June 19, 2013

Obama foreign v. domestic policy

Foreign: Arm Sunni Syrian fanatics.

Domestic: Disarm small town American citizens.

44 comments:

wren said...

Hey! Doesn't he need to do background checks on all those Sunni Syrian fanatics first?

(cribbed from someone else.)

If they can save just one life, they are clearly worth fighting for.

Where are our politicians when we need them?

Marlowe said...

He astutely realises who poses the greater threat to himself.

Paul Mendez said...

I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

After all, if I were president, my foreign policy would be that whenever and wherever Moslems are fighting Moslems, the US will always support the losing side.

josh said...

yes, and...?

Anonymous said...

My speculation:Obama starts bombing Syria..Syria shoots down a woo!..woo!..Hillary 2016!!..go girl go!!..lesbian f-18 fighter piolt who is subsequently gang raped..massive escalation..in the name of Womans and homosexual rights...high muslim civilian casualities...young Syrian males with strong Al-Queda sympathies imported into the US..series of very nasty terrorist attacks on US soil by these muslims yuts...nasty backlash against muslims in the US...finally the long awaited war with Iran..Iran has has superb Russian surface to air missles..more White Lesbian F-15..and f-18 fighter piots shot down and gang raped...magically we avoid nuclear WWW3...Obama indicted for war crimes along Hillary..the US..due to a collapsed economy and terrorist attacks by Muslim Yuts..goes into state of very high national stress...ok,,so what comes out of all this? I would say a complete shut down of all nonwhite illegal and legal immmigration at least in the breakaway Native Born White Amercan Regions of the nation formely known as America. Next question:now that millions of Native Born White Americans have transitoned out of the cognitive dissonance stage..they start thinking about the consequences of having lost an enormous amount of living space to Mexico, Iranians in California, Chinese land grabbers in Montanna and Idaho(this is already happening). Have I described a high or low probability scenario?

Bill Blizzard

peterike said...

While I couldn't care less about how many people die in the Middle East, Israel included, I am deeply concerned with the already rising chatter about letting umpteen Syrian "refugees" into America.

Great plan, isn't it? Create a crisis that creates refugees which you can have flood into the country because, after all, there's a crisis.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Marlowe is correct. Narcissists have a chain of reasoning that goes "What is good for me is good for my tribe. What is good for my tribe is good for my coalition within party. What is good for my party is good for America. Therefore, opposing me is essentially unpatriotic."

That's uh, not unheard of on the right as well.

Therefore, foreign enemies are not as dangerous as domestic ones.

Anonymous said...

Makes sense to me. In the US, I don't want to use a gun to defend myself given how low the prospects of success are. In a civilized country (and one that I hope is invested in holding on to it's civilizational status), I want professional law enforcement to take care of the threat of force, or better yet, have gun control regulation that keep them out of the hands of our ever-growing NAM population. Crazy me, less armed NAMs sounds fantastic! Might even be a measure that would keep our civilized country out of something so uncivil that guns were are only recourse to keeping law and order, say, I don't know, like a civil war?

Now whether we should be arming this particular set of thugs in Syria, that's something to discuss.

Anonymous said...

@ peterike

The Syrian refugees won't be moving into Georgetown in DC, so therefore America can accept them, and anyone who doesn't accept them is a racist xenophobe.

/End of Elite Analysis

Anonymous said...

"They" want WWIII Steve, and what "they" want they usually get it.

Bob Arctor said...

It absolutely amazes me that in June 2013 someone can still be as childishly trusting of the intentions of the state apparatus as the 5:09 PM anonymous poster, who seems to seriously and sincerely believe that the goal of firearms restriction is to disarm the criminal element among the underclass. Hahaha...

Svigor said...

Makes sense to me.

That doesn't sound too hard.

In the US, I don't want to use a gun to defend myself given how low the prospects of success are.

Please do explain that. Common sense says a using the gun you're carrying to defend yourself dramatically increases your chances of defending yourself successfully, vs. going unarmed and waiting minutes for the police to arrive when seconds count.

In a civilized country (and one that I hope is invested in holding on to it's civilizational status), I want professional law enforcement to take care of the threat of force, or better yet, have gun control regulation that keep them out of the hands of our ever-growing NAM population.

In this civilized country, the gov't, police included, is not liable for your security.

