There, Now Here – Impotence

Just two weeks ago I wrote a post concerning Obama’s Impotence… mostly pointing out the disasters on the diplomatic and world stage (North Korea, Iran, Benghazi, the Middle East). The point of the original Post (Obama’s Tool Impotent) was that Obama strengths were speaking and campaigning and his weaknesses were governing and being an executive.

What a difference two short weeks make. Oh, those world problems are still out there and aren’t going to get any better anytime soon… But NOW we’re seeing the impotence manifest on a domestic front with the IRS and AP snooping scandals. This is not even mentioning the domestic stuff being ignored like jobs, the debt, and the massive printing of money (and spending) that artificially supports the stock market…

Things are so bad; the lap dogs in the media have distanced themselves from their master. Some (like Chris Matthews) are even growling at him. And it remains to be seen if he can call them back. It may be that they’ve decided he isn’t worth it anymore (they’re like that); and are ready to jump in Hilary’s lap in preparation for 2016. (Of course Hillary needs to be careful too. There’s no honor among the MSM, and she too could quickly find herself labeled as jetsam.)

Even (someone as daft as) Chris Matthews kind-of gets it now. THE Chris Matthews who got a “thrill going up my leg” just listening to an Obama speech back in 2008 now realizes Obama is a “ship without an engine”.

It makes me (and the rest of the conservative movement) want to scream “Welcome to the party pal!” (from the movie Die Hard)

“What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn’t like dealing with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn’t particularly like the press…. He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft… So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere. But what part does he like? He doesn’t like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn’t like selling to the press. He doesn’t like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn’t seem to like being an executive.” – Chris Matthews leftist MSNBC host

Like I said, Chris kind-of gets it. Yes Obama likes and doesn’t like the things Chris mentioned; but Chris associates the current scandals and disasters to the whims of the President. That’s only part of it. The other part is… Even if Obama had the desire, Obama lacks the ability to lead; lacks the ability to be an executive. He’s an amateur. Until now he’s always had everything handed to him on a silver platter. He expected his Presidency to be the same (foreign and domestically) because of his superior reason and charisma… and when it wasn’t; he had no clue of what to do.

The very thing that gave Chris that thrill up his leg is the same thing that doomed this President to be one of the worst in history. We’re talking on the same level as Jimmy Carter.

I know, I know… it’s hard to see right now in light of the media adoration (which is already dimming) and the constant campaigning, and the spin… but history will tell and it won’t take that long.

Jizya – Defending my Position

Introduction:
This fortunately (or unfortunately… I’m not sure which) turned from being a reply to something worthy of its own post. I would suggest reading the original post and the reply from MustafaHoward before proceeding.

A Muslim gentleman (MustafaHoward) took exception to my recent post concerning the Islamic idea of Jizya (taxes on non-Muslims by Muslim states) and how some Muslim clerics today say that western welfare and social programs are a form of jizya.

This is basically a detailed reply to his objections and his attempts to “educate” me concerning the verses in the Qur’an that were quoted and interpreted by me in the original posting.

First Second & Third:
First an apology for not being completely clear in my original post. Please understand that I was not always trying to translate or quote the Qur’an. I was trying to give my interpretation of the verse from what I had read. Anything in “quotes” was taken from a translation of the Qur’an. Anything not was my interpretation. In hindsight I see that was not apparent so I apologize for that lack of clarity. MustafaHoward did not see this and that is my fault.

Still, I suspect MustafaHoward would disagree even with my interpretation (not translation) so the point is minor. It could even be argued that the words I chose in my interpretation were wrong or misleading… They’re not… (see below)

Second, an apology for my frankness. I’ve never been one to beat around the bush and this posting and response has me riled up a bit. If your sensitivities require excessive tact and pretending that certain things are true when they obviously are not (as is done the Main Stream Media and leftist apologist when breaching the subject of Islam and terrorism); then I would suggest reading and commenting elsewhere.

Third, comments and dissenting views are welcome and even encouraged; but they obviously will not go unchallenged. Past posts are proof of that. So here we go…

---

Jizya (Confounding the Definition of a Duck):
>> Jizya: not something to worry about. There’s no one attempting to collect jizya from you, is there?

Wow… condescending right off the bat! Impressive… but I don’t bully that easy… I would suggest another tactic.

