It’s not often that I agree with op-ed’s in The NY Slimes, but today is the exception. Ross Douthat makes a very compelling against using military action in Libya. I’m a big believer in America’s moral responsibility to stop genocidal dictators, but our nation is in an unusually weakened and vulnerable state. Our military is tired from 10 years of brutal warfare and financially we’re broke. It may be wise to sit this one out. We can do far more good in the world later on once we get our fiscal house in order.

Having said that, I don’t believe for one second that Barack Obama has any intention of going to war anyway. Ever. With anyone. So it’s probably a moot point.

One of the underreported stories from the latest WikiLeaks release are a set of cables related to China’s relationship with North Korea. It seems the Chinese are getting fed up with the DPRK. The sentiment is spreading among Chinese officials that North Korea has outlived its usefulness.

[Click for pictures of the WikiLeaks HQ inside a nuclear bunker!]

One cable relays a conversation between South Korea’s vice-foreign minister and two Chinese officials about North Korea. The Chinese officials said Beijing is getting more comfortable with the idea of a unified Korea under South Korea. They would even be willing to accept the strong US/South Korea military partnership provided South Korea was not hostile to China.

The Chinese envision the mouth-watering trade deals they could have with South Korea once the North is out of the way. The only thing North Korea is good for in 2010 is creating economic instability and possibly starting another war. Neither of those two things are good for China any other country in the region.

In another cable a Chinese ambassador warned that North Korean nuclear activity was “a threat to the world’s security.”

The leaked cables also reveal what should be pretty obvious to anyone who studies the North Korean issue very deeply. China doesn’t have a lot of control over North Korea.

China can only punish the North so much. The regime could cut off fuel and other critical aide, but the regime would collapse overnight. The North knows China doesn’t want that. Therefore, they can pretty much be as belligerent and reckless as they want.

Moreover, North Korea doesn’t have anywhere to go. Their economy is in complete collapse. Military bluster is the only card they have left.

One of China’s chief concerns about a regime collapse in the North is the refugee issue. Millions of illiterate, starving, brainwashed people pouring over China’s border would wreck their economy. South Korea shares that concern. This too is addressed in the leaked cables.

Chinese officials are saying privately that they could probably cope with 300,000 North Korean refugees, but may have to use the military to seal off the border after that.

North Korean concentration camps alone are believed to hold around 275,000 people.

[Watch Laura Ling talk about being held captive in North Korea]

I’m just glad to hear that China is at least thinking about these issues and discussing them in a rationale and cooperative way.

I’ve long advocated for religious profiling at airports. We need to quit pretending that everyone has an equal chance of being a terrorist. It’s Muslims who we’re on the lookout for. Let’s profile for them.

But don’t take my word for it. Muslim journalist Asra Nomani is calling for the same thing. She worked with WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan before he was murdered.

As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon.

We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have.

Here’s the best part:

“Profile me. Profile my family,” because, in my eyes, we in the Muslim community have failed to police ourselves. In an online posting of the Intelligence Squared video, a Muslim viewer called me an “Uncle Tom.”

Thank God for people like Asra. She’s willing to put aside Muslim grievance mongering and left-wing political correctness and recognize the problem we have.

Profiling doesn’t have anything to do with racism or bigotry. It’s about common sense. The common thread that links the people trying to kill us is Islam. They want to murder us in the name of Islam. Why should that fact not be relevant?

Why should Mohammad get screened exactly like an 87-year old man named Bob from Wisconsin? It doesn’t make any sense.

A favorite canard of the left is to bring up Timothy McVeigh. Damn him. Had McVeigh not blown that building up liberals would have nothing to point to. Anyway, The Oklahoma City bombing was 17 years ago. The last attempted Muslim bombing was last Friday. There have been literally hundreds of Muslim bombings since Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was an outlier while Islamic terrorism is the statistical norm.

When Mormons or Catholics decide to go on a murderous rampage across the world we’ll profile them too. Until then, we should keep our eyes peeled for Muslims.

