So we see that the Swedish martial spirit did not die out with the Vikings of the 11th century (Swedish Vikings mostly sailed up rivers into what we now know as Russia. It was left to the Norwegians and Danes to harass Britain and Western Europe).

And, strange as it seems in the light of their constant peacnikery of the 20th century, that spirit is still alive today. For good reasons the proximity of Russia gives everybody at the Eastern end of the Baltic the heebie-jeebies. Going by their invariant and very successful form since the 11th century, we would expect the English to deal with such a peril by forming alliances with other countries. Not so the Swedes. They cherish their independence. And they can realistically do that because of confidence in their military. They have been prepared to fight Russia alone if need be. The Finns did it under Mannerheim in the early stages of WWII so they have a successful example to go by. But the Swedish military has to be independent too — so we come to the Swedish defence industries.

With a population about the same size as Israel, it is amazing what the Swedish defence industries have produced. The famous Bofors gun was used for antiaircraft defence by BOTH sides in WWII and is still in use today. And Bofors are not sitting on their laurels. I could go on to talk about Swedish military aircraft and submarines but I think that for the moment I will just say a few words about Bofors.

Aside from nuclear weapons, the most fearsome thing about the old Soviet Union was their vast fleet of tanks. And Bofors produced an answer to that in the form of the BILL1, a fearsome antitank missile. Bofors turned out tens of thousands of them, quite enough to wipe out the entire Soviet tank fleet with a bit of luck. It is a guided missile that flies just a bit ABOVE the tank and fires a shaped charge down onto the turret of the tank at just the right time — the turret being a tank’s weakest point. That must be a considerable challenge to the missile’s controller but the Swedes must be confident that trained operators can pull it off. Below is a video of it in action:

(Note: Some mischievous person has been circulating the above video together with a claim that it shows an Israeli missile using white phosphorous to destroy a Syrian tank. Israel has been much criticized for its limited use of white phosporous in Gaza but insists that it only used phosphorous in accordance with the laws of war. Using it in an anti-tank weapon would heap criticism on Israel so the false claim attached to the above video is malicious)

And to keep up with advances in tank technology Bofors have produced a BILL2 missile that is even more capable than BILL1. (The “B” stands for Bofors)

It seems sad that such an apparently effective weapon is not held in the arsenals of Western countries but Swedish neutrality forbids it. Only a few other “neutral” countries such as Austria and Brazil have it. So Sweden has had to bear all the costs of developing and deploying the weapon by itself — a considerable challenge. Most armament manufacturers are keen to sell their stuff to all and sundry — to help defray the development costs.

And even if Sweden did decide to sell BILL2 more widely, it might not get much uptake. I remember when I was in the Australian Army during the Vietnam war, we deployed the prime Swedish antitank weapon of the day, the Carl Gustav. But as soon as we entered the Vietnam war, the Swedes stopped supplying ammo for it! Tanks featured little in the Vietnam war so it was not a great setback but it was a salutary lesson in being careful about the source of supply of your weaponry. The Swedes have no worries on that score.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Paul is doing too well and there are many reasons besides his uncanny ability to raise lots of money and a spooky, devoted blind following. He is one of the best spokesmen for libertarianism out there and people are tired of what the status quo two party system has been bringing to the table. He preaches small government and fiscal conservatism and has a record to back it up and that is the appeal to many people.

His anti-war and irresponsible isolationist philosphy on foreign policy is appealing to many independents and democrats weary of war. As a matter of fact more Democrats voted for Ron Paul in New Hampshire than Republicans. He got 24% of the Democrat vote, 32% of the independent vote, and only 16% of the Republican vote. Huntsman got 41% of the Democrat vote! I guess appealing to all parties is important in the general election, but there is no way it will make much of a difference against Obama.

The bottom line is that Ron Paul, as right as he is on many issues, has a dangerous foreign policy position that everyone needs to study closely before jumping in and pulling the lever for him. He also has a lot of fringe baggage. Just so it’s all out in the open while his popularity is pulling votes away from other conservatives….there is a case against Ron Paul.