Ummm… Actually… in the post… that’s pretty well EXACTLY what I’m saying is happening. “Islamic clerics (of both terrorists and “moderate” variety) have identified western social programs as a form of jizya that Muslims are entitled to and should take advantage of.”

Let me be clear. I’m not the one who came up with the idea of welfare being a form of Jizya. Muslim clerics are the ones espousing and preaching the idea to their followers. I am simply relaying the information and commenting on the moral and social implications.

Unfortunately, as is one of the main complaints of the original post; not only is someone “attempting to collect” a form of jizya from me (and all taxpayers by proxy of the government); they are actually succeeding due to the ineptness of the Massachusetts and Federal government. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are proof and examples of this.

So your (MustafaHoward’s) original assumption is wrong… isn’t it?

Your approach in refuting my original post seems to be to shoot the messenger and then muddle the debate. You simply pretended that I defined this (welfare and social programs) as jizya and then you proceed telling me that this doesn’t fit the definition as defined by the Qur’an.

Do you refute or denounce the idea (jizya through western welfare) as espoused by Muslim clerics? Nope. Do you offer that it’s a minority interpretation and offer evidence and/or quotes from clerics who say the opposite? Nope.

Instead you choose to give me a text book “traditional” definition of jizya and say that since what is happening doesn’t fit the letter of the law from the Qur’an so… we can’t call it jizya… despite your guys (Muslim clerics) being the ones who dreamt this stuff up. Granted, crazy people dream this kind of stuff up all the time, and it’s harmless as long as nobody acts on it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here.

In essence, it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, your guys say it’s a duck. You have a book that also mentions something about bills and feathers that don’t quite fit so your position is for me to even mention the duck is wrong and slanderous. … It’s a duck!

---

Qur’an 3:28 (Friends or Protectors)
>> You mistranslated Qur’an 3:28: it doesn’t say friends, it says protectors. It doesn’t say false pretenses: it says “unless you are afraid of their threat”.

I think I interpreted and understand the verse just fine. It DOES say “friend” (in three of the six translations on Quran.com).

Here’s the list:
Sahih International: “allies”
Muhsin Khan: “Auliya” (supporters helpers, etc.)
Pickthall: “friends”
Yusuf Ali: “friends or helpers”
Shakir: “friends
Dr. Ghali: “constant patrons”

It doesn’t say protectors in any of them. The closest any translation comes is using the word “patron”.

You are correct in that it doesn’t say “false pretenses”. These are my words, my interpretation of the verse. And, I stick by them. Personally I think the false pretenses aspect here is self-evident, but I will explain it. (see below)

For the benefits of those following this post, Here is what each of the six translations on Quran.com actually say for (3:38) concerning when a Muslim can ally or befriend himself with a non-Muslim:

Sahih International: “except when taking precaution against them in prudence.”
Muhsin Khan: “except if you indeed fear a danger from them.”
Pickthall: “unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.”
Yusuf Ali: “except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.”
Shakir: “but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully”
Dr. Ghali: “excepting that you may protect yourselves against them (in manner) of protection.”

I stick by my interpretation because someone who takes a “friend” or “ally” or “patron” because he fears them and wants to keep a close eye on them is NOT REALLY being a “friend” or “ally” or “patron”. He is simply pretending to be and hopes to fool the other person into believing he is genuine. Another phrase one might use to accurately describe this behavior is … acting under “false pretenses”. And this (acting under false pretenses) is the only exception Allah makes for having this type of relationship with a non-believer. On the plus side subjugation seems OK though…

So you are incorrect concerning “protector” and correct concerning the idea of fear of danger (which doesn’t affect the negative connotation of the verse at all).

So looking at the entire verse one more time…

Qur’an 3:28 (Sahih International)(Numbers are added by TL to associate the portion of the verse with the TL interpretation below)
(1)Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. (2)And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , (3)except when taking precaution against them in prudence. (4)And Allah warns you of Himself, (5)and to Allah is the [final] destination.

1. If you are a Muslim, never take a non-Muslim as a friend or ally.
2. If you do this Allah will not help you in any way.
3. Allah allows an exception to this rule in that you may ally or “befriend” a non-Muslim is you fear them and want to take prudent precautions.
4. But when you do this remember and fear Allah and his possible punishment.
5. Allah is the end-all be-all…

>> The Muslims of Madina were not the betrayers of their agreements: it was the non-Muslims, mostly some of the Israelites and hardened pagans.