It looks like once again the North Koreans are going to get away with committing an act of war against the Republic of Korea. How many ROK military personnel have to be killed by the North to warrant a military response? North Korea continues to raise the stakes because they never get any pushback.

They got away with sinking a South Korean Navy ship killing 86 sailors. That pretty much sent a signal to Kim Jong-IL that anything goes. So why not shell a South Korean village?

This is outrageous. When is the ROK going to grow a pair and respond? If North Korea’s Navy had been crippled by the South after sinking that ship it’s unlikely last night’s provocation would’ve happened.

The North kidnaps South Korean fisherman, sinks warships, detonates nuclear bombs, and shells villages with no consequences beyond a stern letter from the UN.

It’s time for the ROK and the USA to show the DPRK that we’re not f*cking around anymore. The South has a state of the art military built by the US. The North has a vintage 1950’s military that lacks enough fuel to put jets in the air. We could decimate their Navy in 24 hours.

It’s a disgrace of biblical proportions that a broken down prison state like North Korea is able to threaten anyone. In my opinion, the west has a moral obligation to force regime change in North Korea. It’s a stain on the free world that we’ve allowed the grossest human rights violations since Nazi Germany to continue unabated in North Korea.

Kim Jong-IL makes Saddam Hussein look like The Pope. Iran is Disney Land compared to North Korea. The fact that a house of horrors like the DPRK could still exist in this world in 2010 is a disgrace to humanity.

New Rasmussen poll:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Adults believe America today has become too politically correct, while just 23% say the country is not politically correct enough. Eleven percent (11%) say the balance is about right. Some people think that government officials too often override the facts and common sense in the name of political correctness, and 74% regard political correctness as a problem in America today. Thirteen percent (13%) disagree and say it’s not a problem, and 13% more are not sure. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters said last November that political correctness prevented the U.S. military from responding to warning signsthat could have prevented Major Nidal Malik Hasan from massacring 13 people and wounding many others at Fort Hood, Texas.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that political correctness is running amok in this country. Granted, we’re not as nuts as Europe but some would like us to be. It’s hard to keep up with the all the words we’re not allowed to say anymore.

The way we speak about Islamic terrorism is the scariest issue for me. Political correctness has deadly consequences when it comes to terrorism. We cannot defeat an enemy that we’re afraid to name. I thought Bill O’Reilly’s appearance on “The View” the other day was the best illustration of that.

O’Reilly committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the Left by simply stating that “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” Refusing to acknowledge who it was that attacked us on 9/11 and why is insane. When Major Nidal Hassan told fellow soldiers that Muslims were right to attack and kill our troops no one listened. When he had SOA (soldier of Allah) on his business cards no one paid attention.

No one wanted to be labeled a racist or bigot for raising questions about a Muslim soldier. Now 13 people are dead and 30 others wounded. The fact that people would even need to be concerned about being labeled a racist or bigot for coming forward speaks volumes.

(hat tip Story Balloon)

David Frum has been predicting the demise of the GOP and conservatism itself ever since the election of Barack Obama. On his website that nobody reads, Frum Forum, David has spent the last two years attacking conservatives like Sarah Palin and vilifying Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Here’s Frum supporting the idea that the Tea Party is racist and hateful:

Naturally, this has made him a popular figure on MSNBC. Playing the useful idiot role to perfection, he give assurances to Olbermann, Maddow, Scarborough, and others that Republicans will never hold power again unless they moderate. All that small government stuff is just so outdated. Cutting taxes is so 80’s. Americans are way beyond all that now, according to Frum. Sarah Palin is an idiot and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone!

But while Frum was running his mouth on MSNBC, conservative principles began taking root again. The Tea Party exploded onto the national scene. Glenn Beck became a superstar. Sarah Palin became a kingmaker. Rush Limbaugh is more popular than ever. Best of all, Republicans may take back the House and Senate.

