Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
86 comments:
Al-Arabiya is reporting that Osama Bin Laden's 12 year-old daughter claims her father was captured first, then later executed.
The Whitehouse initially claimed Osama Bin Laden was armed and had a wife as a human shield. Now the Obama administration is claiming that Bin Laden was unarmed, everyone else was unarmed except the courier (in the guest house) who was shot early on, and there was no human shield. The wife did lunge at US troops and was immobilized through a non-fatal gunshot to the foot, but the govt claims Bin Laden was "resisting" (without a weapon) and was shot dead.
Hmmm, I thought that the left was against capital punishment, except for racists.
They didn't execute Saddam or any other of the numerous terrorists they caught. Why Bin Laden? They didn't want him talking.
I'd rather have seen Bin Laden get a brief trial, as he could've given us the dirt on all the Pakistani con men that we've been paying over tbhe years. Then we kill him.
To paraphrases Leon Panetta, "Unless Osama shows up with arms straight up, naked, and cheeks spread, the SEALs' orders were to shoot him on sight."
OK by me.
"It wasn't much of a firefight, it was more of an execution."
The execution was too swift and procedural -- like in the opening scenes of "Dawn of the Dead" where a SWAT team kicks open a door and blows some guys head off with a shot gun. The Seals should have taken Bin Laden alive and squeezed his head in a vice until one of his eyeballs popped out.
Oh well, may the Rangers will kill al Zawahiri in a more leisurely manner.
Agreed, glad he is dead. You all may have seen this, but it may have been Panetta that played the key role in ordering Bin Laden's death.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=137_1304467155
It's also possible that he was punched and kicked so badly that his face/body was disfigured beyond recognition, making it unsuitable for presentation.
...it was more of an execution.
Yep, makes perfect sense, and explains the otherwise inexplicable "no body/no photos/no video/no autopsy" mysteries.
Now the natural follow-up question is to ask ourselves why execute Bin Laden instead of putting him on show-trial and generating the TV ratings of the century, with Obama's landslide reelection following in its wake.
There's an interesting column in Counterpunch providing the CIA translation of the last interview Bin Laden gave to the media immediately after the 9/11 attacks, which I hadn't been previously seen. Interestingly enough, Bin Laden says he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, that they violated Islamic Law, and that as a good Muslim he wouldn't lie about such things. Frankly, I've never previously heard of a prominent terrorist denying his involvement in a very successful attack, let alone the most successful terrorist attack in history. Kinda defeats the whole point of being a famous terrorist leader if you deny it.
So the problem with putting Bin Laden on trial for 9/11 was that there was never any evidence against him, and even the heavily MSM-filtered version of a trial might make a reasonable fraction of the American public realize that. But if Bin Laden wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, people might start to ask themselves the very dangerous question "then who was?"
And the last thing we want to do in these very difficult economic times is to encourage paranoid anti-Semitism...
no proof?
I want to see the damn picture. I paid for chasing that bastard around.
If they are afraid that showing it will cause immediate danger to our troops somewhere right now, then fine, delay showing it...then, down the road, leak it. I can deal with that...but I want to see it and I want American vengeance to be seen by the world.
There's a reason the Japanese love our cowboy movies and there's a reason the Arab world thinks we're soft.
Wildly off topic, Steve - but I know you like pop music. Here's an absolutely beautiful, Beatlesque tune by Liam Gallagher and some of the former Oasis guys in their new band, Beady Eye.
No tour dates for the US announced yet, but they're supposedly coming over in June. I'm pretty sure they'll play LA. The band is in their late 30's and early 40's but they are on fire right now.
I'm sorry, but if that guy uses the spelling "Whitehouse" one more time I'm gonna be rappelling into his compound at one am.
I wouldn't make too much of the conflicting accounts of what happened. I had a car accident a few years ago, and out of 4 witnesses we had at least 5 stories. And that was just a fender bender.
If Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11, he could have gotten that message out a thousand times through all sorts of venues. Michael Scheurer, who is deeply critical of Israel, believes Bin Laden and Al Qaeda exist and committed those crimes.
Steve, I agree with some of your posters on previous articles that the whole thing stinks, and that you cannot accept the story at face value. The explanation offered by one of your readers that OBL was bed-bound make a lot of sense. We know he had serious diabetic issues in 2001, or thereabouts, when they started chasing him, so how does an extra decade work out for someone with such problems?
SUKKAZ!
"Administration officials said that the only shots fired by those in the compound came at the beginning of the operation, when Bin Laden’s trusted courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, opened fire from behind the door of the guesthouse adjacent to the house where Bin Laden was hiding. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05binladen.html
ALL paranoiacs are fun. God bless em, we can never have enough.
