Mohammed Misses Downtown

28 02 2015

Los Angeles

Another episode in “As the Stadium Toast Burns.”


A report commissioned by the developer of a downtown Los Angeles football stadium warns that a rival project nearby could be a potential terrorist target because of its proximity to Los Angeles International Airport.

The report was released Friday at a time when several potential stadium projects are competing to bring an NFL team to Southern California, two decades after the Rams and Raiders exited.

The 14-page report was commissioned by Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build a stadium in downtown Los Angeles. A development venture linked to St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke has proposed a stadium in Inglewood, about 10 miles from downtown.

The report by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finds that constructing an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood — as close as 2.5 miles from an airport runway — “materially increases the risk of a terrorist event.”

Ridge concluded that in a world in which terrorism is a recognized threat, “the peril of placing a National Football League stadium in the direct flight path of (the airport)” … outweighs whatever benefits it would bring over its lifespan.

The Hollywood Park Land Co., which is developing the Inglewood site, declined comment.

I would decline comment too, if I didn’t want my comments to be in the form of snark, ridicule and insults.

Probably the most publicly digestible thing I could think to say if I was asked to react to this:

“As if Mohammed al-Terroristiqua wouldn’t notice Downtown Los Angeles.”

I guess lobbying-whoring for the Albanian government doesn’t pay as well as it used to, Tom Ridge?

This Is Going to Confuse a Lot of People

20 02 2015



Who wouldn’t want to team up with someone like him?  After all, change a few of his accoutrements and he could just as easily be running around the Fergaza Strip yelling “Hands Up Don’t Shoot.”

And they had to go and do this just when ISIS was getting in on the good side of the libs.

You Would Have Thought She Would Have Kept Her Mouth Shut After Benghazi

20 02 2015

Washington, D.C.

That being Susan Rice-a-Roni, not to be confused with Condoleezza Rice-a-Roni, or Ray Rice-a-Roni (“Beats by Ray”).


Susan Rice: ‘Who Better Than a Mother to Spot Unusual Behavior in Her Child and Intervene?’

In a speech at the White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism, National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Thursday said part of the strategy to combat terrorism is training women – especially mothers – to recognize the signs of recruitment and radicalization in their own families.

“Who is better than a mother to spot unusual behavior in her child and intervene?” Rice asked. “Around the world, the United States is supporting projects to train women to recognize the signs of recruitment and radicalization in their families and communities and to devise prevention strategies.”

But then there’s the inconvenient matters of mom herself willingly living life in a burqua and lovin’ it, and having been subjected to FGM in her younger years.

Then there’s Inspire, the AQ slick glossy mag, having run an article entitles, “Build a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.”

Mom’s not going to snitch.

Speaking Truth to Power (So What?)

19 02 2015

Santa Monica, California

RAND Corporation:  No link between poverty and terrorism.

Yes, they spoke truth to power.  But who’s listening?  It’s a lot easier for power to create its own truth.  And in this case, strangely so, because RAND (and I don’t mean RAND as in Paul) is usually where the establishment goes to in order to get its ideological jollies off.

This article then goes on to prove that Marie Harf is not the first of her kind, that BushObama and their underlings have been spouting this line for more than a decade.  Why they do that and why others have alternate abstract overly ideological explanations is something I explained two days ago.

But don’t think that this mentality is only a decade old.  I don’t know if LBJ ever used the phrase “TVA on the Mekong” himself, but the phrase did somehow take legs to describe part of his Vietnam War policy.

Democratic Republics Are Wholly Incapable of Combating the Seventh Century Totalitarian Death Cult

17 02 2015


Why do I say that?


Of course this is as crazy as crazy comes.

But this is no less crazy than:

*  Blaming climate change for ISIS (John Kerry?)

*  Blaming the lack of ObamaCare in the relevant geography for ISIS (John Kerry?)

*  Claiming that the terrorists do what they do because they hate our freedom (George W. Bush)

*  Claiming that terrorism is a result of the lack of democracy, therefore the solution is to spread democracy by force (Natan Sharansky)

*  Blaming Islamic terrorism on the lack of the United States of America engaging in foreign policy neutralitarian (“isolationist”) ideology (Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell)

*  Claiming that terrorists form because the individuals who engage in it are happy that Osama bin Laden provided paved roads and schools (Sen. Peppermint Patty Murray, Marx-WA)

*  Claiming that “they’re mad at us” because our drone strikes kill “American citizens” (Rand Paul)

*  Insinuating that the only reason that Muslim Jihadist terrorism exists is because of the existence of Abu Ghirab and Club Gitmo (Barack Obama)

*  Schools in affected countries have not yet implemented Common Core (Bill Gates) (okay, well, he hasn’t said this yet, but give him time)

*  Israel  (Half of you reading this post)

I could go on and on.

Plain words, Marie Harf’s insanity is not just the insanity of her chosen abstract ideology, which is bad enough.  More than that, it’s the insanity of the inevitable degenerative effects of democratic republicanism and the way it zombifies its adherents into misinterpreting tribal threats as ideological ones and in earnest responding with ideological responses when they should be responding with tribal responses.  The only pregnant political debate in democratic republics in these situations is which abstract ideology should be blamed, which should get the credit, and on which one’s premises should the ideological response be based.  And that’s how we wind up with a stupid axiom like “War on Terror,” thinking that it’s logical or possible to wage a war against a tactic.

The moral of this story?  Reread this post’s title.

Obama Logic

10 02 2015


“Randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

I’m surprised he didn’t also call it a robbery gone wrong.

This means using Obama logic, this was just some random pyrotechnics show that went awry at some church.

How Barry How?

17 01 2015

Washington, D.C.


US President Barack Obama on Friday urged European governments to try to better assimilate their Muslim minority populations as they respond to extremist attacks like last week’s shootings in Paris.
How?  What are they supposed to do that they haven’t already been doing a lot of for decades?
“Our biggest advantage, major, is that our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition,” he said.
No, stupid, that’s entirely a function of their only being a very very very small percentage of the population, in fact, not even a full percent.  Once their demographics hit some critical mass, in terms of either numbers or percentage, then the full seventh century comes pouring out of them.  In fact, Dearborn, Michigan already has shown that.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,983 other followers