Much to Frum’s chagrin, the new GOP takeover is not going to be filled with phony ass moderates like him. It’s going to be packed with real conservatives like Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Sharron Angle, and possibly Christine O’Donnell.

Frum is beginning to realize that he’s been exposed as a moron and a hack. His opinion means nothing. He’s a broken down, discredited little man.

Like a wounded animal that finds itself cornered, Frum is once again lashing out. He’s attacking Todd Palin over the Joe Miller email. He calls the email a “temper tantrum” and then calls Sarah Palin’s character into question.

What Republicans need to keep in mind is that David Frum is not on our side. He would love for the GOP to lose in November so he could claim victory for his failed ideas. He’s an elitist RINO hack with sinister intentions.

I can’t be as charitable as Ian over at Conservatives4Palin who says we have a big tent party with room for phonies like Frum. I’m all about the big tent, but there’s no room under the tent for people who want to burn it down.

As long as Frum continues to undermine and attack conservatives he can go to hell.

I wrote a week or so ago about the recent revelation that the left-wing Jewish group J Street was largely funded by George Soros. That revelation has kicked off a long simmering debate among competing factions within the Jewish community both here and in Israel.

J Street has an unfortunate history of being very anti-Israel. J Street condemned Israel for its Gaza offensive against Hamas calling it a “disproportionate response.” It routinely attacks AIPAC and lobbies the Obama administration to put a stop to Israeli settlements. Their list of offenses goes on and on.

As a conservative and frankly as an American I firmly support Israel. Like most Americans and nearly all conservatives I see Israel as a place that must be defended. Not only is it a place that’s sacred to both Jews and Christians, but like us the Israeli people are under constant threat from radical Islam. The Jewish State is a lone beacon of freedom and democracy in a sea of militant, repressive, barbaric Islam. Also, the Jewish people have a hard working and entrepreneurial spirit just like Americans do.

As of 2010, the tiny state of Israel ranked #2 among foreign countries with the most companies listed on US stock exchanges. That is simply amazing.

In short, we have everything in common with Jewish people and nothing in common with Muslims (regardless of Obama’s rhetoric in Cairo).

So why then is there Jewish support in America for organizations that seem to undermine Israel? Moreover, why in the heck is the Jewish community primarily Democrat?

For the answer to the second question I suggest you read Norman Podhoretz’s book “Why Are Jews Liberal?” As for the first question, I’ll try to aide in answering it here.

I’ve never understood why Jewish Americans who profess to care about Israel would support groups and politicians who clearly don’t care about Israel or are outright hostile to it.

My friend Jeff Pozmantier has written a fascinating piece over at BumpSpot on this very issue. Jeff is a Jewish American who makes regular trips to Israel and knows many of the players in the Israeli government. He’s also a liberal who strongly supports J Street.

Jeff lays out the clearest and most sensible argument I’ve read on this question. He says the battle is between “Loyalists” and “Independents” but considers both factions ultimately pro-Israel.

The Loyalists  looks outward.   They see  virtually any Jewish criticism of  an Israeli policy or action as akin to helping  countries and terrorist groups that aren’t Israel fans make their delegitimization arguments. They see “in the family” criticism making it easier for a democratic Israel to suffer unfair and unbalanced attacks from autocratic countries that severely discriminate against women, restrict freedom of speech and, in some cases, shelter terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction. Some  Loyalists see  Independent wing members as self-hating or disloyal  or both.  A tinier percentage even view  them as “capo”- like facilitators for Israel’s enemies.

However, if  the Loyalists  were  to become  more self-reflective and turn their gaze inward they would see several problems, not the least of which is generational. With  the majority of American Jews born  well after Israel reached a peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan, the point of reference between  many Pro Israel party members greatly differs. 

Loyalists tend to be older and  frame their concerns and actions against the backdrop of the Holocaust and the various wars and intifadas  many of them have directly or indirectly experienced since Israel’s founding.  (Living in  fear of Israel’s extinction does heighten one’s sensitivities.) They tend  to  view  most of the Palestinian leadership as untrustworthy and (not without some historical justification)  incapable of  organizing effectively enough to actually deliver on any commitments they might make.  The Middle East  is seen as largely a zero sum game.