Being of Jewish descent I can't help but take particular pleasure in the shivering squeaks of those who imagine that the world is run by a federation of some hidden uncles of mine. That isn't moneyed or militaried co-ethnics don't have loads of hidden power, of course they do, much as anyone's moneyed and militaried co-ethnics do...but I digress.
What delighted me above was the wonderful turnaround of Sviggor's usual reminder that OBL wasn't too bad a dude because, after all, he killed an inordinate number of Jews. In fact, no terror attack of similar size in the US could possibly have killed more. Good point! and I was ready to accept it until RKU just informed me that it actually was the jews themselves (I mean 'ourselves' of course) who attacked on 9/11.
Now I don't know where to stand on the issue. anymore but I'll accept being distracted by more tales of how Panetta overruled Obama. At least - "in these very difficult economic times" - there's SOMETHING we know for sure!
You know, even from a propaganda or media-circus standpoint, it would work a lot better if the administration just released the barest facts about operations of this kind, and left everything else to the imagination, ie. "a small-unit raid was conducted in a nation contiguous to Afghanistan against a high-value Al Qaida operative."
Then just let the information, and rumors, filter out from there, rather than turning the whole thing into a bureaucratic pep rally. Sometimes, people are a lot more impressed by what goes unsaid. And eventually, when the rumors reach a crescendo, you "reluctantly" concede that OBL was eliminated. But in the meantime:
Where exactly was this raid conducted?
--I won't specify a location, but somewhere in South Central Asia.
Who or what was the target?
--I can't comment on that.
What unit or units were involved?
--We never disclose that information in operations of this kind.
Can you tell us whether Delta or Seal Team Six were involved?
--I'm not familiar with those unit designations.
OK, it's James Bondish and a little much, but James Bond has a well-established appeal. I mean, it's bound to be more effective than "he had a gun, . . . or we might be mistaken, .. . he was firing madly . . or maybe we were misinformed, . . . he used his wife as a human shield . . . actually, maybe she was protecting her husband, but we'll never know because she was killed, . . . sorry, that was somebody else's wife."
Why advertise your own confusion?
Since the details of the narrative are all over the place, who knows if they really shot him in his bedroom as we were told, but if they did, it had to be close range.
The pics of the other guys are not that bad, lots of blood. "They" say the pic of Bin Laden shows a missing eye, brain matter, lots of blood--nothing I wouldn't mind seeing. I'd have liked for his nuts to have been cut off and soaked in pig's blood and put in a jar for all to see.
Anyway, everyone is already asking how Obama and the admin could have gone from the success of the assault to the success of the announcing speech to the messiness of the following days.
Makes you think that story going around that Panetta really called the shots might be on the mark. Obama and his staff have never gotten their act together on anything else. And to think I was sure he had gotten it together for at least a few successive days.
I think RKU is close to the truth.
"No body, no photos, no autopsy report.
It wasn't much of a firefight, it was more of an execution.
I'm okay with that."
You are also ok with other men doing it for you and not with doing it yourself. You wouldn't have the courage to fight Bin Landen in a firefight if both of you were armed, and you wouldn't have the courage to squeeze the trigger if you were charged with executing him. I despise supporters of the death penalty who would never have the guts or ethical fortitude to carry it out themselves, and I despise even more weak men who treat tougher and braver men who abuse them by "Sir" in their presence, but when the greater man is handcuffed, injured or impotent to do anything against him, he suddenly becomes brave and spits and curses at his former abuser. I really hate these kinds of guys. You, Steve Sailer, are not brave...or heroic.
So how is Osama bin Laden "heroic?" He was a monster who got what he deserved. [Osama got his start blowing up mentor Azziz and his sons to take over Jihad Inc. in Pakistan. He just went on from there.]
Obama is the gang that could not shoot strait. Dithering for 16 hours before allowing the plan to proceed (by the White House's account). Going golfing as the plan is underway. [Obama did not and should not have micro-managed, but needed to be on the scene at the White House situation room to call the Pakistani President and say "they are our guys" if something went wrong. The President had to be the SEALs final back up. Bush would have done at least that.]
I don't think I believe the stuff put out by "Ulsterman" that Panetta and Clinton "bravely" concocted the plan, as Valerie Jarrett schemed and Obama passively sat there, to take out Osama six months ago.
But the portrait of a passive, lazy, and timid Obama voting Present (as he did for 7 years in the IL State Senate) seems accurate. In the White House released picture he is off center, off to the side, alone, irrelevant, no one is paying him any attention. THAT is telling. Obama is the sideshow in his own situation room.