So you say… Them dam Jews and pagans you say…

---

Qur’an 2:225 (Unintentional, Idle, and Vain Oaths)
>> Qur’an 2:225 It doesn’t say “breaking your oaths”. It says “mistakenly spoken”. Otherwise, there is required penitence and expiation of fasting for breaking promises.

Again, “breaking your oaths” is my analysis/interpretation, not a quote. So no… those exact words do not appear in this verse of the Qur’an. But strangely enough… neither do yours (“mistakenly spoken”), though you seem to be trying to quote the Qur’an.

Here is what the Quran (2:225) in all six translations on Quran.com actually says:
Sahih International & Muhsin Khan & Pickthall: (All use unintentional): Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.
Yusuf Ali: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
Shakir: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
Dr. Ghali: Allah will not take you to task for idleness in your oaths, but He will take you to task for whatever your hearts have earned; and Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Forbearing.

You say there is “otherwise” a “penitence” and I’m sure that’s considered a big part of Islam. But I just don’t see it here. I see a lot of pardoning and justifying… “does not impose blame”, “will not call you to account for”, “will not take you to task for”.

The requirements for this lack of accounting:
1. Your oath (word) was thoughtless, unintentional, vain or idle… AND
2. Your heart (intentions) were good towards Islam and Allah. Sure you will be held into “account” if your heart isn’t doing what Allah wants; but what doesn’t fit that bill? (I assume penitence is mentioned somewhere else because it’s not here.)

Thus my original interpretation of “Allah will not hold you to account for breaking your oaths as long as your intention (faithfulness to Allah and Islam) is good.” is right on the money.

---

Qur’an 66:2 (PO-TAY-TOE… PO-TAH-TOE)
>> Qur’an 66:2 : It doesn’t say dissolution. It says absolution, which again, is that a penitence and expiation are required.

OK, let’s try again.

Sahih International: Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths.
Muhsin Khan: Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths.
Pickthall: Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector.
Yusuf Ali: Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)
Shakir: Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths
Dr. Ghali: Allah has already ordained for you (The believers) the lawful absolution of your oaths.

Well, much better! At least this time they (the various translations) agreed with you two out of the six times; but still less than “dissolution” which got three votes. Not that it matters. Whichever word is used doesn’t change the meaning that much. Both imply the breaking of the oath, absolution just also implies a little more guilt, blame and penalty free.

dissolution: the undoing or breaking of a bond, tie, union, partnership

absolution: act of absolving; a freeing from blame or guilt; release from consequences, obligations, or penalties

>> In Islam, anyone who dissolves his oaths is known publicly as a liar, and he/she will be reputed as such in this life and punished in the next.

So you say… this verse sure doesn’t say that. It says pretty plainly states that Allah dissolves, absolves, and expires the oaths of Muslims.

Even if “absolution” requires some “penitence” (that’s not really mentioned here); the idea of freeing the Muslim from his oaths is clearly there. All penitence really does is equate it to a parking ticket. Double parked? Break you oaths to non-believers? Make sure you pay that fine! But honestly… I don’t even think it goes that far.

So again, I completely stand by my interpretation of this verse. I’ll let those who read this exchange decide for themselves.

>> So, it’s not a habit of practicing Muslims.

I cannot say… I sincerely hope you are right.

---

Qur’an 3:54 (A Concession)
>> Qur’an 3:54 – “And they (Israelites and Romans) plotted (to kill Jesus), and Allah also plotted, and Allah is the best of those who plot.” Arabic is huge… (“makar” never used to describe Almighty PLAN…) But, when you translate to English, it needs a deeper study of the language and its contextual usage.

Let me concede a point on this one. The verse 3:54 here does fall within the context of Islamic Jesus being a disciple (I hope I used the right word) of Allah (as told by Muhammad). Saying that verse 54 is the Jews and Romans plotting against Islamic Jesus seems a bit dyslexic (when looking at the “context”) to one who is not learned enough in Arabic I suppose; but then I grant, so is the interpretation of Allah being a great deceiver.

