French air strikes in Mali: Noble effort to stem a cancer

[caption id="attachment_2072" align="alignright" width="300"] Summer vacation? Scratch Mali and Timbuktu[/caption]

When I was young, my parents occasionally invited Aunt Millie to stay at our home and babysit, while they traipsed off to exotic places like Tahiti, Bora Bora, Bali and Fiji. That was back in the 60s and 70s. With an arctic blast sweeping across North America this week, some of you may be planning your own summer getaways to warmer climates. If you are fortunate to be part of the economic recovery, then you might be thinking about a tropical paradise like your folks visited back in the day.

Mali and Timbuktu were never a match for Bali or Fiji. But for many Europeans of my generation, they attracted independent travelers seeking adventure. They were safe, fun and the locals were very friendly. These sunny places are no longer hospitable to anyone–at least not anyone who fails to cover up women and face Mecca every few hours. Lately, they look more like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Eight months ago,a region of Mali that is larger than all of France or Texas was overrun by Qaeda rebels. In an effort to ratchet up fear and control, they force Sharia Law by amputating limbs from anyone who fails to live by their twisted principles. By any reasonable measure, these are Barbarians... positively sick bastards.

[caption id="attachment_2075" align="alignleft" width="304"] Lift it in praise or lose it[/caption]

For the past 3 months, citizens have been rounded up for public amputations (either as witness or participant). The crime? Nothing terrible. Gaze at an unrelated girl, fail to praise Allah after a sneeze, or dare to suggest that woman should be allowed an education, and you will lose both a hand and a foot—Instantly.

Justice is swift under Sharia law. Don’t expect a trial, a defense, an appeal or a delay. Reprieves don’t exist, praise Allah! Want to sneak a kiss with your honey? You had best not have a honey. Young brides are bought from parents. Just the act of holding hands is a risk you dare not attempt. For this and anything else that strikes the Mujahidin as unholy, you will pay with your limbs and perhaps you nose too!

The Mali government represents the majority of its citizens, but they are helpless against the hordes of Qaeda allied Muslims sweeping across their territory. They outnumber and out gun the army and are driven by visions of 18 willing virgins in the hereafter. I don’t know about you, but virgins in a swimming pool next to Allah’s throne probably trumps civility, cash or fear of justice in this life.

[caption id="attachment_2076" align="alignleft" width="264"] Bibi Aisha's father sold her to a Taliban fighter who hacked off her nose and ears.[/caption]

The zealots’ latest scheme is to compile a mandatory registry of unwed mothers. You can imagine what comes next. Don’t bother to justify a woman without a husband (many husbands were killed by the very same thugs). ‘Islamic justice’ is an oxymoron.  In their view, any woman with a child should be the property of a man, and so every woman in the catalog is guilty of a crime. Sister, if you are on this list, be very scared.

Should the west become isolationists in order to avoid the financial burden of war? We certainly don’t want more nation building (including cash for rebuilding), propping up governments, arbitrating another Middle East dispute. But what to do when we learn about brutality like the pirates in Somalia or the sick, brutal behavior in Mali. Can humanity opt for isolationism when presented with such abominations?

Last week, upon receiving an urgent appeal for military intervention, France came to the aid of her former colony. They launched blistering and superbly targeted air strikes against the holy rollers in Mali. This is no small task. It will be terribly expensive to sustain. It could turn into another Afghanistan or even a new Viet Nam.

The French seek to liberate northern Mali with air strikes targeted at operational bases, religious enforcement offices, training camps, and centers of  logistics and supply.

[caption id="attachment_2073" align="aligncenter" width="584"] En route to strike fundamentalist rebels in Mali, a French Mirage fighter gets mid-air refueling[/caption]

What is truly amazing is that the targets are spread across a region larger than France itself! According to reports from liberated citizens, the strikes from bombers & missile-firing helicopters target foreign extremists with remarkable precision and avoid civilians for the most part. But the precision cannot be perfect. Ten children jumped into a pond and drowned, in an effort to escape from bombs that they thought would hit them.

As terrorists and extremists regroup, I suspect that they will be more difficult to target without civilian casualties. Now that they are facing a powerful outside enemy, they will begin to distribute their activities throughout the population. Their movement of supplies and communications will become very difficult to distinguish from peaceful economic activities.

