Archive for the ‘Middle East’ Category

This is a truck driver’s dashcam as he drives through a mob – a mob that it should be noted is trying to pull his truck open and climb in so they can get to England.

A news report from the same place in Calais:

You won’t see any of those “widows and orphans” that Obama’s always crying about.  This is a swarm of fighting-age males.

At around the 3:30 mark in the Channel 4 video, the reporter notes that the mob is also bringing with scabies infections.  Wonderful.

Another truck attack, with some interesting commentary… and again, virtually no women or children to be seen:

The commenter there points out that the welfare system of Britain is attracting them.

With Open Gates

Posted: November 25, 2015 by ShortTimer in Bill Whittle, Culture, Europe, islam, Middle East, Philosophy, Science

Via Jawa Report, from Breitbart:

‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched at least half a million times.

Although the 19-minute film may feel like a dispatch from the future, it is cut entirely from recent news reports, police camera footage, and interviews.

Breitbart notes that the original video was taken down by youtube.  It’s been copied and reposted (mirrored) several times now, as is the standard response to youtube censorship.  As noted in the story:

UPDATE 13/11/15: After gaining a million and a half views in less than five days, the Open Gates video was taken down by YouTube following a copyright infringement. Although the rights company involved in the claim has been named in allegedly spurious claims in the past, there is no reason to suggest that is the case with this video.

The video itself is made by somebody who claims to be from /pol/, which is the name for the politically incorrect board on a handful of popular message boards – most notably 4chan and 8chan – though relative popularity may be very different after the effects of censorship about Gamergate drove a lot of people from pol from the first site to the latter.

It should be noted that /pol/ is a place full of intentionally inflammatory, often racist, purposeless posts (shitposting), either seriously made or in jest.  While the intent of the maker certainly sets the tone, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily completely wrong or inaccurate, either.  The video is, after all, a collection of news reports, camera footage, and interviews that speak for themselves.  (Edit: Except the last minute or two, which is an interview that seems to be being used to a specific anti-semitic end, and is about 5 years out of date.  Edit2: I don’t care for whatever agenda is intended by that last bit – whether genuine anti-semitism or shitposting parody of it, but the rest of the video with news reports is again still visuals for reporting we’re not seeing stateside.)

The video is a sharp reminder that, as Mark Steyn says, demography is destiny, and that there are parts of the world that understand that r strategists can defeat K strategists.

Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux had a conversation about r vs K selection recently as well.  I do agree with Whittle’s contention at one point that r vs K is learned as humans can choose either reproductive strategy, and how they are a result of relative success or failure.

It’s long, but a very good conversation.

Thinking about how the r vs K that Whittle and Molyneux talk about as it applies to the Open Gates video is enlightening, but also tragic.

Via AEI, a study from the Arab Center for Research and Policy studies:

ISIS poll syria 1511

…a disturbing subset of 13% of Syrian refugees say their view of ISIS is “positive” or “positive to some extent.”

Yeah, I’d say that’s disturbing.  That’s 1 out of 8 admitting they have a positive view of ISIS.  I’d wonder what the actual numbers are, because the poll may well be tainted by skepticism of the pollster.  Saying “yes, I like ISIS” to a pollster you don’t know could be an easy way to get your house hit by a drone strike, so I suspect the numbers are probably lower than reality.

On the other hand, an important nuance of this is that there may also be some in the “positive to some extent” category who hate Assad more than they do ISIS, or who loathe Sykes-Picot and the effects of it enough that they don’t mind ISIS breaking down borders.  They could also be the kind of people who think that ISIS is justified in their terrorist attacks, like US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Either way, 1 out of 8 admitting to positive views of the Islamic State should be a warning to any nation opposed to the Islamic State that it’s unwise to bring in swarms of Syrian refugees.

That’s yet another example of why so many people in the US are opposed to importing Syrian “refugees”.

The Democrats have taken this opportunity to use it to push their favorite agenda – disarming the American people.

Via HotAir:

It looks like Senate Democrats are going to try to attach a new gun law onto the Republican bill trying to do more oversight on Syrian refugee entry into the U.S. Washington Examinerreports Democrats may try to slip that in the refugee bill next week.