A show trial, any trial, would have been a PR disaster. If Osama had been allowed to speak, he would have
reveled in his world audience, tried to pull a John Brown. If gagged,...
And they take long enough to drive the audience mad.
I do believe that Jarrett and Michelle dominate Obama's decision making, and the man himself is both weak and lazy.
Obama never had a real father around, and his Mom just dumped him at age 9 on his grandparents who were White. So he lets Jarrett and Michelle walk all over him, when both have a tin ear. A skilled top advisor would never let the Birth Certificate fester to put doubts in people's minds. Nor would they have glitz/glamor as the main image for Obama. I do think Ulsterman's insider was accurate -- Emmanuel got bounced because Jarrett is Obama's emotional lifeline and Emmanuel is just another politico. I think the so-called (likely fabricated) Dem insider is wrong on Daley bouncing Jarrett. Or the pull of top Dem donors. Obama can raise billions in the Persian Gulf alone, and Jarrett is his wife Michelle's crony. Michelle Obama rules her husband with an iron fist.
Surely on one of the DVDs he must have watched to pass the time, he would have come across the idea of a safe room, or of an escape tunnel. Tho official explanation does not ring true.
"I despise supporters of the death penalty who would never have the guts or ethical fortitude to carry it out themselves"
How do you know who could and who couldn't?
I really hate these kinds of guys. You, Steve Sailer, are not brave...or heroic.
Steve is a lot braver than most for standing up for his beliefs and taking a massive career hit for it. I don't consider gun toting to be the mark of courage, and I'm saying that as a former soldier who served in an active army.
What bothers me is that Steve seems to believe the official narrative.
You are also ok with other men doing it for you and not with doing it yourself.
I don't know how to bake a cake, and yet I support bakers.
You must hate me. I'm distraught!
I must disagree with the last poster on Sailer's heroism. Being openly known as a promoter of Human BioDiversity is no cakewalk. Being politically incorrect in this day and age takes guts.
I don't understand why anyone wants to paint Osama as a heroic character by the way. Obviously, most human type people don't, but here we have a poster that is offended that someone wanted Osama executed! Absolutely crazy.
. You wouldn't have the courage to fight Bin Landen in a firefight if both of you were armed, and you wouldn't have the courage to squeeze the trigger if you were charged with executing him. I despise supporters of the death penalty who would never have the guts or ethical fortitude to carry it out themselves,
1 - You don't really know what Sailer might be capable of, and it's pointless to speculate without meaningful tests.
2 - Being willing to commit violence is no sign of courage. I have committed violence out of fear in the past. Violence is an animal response, like scratching an itch. It's not courage or nobility, it's just an instinct.
3- Likewise group sentiments such as self-sacrifice to protect the tribe or the family unit are not hugely noble, they are animal instincts.
And IMHO Bin Laden was dead before 2002 ended, this operation was just a propaganda exercise.
Is Conspiracy Talk more common these days? It seems like no one trusts anything. As someone who believed that the actions of the Trilateral Commission and other elite groups should be discussed, I find myself uncomfortable with the turn it has taken.
Most of the theories I hear now sound borderline crazy. We seem to have a lot conspiracy theories that follow the Middle Eastern tropes. All the Truther stuff, all the FEMA death camps, etc., it is all so low IQ it taints any real critique of the powerful.
Is this due to the internet empowering these people or is this the kind of mutual mistrust that grows up in a multiethnic society? If so, I don't like it.
@Wes: "I don't like it" is not a very compelling argument.
We're mushrooms: kept in the dark and covered in horse sh!t. It's hardly surprising that conspiracy theories will thrive in such conditions.
If your only options are to believe what you are told and be a dupe, or disbelieve and be a crank, then being a crank is the more honorable option:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-death-of-osama/
Then give Bin Laden a military trial. Anything to get info out of the man. We don't want him dying without giving up at least some of what he knows.
Anonymous said, "You, Steve Sailer, are not brave...or heroic."
At least we know his real name.
Dude, what are you talking about? When did Steve start striking heroic poses? Is there anything sillier than an anonymous post ripping someone else for cowardice? Can I stop with all the questions? For the record, I could have taken Osama two matches out of three thumbwrestling without breaking a sweat. How about you, Mr. Anonymous?
Seriously, the only decent outcome from the operation ends with Bin Laden dead. Imagine how Western hostages his sympathizers would grab seeking to free him if he was in American custody.