Looking at context… (Qur’an 3:50-56) In the previous verses Islamic Jesus is chastising the apostles/disciples for not believing properly in Allah and them (his disciples) then properly submitting and declaring and groveling etc… Then comes verse 54 and all the scheming that implicitly refers to Jews and Romans… Then I think it’s Islamic Jesus telling the disciples how Allah told Islamic Jesus he will purify him and make those who follow him superior to those who disbelieve (yet another message of superiority and subjugation of non-believers)…

Just for my Christian brethren out there who don’t really know how the Qur’an depicts Jesus and the disciples, here is but a taste (Sahih International):

3:52-53 – But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah?” The disciples said,” We are supporters for Allah. We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]. (53) Our Lord, we have believed in what You revealed and have followed the messenger Jesus, so register us among the witnesses [to truth].”

Can you just imagine Peter (the mouth of the apostles) saying such a thing!?

Anyway, back to the concession…

I concede this (Allah the deceiver) may be a loose and incorrect interpretation of this verse. It is no more plausible than the Jews, Romans, Jesus, and Allah all plotting and Allah being the best at it…

>> Arabic is huge

[Puzzled look] … It has more words than other languages? If so, is this a point of pride or something?

>> We would never use the word “makar” in describing the plots of evil people in the same meaning as the Divine Ordainment of the Almighty whose PLAN encompasses all events.

Are you saying that “makar” is or isn’t used here? If it’s not… I would concede the point. But I’m suspicious that you didn’t tell us what word was used.

Or are you saying “makar” means something different depending who it refers to? (The second argument would bring us back to confounding the definition of another duck.) I would expect if Arabic is so huge then another word with the proper meaning could have been found.

But OK… I’ll have to take your word for it and will try to extend that courtesy. I don’t have the time or inclination for that much research.

>> But, when you translate to English, it needs a deeper study of the language and its contextual usage.

Contextual, I just looked at. (see above)

So are you saying I’m never really going to understand Islam unless I study and learn Arabic? And by extension am not qualified to form an opinion or comment on the teachings of the Qur’an unless I learn Arabic first?

That’s convenient. It’s equivalent to saying don’t think for yourself, let me tell you what’s in there and what to think about it. I grant that many religious leaders seek that type of obedience. But it’s a quest for control and power… not truth.

---

Slandering al-Fakhr al-Razi
>> Your “translation” of al-Fakhr al-Razi’s statement seems a slander.

OK… so provide the non-slandered “translation”. A link… some text… would be just fine.

Tell me what in the text is wrong? Which ideas are not his? The concept that the Muslims should spare the lives of non-Muslims as if it’s their natural position in the world? The idea that non-believers must subjugate themselves with humiliation and servility (a common theme in Islam)?

You yourself say non-Muslims should be “allowed” liberties (assuming a lower status) which says to me you believe Muslims have the authority (via Allah and Islam) to grant (or not if you choose) this liberty. This is not too far off from these quoted statements by Fakhruddin Razi.

I will also add that this concept is the very antithesis of American founding principles; that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that’s another post entirely.

For the record “my translation” and slander of al-Fakhr al-Razi is not mine. I found this exact translation in several places. One of which can be found in Wikipedia article on the jizya. Wikipedia quotes the source as “al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din (1981). “(9:29)”. Tafsir al-Kabir. Dar Al-fiker.”

I can’t imagine the “translation” is that far off since it is found in the Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia is all that accurate, but it strikes me as an organization very susceptible to political correctness. I suspect that any mistranslation or misquote within the article would have resulted in Muslim hissy-fits by now and thus capitulation by Wikipedia. Perhaps, MustafaHoward, you might want to direct this complaint to Wikipedia. I suspect they would be much more responsive to bullying via political correctness than I am.

Back to the actual words of al-Fakhr al-Razi. I assume this is his interpretation of Qur’an 9:29 which says (Sahih International) “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Ahhhhh…. it sounds so much more reasonable when you get it straight from the source…

>> Muslims are taxed in Islam. Americans are taxed in America. People are taxed everywhere. Jizya is a tax, not an “extortion”.

Americans taxed in America is a straw man argument and nothing to do with this debate. IF America taxed Muslims differently from others, it would be… but that’s not the case.

Muslim nations taxing via Islam. It’s their business… and again a straw man argument.

Where jizya IS relevant to this post is that Muslim clerics have declared western welfare and social programs a form of jizya that Muslims are entitled to and should take advantage of; and certain recent Muslim terrorists have indeed done that. You and I seem agree that this is an inaccurate interpretation of the Qur’an definition and purpose of the jizya. Yet you attack the messenger (me) as if I had come up with the idea. It’s your guys who are espousing this crap; but you don’t address that. You just muddle the issue by droning on the “traditional” definition of a duck (jizya).