The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of Nov. 30. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to decide whether he’ll allow it.

Of course.  They never stop.

The Democrat idea is that anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list should be disallowed from owning a gun.  Which sounds great, until you consider that it’s depriving someone of their Constitutional rights with no recourse, no trial, no conviction, and no knowledge of what’s happened or why.

The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

You don’t get told you’re on the list and if you’re a person of normal means you can’t get off the list.

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list in 2004 and it took him a month to get off the list – and that’s as one of the most connected, influential people in the US at the time.

U.S. Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government’s secret “no-fly” list. …

“That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list — it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list,” said Reginald T. Shuford, senior ACLU counsel. “Someone of Senator Kennedy’s stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He had to call three times himself.”

A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays. After the first few incidents, his staff called the Transportation Security Administration, which maintains the no-fly list. But even after those discussions about getting his name removed, the senator was stopped again, according to Kennedy spokesman David Smith. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finally called to apologize about the mix-up, and the delays stopped in early April, Smith said.

“If his name got on the list in error, is that happening to other citizens and are they experiencing such difficulty in resolving the problem?” Smith said.

Good luck to the average citizen if they find the secret system has secretly chosen them for targeting:

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists…

This is an issue where the Democrats can scream that anyone opposed to their “common sense gun control” scheme is supporting terrorism, when really we’re just opposed to the idea of a totally unaccountable secret government system that disarms the citizenry with no recourse… which is exactly what they’re asking for.

And of course, as is pointed out at the Federalist, the government could already stop terrorists from buying firearms legally:

All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorist certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm.

But this isn’t about going after terrorists (as one example, otherwise the Tsarnaev brothers would’ve been kicked out of the country after Russia warned us about them being terrorists), this is about going after you.

Since yesterday, over half of US governors are refusing resettlement of Syrian “refugees”.

A drumbeat of opposition against allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. intensified Monday as more than half the country’s governors, citing security concerns, said they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees into their states following the Paris attacks, which President Obama said “would be a betrayal of our values.” …

By late Monday, states refusing Syrian refugees included Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

It’s not a “betrayal of our values” to the US to refuse refugees who we view as security concerns.  It’s not a betrayal of US values to refuse entrance to actual immigrants we view as security concerns.  It is denying Obama his ability to ship future Democrat voters and ideological opponents to the US into the US in order to further “fundamentally change” the US and destabilize and balkanize the US.  But as Jim Quinn is fond of saying “we have elected the enemy”.  If you keep in mind that Obama’s ideology is to weaken the nation, suddenly it all makes sense.

The US has a long history of refusing admission to people that are antithetical to US interests.  The Wikipedia entry is biased, but the historical point is still made:

Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”[34] This is essentially a political test,[35] though it “should be construed … in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience.”[36] The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: “Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution.”[37] Even still, the ideological requirement is “nebulous”;[38] it begs the questions of what the “basic form of government of the United States” is and what the key “principles of the Constitution” are to which the applicant must subscribe.

Like I said, biased – the last sentence gives it away.  The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, and key principles include the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself plus the Bill of Rights.

The US has restricted entry to communists, anarchists, polygamists, and other classes that are viewed as antithetical to US interests, security, culture, etc.  In short, you don’t invite people in who you don’t want in.

There’s been a major discussion in recent years of how Islam isn’t just a religion, but is also a political, governmental, and social system that’s outlined by the Koran.  Sharia law, which many muslims favor, comes directly from the Koran.  Sharia law is antithetical to the Constitution.  And when you look at populations who support it:

pew muslim research sharia lawWhy would you want to import people from countries whose populations believe in eradicating your rights, liberties, and system of government and replacing it with a rigid, violent, authoritarian patriarchal theocracy?

Answer for Obama and Valerie Jarrett and his crew is “fundamental change” of the country that they set out to bring low in order to make things “more fair” for the world by making the US a third world country… but for anyone else who lives here who isn’t an ideological leftist?

That objection to bringing in refugees is just considering the cultural shift that will harm the nation slowly, rather than immediate security concerns of bringing in radicals.