@Wes ....Of course others argue that one can be a skeptic, which is different from a crank:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-really-is-dead/
Problem is, to the dupe (ie the fool), they see no difference between the crank and the skeptic. And the dupes/fools outnumber the cranks and the skeptics by a huge margin in Western, mass media controlled democracies, and they vote accordingly.
Surely on one of the DVDs he must have watched to pass the time, he would have come across the idea of a safe room, or of an escape tunnel. Tho official explanation does not ring true.
Well, we know from official sources that Bin Laden's Mountain Fortress in Afghanistan had such escape tunnels wide enough for a car to drive through, but I guess he never got around to installing those in Pakistan.
Anonymous, was it really necessary for me to offer a full and complete treatise on why I don't like the spread of low IQ conspiracy theories? I'm not talking about reasonable questions. As I stated in my post, I have always brought up things like the Trilateral Commission. But, no, I am not a fan of the Omnipotent Secret Rulers school of thought, or the view that conspiracies are the most fundamental force in history.
And I know full well the difference between a skeptic and a crank and it is legitimate. But I see the dumbing down of the questioning of authority to the point that it is laughable in too many areas. But maybe Truthers are just loud.
"What bothers me is that Steve seems to believe the official narrative." -headache
Exactly my response. Are you also wondering if he's donned some desert camouflage and started playing war-themed games on the Wii?
I myself see no benefit to the execution of one of what must be many anti-American instigators of terrorist attacks in the ME except to get Obama elected again.
Anyone else waiting for the very predictable exile/execution of Ghaddafi sure to follow quickly on the heels of this triumph?
No body, no photos, no autopsy report.
In other words, no evidence. To date. Presumably they will eventually release the DNA data.
I'm okay with that.
You're not alone -- most people seem willing to take the administration's word on this.
I might be wrong, but it is my recollection that there were more people who were willing to be openly skeptical when Bush II said there were WMDs in Iraq. The proof offered there was, well, not proof. I realize the two instances appear very different: back then, a war was at stake, whereas here it appears to be the death of a few, including one very important man (certainly symbolically important, perhaps also practically important). But what if the manner of his death - an "execution", as you say -- and burial serves to anger muslims and thereby create even more 'terrorists'?
Anonymous 5/5/11 12:50 AM
Thanks for the great link about that mountain fortress bin Laden supposedly had. Everyone should have a look at it, especially the exchange between Russert and Rumsfeld at the end.
Laughable. Absolutely absurd. Total bullshit. Yet the people purveying this blatant nonsense are the same who are running things and making such important decisions, and whose word is accepted so easily by so many.
For the record: Personally, I have no idea if bin Laden is dead or not, and if he's dead how he may have died. But I admit to some trouble taking the administration's word on this.
Are you serious that you see no benefit to the execution of Bin Laden? That's an idiosyncratic viewpoint to say the least.
"I don't know how to bake a cake, and yet I support bakers.
You must hate me. I'm distraught!"
What a clever analogy. Who else could have come up with it but one of Steve Sailer's redneck readers? I mean, how can I properly reply to such wit and eloquence?
@Wes: merely taking such things as the Trilateralists seriously will get you marked as a crank by the mainstream, no matter how rational and careful you are. Therefore it is necessary to say WHY some "conspiracy theories" are well supported by the evidence, and WHY other "conspiracy theories" are not. A petulant "I don't like it" is just another whine to let everyone know that "I'm not like those other nutty people" and "please don't lump me in with the nuts just because I don't go along with the establishment narrative on all points". This is simply status anxiety - attempting to pass muster before official social taboos. Either get into specifics about why X is right and Z is wrong, or drop the topic. Standing on a footstool like the stereotyical hysterical woman frightened by a mouse and waving your hands in concern about the conspiracy theory mongers isn't very dignified or very useful for any purpose except making yourself feel good and superior and acceptable in "proper" discourse, ie, attempting to genuflect in public before the prevailing social/political taboos while at the same time congratulating yourself on your independence of thought. Quite pathetic really.
Unless they involve NAMs, Steve seems to take a lot of mass media swill as gospel.
Sorry Buddy, the truth hurts.
I'll try not to whine Anonymous. Why is that Truthers get so personal so fast?
Oh wow, I really didn't read your whole post, Anonymous. It isn't "status anxiety". After all, we are all freaking anonymous here - except for Steve and maybe a few others. Please drop the psychoanalysis. I can entertain any thought and do ... I am honestly telling you after spending some time on it ... Truthers are batshizzle crazy. So, I'm just wondering if this element has always been around in such numbers. I guess the JFK freaks have been at it for 40+ years, so nothing new under the sun.