Admittedly, I did call jizya “Islamic sanctioned extortion of subjugated peoples”. And… I stand by that. MustafaHoward tells me it’s not extortion based on the “traditional” definition in the Qur’an. My response is that the “traditional” definition in the Qur’an has rarely (if ever) been practiced. The words in the Qur’an just give religious, legal, and conscientious cover to the extorter.

In practice jizya is like a Chicago shake down where a business buys insurance (also called protection) from the mob. This is to ensure their establishment doesn’t burn to the ground. The guys selling the protection are the ones who will burn it to the ground if the businessman (enjoying the liberty and protection) doesn’t pay; and all parties involved know that. Jizya works on the same concept. The only difference… words in a book that pretend otherwise.

>> Again, they were allowed their liberties and enjoyed the protections of the Muslims.

I just love your use of the word “allowed” here… [groveling]… oh thank you, thank you, thank you for this privilege…

As for the “traditional” idea of a non-Muslim receiving/enjoying “protection” (from outside aggressors) from Muslim “benefactors” (state or people)? That would assume they manage to somehow survive their Muslim “benefactors” in the first place. The very concept would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the life and death struggles these people must endure.

I have never seen any evidence of either liberties or protections. The actions of Muslim nations around the world today and their persecution of non-Muslims speak louder than anything positive that might be found in the Qur’an. And the inaction of “moderate” Muslims to right these wrongs speaks even louder.

Carrying the logic just a little further, if it (protection) doesn’t really exists today despite all the claims otherwise, who in their right mind would believe it ever existed?

>> In fact, the earliest Muslims and those who followed enjoyed peaceful coexistence with those of other religions.

Obviously I’m skeptical to put it mildly. Statements like this are just politically correct propaganda to promote the false idea of the “religion of peace”.

But give it try. Give me an unbiased (non-Muslim, first-hand preferably) account of the “peaceful coexistence” and “protection” enjoyed by other religions living in a Muslim nation.

>> So, what has changed? I’ll leave that for you to either research on your own, or you can ask my opinion if you like.

[Huge belly laugh!] Nothing! [More laughing] 1400 Years! And NOTHING has changed! Your original premise that things were ever substantially any different than today is… wrong!

The “traditional” practice of jizya, the enjoyment of merciful rights and protection, the peaceful coexistence, the singing of “We Are the World”… NEVER EXISTED! And the whole idea that it did is, again, nothing but propaganda from Islamist and their useful idiots.

Just one example of this… we (the United States) have had to deal with this crap off and on, off and on for our entire history. Beginning with the Barbary Wars in the late 17 and early 1800s we were afforded the honor of paying ransom and tribute (also known as extortion) as our ships were plundered and our citizens killed and enslaved by Muslims. Of course the payments were never enough; and as required in dealing with any bully and/or tyrant we eventually just had to build a big enough navy to kick their collective asses to get it to stop.

200+ years ago? Today? What has changed? Not a dam thing!

Your opinion? Is based on a false premise that things were ever different from today. But please suit yourself if you feel the need to share it. Since I approved your original comment it should post just fine.

>> I thoroughly appreciate your disgust with and anger with the 2 mis-guided men who committed the multiple murder in Boston. They have gone now to meet their Maker, Who will deal with them most appropriately.

Really glad to hear those words! Got any actions to back them up…?

But at least on the words we agree! Though not (of course) on the Maker they will meet.

>> And if you don’t like Islam, there is no compulsion in Religion.

Oh how I wish that were true! But no… We don’t agree. That (non-compulsion) generally applies for pretty well every other religion I know of… except Islam. My impression of Islam is that Muhammad and/or Allah pretty well DO consider it compulsory; as do many of Islam’s followers. Spread Islam by word or sword… Convert or die… (or at least subjugate and pay jizya for a time).

Quran (9:5) (Sahih International)
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists [as in those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to you Christians reading this] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, (meaning convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes) let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [Wow... thanks Allah]

Non-Compulsory my ass. I guess when you consider death as a valid option mercifully afforded the un-believer then sure… you can stick with the non-compulsory argument.

Sure some Muslims don’t take it that far and that’s great. I guess we should be grateful even. But enough do take it that far that we still (after centuries) have the radical Islamic problems we have today. And instead of cleaning up their mess in their own house (faith)… “moderate” Muslims STILL leave it for us infidels to deal with.