Another quick note on “radical” vs “moderate” muslims as a crybully activist interrupts a forum that wasn’t actually discussing Islam in order to say how discussing something peripheral to Islam is islamophobic:

Ted Cruz is discussing offering up a bill that will curtail importation of Syrian refugees into the US.  His main reason is security concerns.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has struck back at President Obama’s implication that his rejection of Syrian refugees is “shameful,” telling CNN he will be introducing legislation banning Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.

“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash in Charleston, S.C., on Monday.

“I have to say particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”

Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.

“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz responded.

“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”

The US blocked active communists from entry.  If you were forced to be a member of the party in order to eat, it wasn’t held against you.  If you were a member of the party because you chose to be, you were blocked.  If you supported communism, you were blocked.  If you lived in an oppressive nation where membership was mandatory in order to get your bread ration, the US understood that you lived in an oppressive nation that forced you to either join or starve.

“When I hear folks say that, ‘Maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims,’ when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” Obama said.

Maybe we should just admit the refugees who are peaceful and fleeing conflict and who are not avowed members of a political/religious sect that demands an authoritarian theocracy that executes gays for the crime of living.  Maybe we should have some kind of test to see who’s actually willing to commit to wanting to support US principles and is seeking freedom from oppression and not admit the people who are members of that same political/religious sect that demands authoritarian theocracy and is sworn to eradicate the Jews and convert everyone else to their ideology by the sword.

Maybe we could say and do that in response to his “shame on you for not agreeing with my intentionally destructive plan” garbage.

Keep in mind that we don’t keep tabs on who’s in the country once they get here.

A Syrian refugee relocated to Louisiana has already gone missing, but the group accommodating them isn’t taking responsibility.

WBRZ reports:

WBRZ has learned Catholic Charities helped the refugee who settled in Baton Rouge, but said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don’t know where the refugee went since they don’t track them.

“We’re at the receiving end,” Chad Aguillard, executive director of Catholic Charities, says. “We receive them, we welcome them into our community and help them resettle. There has been a lot of commotion and fear with Syrians. The fear is justified, but we have to check that against reality.”

This has been the case for a while.  Regionally infamous Lutheran charities that pull federal subsidies have been resettling Somalis in Minnesota for decades, including terrorists with links to al Shabaab and Al Qaeda.

I’ll just let a couple of the reader comments from the American Mirror story finish this out:

Oh, we don’t track them, we just bring them in and hand them over to you! Then we walk around with fkking halos over our heads as if we actually did something and then you all have to figure out how to live with them while they start destroying your once-wonderful country. You’re welcome!

refugees tsarnaev boston bombers

As a heads up for more sensitive readers, there are photos of terrorist attacks in this post further down.

Obama was just on TV and radio this morning saying how “we cannot” stop taking in refugees into neighborhoods in the US that Obama and his political donors and cronies will never live in, and the usual bleeding heart political BS that’s supposed to make people feel guilty for not taking in diseased strays.  Much of it is probably in response to governors across the country saying “no more refugees”. (Edit: In the time it took me to write this, another governor – a Democrat – was added to that list refusing “refugees”.)

If Obama hadn’t abandoned actual success in Iraq, the Middle East wouldn’t be producing the swarms of refugees that have invaded Europe and that he wants to bring here.  We already fought the bad guys over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here, and so their people could live free there (including the actual refugees in the bunch).  There wouldn’t be an ISIS for them to run from but for him.  He’s the one who lost the war.

Like most politicians, he has the objective of building his party, and as a hard leftist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” the US, he’s doing his best to turn us into a third world hole.  In the last couple years there have been the swarms of teenage “children” from central America who knew how to game the US immigration system and who were allowed to stay as “refugees”, even though they were just opportunists taking advantage of a president who actively wants “social justice” through redistribution of American capital to the rest of the world.  If we’re brought down from inside and made miserable in front of the world, in his mind that would begin to make up for the fictional oppression that he believes the US must be punished for.  It’s first world guilt that manifests as self-flagellation and self-destruction, and doubles as political power-building when he imports people who will vote Democrat forever.

