See that in Paris the 'religion of peace' has drawn blood once again in the name of Islamist 'purity' - Tobin over at Commentary gets it right. As long as the liberal elite and its media cohorts continue to turn a blind eye to the true root and cause of Islamist extremism by apologizing for and refusing to defend Western values and thereby indulging the inherent dysfunction that drives Muslim culture this problem is never going away and will very likely get much worse.

There is no such thing as a 'religion of peace' - any religion - strike that - any absolutist belief system is vulnerable to the embrace of extremism in the name of safeguarding its 'sacred truths' unless it is acted upon by extenuating circumstances that mitigate and tame the threat. There are several key elements to the Western Tradition that allowed us to tame the excesses of Christianity and other absolutist claimants - but probably central to that development is fact that the Western Tradition was well on its way to being a thing of great value long before Christianity as an influential belief system mattered and the central tenets of Christian belief reflect that reality. Hell, Athenian democracy flourished almost a thousand years before Christianity did and I'd say facts like that are the reason why Christianity is inherently not political and therefore could be tamed - it has of course been used for political purposes and Western imperialism definitely had an evangelical side to it but Christianity's focus on personal revelation and its lack of access to political power during its developmental stage means it by nature, at its core is apolitical and not in need of a political apparatus in order to fully express and protect its values - or at least this focus on personal revelation make it a religion that would be very appreciative or accepting of a political system that encouraged freedom of conscience. None of that can be said of Islam which is why Muslim culture has utterly failed to tame the intolerant excesses of Islamist thinking.

As long as the West refuses to acknowledge this reality we will be hounded by the fallout from it. I mean look at the liberal elite's attitude towards Israel, it's completely detached from the reality that riles the region - here's a hint guys: Israel is not the problem in the Mideast - the country could disappear tomorrow and the region would still be an intolerant, backward, dysfunctional mess. Or look at the West's refusal to even comment on the Islamist tyranny our presumed ally Erdogan is slowly building up in Turkey. Or how 'bout England, so cowed by Islamist grievance that it has with astounding blindness indulged the flourishing of Sharia courts - this is the country that gave us the Magna Carta and John Locke and constitutional democracy for fuck sake! But in order to preserve the delusions of the liberal worldview it has planted a bomb under the very foundations of its culture and lit the fuse.

There are very good reasons why Western culture and Muslim culture have travelled such different paths over the last 1500 years - but look no further than the fact that it was several centuries ago that Elizabeth felt free enough to state that it was none of her business dictating to a man's private conscience what his god should be - try saying that today in a Muslim country, especially as a woman, and you're like to lose your life.

[Kevin Williamson makes my point better than me - culture matters because outcomes produced by cultural differences matter - and judging by outcomes for all its flaws Western culture is far superior to Muslim culture - which is why indulgence of Islamism at the expense of Western values is so idiotic - yet dare say such things and the left will beat you down as a racist when in fact race has absolutely nothing to do with culture - and then in turn outrage from the thought police of the left empowers the far right because it then sweeps up people discouraged by the pronounced idiocy of modern liberalism - as many have pointed out the big winner of todays violence is Marine Le Pen - and with that you're heading down a road that looks quite perilous.

To put it in its simplest terms the desire of liberals to try and frame Islamic extremism as an aberration from true Islam flies in the face of reality, common sense and history - we know from our own experience that when religion gets tied to political devices in the name of exerting power and control extremist behavior is to be expected - and the problem with Islam is that unlike Christianity it has a strong desire, a need for political devices - The Koran clearly enunciates the importance of a political component to Islam - you'll find elements of that in the Old Testament, sure, but not the gospels. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Extremist behavior in the name of Islam is no more an aberration than witch burnings and the inquisition were aberrations of Christian theology - absolutist belief systems will tend towards extreme behavior if not acted upon by countervailing forces and given the strong political component attached to Islam countervailing forces in the Muslim world have been rendered virtually nonexistent. I mean wasn't there a poll done last year that showed a large majority of people in Muslim countries believe it is just that apostasy and blasphemy are against the law? And this nearly 500 years after Elizabeth claimed such things were none of her business. Seems to me that says it all. Think about it, taking such deep offence to a cartoon depiction of Mohammed or any depiction of Mohammed for that matter is a clear expression of Islam's need for political devices summoned in the name of protecting the 'purity' of the faith - that is why this extremism is not an aberration, it is in fact rather to be expected - and that is why Islam is fundamentally, not just provisionally, at odds with the core values that make up the Western Tradition - and the huge problem for Europe is they've imported this alien culture in large numbers without ever it seems considering the notion that it might not be a real good idea and therefore have only recently woken up to disturbing reality that many Muslims are not just failing to integrate into the prevailing culture but are increasingly hostile to the notion of integrating into the prevailing culture]