Anyway, it seems true that there was little resistance and he was basically executed. 3 out of 4 were unarmed. That's fine with me, but it actually makes me wonder if things are less manipulated by the gov't and media than they were 50 years ago.
I would imagine that back in WWII, they would have created a more colorful image for propaganda purposes and the press would never have questioned it. Take that conspiracy buff!
It's interesting to think about what you can and can't say without being called a crank or a conspiracy kook.
For instance, saying that the US government and media lied to get us into the Iraq war is okay to say. Of course, everyone concedes that now, but even in before the war in 2002-2003 you could still basically get away with saying it, although you didn't hear it too much on TV. I guess people basically accept that governments lie to start wars.
9/11 is sacred though. Can't even consider the possibility that the government and media are lying about this one. Why is that? Is saying that elements within the US participated in the killing of 3000 people just too much? Of course, more Americans than that have died in Iraq (along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis probably, if you count them), but that was sort of "indirect", so it's not as bad, and you can talk about it. They can lie to start wars that kill people, but they cannot kill people as part of lying to start a war.
Then there's bin Laden. Before October 2004, lots of people were speculating that bin Laden was already dead. You could say it, even though the official stance was that he was still alive and out to get us. But then the 2004 video came out, and it became not okay to say that bin Laden was dead. Nor was it ever okay to speculate that bin Laden might have died at any time from 2004 until now. The whole issue entered kook territory after that video. Evidently saying that the government/mass media faked a video is very not okay. Video is clearly sacred. They can lie to start wars, and maybe even forge documents, but of course they wouldn't fake a video - that's just crazy talk.
That seems to be true of discussions of the mass media in general. "Bias"? Sure, no problem. Lies? Okay. But outright staged or hoaxed video? Never! Only a lunatic would even suggest such a thing! Video is sacred!
@Wes
The SEALs don't take orders from the head of the CIA. The only Special Forces division he has command over is the SAD. He wouldn't be able to insert himself into the chain of command like that.
Anon:
Just for completeness, note that the set of people who might have released doctored videos of OBL includes many people not working for the US government, notably including AQ people wanting to keep the funds and recruits coming in, foreign governments who wanted to see us continue screwing around in Afghanistan, even private companies hoping the war on terror gravy train will continue.
To believe the wilder theories going around (say, OBL died years ago and the whole raid is made up), Obama would have to trust that none of the people in a position to reveal that (probably hundreds of people) will ever do so--among other things, this would give a hundred or so people a devastating blackmail threat. That's implausible as hell.
Truthers are batshizzle crazy.
Maybe some of them are.
But if you would be so good: Please explain why WTC-7 collapsed the way it did.
If you -- or anyone -- could do that, you'd definitely shut a lot of 'truthers' up.
I don't know if I'm a truther or not. But the collapse of WTC-7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition -- it was uniform, rapid, and complete. And I just do not see how a modern (it was less than 15 years old), steel-framed building could come undone like that due to fire (which was more widespread and serious than some 'truthers' like to admit) and/or superficial structural damage (on one side).
Compare to, e.g., the Windsor Tower in Madrid, which burned like a torch all night, yet still did not collapse.
It just does not add up.
But 'going there' opens up a whole can of worms, to say the least.
The fact that there are no photos, no videos, no *body*, in fact, no nuthin' leaves very little to build even a mediocre conspiracy theory upon.
I'm not sure if was planned this way but in retrospect, it seems to have been the best way to handle things. Bin Laden is dead and most people thankfully have accepted that fact and moved on.
"The Seals should have taken Bin Laden alive and squeezed his head in a vice until one of his eyeballs popped out."
They did. Then they fed Osama ta da fishes, wearin' a pair o' cement overshoes.
Whiskey: I do believe that Jarrett and Michelle dominate Obama's decision making, and the man himself is both weak and lazy.
Obama never had a real father around, and his Mom just dumped him at age 9 on his grandparents who were White. So he lets Jarrett and Michelle walk all over him, when both have a tin ear. A skilled top advisor would never let the Birth Certificate fester to put doubts in people's minds. Nor would they have glitz/glamor as the main image for Obama. I do think Ulsterman's insider was accurate -- Emmanuel got bounced because Jarrett is Obama's emotional lifeline and Emmanuel is just another politico. I think the so-called (likely fabricated) Dem insider is wrong on Daley bouncing Jarrett. Or the pull of top Dem donors. Obama can raise billions in the Persian Gulf alone, and Jarrett is his wife Michelle's crony. Michelle Obama rules her husband with an iron fist.
Okay, this is getting a little off-topic for this thread [given that its title is "Capital Punishment"], but why do you suppose that Obama would gravitate so strongly to black women, of all people?