>> What I would ask is that you show respect to Muslim human beings and our Holy Books by not mistranslating them.

NO man, nor holy book, is entitled to my respect. EVERY man and his beliefs (espoused in holy books) ARE entitled to opportunities to EARN that respect. And I freely and gladly extend that courtesy.

Islam, Muslims? How many opportunities do you need before you clean up the radical mess in your own house (faith)? How many of our people (non-Muslims) must pay the price for the anarchy in your religion before YOU deal with it? Every courtesy has been extended AND we’re still waiting! Respect!? Do us a favor! Don’t just expect it. Don’t just demand it! Do something to Earn it!

Even more than the sound of guns, and bombs, and crashing jets; the inaction from “moderate” Muslims is deafening!

Again, please try and forgive my bluntness; but I’m really sick of this crap! And those who should be fixing the problem are sitting on their hands; and sometimes, SOMETIMES, gather the courage to utter WORDS like “I thoroughly appreciate your disgust with and anger with… [Fill in Muslim atrocity Here].

And as for my “mistranslating”; I’ve presented my case stating that I believe my track record is just fine in that regard. I’ll let those who read this blog decide for themselves.

>> Take Care.

Thank You… You too.

An Apology? We Prize Nothing More Highly!

The Internal Revenue Service just admitted that it (illegally) flagged conservative political groups (generally those that included the words “tea party” or “patriot”) for persecution (my words not theirs) in 2012.

But don’t worry the IRS also assured us these decisions were made by lower level flunkies and “was not motivated by political bias”. This information comes to us from Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.

[Really? Then exactly what in her opinion was this motivated by... the flunkies dislike of Oolong and Earl Grey? The very statement is preposterous and shows that the upper division rulers of the IRS don't take this seriously and don't consider this a problem. I'm not saying that the high level guys were involved and made these political decisions; but someone on some level did AND did so based on politics. I'll be honest... I want to see the pikes that currently support their heads. That might, MIGHT, be enough to dissuade me from wanting the heads of two or three levels of management that didn't keep proper track and control of these internal IRS criminals.]

Am I asking for too much? At least there is an admission of “guilt”. Back in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress “There’s absolutely no targeting. (based on political views) This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” [A lie or complete ignorance... I tend to suspect a lie which by the way would also be a felony.]

Today we find out…

“That was wrong. (targeting based on political views) That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.” – Lois Lerner, IRS Division Head

[Apparently, that is EXACTLY how you go about selecting cases for further review. The questions are 1) Are the people who decided to do this still at the IRS 2) If yes, why? 3) If no, when can we expect prosecution?]

“The IRS would like to apologize for that.” – Lois Lerner, IRS Division Head

[Ms. Lerner proves her leftist leanings by her words and attitude. She's like a Hollywood dope head admitting she was drunk and high when she ran over the cop, nun, and three kids. Admit you have a problem, apologize (no remorse required or expressed), Imply others share blame, but also say you take "full responsibility" and... Your debt is paid... further consequences are inconceivable...]

I have a different scenario in mind. [If comes from a scene in the classic 1980 movie Flash Gordon]

Senator Ted Cruz: And now the apology from IRS.

Lois Lerner: We, the people of the IRS have discovered that we lied to you last year. More specifically we discovered that you could probably prove that we lied so we’re copping a plea that some flunkies did it and accept full responsibility. We’re sorry.

Senator Cruz: We prize nothing more highly. And tell us, how great is your remorse for what your flunkies did?

Lois Lerner: Without measure.

Senator Texas Lynn: We are delighted to hear it. Fall on your sword… Show us this remorse. Throw yourself onto your sword.

[Of course I placed myself and Senator Cruz in the role of the villains in this particular movie but I'm OK with that. My point is the career, leftist, bureaucratic bastards at the IRS have told us they aren't going to do crap concerning this problem and I'm ready for heads (figuratively), lots of heads, to roll. Let's start with Lois Lerner.]

Obama, Jobs, and the Economy – All Hat and No Cattle

Obama came to Texas again this week; this time to tout his “Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour”. It once again demonstrates the Democratic trait that I most admire in the Left. That being their inability to piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining with a deadpan straight face as the do it.

Jobs? Of all the jobs created lately in the United States about half of them had been in Texas. The other 49 (56 by Obama’s count) states share the other half.