Is Carly Fiorina getting serious about running for president? I hope so. The best and possibly only way to beat Hillary [or Warren] in 2016 is to take the whole Obama landmark election redux off the table - as with Obama the media is gonna play the 'historic moment' message to death and Hillary will skate by without ever having to enunciate a policy approach that is even remotely viable or in touch with reality - which is what she will need to do because the liberal base does't like her and therefore she's gonna have to talk a whole lot of 'hope and change' type nonsense. The only sure way to defeat this menace is for the GOP to put a woman at the top of the ticket - take away the only thing other than her husband that Hillary has going for her and force her to move to the left in order to squeeze out Warren and keep the base happy or move to the centre so as to make a case for herself that is about something other than how 'historic' her presidency would be. So if there's a viable female conservative out there with serious credentials, and the republicans I think have several, then all things being equal I want her at the top of the GOP ticket.

The Scalise problem and his somewhat or seemingly tenuous ties to racists points again to the biggest problem for Republicans being media bias, not perceptions of diversity, not changing demographics etc - although those two things remain problematic - and I should say I'm not quite sure why Scalise has not done the smart and honorable thing and stepped down as whip. 

But that aside, forget Obama reaching out to a truly awful person like Al Sharpton - that probably isn't but certainly could be nothing more than a cynical political calculation - but simply look at Obama's long-term relationship with a person with the extreme ideological proclivities of Jeremiah Wright and how without media bias throwing smokescreens across the quite worrying implications of that relationship there's no way he could've become president - certainly a Republican with similar baggage wouldn't even have bothered to run given the shit storm the media would've sent his way. 

In short media bias inflates sometimes in absurdly untruthful ways conservative flaws while covering up or simply dismissing those of liberals - and if Republicans cannot figure out a way to mitigate this problem or find a way to navigate around it convincingly then national elections will continue to be hard things for them to win. 

With hyperbolic incitement and dishonest propaganda from the racial grievance industry of America now having resulted in the killing of two cops in New York it's helpful to keep in mind why this problem is not going to go away quickly - and simply put that's because liberals need the racist narrative as the grievance industry spins it in order to not only win elections but to legitimize their ideological givens - they can't have the conversation about problems afflicting the black community in America be about the dysfunction of that community being the result of Liberal policies and therefore they need it to be about racism whether that's true or not - thus the racial grievance industry and the galling influence wielded by despicable charlatans like Sharpton etc. etc. - and as long as the media is going to support and endorse this nonsense it's going to stay with us for quite a long time. 

The interesting question for me is how long will Latinos and Asians continue to support this nonsense by voting liberal? Latinos I don't know, they have some conflicted interests here - but Asians? My guess is the Asian community is not impressed. The sad irony that underscores my point here is that the two cops killed were not white, they were a Latino and an Asian - some gut wrenching symbolism there. 

Obama's comments on the Sony hack were pretty weak and insubstantial and incoherent and misguided, no? And this from a guy who manages to be all those things just about every time he steps in front of a microphone, so to stand out in this regard seems to be of significance. 

What on earth was he talking about when he said Sony should have come to him before deciding to pull the film when in fact the National security apparatus should've been on top of this thing from the very beginning? And why the hell did he feel it right to accuse Sony of having made a mistake by pulling the film when clearly they didn't appear to have any options? Was he trying to scapegoat them, trying to make excuses for his own lack of action?

As I've said cyber attacks by one nation upon another are fascinating because there are no set guidelines and no history to define what an appropriate response should be - and this confusion is further complicated when dealing with a leader like Obama, a man who clearly disdains the use of American power and is much more comfortable in the role of American apologist and our great giver of progressively fluffy speeches.

