. (J’avais dit precedemment homicide  involontaire; c’est une erreur importante que je regrette beaucoup.) Intéressant! Entre temps, je n’ai toujours aucune opinion sur ce qui s’est passé le soir de la mort du jeune homme. Je suis peut-être le seul dans ce cas. J’en tire fierté. A suivre.

04/26/12 Le tireur a été mis en liberté sous caution le 23. C’est la procédure normale, pas une procédure de faveur pour lui. La règle partout aux Etats-Unis c’est qu’il est souhaitable que le prévenu prépare sa défense en liberté, pas derrière les murs d’une prison. C’est un juge qui décide. Il arrive, mais rarement , que le juge refuse. C’est presque toujours parce qu’il estime qu’il y a risque de fuite.

Contrairement à ce que j’ai lu dans un commentaire de lecteur époustouflant du Figaro, la caution ne remplace pas le procès criminel. Le procès aura bien lieu. Le prévenu sera acquité par un jury de ses pairs ou il ira en prison. (Il ne risque pas la peine capitale parce que le procureur n’a requis que le meurtre sans préméditation.)

Assad Stops Massacre in Syria (Or Does He?); Ron Paul Gains Ground.

4/13/12 update   The extremely courageous Syrian people are out in the streets, demonstrating peacefully in full daylight against the bloody tyrant who has killed 9,000 of their friends and relatives. The pseudo-sophistication of American and other Western non-interventionist is revolting.

Kofe Anan, the unforgettable former General Secretary of the United Nations painstakingly organized a cease-fire in Syria. I mean that he obtained Syrian dictator Assad’s the promise to stop killing Syrians. It was supposed to be in place yesterday, Tuesday. It’s Wednesday night in Syria. There is no sign of any cessation of the massacre. In a gesture of good will, Assad did move some tanks around so that his troops are now killing Syrian civilians in a  different part of Syria from what he was doing two days ago.

Is anyone surprised? Assad is not really asking for much, seems to be the thinking of the “international community;” he is only asking for a few more days to murder a few hundred more Syrians. We should be reasonable.

The Arab countries should be ashamed of themselves. Their leadership does not even take the trouble to shout as loudly as they do when Israelis killed much fewer Arabs. Over the years, we seem to have accepted that it’s OK when Arabs massacre Arabs. It reminds me of the old American attitude toward domestic violence, “He is strangling his wife; of, well, it’s a family squabble; no one’s business.”

I wish any Arabs and beyond this, any Muslims, especially Turks, next-door neighbors to the tragedy would comment on my accusation. Their silence is deafening. Their claim to any honor is nullified by that silence.

The new America, under Pres.Obama, speaks loudly on the issue but because of its past passivity and because of its reluctant participation into the salvation of Libya, no one believes it will do anything for Syrians. It seems to have forgotten that the Assad dynasty has much American blood on its hands, much more than the mad Ghadafi ever did. The Obama administration ‘s contribution to the creation of a better world is to confirm the widespread impression that if you kill Americans, not too much is likely to happen to you as a result.

Libertarian in the US are silent as usual. They are paralyzed, caught in the same trap of their own making. The trap is this: Although their doctrine despises the nation-state, although starving their prison-like “own” nation-state is the core of their doctrine, they have infinite respect for the nation-states that imprison others, Syrians for example.

Besides, as one of my habitual mainstream libertarian interlocutors once argued on this blog,  we never know who started it. (!) We can’t shoot off the sky Syrian helicopters that are rocketing apartment houses occupied by Sunni Muslims. That’s because, somewhere, sometimes in the 19th century,a Sunni ancestor of the current victims may have knocked the fez of  an Alawite ancestor of today’s “President” Assad. Pathetic!

Followers of truth-confused candidate Ron Paul has a lot to celebrate today: Their candidate is now in second position in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Congratulations!

Extreme Cold Winter in Alaska, Global Warming

The Wall Street Journal has a long article on page A5  about how Anchorage Alaska has never had more snow in its recorded history than this ending winter.

What this tells us about the reality of alleged global warming is…absolutely nothing!

Rationalists and sober-minded people must resist the temptation to espouse the mental weakness of their religious global warmist opponents.

Isolated facts are isolated facts whichever side you are on: reason or unreason.

American Fascism or Treading Water?

The President threatened the Supreme Court today. The carrion stink of fascism never wafts far from the Obama kitchen. It was already there during his campaign (and I wrote about it). So, he may be laying the groundwork for a constitutional coup:

“This constitution is too old. We need something better suited to our times. Anyone who does not see this is a racist.”   That’s on the one hand.

On the other hand, this speculation is not in line with most of what I have been saying on this blog: This is a man out of his depth.

It’s difficult to reconcile the cold cynicism required for a coup with Mr Obama’s practice of telling big lies that he has no chance of getting away with. This is a man who declared recently in stentorian tones that a vote of 219 to 214 is a “big” margin (or a ‘wide” margin, same thing). He does not realize that if five Democrats had had the flu that day and stayed home, Obamacare would have failed in the House. Or that if three Representatives had switched sides, the same thing would have happened.

I don’t see how that could have been a lie, I mean a deliberate distortion of the facts. I am guessing he is just treading water.What do you think?

What the US Constitution Says About the Supreme Court

This is for my many readers abroad. I am not assuming they need this information but it’s easy and cheap to provide it, so, why not?

The job of the US Supreme Court (the highest federal court) is to determine, to decide, on the constitutionality of laws and other compulsive measures passed by any legislative authority in the country. Those include the US Congress, of course, but also state legislatures and even municipalities and other local authorities.

“Constitutionality” refers to conformity with the US Constitution, including its Bill of Rights and other amendments. (There are only 27 amendments total.)

The US Supreme Court has no other job. In particular, it is not the function of the US Supreme Court to decide “what’s good for the country,”  or what’s wise, or fair legislation.

Something President Obama said yesterday leads me to believe that he does not know that. He used to teach “constitutional law.” I am not surprised. American universities (where law schools are lodged) are surprisingly corrupt. They are corrupted less by money than by ideological weakness.

Ask me if you want to know more. Use the “Comment” format.