Monday, July 14, 2014

Everybody is pretty much sick of HAMAS

Who would have thought it 6 years ago!  It's one thing for Israel to respond to HAMAS rocket attacks, but doing so with the tacit approval of Saudi Arabia and Egypt is a new twist few are following in the news. As if this is unusual, the incredible outpouring of support for Israel from Americans is overpowering the usual loud noise of the anti-Semitic minority that can always be counted on to kvetch in times like these. 

There is a reason for this.  In short, there are few Arab League States that still have cohesive governments.  The remainder are in a state of anarchy, largely due to armed revolt by Muslim Brotherhood groups.  These Muslim Brotherhood groups come in many names and flavors, but they all have a basic goal: An Islamic Empire without borders ruled by a Caliphate.

In 2007, Israel, at the urging of President Bush, left Gaza.  Within months, HAMAS, a Muslim Brotherhood organization, had violently taken over Gaza.  By the end of 2008, Israel was at war with Gaza with the Arab League shrieking and shrying for Israel to stop.  You know!  The Arab League of Kadafi, Mubarak, Bashar Al-Assad, Nouri al-Maliki, King Abdullah etc.

Well don't look now, but most of those leaders are ether gone, going, or hanging on for dear life from insurgencies led by various Muslim Brotherhood organizations.  After overthrowing Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown by the Egyptian Army because it was ignoring the country's dire financial crisis while focusing on restrictive religious edicts hampering the middle class.  Muslim Brotherhood forces overthrew Moamar Kadafi in Lybia with absolutely no provocation save for some reformers who wanted "Democracy".  Muslim Brotherhood forces (aka ISIS) have fought to a stalemate in Syria in an effort to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad.  And lately, Muslim Brotherhood forces (aka ISIS) have invaded Iraq without provocation to overthrow the tenuous government there.

In short, every Arab League Leader left now realizes that the Muslim Brotherhood they supported to kill the Jews wants to kill THEM too because the nation-states of the Arab League are the antithesis of their goal of an Islamic Empire ruled by a Caliphate. Every Arab League leader, tryannical as they may be, now knows they are in the crosshairs of one or many Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

And then there's HAMAS always stirring up trouble.  As if 140,000 dead in Syria aren't enough, these jerks start lighting off rockets at Israel bringing on a predictable Israeli response.  As the remaining Arab League leaders look around at the company HAMAS keeps, they can't help but wonder why they should run to their aid.  Moreover, when it comes to the national self-determination of Arab League States, NOBODY shows more respect than the State of Israel, the national self-determination of the JEWS.

The Arab League has never made a secret of their loathing for the Jews, but over the past 3 years the leaders see more and more of their nation-states under attack from barbaric imperialists.  They've seen Hosni Mubarak humiliated and Moamar Kadafi brutally murdered.  Does a similar fate await Bashar Al-Assad?  Suddenly, this relatively benign nation-state of Jews doesn't look so bad.  The Jews leave the Arabs alone.  OK... they don't surrender to genocidal Muslim Brotherhood supporting Palestinian Arabs, but neither do the Arab League States.

With Arab League leaders concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran getting nuclear weapons, HAMAS is simply fighting on the wrong side and causing an un-needed burden.  No matter what the Arab League leaders say about Israel, they know that the enemies that will knock them out of power are the Iranians and/or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Why lift a finger to support a Muslim Brotherhood organization like HAMAS that needlessly starts a war?  Why lift a finger to support HAMAS when they needlessly start a war with the ONE nation-state that respects the territorial integrity of  all the other Arab League States?  This is especially apparent given that Israel's respect for the territorial integrity of Arab League states is rarely reciprocated.

For the first time perhaps in 66 years, some Arab League leaders are finally starting to understand a basic relationship that has existed for decades.  If the Arab League States want self-determination as individual nation-states, their best guarantor is the Jewish State.    If the Arab League States wish to surrender their sovereignty to an Islamic Caliphate, then the Jewish State is in the way.  Since no leader of an Arab League State wants to end up like Moamar Kadafy or Hosni Mubarak, the choice is becoming simple.

If  one looks around at the Arab League, few remain that still have cohesive governments.  Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya are all in some state of anarchy.  At best, these states may enjoy a tenuous state of calm that can be broken at any time.  Egypt and Algeria are on the edge of breakdown and it is in large part due to the activities of Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

For the remaining nation-states of the Arab League to survive, they will need Israel.  Israel is the only nation-state in the region that respects the territorial integrity and self-determination of Arab League States.  The Arab League States may have a manifest policy of anti-semitism, but as they look over their shoulders at real enemies with real plans to destroy their countries, they know the enemy is NOT Israel.

This may be a temporary glitch in the long enmity between the Arab League and Israel, but the growing strength of Muslim Brotherhood organizations coupled with the growing strength of Iranian imperialism suggests something different.  For the first time since World War II, Arab League States may actually discover what many of us have always known: Their self-determination as individual states DEPENDS on them allowing and fostering the self-determination of the JEWISH State.  Sadly, to the extent this happens anytime soon, it may be too little; too late.

But you know what they say: Better late than never.

So if you're wondering why the chorus of whining, crying, kvetching and moaning against Israel doesn't seem to be evident this time, you now have one theory to explain it.  In short, everybody is pretty much sick of HAMAS.


Tuesday, June 24, 2014

6 months into 2014 and still no blog posts

Sorry folks.  It's been a busy year.

Hopefully, I'll find something useful to write about between now and 2015.

Regards,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

Sunday, January 05, 2014

Happy New Year 2014!