When more moderate people begin to look at the problem of Islamic terrorism and say “why do you want to bring in the kinds of people who bring in terrorists with them?”, the left with Obama as its mouthpiece declares that’s racist and islamophobic and everyone needs to shut up.  Meanwhile France, the nation that Obama said “represents the timeless values of human progress”, has discovered common sense and decided to seal its borders and take in no more so-called “refugees” because at least some of the terrorists that attacked Paris were those “refugees”.

This inevitably leads to the “not all Muslims are terrorists” argument, which is true.  One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.  Except that saying can still be horribly wrong in practice.  One person sick from e coli or listeria will have a responsible business shut themselves down or have the FDA on them a heartbeat later to shut them down.  If only 1% of your food is liable to be dangerous, you don’t get to keep putting it on the market – it’d be wildly irresponsible.  If only 1% of 100,000 people you import support terrorism, then you’ve imported 1,000 potential terrorists.

If you care about your nation, you don’t bring in people who wish to do it harm.

Hollande is a French leftist, but is still French.  He understands that protecting France is a priority.  I haven’t heard him say he wants to “fundamentally change” France (at least not on this topic).  He also seems to understand that if you have an outbreak of terrorism, it might be worthwhile to look at the vector that terrorists are using to attack you, and the populations they come from, especially when so many of them are military-aged males.

Most are coming for free stuff given away by brain-dead-liberal western democracies.   They aren’t coming to assimilate to their new countries, they are far from peaceful, and they bring their animosities and wars with them.

These are not the poor tired huddled masses seeking escape from despotism and yearning to breathe free.  If they really wanted freedom they’d be fighting for it in their homelands.  They’re bypassing nations that don’t give handouts to make it to the ones that do.  They’re not looking for a place to be free of oppression of Islamic states and cast off the miserable lot they had and work to become citizens of their new nation, they’re looking to exploit the naivety of brain-dead-liberal societies – and then there are some who are looking to expand those Islamic states.

islam will dominate

So you start with a group that demands that other nations give them things simply because they’re there.  They demand asylum and they demand the necessities of life because someone else has them and they want them.  Those are the regular “refugees”.  The brain-dead-liberal west thinks that we’re somehow obligated to take care of people out of some “common bond of humanity” or some such nonsense.

Thing is, within that population of “refugees” is still the “radical muslim minority” like the would-be dominators pictured above.  And it’s not exactly a small number.

Ben Shapiro did a good breakdown on the myth of the radical muslim minority last year.  It’s good to assess what the numbers say:

At 4:40 he looks very briefly at numbers in France.

“France: 4.7 million muslims live there.  A 2007 poll showed 35% of French muslims said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.  That’s 1.6 million radical muslims living in France.”

From Pew Research, and a favorable poll (and you can find plenty of such polls):

pew research muslim terrorism poll 2011 suicide bombing

If you take those numbers and read what they actually say, you have 20% of American-born muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified – and believe it to the point that they’d admit it.

The question is “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies.”  Would you say it’s “often”, “sometimes” or “rarely” or never justified?

If you answer with “rarely”, you’re still saying that once in a while it’s okay to murder a bunch of Parisians at a concert who have nothing to do with world conflicts aside from being Westerners.

So in order to “defend” Islam from it’s “enemies”, 20% of American born Muslims – and much higher numbers in other countries – think this is okay at least every once in a while:

2015 paris attack

And that this is acceptable:

kenya attack 150406 2

kenya attack 150406

There is no reason for any nation to invite that inside their borders, because it’s a predictable result of importing populations that harbor terrorist tendencies.

For the US and the coalition countries who fought overseas to shut down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist groups, many of which converged as the Islamic State, there is no reason ever to import the same mayhem that we fought against overseas with the intention to prevent having to fight it stateside.

It’s especially offensive as the interpreters (mostly muslim themselves) who helped us in mid-east conflicts aren’t being allowed into the US.

Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’ve already put their lives on the line – and often their families’ lives and friends’ lives as well – to show who they stand with.  They’re struggling to do everything the legal way and they’re being left hung out to dry, or killed trying to dodge vindictive terrorists overseas while US bureaucrats ignore their paperwork.