He may be worse than Obama on foreign policy. He is an isolationist that would allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. That is a big deal. Remember that the leaders of Iran are insane and have repeated several times how they would wipe Israel off the map. Ron Paul blames America first, and as a matter of fact has blamed America for the 911 attacks while courting 911 conspiracy nuts. There is also the racist publications published under his name. Fair or not, don’t think that won’t come up in the general election running against the first black president.

If his magnet to fringe isn’t enough, then take a careful look at his foreign policy. First off, he doesn’t want a border fence because it could be used to “keep us in”. He uses arguments of moral equivalency as the foundation to his isolationist views. I understand that Viet Nam and Iraq were unpopular wars and I understand people weary of America’s interventionalism, but not all interventions are unnecessary. What would the world be like if America had not intervened against Hitler? What if we didn’t contain Communism? Standing by and doing nothing but talk and appease while allowing evil to play by its own rules is a recipe for disaster.

Rich Lowry has a good summary of some of Paul’s views:

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.

This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”

On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

Check out what a former staffer of his has to say:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

The majority of Republicans and Americans in general will not get behind Ron Paul. He is too fringe and too radical. So as far as Ron Paul asking everyone else to get out so he can beat Romney, I think he should be the one dropping out. I don’t like Romney, but I’d rather vote for him than take a risk with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a pure, absolutist libertarian extremist with a dangerous isolationist foreign policy. He may be right on some things, but not on everything (foreign policy for sure). If the only issue important to you is the legalization of drugs then vote for Ron Paul. If you think foreign policy is even a little important pick someone else.

Doug Mataconis says last night was Paul’s high mark. I agree, but he is still sucking votes away from other non-Romney candidates and while he should drop out I think we all know he won’t. So, perhaps someone else should so the votes for “other than Romney” are not so divided up. I pray South Carolina shakes things up for this race, and I pray Ron Paul doesn’t run third party in the general.

And Curt, please…you are scaring me.

Update: More insane positions from Ron Paul:

Other than abortion, there is no particular on which Ron Paul differs with either libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Like them, he would legalize hard drugs and abolish age of consent laws, which violate the rights of 24-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds.

The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

Carney then goes on to compare what would happen to Paul to what Pat Buchanan went through when he won Iowa in 1996, even mentioning things like the racism and anti-semitism Buchanan was accused of, some of which was real, some of which was way overboard.

In Paul’s favor, he holds to the professed principles of his party. He makes Republicans look bad by firmly opposing overspending and the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. He correctly predicted the troubles that would be caused by housing subsidies and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

See? He’s the only Real Republican In The World®.

Paul is also disliked for his foreign policy. His non-interventionism has provoked clashes with the party elites, but it resonates with a growing number of Republicans who have grown tired of endless war and nation building that doesn’t seem to serve American interests. But Paul regularly goes too far for even these voters, criticizing the killing of al Qaeda leaders and at times sounding like he agrees with Iran’s grievances against the United States.

Paul does have some fantastic idea. And then he turns the amp up to 11 and turns people off. And when one goes on Iran’s government owned Press TV, one is siding with Iran (in that case, he was criticizing Israel).

But neither his establishment-irritating adherence to principle, nor his hawk-angering foreign policy, will be the focus of the anti-Paul attacks should he carry Iowa. His conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist.

Paul’s indiscretions — such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name — will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state’s rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

Is it possible to have a scary caricature of racism and 9/11 Trutherism? All the liberal media, mentioned by Carney earlier in the article in relation to Buchanan, would have to do is have the Ron Paul quote of the day. There’s no scary caricature, there’s simply what Ron Paul has written, what he has said, and the people he hangs with. What was written in the newsletters owned and published by Ron Paul, which he made lots of money on (at least a million dollars in 1993 alone)? James Kirchick at The Weekly Standard points out

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Now, imagine those quotes showing up on the network evening news. Are they “scary caricatures”? Or simply the ramblings of a racist and conspiracy theorist? Said newsletters also included high praise and advice for the more extremist militia groups, as well as anti-Israel and anti-Jew propaganda. One newsletter wondered whether the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a Mossad setup, as a “Jewish friend of his wondered”.