Regarding French intervention, they are getting US help, including advisors, logistics, mid-air refueling, and probably access to satellite images and US air bases. But so far, the US has not placed any troops into the operational theater. At least for now, the Yanks are not at risk. Despite this help (which I support, because the adversary is so evil and malignant), Let’s hope this doesn’t turn into another western war or even a long term sink for money or manpower. At least, we hope that evil can be contained—and if possible, killed off—without creating martyrs, righteous murderers and elevated dogma.

Simple Law – Unintended consequence!

James Madison was U.S. president from March 1809 until early 1817. But in 1789—twenty years before he became president—he proposed an amendment to a republic that was barely 13 years old.

He never saw his proposal pass. In fact, it was 203 years before it was ratified by the 38th state of a larger 50-state union. That was 1992. The proposal might have languished in obscurity for even more centuries, had a college student not realized that it could still be ratified. In 1982, he started a grass roots movement and the consti-tution was amended 10 years later. Today, twenty-one years after it became a law, it is still the most recent amendment to the constitution. So, what does it say?

It says “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened,” In other words, a sitting Congress can’t change its pay while it is in session. It can only change the salary of the next Congress or Senate.

Now, here’s the unintended consequence: Last week, GOP leaders crafted a new law that links congressional pay to the budget debate.If Congress can-not agree on a 2014 budget by April 15 (in the next 3 months), then their pay shall be withheld.

Sounds reasonable, right? Well not really, because it also says that in exchange, congress shall suspend the debt ceiling. Here at AWildDuck, we believe that this is would be terribly irresponsible. Seriously, guys & gals: The buck has to stop somewhere...We can’t kick this can forever!

But, speak of kicking the can, here is the real kicker: The new law is probably illegal, because of the 27th amendment. Remember that one? Congress cannot change its pay. That includes, it would seem, deferral, escrow, withholding, what have you!

I wonder if James Madison had just a glimmer of his influence on lawmakers 224 years hence. D’ya think? Nah! But it sure would be fun to go back and show him.

Read more about it at our source, the National Constitution Center.

Alex Jones: Theatrics on Piers Morgan

In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, CNN’s Piers Morgan has no qualms about aligning himself with gun control advocates and against the NRA. In a live debate with the executive director of Gun Owners of America, he called the guest “dangerous,” “stupid” and “an idiot.”

Years ago, news anchors avoided overtly taking sides and especially avoided name calling on the air. But even when he does these things, I consider Piers Morgan an example of a reasonable voice in mainstream media. But...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

But in an interview with Alex Jones yesterday, Piers was subjected to a most incredible rant. I can’t recall seeing anything quite like this on television. I have seen guests with opposing views shout at each other over a news anchor, but they weren’t shouting at their host. On Jerry Springer and Morton Downey were hosts to chair throwing incidents and bar room brawls. But these involved the audience and not noted guests. It even eclipses the antics of early Gerlado shows. Perhaps Alex Jones can be compared to Hulk Hogan screaming about his anticipated bone crushing, head stomping victory at the World Wrestling Federation—But that is understood to be theatrics spoken for pure entertainment.

See these clips from the interview. (Be sure to see both clips--before and after a break).

Alex Jones is a conservative radio talk show host at the fringe. (His network produces The Katherine Albrecht Show—a more reasoned a conservative. I was a guest on her show last year).

Piers begins with a very civil introduction. He explains that Alex Jones is behind a popular White House petition to deport Piers back to England! (Incidentally, Alex justifies the petition based on Piers being a foreigner who is attacking the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Jones see this as an attempt to influence or overthrow our government.

Sitting next to Piers in the CNN studio with a humble smile, Jones politely explains that the deportation petition was simply a way to wake up his listeners and give momentum to the debate. But any debate yet to begin and without provocation, he loses all control in the first two minutes! Piers never has a chance to interject or ask a question. The guest is filled with hate and rage. He threatens to overthrow Piers and his relatives by restarting the 1776 independence revolutinon.

Don’t miss this one. It is unbelievable that Jones – a talk show host with a significant audience – cannot control his passion and rage during an interview with a mainstream host. C’mon! Even if you don't consider Piers Morgan to be “mainstream”, in the words of James Earl Jones, "This is CNN!"

Was Jones playing to the camera in an effort to score viewers for his own talk show? Perhaps his producer told him that jumping up and down like a monkey in estrus would ignite a durable soap box moment in the Internet age. Well, perhaps...But the message broadcast from the CNN soap box was “I am a buffoon!” —So sayeth Ellery.

I would love to hear from a 2nd amendment advocate. Does Jones represent your opinion? Does your passion match his? Is he articulate? Could it be that he is really a stooge for advocates of tighter gun controls? Now, that would be a clever ploy!