Update: reports today of North Korean internet going down - ahh... that sounds more like the first line of a joke than a serious response by us - I suppose this could be the U.S. sending a cyber shell across the bow of NK but I doubt it - at least I hope not since it would be a wholly insufficient response and misguided I think. I'm not at all sure that a cyber response from us would be a good idea at all - us trying to set a deterrence precedent here I think is full of all kinds of problems - and I'm not sure it's a good idea for us to reveal what our capabilities are - and finally what amounts to a proportional response when you're talking about a bankrupt country like North Korea? There may be some value to a cyber warning shot but I think the punishment should be of a more traditional nature. 

Do I have a problem with Obama without any input from congress undoing a longstanding Cuba policy for no apparently good reason? I think so. Is it going to help the Cuban people and lead to more freedoms for them? Seems unlikely - in fact this may guarantee that another generation of socialist pricks is motivated to keep the abuse in place after the Castros soon depart. Obama claims he is now well sutuated to influence that next generation because his largesse has bought good will which strikes one as remarkably naive - reality seems to be rather you've surrendered your main leverage for bringing about such change and in doing so generated optics that say to all our enemies out there that under Obama American will remain weak, pliable, ingratiating and apologetic. 

In short  Obama's rationale for this gesture doesn't make much sense - unless of course the whole point of it is to keep the socialist loving base happy and related to that but of more significance possibly pave the way for getting rid of Gitmo - and my guess is, since the move is hard to justify otherwise, that's exactly what's going on here.

People who defend the action by saying the embargo etc. hasn't worked are missing the point - a statement has been made regarding what kind of regimes America will tolerate at its borders, if you back away from that statement without getting anything in return that is a capitulation that sends a message that is quite different. Yes Nixon went to China but we got something strategically in return that was valuable - yes we normalized relations with another questionable regime in Vietnam but again strategically we get something out of them - what does Obama's capitulation get us strategically? Nothing good or worth the bad optics that I can see. The only person's interests served by this action seem to be Obama's and his progressive acolytes - but then again I guess we should not be surprised by this. 

The successful cyber attack on Sony resulting in the scuttling of the reviled movie raises curious point Ive remarked on before: when is a cyber attack damaging and egregious enough to represent a legitimate act of war? Not saying the Sony case is that but it does show just how much harm can be done by a motivated enemy - yet there are no established guidelines out there indicating when an act crosses line separating criminal behavior from warlike behavior - and that lack of clarity can definitely lead to problems of encouraging the enemy because the victim is unsure of how to respond. 

Notice how the liberal media portrays Obama's 'executive' actions as being against wishes of a political opposition (read racists) and not the will of the people or at least the desires of the people. Polls show and the last election proved that the man's ideas and policies are simply not popular and yet liberals continue to act as if they have a mandate. I wonder if media bias which has served liberal interests for so long is now coming back to haunt them - ie they've tricked themselves into believing that since  the New York Times et al have no problem with Obama's progressive agenda being wielded with executive abuse that the American people are fine with it too. The latest example of this is now his move on Cuba which I'm guessing most voters will not look upon kindly even though most lack the wherewithal to realistically grasp foreign policy questions - but hell, even the lefty Washington Post has panned the move by Obama which may prove a watershed moment in the way the media portrays Dear Leader. 

I see Erdogan has arrested some more of the ever dwindling 'opposition' media - you really start to understand why Obama was such a big fan of this guy. And again I ask: why is Turkey still a member of NATO or at the very least why is no one in NATO saying something about what is going on there? Erdogan does not believe in the values that underwrite Western civilization, he does not respect or care for the fundamental principles that make up the Western tradition and therefore how on earth can you expect him to serve the interests of the West?

Torture against American values? Institutionalized torture, sure. Torture or forms of interrogation that seem excessively harsh - well obviously not depending on circumstances. What

would be against American values is being denied the right to ask the question in the first place. But when it comes to actions called forth under duress that seem to push the boundaries of what's right,  America has clearly gone there repeatedly, as have all great powers, democracies or not. This is not to equivocate or make excuses - it's to state an obvious reality of power: preserving it under challenging circumstances will often require actions that may prove hard to justify once circumstances return to 'normal'. This will be especially true if one is stuck trying to placate the hurt feelings of liberals whose delusions are not easily assuaged.