Paul appears regularly on Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory radio, including an appearance last week, where he discussed the National Defense Authorizations Act, giving more credence to the conspiracies that Americans would be arrested by the military and put in indefinite detention. “This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law” Paul said.

You name the conspiracy, Paul is a part of it. He never divorces himself from the kookier fringe elements who follow him. You know I am not a Paul fan. I’m not a fan of Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry, either. There’s a difference, though. With Newt, he would be portrayed as a Washington insider, a politician! with lots of different and changing positions, a panderer. Perry, as an evangelical leader who is dumb. These are things that can be overcome. Try overcoming racist writings and conspiracy talk, blame America positions, hating Israel, and Iran coddling. And that’s before even touching on his policy positions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The Dish goes through the process of endorsing candidates in a primary season, not because I’m under any illusions that my endorsement counts. It probably hurts an insignificant amount, if anything. I try to make a decision – because it’s easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility? And I should be clear. This endorsement is mine and mine alone.

Sullivan still calls himself the Last Real Conservative, yet, he has been writing in favor of every Democrat position, has been against everything Republicans stand for, and writes for a far left Internet site, so, yeah, endorsing Ron Paul will hurt Paul. Not that much, though, because Paul hurts his chances everytime he opens his mouth.

Sully says he cannot back Huntsman, because, despite Huntsman having the best positions for Andy, Huntsman hasn’t connected with voters.

Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul’s campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.

Um, didn’t he just say why supporting Paul is a Bad Idea? Then you have the problem with Paul saying a long campaign is tiring and his Israel hatred.

But all this is why a conservative like me is for Obama. What we are talking about here is who to support in a primary dominated by extremes, resentment, absence of ideas and Obama-hatred.

How can any real conservative support Obama? It’s antithetical to everything we stand for.

We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China’s rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism – but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn’t. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.

Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy….

And the anti-Israel sentiment shows up yet again. They like to put it in reasonable terms, but, people can see right through it.

I know some of the people who comment are Paul supporters, and that is your right. He does have some good ideas, but, he also has some marvelously horrible ideas. He won’t divorce himself from the 9/11 Truthers who support him, he’s blamed the United States a few times for 9/11, he wants a pure isolationist policy, he is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Obama would trash Paul were Ron to win the GOP primary. We’d see a reverse of Reagan’s 1984 win, with Obama taking at least 48 states and D.C.

And just so you know Sullivan is a rational, thoughtful adult, he mentions “The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has “zero chance” of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie” and ends the story with

I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the “Change You Can Believe In” on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.

Can anyone explain who it is “honest” for Paul to throw tons of earmarks in bills and then vote against the bills, which he knows will pass without his vote, and then claim he never votes for earmarks? Anyhow, if Andy is comparing Paul to Obama, that’s probably not the best way to say that Ron Paul is the best choice for Republicans and Conservatives.

And, just to show that Sullivan has become more rational, his last line is

Oh, and f*ck you, Roger Ailes.

The Womb Raider speaks!

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

[edited]

Since he ascended from nothing to the office of President of the United States, Obama has shown a disdain for most of our western allies that borders on hatred. But he’s reserved his most backhanded treatment to Israel. It isn’t just what he’s done to show Israel that he has no use for them, but it goes all the way down to his every last appointment and this week we see another reminder of that in the comments belched forth by Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, who basically said that anti-Semitism perpetrated by Muslims is really all Israel’s fault.

As Jake Tapper (one of the few real reporters in Washington) reported on Sunday, Gutman made his remarks at a conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union on Dec. 2.

