Tuesday, November 10, 2009
(who questioned the casting of Natalie Portman in "V")
'Cause she's hawt.
If one of our less theoretical friends walked into Chris Matthews studio and ... Best not to continue that hypothetical except to note that the most galling thing about him and similar enablers of weakness before the thugs and terrorists is also their greatest vulnerability before the public. They are hypocrites. They know that the $35,000/yr security guard will be there to protect them.
The simpler answer is that there are multiple levels of framing available. A citizen is allowed to shoot his mouth off with other citizens with impunity but cannot engage in planning an actual criminal act without facing liability. They must also be aware that if they associate with another person, giving aid and support, and then that person engages in a criminal act there is the possibility that they could face a conspiracy charge. The right of a citizen to contact a foreign national is significant but not absolute. Just as the passport is the property of the United States and the government has the right to restrict travel to Cuba or North Korea the government has the right to restrict communication with foreign persons.
For a member of the armed services and particularly for an officer there are additional restrictions. Contacting foreign persons or entities, particularly those designated as hostile or of concern to counter-intelligence, without prior notification to senior authority or designated offices may violate security regulations. That can lead to charges under the UCMJ. So yes Mr clueless Matthews calling al-Qaeda can be against the law. People like Chris Matthews should be publicly pilloried, challenged, harangued, denigrated, destroyed, discredited and unemployed. They are public trolls and cannot be simply ignored.
It is often said that the problem isn't that we need new laws but that we need to enforce the laws we have.
Anything that blurs the line between State and Non-State actors should be fought. In this our commentator HEPT seems to get it wrong. The problem isn't that Obama is pushing a failed Westphalian model but that he and the Left have been enabling the proxies and gangs that give the plausibility to plausible deniability. The problem with failed states like Somalia, and potentially Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is that they do not face the consequences that failure demands under the Westphalian model. They should be formally occupied and the population convinced that failure to abide by international norms has real and painful consequences, like having to be polite to overseas missionaries on pain of death. Even Iraq was restored to sovereignty to fast.
The British have to make the decision, are the Midlands Muslims a law enforcement problem or are they a rebellious army in league with a foreign power?
We need James Jesus Angleton now more than ever.
We need to stop the Sulzbergers, the Immelts, the Moonveses, the Igers and the Pritzkers of America. They must be stripped of their last pennies and tossed onto the road.
What is wrong with these people? Can't they see how undermining the American system increases the danger of attack, weakens the rule of law, and increases the risk of bigoted backlash? Employing people like Chris Matthews now is like running into a crowded theater with a molotov cocktail and a match.
This has nothing to do with supporting liberal causes and voting to improve health care for some poor kids.