Crazy me, less armed NAMs sounds fantastic!

Crazy me, delegating out your own security to people who may or may not show up in time, and have no legal obligation to keep you safe, doesn't sound so fantastic. Who's more interested in keeping you and your loved ones safe than you are?

As for fewer armed NAMs, yeah, sure. That's really who gun control targets, your law-abiding NAMs.

Might even be a measure that would keep our civilized country out of something so uncivil that guns were are only recourse to keeping law and order, say, I don't know, like a civil war?

Totalitarians hate civil wars, yes. They prefer total, uncontested hegemony.

Your stated views and values don't comport with your positions on gun control.

Svigor said...

It absolutely amazes me that in June 2013 someone can still be as childishly trusting of the intentions of the state apparatus as the 5:09 PM anonymous poster, who seems to seriously and sincerely believe that the goal of firearms restriction is to disarm the criminal element among the underclass. Hahaha...

He seemed about as sincere as Alfred E. Neumann. You bought that tripe?

Svigor said...

Bob Arctor, we just went over in another thread how NAMs favor gun control, and why:

1. Thugs love muscle powered societies. Worst case scenario, gun control actually disarms NAMs (last, being the least law-abiding), and everything goes muscle-powered. Thugs' wet dream. Thugs dream of Mad Max at night.

2. Thugs will be less likely to get shot by the law-abiding people they prey upon (the first to be disarmed by gun control). That's actually the only time blacks get worked up about a black yoof being shot and killed - when a law-abiding type does the shooting.

carol said...

I don't want to use a gun to defend myself given how low the prospects of success are.

Uh, you need to go find out what you're talking about.

peterike said...

I want professional law enforcement to... have gun control regulation that keep them out of the hands of our ever-growing NAM population. Crazy me, less armed NAMs sounds fantastic!

Yup, cuz nothing says "legal gun owner" like a gang-bangin' NAM!

Steve Sailer said...

By the way, this was suggested by a commenter about a week ago.

Anonymous said...

> "He seemed about as sincere as Alfred E. Neumann. You bought that tripe?"

Yeah, it gets very depressing to see the obvious propaganda sail right past Komment Kontrol, whereas us regulars have to re-write and re-write and re-write and re-write our posts, yet still they get censored.

Prof. Woland said...

I am sure Obama would arm the local black gangs if it would further his revolution. The problem is that they would only use them on each other.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 6:45 PM said: Yeah, it gets very depressing to see the obvious propaganda sail right past Komment Kontrol, whereas us regulars have to re-write and re-write and re-write and re-write our posts, yet still they get censored.

Hunsdon said: Oh, so you're THAT anonydroid. Well that explains it, then.

Cail Corishev said...

I want professional law enforcement to take care of the threat of force, or better yet, have gun control regulation that keep them out of the hands of our ever-growing NAM population. Crazy me, less armed NAMs sounds fantastic!

I want to be able to read comment threads without constantly seeing 'less' used in place of 'fewer' and 'amount' confused with 'number,' but we all have to live with disappointments in life.

Anonymous said...

If i was a wicked anti-semite who believed the US government was dominated by Jewish interests this would mean.

Jews want to disarm white people in America.

Jews want all the countries around Israel turned into non-threatening wastelands in a state of permanent civil war.

Anonymous said...

Cail
"I want professional law enforcement to take care of the threat of force"

Well then unless you're very young the experience of the last 40 years should have taught you that is not going to happen so you're talking nonsense.

If the media won't tell the truth about black crime then the police can't stop it - because dealing with crime that doesn't exist according to the media is harassment according to the media.

(The police can only do it in places like New York where the "liberal" media are happy to turn a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of black people).

When it comes to anti-white crime in diverse areas you are mostly on your own - thanks almost entirely to the media lying about crime in general and anti-white crime in particular.

.
"or better yet, have gun control regulation that keep them out of the hands of our ever-growing NAM population."

You must be very young.

Anonymous said...

"or better yet, have gun control regulation that keep them out of the hands of our ever-growing NAM population. Crazy me, less armed NAMs sounds fantastic! Might even be a measure that would keep our civilized country out of something so uncivil that guns were are only recourse to keeping law and order, say, I don't know, like a civil war?" - the problem here, is that that was one of the many (effective) things that Jim Crow did. so of course it is a non-starter. They are going to disarm "everyone"(for a given value of everyone that means the white middle class), or no one.