At the conference Gutman said, “a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” Gutman imagined that tensions between Muslims and Israel is one, “largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.”

Gutman said that “throughout the Muslim communities that I visit, and indeed throughout Europe, there is significant anger and resentment and, yes, perhaps sometimes hatred and indeed sometimes and all too growing intimidation and violence directed at Jews generally as a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories and other Arab neighbors in the Middle East…every new settlement announced in Israel, every rocket shot over a border or suicide bomber on a bus, and every retaliatory military strike exacerbates the problem and provides a setback here in Europe for those fighting hatred and bigotry here in Europe.”

What is all this if not a way to blame the Jews for Muslim anti-Semitism?

Naturally, many in Israel are not happy. In fact, one of the speakers that followed Gutman’s disastrous comments denounced him right there on stage, as well he should, according to Tapper’s report.

But Gutman’s blaming of the Jews for everything that befalls them — akin to blaming the woman for being raped, in my opinion — fits in nicely with Obama’s attitude against Israel. It also fits in with most of his appointees to the Middle East. Some of his past appointees were Susan Power — a woman that said we should be giving military aid to the Palestinians — and Robert Malley — a man that has close working ties to Hamas.

So, it just shouldn’t surprise that yet another Obama team member is blaming the Jews for radical Muslim terror and hatred.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have joined together to encourage other national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to join them in signing the “National Pledge for Unity on Israel.” This initiative aims to rally bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish State from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season.

“We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

Source

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen “no evidence” of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaradei as saying “We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That’s why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks … . But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.” The IHT report went on to say that “ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran’s alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.”

In July 2009, Yukiya Amano, the in-coming head of the IAEA said: “I don’t see any evidence in IAEA official documents” that Iran is trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms

The Left jumped on that report, and others, that Iran wasn’t even close to developing nuclear weapons, that they were either decades away or building nuclear plants for “peaceful energy purposes.” We were told that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003. All sorts of media outlets bashed Bush for trying to get tough on Iran, saying they were no real threat. And today we get

(Washington Post) Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.

Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.

The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures.

Now, I know it would be easy to bash Obama, especially over his early talk about discussions with Iran with no preconditions, discussions which never really took place. And for pushing more sanctions. For holding Israel back. But, let’s be fair, other than threats, which Iran would ignore, and actually bomb bomb bombing Iran, there was little Obama could do.

But, with this report, one has to wonder what the U.S. and Israel will now do. Consider this from a NY Times article back on August 19, 2010, in which the Obama administration convinced Israel to hold off a bit, that the threat was not “imminent”

American officials said the United States believed international inspectors would detect an Iranian move toward breakout within weeks, leaving a considerable amount of time for the United States and Israel to consider military strikes.

Remember, there was a report that Israel was getting ready to strike Iran, which Defense Minister Ehud Barak said was not accurate.

Now, there will be all sorts of editorials and talking heads discussing this, and there will be two positions: strike now and strike hard, or simply yammer and put more sanctions in place. Striking could give Iran more prestige among the hard core Islamists and the Israel and U.S. haters. Talks and sanctions will do absolutely nothing, as history has shown. The big question is, do we wait till Iran actually has nuclear weapons built, and uses them, either directly or through one of their terrorist groups?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

The Democratic Party’s rare loss of a congressional seat in its urban heartland Tuesday, accompanied by a blowout defeat in a Nevada special election, marked the latest in a string of demoralizing setbacks that threatened to deepen the party’s crisis of confidence and raise concerns about President Barack Obama’s political fortunes.

In New York, Republican Bob Turner soundly defeated Democrat David Weprin in a House contest that – in the view of party leaders, at least — featured an anemic urban machine, distracted labor unions, and disloyal voters. In Nevada, a consequential state for the president’s re-election strategy, Democrats suffered a runaway loss rooted in a weak showing in Reno’s Washoe County, a key bellwether.