They really are the people who fought the hard fight to protect their homelands as best they could, they’re the people who saw western virtues as something that could help them, they’re the people who’d integrate into western society, and they really are the ones yearning to breathe free.  They’re the ones who aren’t looking for handouts, just looking for a safe place to live and become productive citizens.  They’re the ones who paid their dues in advance, actively fighting against islamic terrorists – and they’re the ones being ignored.

Via Legal Insurrection, Obama says Republicans are the same as Iranians chanting “Death To America” because Obama logic.

“Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe,” Obama said to strong applause from the audience.

“In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo,” Obama said Wednesday afternoon. “It’s those hard-liners chanting “death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal.”

“They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus,” Obama said to laughter and wild applause.

Just like how a toothless deal that lets Iran have nuclear weapons means Iran won’t have nuclear weapons.  Because you’re racist or something.

Speaking of the Iran deal, why are we doing that anyway?

A reminder about presidential candidate Jeb Bush and what he thinks of illegal aliens breaking into the country with their first steps as violation of laws:

Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.

Some people love money.  We call them bank robbers.

Some people love hurting people.

2015 was predicted to be another high-level year of illegal aliens showing upwhich has proven to be true, but it’s more easily hidden due to infrastructure built up last year, and it is slightly less than last year.

Via HotAir, a footnote to #gamergate from August, that a debate was broken up by bomb threats deemed credible enough to evacuate.

Apparently several calls had been made to the Miami PD and Miami Herald indicating that a bomb would go off at 2:45 PM, and though apprised that this has happened before to #GamerGate, the authorities weren’t taking any chances.  They sent everyone back a couple blocks and cleared the entire neighborhood surrounding the venue.

Stuck standing outside in the 96 degree Miami heat, suddenly the journalists present were extremely interested in what #GamerGate had to say, and many of them were seen giving interviews there on the street.

Playboy magazine has decided to drop full nudity.

Can’t help but wonder if it’s at least peripherally related to the Army & Air Force dropping “adult sophisticate” magazines including Playboy in 2013.

ana cheri blow kissAdieu, Cheri.

OPEC’s “Weaponized” Oil Prices

Posted: January 12, 2015 by ShortTimer in Economics, Energy, Middle East

Despite discussing the potential for a bust a couple days ago, I’m not worried about the sky falling yet:

If there ever was doubt about the strategy of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, its wealthiest members are putting that issue to rest.

Representatives of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait stressed a dozen times in the past six weeks that the group won’t curb output to halt the biggest drop in crude since 2008. Qatar’s estimate for the global oversupply is among the biggest of any producing country. These countries actually want — and are achieving — further price declines as part of an attempt to hasten cutbacks by U.S. shale drillers, according to Barclays Plc and Commerzbank AG.

See, there’s also the fact that Russia was their primary target:

Vladimir Putin faces a catastrophic shortfall of at least $80bn (£51bn) in oil export revenue over the next year, after Opec kingpin Saudi Arabia signalled there will be no easing in the price war it has launched to recapture market share.

According to US Energy Information Administration (EIA) figures, oil and gas shipments accounted for 68pc of Russia’s total $527bn of gross exports in 2013, when Brent crude – comparable to Russian Urals – traded at an average of $108 per barrel.

US frackers are the secondary target.

And it will take a while to crush them all.

breakeven oil prices bus insdr

Those are older breakeven prices.  There are other figures that say numbers are closer to $50 for Bakken and Permian, and as low as $28 for Marcellus.  Technology has gotten better, American ingenuity has made this development possible (in spite of the current administration), and provided investors don’t totally lose their minds, it would be possible to ease off production while letting the Saudis basically support broader US economic interests due to reduced energy costs.

OPEC thought it had a monopoly.  It didn’t, and now it’s cutting prices to force out the upstart.  Except the upstart doesn’t have to stop, it can just hold those resources as a threat that will ultimately drive the price down for everyone.

I think the only way there will be a true bust is if the US government gets involved.  If it leaves US energy interests alone, they’ll reallocate capital for a while (there will be regional busts where rigs are mothballed), but those rigs will go back active any time the Saudis start getting sad that they can’t buy a new Rolls every month.  They’ll also be there to come back online if the Saudi’s export of Wahhabism that eventually spawned ISIS comes back to bite them in the ass, as the world will look for a more reliable source of oil.