Tag: terrorism

Categories
Accountability media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Crooked News Network

HIllary Clinton, CNN, bomb, bombing, bias, illustration

A recent Gallup poll found Americans’ trust in their news media has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded. Only 32 percent expressed either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of confidence in the press “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.”

Trust among Republican is down to a mere 14 percent.

Sad statistics . . . but not surprising. Remember Rathergate in 2004?

Over the weekend, CNN earned its “Clinton News Network” nickname by blatantly misreporting Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s responses to the terrorist bombings in New York and New Jersey.

Both candidates initially called these incidents “bombings” — even before government officials had definitively confirmed the obvious. But in its reports, CNN edited out Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to that effect and ran with the angle that Mr. Trump was irresponsible for saying . . . well, what she said.

“The press has since largely slammed Trump for referring to the explosion as a ‘bomb’ too soon,” reported The Hill, adding that major media outlets have somehow “also failed to mention Clinton in focusing on Trump.”

Some blame the public’s low esteem for the media on Mr. Trump’s scathing attacks. The Donald dubbed CNN, for example, “disgusting and disgraceful” over this latest controversy.

He’s right.

Enough. CNN’s desire to propagate stories favorable to one candidate and unfavorable to another has spiraled down to the withholding of relevant information, for no better reason than to mislead the public. As a news junkie with an itchy trigger finger on my TV remote, I’ve stopped clicking over to CNN.

Now, Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown will be even more so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

HIllary Clinton, CNN, bomb, bombing, bias, illustration

 

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies

The Other Half of the Truth

Jason Falconer, terrorism, gun, gun control, media bias, illustration, meme

Another terrorist event. And another.

Douglas A. French, of the National Review, while writing about Islam and terrorism, innocently drew up a half-truth: “In Saint Cloud, Minn., Dahir Adan’s family identified him as the man who stabbed eight people in a mall before being shot and killed by an armed civilian, an off-duty police officer named Jason Falconer.” So, what is the missing half of the truth?

The heroic Mr. Falconer was armed, sure. And an off-duty cop. But he was more civilian than cop, for the weapon he had on him was concealed (by permit), and he is the owner of a gun range.

Actually, a firearms training business that teaches “individuals the mindset, knowledge and skills needed to be successful with firearms in order to secure their personal safety or that of their family, at home or in public.”

Falconer used to be a police chief, and still works part-time as a police officer. But, we should emphasize, his main gig is training. Indeed, he’s an advocate concealed carry and a member of the dreaded National Rifle Association.

I am not criticizing Mr. French. His focus was on something else. And he did use the word “civilian,” which is not the case in most coverage. But that “off-duty cop” meme is everywhere — pushed by most journalists.

Could they not want us to think that mere civilians can do good in a world of too much conflict and crime — if armed?

Let’s honor Jason Falconer. And let’s also reaffirm his message, the importance of concealed carry and trained firearms use by good people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Poor Obama, gun control script in hand

 

Printable PDF

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

10 Out of 10

Muslim, terrorist, Jihadist, guns, gun rights, 2nd Amendment, illustration, meme

10 out of 10 terrorist Jihadists agree…

American gun rights must be restricted!

 

Categories
Accountability folly moral hazard national politics & policies

The Longest War

Afghanistan, Obama, war, quagmire, illustration, photo

Is there a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel?

President Obama announced, Wednesday, that he would leave more troops in Afghanistan when he exits office than previously planned. Instead of cutting the current troop deployment of 10,000 down to 5,500 soldiers, Obama will now keep 8,400 “in country,” continuing our longest war.

Entering the 15th year of armed conflict and military occupation, thousands of lives lost along with hundreds of billions in treasure spent to equip and train Afghan forces and build infrastructure — and buy off warlords — recent U.N. estimates find the tyrannical Taliban controlling more actual territory in Afghanistan today than before the 2001 U.S. invasion.

Don’t blame the military. Our all-volunteer army is the greatest fighting force on the planet. But militaries break things; building new institutions and especially new modes of thinking among a foreign population is more difficult.

No political magic exists capable of turning Afghanistan into Arizona. Not this year, not the next, a decade from now, or two decades . . . not even a century down the road.

We must never forget that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”

And the politics don’t add up. There’s no credible plan to “win” in Afghanistan. All our leaders can muster is the witless maintenance of a deadly charade: nation-building a nation that balks at being built, hoping the roof falls in on someone else later . . . in the other party.

Sometimes courage means recognizing reality.

Our men and women in uniform have better things to do than fight and die for decades in a no-win war.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Afghanistan, Obama, war, quagmire, illustration, photo

 

Photo credit: Joseph Swafford on Flickr, courtesty of DVIDSHUB

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency moral hazard national politics & policies

Secrecy, Conspiracy, and the Sauds

secrets, government, Saudi, 911, conspiracy, illustration

The U. S. cleaves to some bizarre security standards. That is, about secrecy. Critics have been complaining for years about how “liberal” the federal government is in classifying information as secret. Or, put another way, how stingy the government is in providing us with information.

Not liberal at all.

This problem inhabits every nook and cranny of official Washington. But it’s most obvious in the case of 2002’s 9/11 report, from which 28 pages were removed. For reasons of state secrets. And that, as the BBC related this weekend, is the likely cause of much suspicion against Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia? Yes. The country whose sands were walked upon by Mohammad, the Prophet, is also the country that gave birth to 15 of the 18 terrorist skyjackers, as well as spreading the Wahabist spin on jihad throughout the Islamic world.

So, by withholding portions of the report from the public, the government fed the flame of conjecture. And with it, the belief in a Saud conspiracy and a Bush and Obama cover-up.

The withholding of information does not give us a univocal perspective. We don’t know what is being kept from our eyes and ears. So when I read the BBC report, which stated that the “probable publication” of the previously classified parts “will clear Saudi Arabia of any responsibility, CIA chief John Brennan has said,” I get suspicious.

Good, if true. But the timing of this Brennan opinion, on the weekend of the Orlando massacre?

Stinks of spin and deflection by the government, against us . . . who wonder, not without reason, about “conspiracies.”

Should we trust the newly de-classified segments?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

secrets, government, Saudi, 911, conspiracy, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Inch, Meet Mile

NSA, surveillance, 1984, Big Brother

Give ’em an inch, they will take . . . a continent.

When Edward Snowden broke the secrecy of the NSA’s illegal surveillance on innocent Americans, many folks (especially those in government) said the snooping was OK, because

  1. it is necessary for our security, and, besides,
  2. the collected data would only be used against terrorists, as supervised by the FISA courts.

Well, it is now known that, whatever “a.” may be, “b.” is a dead letter, swept away by broken promises and a new information practice.

Yes, the National Security Agency now shares its (unconstitutionally obtained) information with various and sundry government agencies, for a wide variety of purposes.

Last week, Radley Balko noted in the Washington Post that “the ‘sneak-and-peek’ provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy.”

That didn’t take long, eh?

Many of us have opposed the NSA’s data collection on American citizens because we believed the data would not continue to be used just for the alleged purpose they were collected.

It is not a “slippery slope” argument so much as an “inch-mile” one. Government tends to grow, in size and especially in scope.

And usually at the expense of our freedoms.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

NSA, surveillance, 1984, Big Brother