How did Texas do it?
• Flatter taxes
• Limited government
• Less spending
• Balanced budgets

In other words, Texas does it by having the exact opposite principles and polices of the President and the Left. The do it through conservative economic principles.

“[Texas] continues to outperform the nation in terms of economic growth and job creation,” noting Texas’ 6.4 percent unemployment rate in comparison to the national 7.6 percent average and the fact that eight of the 15 fastest-growing cities from 2010 to 2011 are in Texas” – Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas (Republican… actually Tea Party)

“As states with high spending and high taxes are losing jobs, Texas is gaining them. In fact, between 2006 and 2012, Texas gained one million jobs, while California lost 359,000 jobs.” – Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas (Republican… actually Tea Party)

Ted Cruz is right on the money. And thus Obama and the Democratic leadership don’t like him too much. You can pretty well bet that the Left will be doing their best in the near and hopefully long term to tar and slander Ted Cruz.

“We’ve heard a lot from the very junior senator from Texas… We’ve known for years that the tea party has full control of the House. But now we understand they have full control of the Republican caucus here in the Senate” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

This little tantrum came the day after Reid denounced Cruz as a “schoolyard bully” when Cruz had the gall to debate him in the Senate. In this exchange Reid shouted “ENOUTH!” to shut off debate and proceed to Railroad his agenda. I guess real bullies just don’t like it when someone stands up to them. [TL Note: Ted Cruz was the Tea Party maverick who beat the anointed Republican insider David Dewhurst in the primary for the “Junior” Senate seat. Had Dewhurst won instead can you imagine him being a fly in Harry Reid’s Ointment? I guarantee you he’d be sitting on his hands with (most of) the rest of the ^%#$less Republicans in the Senate.]

When it comes to jobs and the economy… Obama (and the Left) are posers. The very definition of their agendas is a detriment to business and by extension jobs (unless you count government jobs which we don’t). But the Left must pretend the very opposite is true despite the absurdity… thus Obama’s visit to Texas and his “Middle Class Jobs and Pony Show”. In Texas we call that “All Hat and No Cattle”.

John Kerry “Meets” with Putin

Cowboy Diplomacy and the Art of the Poker Face

I love the caption on these pictures from some news service… “Poker faces”. Really? Of all the pictures these guys took of Kerry; that’s the best they could come up with for a “poker face”. Putin has a poker face (and a good one I might add). Kerry’s face is saying “Come on depends, don’t fail me now!”

Kerry flew to Moscow to try and garner some support (any support) in our efforts to end or at least control the brutal dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria before it expands in the Middle East. So basically Kerry sought the help of a dictator (Russian President Vladimir Putin) to shackle his ally dictator (Assad).

The idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds. You can’t choose who you have to deal with on the world stage. You can only have some effect on the circumstances under which you engage world leaders. And we have certainly done that… just not for the better.

If you have to deal with a dictator like Putin you need one of three things going in.
1. Common ground and/or interest in outcome.
2. Something the dictator (Putin) is willing to trade for.
3. Something the dictator (Putin) fears and knows or thinks you’re willing to follow through with.

AND… we’ve got none of those.

The first two are kind of obvious. Dictators like dictators not democracies… and we really don’t have anything Putin needs or wants that badly. [I semi take that back. He does want the power and influence of the U.S. to diminish and we've certainly delivered that in spades lately]

That brings us to the Third option and that one is the real problem.

Obama came into office complaining that we, the United States, weren’t respected by the world community because of Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy”. This can be translated as Bush was showing some balls; and standing up for the U.S. Obama and the Left can’t stand that and would have none of it in this new, enlightened administration. Instead they would apologize for Bush and America in general and then they would use Obama’s diplomatic skills to woo the world with charisma and reason. Step one was an apology tour of the Middle East… Step two on went about as well…

And this strategy did work in the one corner of the world… the Socialist Republics of Europe love us (or at least our current leader). They are headed for bankruptcy and are glad to see us following close behind.

But in another part of the world, the part that really affects our future, the more dangerous parts of the world? The bad guys (Putin, Assad, Ahmadinejad, Jong Il, The Chinese Authoritarians, et al) took one look at our “poker face” and said to themselves. “We’ve got free reign to do anything we want for a while.” And they are definitely taking advantage of this “crisis” in American leadership.