On the other hand,  many of the Independents  tend to be younger. They  feel less threatened and are, in their minds, safely assimilated in America.  They read in their history books and “on line” about what   many Loyalists have lived through.  Independents  tend to ask more questions and  are far less likely to offer 100% support for every Israeli policy or action.   Many Independents have experienced some portion of the Mideast conflict,  but it has been through a much different, more occluded lens.  The Palestinian narrative has more resonance for  Independents as it carries a human rights appeal that connects with their traditional Jewish  values.  They are less likely to view the Palestinian leadership as monolithic and  more likely to view  Israeli concessions on issues  (such as  settlements) in the context of peace negotiations that they feel are  in Israel’s interest just  as much as they are in the Palestinians’  interest.

So when an organization like J Street  takes a position that criticism and support for Israel are no more mutually exclusive than is criticism and support for America, the argument has great appeal. It also has great, perhaps unrecognized value:  Any hesitation to enthusiastically support Israel is removed as Independents don’t feel constrained by a fear that  a public disagreement over Israel’s tactics will be seen as anti-Israel.

I encourage everyone to click over and read Jeff’s entire piece. Even if you don’t agree with it you’ll better understand where Jewish support for organizations like J Street comes from. I routinely read Jeff’s articles because he tends to bring a point of view to Middle East issues I might not otherwise be exposed to. I recommend putting BumpSpot on your regular reading list.

Some on the right have begun a hysterical campaign to demonize video game maker Electronic Arts for their latest installment of the popular first-person shooter “Medal of Honor.” The game is set in modern day Afghanistan and puts the player right in the middle of the current conflict. I’m just glad EA finally had the balls to make a video game that’s relevant.

As an avid player of the “Medal of Honor” series I’ve grown tired of waging war against Communism. Political correctness has sadly infected the video game industry right along with every other segment of our society. We’ve been waging war against radical Islam now for close to 10 years, but in our video games we’re fighting the Russians. It’s bizarre.

Electronic Arts finally stepped up to the plate and grew a pair by setting the game in modern day Afghanistan. You get to battle against the Taliban in an incredibly realistic environment. However, both for political correctness and improved game play they added one controversial element to the game.

Players can choose to wage war as a US soldier or as a member of the Taliban. So some on the right are outraged that players can fight as the Taliban and “kill” American troops.

First of all, this is very reminiscent of the witch-hunts that took place in the 90’s over violence in video games, music, and movies. Video games and music are not the boogie men. “Medal of Honor” is not real. American troops are not being killed — it’s just a game. A very fun game.

Critics of the game like the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell, whom I respect very much, are making the same tired argument about poisoning children’s minds as they always have.

Video games are amazing technological products, but they are not “stories” like a book or a movie. Parents don’t worry about their kids reading Taliban books. I don’t know of any movies where the Taliban are the heroes. It’s only video games where children enter an imaginary (but most realistic and therefore, dangerous) world in which they are the main characters.

In a video game, every player is the author and the movie director. The game maker only sets the parameters, and lets the player finish the story. In this case, EA has created a plot in which children can be absorbed for hours in the virtual reality of killing American solders, the best and most honorable product our nation has to offer.

That argument simply doesn’t hold up. Children shouldn’t be sitting in front of the TV playing video games for hours no matter what the game. Video games should be played in moderation like anything else. But video games don’t kill people, people kill people. To suggest that children are going to become terrorists or anti-American in some way because they play “Medal of Honor” is just plain silly.

A couple of years ago “Grand Theft Auto” was a popular and controversial game. Children endlessly played a character who could shoot innocent people, rape women, and steal cars. Did this lead to an epidemic of children stealing cars and committing murder? No, of course not.