Anonymous said...

You've been dishonest in admitting thank god Obama was elected rather than McCain.

Will anyone now try to deny that the 2008 election wasn't an outstanding outcome that saved America from sinking a lot deeper?

We would have ground troops in Syria but now and probably somewhere else too.

Anonymous said...

"the problem here, is that that was one of the many (effective) things that Jim Crow did. so of course it is a non-starter. They are going to disarm "everyone"(for a given value of everyone that means the white middle class), or no one."

And what's wrong with disarming everyone? Taking HBD seriously inclines me toward this position, not against it. Screw hunters and the dweebs who obsess about living out action movie heroics.

Anonymous said...

"the problem here, is that that was one of the many (effective) things that Jim Crow did. so of course it is a non-starter. They are going to disarm "everyone"(for a given value of everyone that means the white middle class), or no one."

And what's wrong with disarming everyone? Taking HBD seriously inclines me toward this position, not against it. Screw hunters and the dweebs who obsess about living out action movie heroics.

Jack Hanson said...

I don't think gun control anonymous up there has any clue what he's talking about. amazing how some people not only want to be sheep, but demand to be lead to the slaughter.

The police are under no obligation to protect you, chum. good luck with everything when your brilliant plan of 'outsource my own survival' blows up in your face.

Cail Corishev said...

Cail
"I want professional law enforcement to take care of the threat of force"


You misattributed this; I was responding to the person who said it.

David said...

The "Obama kept our boots out of Syria" line is shaky. Don't be surprised if the US plunges in anyway.

Although it is interesting that the US just lost in Afghanistan and is suing for peace to the Taliban. (The media report this backward. The end of the empire will not be televised.)

elvisd said...

Defending yourself in Mexico:

Vice documentary of Mormon vs Narco war.

And for more vibrancy, Mexican federal law grants indigenous communities an exception to arm themselves into militias to protect themselves against narcos.

Rohan Swee said...

Cail Corishev: I want to be able to read comment threads without constantly seeing 'less' used in place of 'fewer' and 'amount' confused with 'number,' but we all have to live with disappointments in life.

I want to be able to read comment threads without being confused about who's saying what to whom because the commenter can't be arsed to signify quoted material.

NOTA said...

Svigor:

My guess is that gun control is supported by blacks more for two other, more important reasons:

a. More troublemaking family and friends = more people you personally know who should absolutely never be allowed to put their hands on a gun. If cousin Jimmy is going to get into trouble for robbing people, at least if he doesn't have a gun maybe nobody will get killed and he'll get into less trouble.

b. Urban vs suburban distribution. In densely populated places, gun ownership by strangers is more threatening. Lots of innocents are killed in gang shootouts in urban ghettos, largely thanks to high population density. That works out very differently in the suburbs, and even more differently in the country.

If you live in a 3rd floor apartment in a city, your neighbors' guns are something of a danger to you even if your neighbors are friendly. If you live in a farmhouse a mile from the nearest neighbor, only a freak accident or gross malevolent behavior (like intentionally shooting at your house with a rifle) will let your neighbor's gun bother you.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, it gets very depressing to see the obvious propaganda sail right past Komment Kontrol, whereas us regulars have to re-write and re-write and re-write and re-write our posts, yet still they get censored. "

No one cares, dude.

Harry Baldwin said...

Here's another contrast in the Bush/Obama agenda:

Foreign: Support popular uprisings against repressive governments. The popular will must rule.

Domestic: Suppress citizens organizing against government usurpation of power. Ignore popular will whenever it conflicts with elite interests.

Anonymous said...

Cail
"You misattributed this; I was responding to the person who said it."

Apologies.

Anonymous said...

"Taking HBD seriously inclines me toward this position, not against it."

People mostly won't attack someone unless they think they're going to win.


"And what's wrong with disarming everyone?"

Too young
Too female
Too old
Too out-ganged
Too out-knifed
Too ambushed

Guns are a great equalizer. With a gun an out-numbered 70 year old grandmother still has a chance of winning.

Anonymous said...


With a gun an out-numbered 70 year old grandmother still has a chance of winning.

Or injuring herself or other innocents are in the house (or mistaking an innocent for an intruder), but, hey, imagined peace of mind is still peace of mind, right?

jody said...