Back to Kerry… Putin had him (the U.S. Secretary of State) wait for three hours before finally seeing him. Was this by accident… of course not. Putin even told Obama to his face last year that he considered him (to paraphrase) a pussy. And he’s right. We’re essentially holding a pair of deuces. We know it, they know it, and pretty well the entire audience (the world) knows it.

What the United States needs right now is a little more “cowboy diplomacy” and a lot less talking and blustering and line drawing and balking and reasoning with the unreasonable. Our actions (or rather the lack thereof) have pretty well given our hands away every time.

3D Printing – Star Trek Replicator v1.0

Just like a lot of social and political issues, technology can often complicate things. It can also make the best laid plans obsolete… Who would have thought back in the 1970s and 80s that most of us would today be carrying around a Star Trek Communicator. Actually our cell phones are like combinations of the Star Trek Communicator and Tricorder. All Jim Kirk could do was talk to Spock on the Enterprise… we can do that, find the nearest Tai Restaurant, and see what the weather’s like half-way around the world.

So? What’s Next? How about a Replicator, a device that produces something out of thin air? Version 1.0 is here. But there’s a problem with what people are replicating and power that takes away from manufacturers and politicians.

Take the power of gun control for instance. Want to register guns and keep better track of who has what? What if the gun has no serial number? Removing the serial number is illegal you say… What if it never had one? That’s also illegal… manufacturers have to put serial numbers on their guns. What if there was no manufacturer and thus no traceable means of knowing the gun was ever produced? Even better (or worse) what if this functional weapon was made of plastic resign undetectable by airport security scanners?

We are quickly approaching the ability to “print” the components of working weapons (any caliber) as easily at printing the pieces of paper dolls and putting them together.

In the technology world there has been an ongoing debate (for years now) concerning 3D printers. In a nut shell these devices can produce very detailed 3D objects in hard resign. Hard resign is the stuff collectable figurines and such like have been made of for years. Of course this process generally involves molds and factories. But new technology has produced 3D printers that use an additive, layer-by-layer process to create hard, durable, 3D objects. Usually these objects are models and fittings and jewelry; but more and more they are used to create end-user parts. And it has been proven that the possibilities for these end-user parts are wide open.

How wide open?

Lower Assembly for an AR-15 Rifle

Want a new high-capacity clip for your AR-15? Just download the CAD design and print one. Sure you may have to add a spring or other minor component to make it work; but these are available at any local Wal-Mart or hardware store.

Want a gun. The technology is very close to being able to print one. No… not in one piece… but print a few components, grab a minor manufactured component or two, put them together and… You have a gun; no more traceable than the paper dolls you printed for your daughter last night.

Cody Wilson (a University of Texas Law Student) and his non-profit group Defense Distributed have worked towards the controversial goal to “make as many firearm components as possible into 3D-printable, downloadable files.” Where is he at in this ambitious endeavor? After posting hundreds of components… Just getting started.

Cody and his non-profit group Defense Distributed have worked towards the controversial goal to “create the world’s first entirely 3D-printable handgun”. Where is he at in this ambitious endeavor? He’s finished.

This week (5/6/2013) Defense Distributed will release (open source) the printable CAD designs for a gun called “The Liberator”. The whole thing is “printable” except for a single nail, used as a firing pin AND a “six ounce chunk of steel in the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act”. Of course, we’re all on our honor to include that chunk of steel that plays no part in the actual functioning of the gun. The gun can shoot standard handgun rounds of ammunition and to change calibers you just change out the barrel component.

Cody is a bit of a libertarian maverick which I can respect. I have to admit I like his attitude of sticking it to the man.

And Man oh Man, THE MAN don’t like Cody.

3D Printing firms hate the guy. Makerbot, who hosts a 3D CAD content website, purged all posts of gun components and other objectionable material. I’m assuming the Hello Kitty resign figures are just fine though.

The company that makes the leading 3D printer, Stratasys, seized a printer it had rented to Defense Distributed after they found out what they were doing with it.

New York (or course) Representative Steve Israel has decided to try and make printing gun components illegal. Like that’s going to work. I can see it now. Guido the gun runner was going to start printing guns, but hey… Steve Israel said he can’t so… oh well… In his defense, Steve Israel claims he only wants to make it illegal to make guns undetectable by metal protectors (which is already the law I think)

This is an amazing technology, with major ramifications for society; and I’m torn between being giddy that “the man” is pissing his pants and wondering if I should be doing the same…