Why are black women now the dominant influence in his life?
After all, the official story line is that, during his formative years, his life was dominated by his white mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and his white grandmother, Marilyn Payne Dunham.
I don't know of any black women who figure prominently [or who even appear at all] in the standard narrative of his childhood & adolescence [unless maybe Frank Marshall Davis had a few of them lying around his bachelor pad - although Wikipedia says that FMD's wife* had been white (prior to their divorce, in 1970)].
Status post the release of the "abstract" of the Hawaiian birth certificate, I guess we're all just supposed to get in line and swallow the idea that Stanley Ann was the biological mother, and that Barack Sr was the biological father.
But to a Darwinist, little Barry's gravitation towards black women [now that he is an adult] would amount to some awfully strong prima facie evidence in favor of a conjecture which Jack Cashill had been working on - that Stanley Ann was actually his big sister, that in reality, Stanley Armour Dunham had knocked up some poor negro girl [whose name is now lost to history], and that Stanley Ann only agreed to pretend to be the child's mother so as to spare Madelyn the humiliation of Stanley Armour's adultery.
Whatever the case may be, Barry was raised by white [& Pacific-Rim-Asian] folk, but when he came of age, he most emphatically turned his back on them, gave them the metaphorical finger, went hard-native, and never looked back.
He even seems to prefer black & brown men - Donald Young, Reggie Love, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo - as his homosexual lovers.
Anyway, for whatever reason, Obama really, really, REALLY hates whites [the Dunhams] and PR-Asians [the Soetoros, his classmates at Punahou, etc].
*Steve - serious question - do you know anything about this "white Chicago socialite", Helen Canfield, by whom Frank Marshall Davis had FIVE children?!?
By the standards of that era - late 1940s, early 1950s - that must have been some shockingly, radically deviant behavior - a white woman making FIVE children with a negro?!?
I'd really like to learn more about that lady - if you're interested in "Deep State" conspiracies, then her social acquaintances might figure prominently in Deep State's Midwestern Branch Office.
E.g. I wonder whether she moved in the same circles as Bill Ayers's father, Thomas G Ayers?
I disliked Bush almost as much as Obama - two sides of the same frontman coin.
Still, I can't see the Bush/Chaney front mucking up this operation as badly as Obama has:
* Waiting almost 9mos before acting once they found out where Osama was living in Aug 2010.
* Delaying 18hrs before giving the final go ahead for the operation. Not only that, going out on a golf outing because the stress and indecision was to too much.
* Screwing up the main responsibility admin had - communicating the facts and reasoning to Americans and the world with clarity and force. How could they screw up so many things about the story within 24hrs?
* Osama armed/unarmed
* Firefight/unarmed non/resistance
* Woman/Wife killed/wounded
* Factually wrong cover story for quickly dumping the evidence at sea (Wahhabist abhor shrines and should be buried in the ground anonmyously)
Although similar deceptions were at play, the Bush/Chaney had discipline, had well-planned/executed covers and nearly everyone always kept to the offical coverstory. The Obama Crew is amateur hour in contrast.
Obama&Co was lucky the SEALs executed (pun intended?) nearly flawlessly. Everyone is overlooking admin incompetance and focusing on the SEAL team success.
Truth:
Unless they involve NAMs, Steve seems to take a lot of mass media swill as gospel.
1) Muslim Arabs are non-Asian minorities.
2) "Execution" is not the prevailing media narrative, although that may be changing.
I.e., no evidence except the government's story (if you call that evidence).
Barack Obama to release up to 2,000 photographs of prisoner abuse
President Barack Obama is to release up to 2,000 photographs of alleged abuse at American prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan in a move which will reignite the scandal surrounding Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5215068/Barack-Obama-to-release-up-to-2000-photographs-of-prisoner-abuse.html
- and BO says we can't release Osama's death photo because of the possible reaction!
"Anonymous said...
9/11 is sacred though. Can't even consider the possibility that the government and media are lying about this one. Why is that?"
What on earth do you mean? Can't consider the possibility? Thousands have, and do. YouTube is stuffed full of truther videos. 911 conspiracy theorists get up on national TV and talk about it. Have Whoopi Goldberg, Charlie Sheen, and Rosie O'Donnel sabotaged their careers by publicly espousing 911 conpsiracy theories? No, they're doing just fine. Has Alex Jones been dragged off in the middle of the night, or been found killed under suspicious circumstances? No. He's more popular than ever. It's a pretty lame conpiracy that won't even bother to silence a whistle-blower with his own nationally syndicated radio-show.