Gotta love it. It’s not the Democrats plans, ideas, and legislation, no, it’s the voters themselves and weak candidates. Uh huh. Donald Douglas points out that a Democrat has held the NY-09 seat since 1923.

Even before the polls closed, the recriminations – something short of panic, and considerably more than mere grumbling – had begun. On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as “awful.”

“People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless,” said the source.

And then we have the Obama blame. The Washington Post piles on with a story that puts quite a bit of the blame on Obama. And certainly Obama deserves quite a bit of the blame for the two losses, and, Lord knows, I like to Blame Obama for his non-personal things. The release of his foolish American Jobs Act, a tepid jobs bill at best, after months of buildup and a nice vacation, surely didn’t help. But, he doesn’t deserve all the blame. Democrats followed right along with him in pushing the far left agenda, and, yup, trying their typical scare tactics

“Democrats just saw their 2012 playbook fall apart as Nevada voters refused to buy Democrats’ Medicare scare tactics and misinformation campaigns,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas). “This election sends Democrats another warning that Democrats up and down the ballot next year cannot escape accountability for their failed economic policies.”

National Journal points out that the White House is already spinning the losses, but, Obama and the Dems cannot escape the fact that their agenda is mostly unpopular, and, even when they do things that are popular, they completely mess it up and do it wrong. People understand that Obama has no real world ideas on how to stimulate the economy, what policies work, and they see that he is more engaged in winning re-election through gimmicks than actually working to fix the economy.

Of course, Obama’s stupid idea of negotiating from the pre-1967 borders of Israel didn’t help in New York, as Don Surber points out. Perhaps American Jews are starting to realize that Obama, and Democrats, really do not like Israel.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

President Barack Obama is the unlikely star of a new Palestinian media campaign.

Part of a speech Obama gave in 2010 to the United Nations General Assembly is featured in an ad aimed to rally support for the Palestinians upcoming bid for statehood at the United Nations on Sept. 20, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

“When we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that can lead to a new member of the United Nations, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel,” Obama said in the 2010 speech in the clip that is played in the radio ad.

The Palestinians use of the remarks is at odds with the Obama administration’s current all-out push to stop the Palestinians from pursuing their statehood bid. U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East David Hale is set to hold talks Wednesday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to urge him to reconsider the statehood effort and instead return to direct negotiations with Israel.

During the 36-second radio spot starring Obama, Abbas tells listeners “If he said it, he must have meant it.”

Obama’s leftist base is rabidly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, as are many at the United Nations and around the world, so Obama’s little UN speech was designed to elicit accolades from those people, yet, once again, Obama forgot that he was no longer candidate Obama, but President of the United States of America Obama, and his words have actual meaning. Then, when the Palestinians actually pushed for their own state as part of the UN, some advisers surely came to the White House and said “this is a really bad idea“, and the reality of being POTUS reached up and smacked the campaign speech out of him.

And we remember recently the Arizona massacre by Jared Loughner. That was allegedly caused by hate speech from Right-wing radio hosts, despite the fact that Loughner was a reader of such “conservative” works as the Communist Manifesto and was clearly mad (psychotic). After many people reminded the Left that plenty of furious hate speech emanated from them also, that one petered out too.

And now of course most of the Left is convinced that conservatives are to blame for Breivik’s massacre. The fact that no conservative mentioned by Breivik actually recommended anything like what Breivik did is no problem, apparently. Conservatives created a “climate” (surely one of the Left’s favorite words) conducive to Breivik’s deeds.

That the “climate” seems to have influenced nobody but Breivik would however be seen as problematical by rational beings. Hundreds of millions of people read the sort of writers that Breivik quotes but no others of them go on murderous rampages. If conservative speech were a drug and I was submitting it to the FDA for approval, the FDA would wave it through — on the grounds that a drug safely taken by millions with only one bad reaction had to be evaluated for safety by reference to the hundreds of millions of cases rather than the one isolated exception.