"And what's wrong with disarming everyone?"

the violent crime rate would skyrocket.

Anonymous said...

In the UK, David Cameron is against violent Islamists slaughtering soldiers on UK streets, but in favour of them slaughtering soldiers on Syrian streets.

Harry Baldwin said...

In the UK, David Cameron is against violent Islamists slaughtering soldiers on UK streets

Only kinda. He's not going to actually DO anything about it. It's one of those obligatory "Build the dang fence!" postures.

OTA said...

Jody:

So, has that happened abruptly when there has been a big additional restriction of gun rights? My impression is that it's extremely hard to find any effect of gun control, shall-issue laws, or related stuff on crime rate. (You can see this because research in this area tends to bring large-caliber statistics and lots of complicated assumptions and models to the game in order to claim even moderate sized effects.). At a guess, this is because criminals mostly ignore the laws about guns anyway, so these laws mainly affect law-abiding people. And most law-abiding people go to some lengths to avoid being crime victims already, and relatively few people bother carryng a loaded gun around all the time, so the actual deterrent effect on criminals is pretty limited. If there is an effect, I suspect it's probably on home-invasion burglaries, since doing those someplace where a lot of people have guns is a really good way to get shot.

Svigor said...

Jews want to disarm white people in America.

They do. Jews are pretty open about leading the charge for gun control. They're proud of the fact. I saw two pieces in the press about it, right at the height of they post-Sandy Hook craze.

You've been dishonest in admitting thank god Obama was elected rather than McCain.

Will anyone now try to deny that the 2008 election wasn't an outstanding outcome that saved America from sinking a lot deeper?

We would have ground troops in Syria but now and probably somewhere else too.


Right. Obama has added more debt than any president, ever, so thank God we got him.

And what's wrong with disarming everyone?

1. The right to self-defense is a good idea. Ergo, disarming everyone is a horrible idea. Let's disarm the gov't. That's an idea I can get behind. Why should the cops and the gov't have guns?

2. You can't disarm everyone. You can only disarm the law-abiding. Ergo, gun control gives thugs an advantage.

3. Even if you could disarm everyone, you'd still be giving the thugs an advantage. Thugs would love for women, who have half their upper body strength on average, to be disarmed. They'd love for the elderly to be disarmed. They'd love to live in a muscle-powered, Mad Max style world. Can't you read? I already said this.

Taking HBD seriously inclines me toward this position, not against it.

Wrong. You don't take HBD seriously. You're just making a juvenile attempt to use the enemy's ideas against him.

Gun control is un-American.

Guns are a great equalizer.

Precisely. Gun rights are a great way to peel liberals away from their egalitarian pose; people who really value a level playing field love gun rights. People who really want women and the elderly to be safe love gun rights.

Liberals are statists, not egalitarians.

Or injuring herself or other innocents are in the house (or mistaking an innocent for an intruder), but, hey, imagined peace of mind is still peace of mind, right?

Can't the gov't, the police injure themselves or other innocents by mistake, too? Why let imagined peace of mind (what a stupid construction, btw, especially in context; relying on the cops is "real" peace of mind, I suppose?) get in the way of doing the right thing? Disarm the gov't now, for all our sakes.

Freedom comes with risks. Solitary confinement is nice and safe. Just admit that you want guns confiscated, and you don't give a damn who gets hurt as a result. You'll feel better. Bringing up the possible bad outcomes is just silly; I might as well say that granny could be raped and killed if she doesn't have a gun. The take-home point is that it's better to have power and choices and not need them, than it is to need them and not have them. I'd rather let everyone, granny included, make her own choices, than limit them.

Nobody cares if Jane accidentally aborts the next Newton or Beethoven; Jane's choices are what's paramount. Right?

Libs don't care if alcohol causes 15k deaths a year from drunk-driving alone, never mind booze-related health issues and violence. They don't care how many people get sauced and beat, stab, or shoot their fellow citizens. Libs aren't calling for a ban on alcohol, even though nobody needs booze, and booze has only one purpose.

Libs want gun control because they're statists and totalitarians.

Anonymous said...

"Libs want gun control because they're statists and totalitarians."

Or perhaps they want the whole world to become children under some benevolent parental authority/government that gives them whatever they want. I suppose it comes to the same thing.