Of course, you might argue that Goldberg, Sheen, and O'Donnel are idiots, so who cares what they say. To which I would reply - yes, stupid people believe stupid things - that's what makes them stupid. You might ask yourself why you are so eager to believe things that stupid people believe.
The Seals were worried about Osama having a suicide vest on, so they weren't about to take chances.
I hope Osama had plenty of time to realize he was about to be shot, and that he had a chance to beg for his life beforehand.
But I can't tell what the heck actually happened. What I don't understand is how the Obama crew couldn't have figured out beforehand what story they wanted to tell. And if they were surprised by what actually happened, why couldn't they just come out and say something reasonable about it, within the parameters of security concerns.
There's just something weirdly incompetent about Obama and his top people.
There's just something weirdly incompetent about Obama and his top people.
"Weirdly"?
He is our first quota-hire president.
We in the HBD-o-sphere would say, "predictably".
I know I shouldn't say this, but I don't care that Bin Laden is dead. The real and immediate threat to the US is our minority occupied White House, black street criminals, and the Serape Tsunami (mass Mexican immigration).
Nobody constantly sleeps in an suicide bomber vest. They wear them on a mission. Bad explanation.
If we were so worried about the vest thing, we'd have killed everybody (we left the women and children alone for the most part) or we would've just bombed.
Bin Laden was found with hundreds of cash on hand too and was believed ready to flee in case of capture.
"Why are black women now the dominant influence in his life?"
Maybe it's a coincidence and he isn't obsessed with skin color; just because you are, don't mean every one else is.
"Anyway, for whatever reason, Obama really, really, REALLY hates whites [the Dunhams] and the Bidens, and 53% of his administration, and oh wait, does he hate or like William Ayers this week...oh and is Rahm Emmanuel white this week...
"1) Muslim Arabs are non-Asian minorities.
Not when they're in Pakistan, they they're somewhat-Asian majorities.
2) "Execution" is not the prevailing media narrative, although that may be changing.
No, but the fact that the damn fictional thing actually happened is.
"He even seems to prefer black & brown men - Donald Young, Reggie Love, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo - as his homosexual lovers."
Oh great, you've turned Steve's chatboard into a Lady's Sewing Circle again.
"Still, I can't see the Bush/Chaney front mucking up this operation as badly as Obama has:"
Sure you can, Sport; Bush didn't 'catch' him, remember.
"Isaac Bickerstaff said...
I hope Osama had plenty of time to realize he was about to be shot, and that he had a chance to beg for his life beforehand."
If he did have the time, I don't imagine that he begged. For all his faults, I don't expect that cowardice was one of them. A coward would not have chosen the career path that he did.
"A coward would not have chosen the career path that he did."
Anon, that's TWO (?!) logical posts in two days!!!
What in the hell has gotten into you?
If vengeance was what we wanted, swift execution was merciful, unsatisfying, and anti-climactic. We should have let Mad Max take care of him. Lock him in a car and let it burn.
"Anyway, for whatever reason, Obama really, really, REALLY hates whites [the Dunhams] and the Bidens, and 53% of his administration, and oh wait, does he hate or like William Ayers this week...oh and is Rahm Emmanuel white this week...
T -
I don't mean to be a jerk, but Whiskey's point was that Obama is so dominated by Valerie Jarrett - both intellectually, and emotionally - that he can't make even the simplest of decisions without her approval.
And that Leon Panetta himself had to overrule Obama's indecisiveness and order the USN Seal assault [and the ensuing execution of Bin Laden].
So the question remains: Why does Obama so despise his white half?
What happened in his childhood to leave him with this enduring, overbearing, all-consuming [and, arguably, crippling] drive to divorce hiself from the white race?
What is this [seemingly animal] magnetism which draws him into black culture?
It's really bizarre.
Stanley Ann was an only child, so he has no aunts or uncles who are white [ergo no white first cousins], but he had a number of great-aunts and great-uncles who were white, at least one of whom is still alive - a great aunt in Chapel Hill, NC - I wonder when he last made contact with her?
Years ago?
Decades ago?
..."Anyway, for whatever reason, Obama really, really, REALLY hates whites [the Dunhams] and the Bidens, and 53% of his administration, and oh wait, does he hate or like William Ayers this week...oh and is Rahm Emmanuel white this week"...
I like the explanatory power of the concept "oikophobes" v "oikophiles".
Liberals constantly coin and promote ideological neologiosms. Controlling the language is a fine way to channel thinking and the fact that liberals have a near monopoly on the recognized meanings of words has been very destructive for the country for decades. I would hope that everyone who has been called "racist" or "homophobic" might agree.
