Somebody please tell me that we’re *not* giving guns to groups shooting at Kurds.

Because that would not be smart. Pejman Yousefzadeh:

This story informs us that “the CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following President Barack Obama’s decision to arm the rebels.” It also informs us that “in the northeastern province of Hassakeh, clashes pitting Kurdish fighters against members of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in the past two days killed 13 Kurdish gunmen and 35 militants.” So, armed rebel groups are fighting other armed rebel groups, some of which are Islamic fundamentalist militants related to al Qaeda. Query: How do we know that the weapons that we are providing to “Syrian rebels” don’t fall into the hands of the wrong kind of “rebels”?

Short answer: we don’t. We don’t even know that the Obama administration has the necessary mother-wit to even ask the right questions.  Which means that we could very well be arming the people who are shooting at affiliates of one of our most reliable client groups.  Which, again, is not smart.

I mean, the seriously, Kurds are enthusiastic when it comes to accommodating Uncle Sugar; can we not endanger that, please?

Moe Lane


Update on the Scott Walker recall shenanigans.

So, let me tell you of the wickedness of the world… or, more accurately, of the abject stupidity of the anti-Scott Walker forces in Wisconsin.  Which is really not the same thing, but it at least sounds good.  Or at least jovial.

Anyway, here’s the background: the Wisconsin Left, having managed to allegedly get enough signatures to force a recall election against a governor enjoying a 51% approval rating (and this, after several years of nigh-relentless demonization) is now trying to figure out how to actually win a recall election with the schlubs, has-beens, never-weres and other political detritus that would make up their, and I use the term loosely, ‘talent pool.’  In this particular case, it doesn’t help that there’s an important fault line within the Left being revealed by events.  One the one hand, you’ve got the public sector union leadership, who are even now starting to feel the first signs of withdrawal from not being able to directly mainline mandatory union dues into their veins; on the other, there’s the actual Democratic party leadership, who are still hooked in with their source of ‘free’ money, and so are able to think more clearly. (more…)


Debbie Downer’s bad first month as DNC Chair.

(Via Hot Air) The Politico is just now starting to realize just how big a boon DNC chair Debbie Downer (aka Debbie Wasserman Schultz) is… for the Republican Party:

She’s accused Republicans of wanting to reinstate segregation and of waging a “war on women.” She has asserted, somewhat nonsensically, that the GOP wants to make illegal immigration — by definition against the law — “a crime.” She’s also been mocked for driving a foreign car after pounding Republicans for not supporting the American auto industry.


No one seems ready to declare her the Democratic version of Michael Steele, the gaffe-prone former Republican National Committee chairman whose rhetorical and administrative missteps led numerous party leaders to publicly insist he had to go.



MAJOR Democratic donor Haim Saban breaks with Barack Obama.

I understand that the White House is now spending my tax money to fund a hack whose explicit job description is to troll important sites on the Internet – including RedState – in order to do instant push-back on various posts. I suggest that said hack cease doing that for a moment, and instead call somebody higher up the food chain right now and let them know that President Barack Obama has a problem.

A real problem.

One of the most important Democratic donors in the past two decades, whose generous contributions helped pay for the DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration’s stance on Israel.


“President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him. And he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations,” said [Haim] Saban.



A call for packing the Supreme Court? Is this man MAD?

This is a joke, right?

This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.


So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.

(Via AoSHQ) Leaving aside the fact that author Stan Isaacs apparently felt the need to educate his readers about something which would be familiar to anybody with even a basic working knowledge of 20th century American history*, I’m wondering whether Isaacs can actually count.  The President can declare as many Supreme Court justices as he likes; getting them confirmed requires Senate approval.

And if it was OK for then-Senator Obama to filibuster Alito for ideological reasons, then it’s certainly OK for us to return the favor.  And the GOP has the votes.  And the GOP base will descend like an asteroid from orbit on any GOP Senator that even looks like he or she will not support a filibuster against packing the US Supreme Court.  And then the GOP will rake the Democrats over the coals about it in the November elections.

So, really.  Feel free to try this.

Moe Lane

PS: My initial reaction to the size of the Supreme Court is that it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we’d be better off if the number was reduced to, say, seven.  I’m not wedded to that opinion; I’ve never really thought about it before.

*Insert the standard rant on the American public school system here.

Crossposted to RedState.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by