So it is clear that even if the frenzied claims of root causes made by Leftists are totally addled, they do set a precedent for others to look at root causes too — but hopefully in a more rational manner. And if Leftists say that conservatism is the root cause of Breivik’s deeds, why should I not make the case that Leftism is the root cause of Breivik’s deeds? What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

So I contend that the root cause of Breivik’s onslaught is not to be found in Breivik’s head (though the proximate cause lies there) but rather in the long-term policies of the antisemitic and Muslim-loving Norwegian Left.

And those policies have been destructive indeed. Norway now has Muslim ghettoes where the police rarely go and crimes such as rape have become a Muslim specialty — with ANY crime by Muslims being rarely prosecuted and punished. The Norwegian Left has inflicted grave harm on Norwegian society. And adding insult to injury, you will usually be abused as a racist if you even mention any of that harm (but calling for Israel to be bombed is perfectly respectable, of course). An excerpt from just one report of what the Norwegian Left has wrought, by way of example:

I live in Oslo, Norway. We have lots of problems with muslim immigrants. Official crime statistics over a three year period shows 49 of 49 assault rapes in Oslo was made by a person from a “non-western background” which is basically government code for muslim immigrants. Just yesterday Aftenposten; on of Norway’s most respected newspapers, interviewed the police chief in Oslo where she advised Norwegian women not to walk the streets alone at night, the police have basically given up combating the problem with crime.

The muslims in Norway are just as hatefull as in Sweden, which has the same problem but in a much worse degree. From a young age they openly call Norwegian women for whores, their own sisters are locked inside the home to protect them from the Norwegian society. The young muslim men often date Norwegian girls, but do not marry them because they are perceived as whores; they are ok to have sex with but too filthy to marry, basically.

Muslims in Norway also are not very interested in their kids learning to read or write in Norwegian, making them losers in the educational system from an early age. This is also true for second and third generation immigrants. Across my streets lives the only muslim family in my neighborhood, all the kids (they have like 5 of them with one 1/2 to 2 years between them) talk Arabic and never Norwegian.

While Norwegian kids are more quiet and reserved the muslim kids seem to be more violent, usually carrying sticks and shouting all the time where Norwegian kids are more silent and withdrawn. When growing up in Oslo I experienced the same violent behaviour with my muslim peers, personally I believe that their whole culture is more based around the “power of the strong”, where if you are strong you are perceived to have more power; which the muslims look up to as something good.

My impression from dealing with immigrants is that they feel Norway owes them something, even though it is *them* who don’t fit in. Many muslims don’t like Norwegians or Norwegian rule, but they rarely move back to a muslim country and change citizenship.

The worst thing is when that the socialists, who are the major political force in Norway, hear these arguments they immediately call you racist or Islamophobe. They also have concealed crime statistics for years by refusing to publish crime numbers based on origins. Once when they did it was found that 10% of the population, the immigrants, stood for 90% of the crime and more specifically 100% of assault rapes in Oslo! I personally am against any religion or ideology that spreads separation and hate, be it Islam or Christian fundamentalism.

So am I blaming the victim? Am I blaming the Leftist elite whom Breivik targeted? I certainly am. If someone initiates an assault and gets hurt in the reaction, then they are certainly to blame for the hurt they suffer. And the Norwegian Left has inflicted great harm on ordinary Norwegians. And even before Breivik, Norwegians had begun to wake up to that. Despite their long domination of Norwegian politics, the Labour party lost the last election and had to form a Red/Green coalition with two other parties to stay in government.

And this disillusionment with the pro-Muslim policies of the Norwegian Left has led — as we are repeatedly told by Norwegian experts themselves (a recent example here) — to views such as Breivik’s becoming widespread among Norwegians. So Breivik was quite normal in his beliefs and different only in doing something about them.

In those circumstances it seems clear to me that if Breivik had not struck then somebody else would eventually have done so. There was a head of steam building up in Norway that would eventually have burst out somewhere. The Viking genes can’t entirely have died out there.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here