Anyway, "oikophobe" defined:
"Oikos" is Greek for "household". In English its usually in the latinized form "eco", as in economy and ecology. So an oikophobe is someone who detests the people, traditions and norms of his own household, the household being his entire society. Its the opposite of xenophobe, "xenos" being Greek for stranger.
To me, this explains some of the enthusiasm for mass immigration among our upper class. The country they despise will be fundamentally changed. Universities seem to be centers of oikophobia.
Its useless when people call Obama an anti-white racist. "Racist" is a very narrow term that's used in such a way that no liberal can ever really be successfully accused of being one. (Just imagine a white AG calling whites "my people". Would that comment have been forgotten by the press in a week?)
Obama is an oikophobe. As I learned from Steve Sailer a storng theme of his life is a variation on his mother's cri de coeur that the American businessmen with whom her then husband did business were "not my people". Barack identifies normal whites as being insiders in the "oikos" and non-whites the outsiders. He seems to have little problem with whites like Ayers who are blatantly oikophobic.
Those who are against mass immigration are often called "xenophobes" when in fact we are "oikophiles". I personally like the country into which I was born many years ago, but I realize it's been damaged every time I press "1" for English.
For the record, I'm against capital punishment, but supposing that I were pro-death-penalty...
...I would still want Bin Ladin him taken alive. Now that he's dead he can't be paraded around in a vanquished state and *then* publicly executed, which is exactly the sort of symbolism that needs to be broadcast to terrorists.
BTW just to reiterate i am against the death penalty because of my personal beliefs. I just don't see why, if he was to die, the propaganda value of his death was completely squandered.
It's interesting to think about what you can and can't say without being called a crank or a conspiracy kook.
For instance, saying that the US government and media lied to get us into the Iraq war is okay to say. Of course, everyone concedes that now, but even in before the war in 2002-2003 you could still basically get away with saying it, although you didn't hear it too much on TV.
No, it is not true that everyone concedes that the governmedia lied to justify the invasion of Iraq. Where I live, only a distinct minority has been able to grasp this fact.
To believe the wilder theories going around (say, OBL died years ago and the whole raid is made up), Obama would have to trust that none of the people in a position to reveal that (probably hundreds of people) will ever do so....
Not at all. He would just have to trust that the gatekeepers in the media would suppress the story.
I think Steve is completely wrong. What we needed was a 12 month trial, complete with grand-standing attorneys (is Ramsey Clarke still alive?) and hordes of commentators telling us that OBL didn't really do it, it was some Puerto Rican guy.
Then, after he was (hopefully) found guilty, then we could listen to why capital punishment for OBL was all wrong. And then after he was sentenced to life, read book after book as to why he was REALLY innocent or didn't get a "fair trial".
Good grief, you still have dumbshits defending Homma and the Bataan Death March because he didn't get a "fair trial". Think of how many books these dumbasses would write about an OBL trial.
So yeah Steve, you were completely wrong.
Shlmo,
'Don't look back in anger' live at the City of Manchester stadium is also very, very good.
Headache: What bothers me is that Steve seems to believe the official narrative.
I'd actually tend to cut Steve a lot of slack on this. The blog is under his real name and he needs to retain "plausiable deniability" on these sorts of things.
>The fact that there are no photos, no videos, no *body*, in fact, no nuthin' leaves very little to build even a mediocre conspiracy theory upon<
And very little to build an official story on.
Believability depends on reputation. What is the US government's reputation? On almost every matter about which I have personal knowledge, it lies.
People are beginning to ask why they should believe a liar. Liars are not trustworthy.
Is it really necessary to provide a list of the lies the government tells us on a routine basis? Or of the lies it perpetrates about matters of war and peace?
It might be fun to start such a list. I'll go first.
1. Gulf of Tonkin. Next.
Someone who believes any official story of this government
a. in the absence of evidence for same, and
b. in the face of rather crude problems with it (the problems with this one have been discussed already ad infinitum everywhere)
- is mentally non est, or is in its pay. There might be a third alternative, but it wouldn't be significantly more honorable.
As an air traveler, I was greatly relieved when the black boxes in the Air France A330 crash were recently recovered from the South Atlantic. If they can be read, we may finally solve a very disturbing mystery.
It is for this reason that I find the killing of OBL very worrying - the key to a global network shot dead for publicity and vengeance, when we could easily be extracting tons of useful intel from him. The ultimate black box of 9/11 - Osama's brain has a bullet in it, and was dumped in the ocean, on the same day that the black boxes from AF447 were plucked from it.
Nice
Post a Comment