Greetings Fellow Bloggers!

With luck, health and prosperity... not to mention a little free time, I hope to post a little more on this blog in 2014.

In the meantime, are any of you following the NFL playoffs?  Who's your pick to go all the way?

I know the Packers won't.  They may win today's frigid game in Green Bay, but the NFC North stunk this year.

Think about it!  The difference between the Packers winning the division as opposed to the Bears was having a few more brain cells on a freak play that was never whistled dead.  It was only when the announcers in the TV booth mentioned that the ball hadn't been whistled dead (while already reviewing the instant replay) that the Packers' sideline erupted; somebody picked up the ball and walked into the end zone.  That play was the margin of victory for the Packers.

I'm kinda thinkin' Carolina is will advance deep into the playoffs if not make the big show (Super Bowl).  Ex-Bear Ron Rivera is determined to show the world he can head-coach a football team and he's really demonstrating it with results.  Everybody seems so surprised.  I'm not.  Somebody from that 1984 Bears Super Bowl team was bound to become a successful NFL coach.

Most bets were on Mike Singletary, but Mike was handed a bad deal.  Wouldn't you know it would be someone flying under the radar like Ron Rivera who would rise through the ranks.

OK.  That's all for now.  Gotta run.

Hope to see you more often in 2014.  Keep reading the old stuff.  Most of it is quite relevant.

Happy New Year,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

Sunday, January 13, 2013

My take on the 2nd Ammendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'll keep this short and sweet.  The 2nd Ammendment gives us a right AND a responsibility.

We have the right to bear arms.  That means we have the individual right to own firearms and defend our homesteads.  We are not limited to those arms that effectively defend our homesteads.

However, we have a COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY to follow the government's regulation of the collective population of American firearm owners to defend the state as a "well regulated militia".  As such, the nation-state can regulate our collective behavior with firearms.    

I dismiss the argument that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to forcibly resist "government tyranny".  It's not like we don't have government tyranny.  The law preventing people from crossing the street in New York City while talking on their cell phones may be a tyrannical limitation of our personal freedom.  However, if a New York Policeman were to give me a ticket for doing so, it would be the height of immorality to draw a firearm and shoot the policeman who is merely doing his/her job. Americans still have the means to confront this tyranny without violence.  YOUR personal definition of "government tyranny" does not give you a right to use force to confront it.

I used to ridicule the argument that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to forcibly resist "government tyranny".  Proponents of this argument pointed out that some of our founding fathers commented that this was the purpose of the amendment.  I don't care!  If the founding fathers who proposed this thesis held a prevailing view, the 2nd amendment would would have contained such language.  It doesn't.  Therefore, I dismiss the argument, but I no longer ridicule it.  The reason is that the 2nd Amendment is part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, a collection of amendments ratified to guarantee our freedom.  Therefore, while the 2nd Amendment does NOT give us the right to resist whatever we as individuals perceive as "government tyranny", it was fully reasoned that the right to bear arms was a necessary right to insure the freedom of Americans for generations to come.  

As a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", it is impractical to regulate a one-man militia.  The Supreme Court has limited certain types of arms available to the public.  Fully automatic firearms have long been banned.  Furthermore, the government does not allow individuals to own their own F-16, Abrams Tank, and other armaments that would allow an individual to function as an un-regulated one-man militia.  This is a reasonable restriction under the "well regulated militia" definition

So what I'm saying is that the 2nd Amendment cannot be interpreted by commentary of one or more "founding fathers".  The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not agree on everything.  Rather, the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted word-for-word.  That is how I interpret it.

I'm a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment.  It should NOT be eroded by those seeking to control firearms.  Firearm ownership is a guaranteed American right; one the founding fathers found necessary to include in the Bill of Rights.

The term "assault weapon" is a loaded term.  A molotov cocktail is an assault weapon.  I don't see the government regulating gasoline sales anytime soon.  Let us not get Orwellian about the words "assault weapon".  A semi-automatic firearm is not an "assault weapon"  A group of people using semi-automatic firearms to take the law into their own hands is an un-regulated militia.    Street gangs and organized crime are a fine example of this.  Banning semi-automatic firearms leaves the individual American powerless to defend the homestead and empowers organized criminals who would not likely comply with such a ban.

The loan crazy with a gun is an easy news item that the popular media likes to milk for weeks on end.  Yet the fact remains, a competent, law-abiding citizen, on-site, with a firearm, will stop a crazy individual with a gun faster than the police.  The police must be summoned and respond in a timely manner before there are numerous gunshot victims.   In such a situation summoning the police is very difficult.  Timely police response before there are victims, is unlikely. 

Last but not least, if you want to see strangers being unusually polite toward one another, go to your local public firearms range.  Everybody there has a firearm in their possession and commits themselves to lawful and safe operation of them.  My personal observation is that a population of armed citizens is remarkably polite and friendly. 

America needs the 2nd Amendment.  We need it today as much as we needed it in 1791 when it was ratified. We just need to keep it in perspective.  You may not like "guns" but that's your personal preference.  One size does not fit all.  The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791 and part of a group of amendments that were required to preserve our freedom.  Without the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution could not be ratified.  The 2nd Amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states; an overwhelming majority. 

So let's get past these sensationalistic news stories pushed on us by advocacy journalists.  The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional freedom; the supreme law of the land.  If you want to reduce crimes committed with firearms, figure another way to do it.


Sunday, October 28, 2012

Blog Update

I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List".  The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC

Tuesday, October 23, 2012