Secondly, I actually don’t think too many kids are going to want to play as the Taliban anyway. The US military has the coolest weapons, uniforms, and equipment. Politics doesn’t enter into it at all. Kids just want to blow stuff up with the coolest weapons.

Conservatism is on the rise in this country. The majority of Americans like what we’re saying about fiscal responsibility, strong national security, and freedom. Let’s not muddy the message by vilifying video game makers and other such silliness. Let’s stick to the issues.

Here’s a trailer for the game. I think you’re going to find this game particularly popular with US troops.

This has to be one of the most manufactured controversies I’ve seen since global warming. Mexican TV sports reporter Ines Sainz known for her provocative dress and large breast implants is now whining about how he she was treated in an NFL locker room.

Is is really a surprise to anyone that an attractive, provocatively dressed woman might be on the receiving end of some locker room talk inside an actual locker room with dozens of sweaty NFL football players?

Maybe instead of crying about how she was treated we should examine the wisdom of letting attractive, provocatively dressed women into NFL locker rooms with dozens of sweaty football players.

In Ines’s defense, it sounds like the liberal media turned this into a bigger story than she did. According to her it wasn’t a big deal, but other reporters were offended on her behalf.

If guys can’t just be guys in a locker room we’re all doomed.

Here’s an interview she did on Fox News today:

(hat tip The Blaze)

I have to give a lot of credit to Richard Cohen for his latest piece in the Washington Post. He had the courage to stand up to his hypocritical leftist friends in the media and remind them that even Terry Jones has rights.

Jones is neither a great man nor the leader of a great cause. But what he wanted to do was both permissible under our system and, in a sense, valued. He was attempting to make a statement. It was chaotic and bigoted, but it was a political statement nonetheless, and he had every right to make it. Still, President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Afghanistan War commander Gen. David Petraeus urged him to stand down — the lives of American soldiers were at stake. Jones stood down.

This was not the first time the threat of violence in the Islamic world has had a chastening effect here — nor will it be the last. I have yet to see the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published originally in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The one drawn by Kurt Westergaard and considered particularly objectionable generated riots and, ultimately, an attack on Westergaard himself. The violence, actual or threatened, intimidated the Western media.

Westergaard survived the attack, a horrific home invasion, summoning the police from his panic room. As the novelist Salman Rushdie once did, he lives under police protection. Rushdie, of course, had his life threatened for his 1988 novel "The Satanic Verses," which was characterized as insulting to Islam. As with Westergaard, Rushdie was condemned both by certain Muslims and by certain non-Muslims. More frequently, the fatwa was greeted by a studied indifference — a pox on both their houses, that of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who ordered Rushdie’s death and the insensitive Rushdie who did not understand that post-colonial peoples are always right.

I said from the beginning that it wasn’t a good idea for Terry Jones to burn the Koran. However, it also gave me a sick feeling to watch the government apply ever increasing amounts of pressure on a private citizen exercising his freedom of speech rights.

I can promise you if Jones had wanted to desecrate a US flag, a Holy Bible, or an effigy of George W. Bush the media would have ignored him or even praised him. Had the government tried to pressure him not to do any of those things the media would have howled about his rights.

Muslims have been considered a protected class by the liberal media ever since 9/11. Any perceived infringement or slight towards Muslims is immediately confronted. That is wrong.

As repugnant as it is, Terry Jones has the right to burn as many Korans in protest as he wants. The way he was bullied and pressured by the government is a disgrace. Not only did the Secretary of Defense call Jones personally, but the FBI visited his home for a “chat” on two different occasions. If that’s not chilling to free speech I don’t know what is.

The hypocrisy of the left simply knows no bounds. The ACLU should have been all over this thing to protect Jones’s right to protest, but they were nowhere to be seen. Instead they were probably working hard to make sure a Muslim could get a foot bath at their work site.

Cohen is also right about the intimidation factor. One reason the media is quick to defend Islam is because Muslims threaten to murder people who insult them. Bowing to their threats is no different than negotiating with terrorists. If you do it once, they’ll know you’re soft and keep coming after you. The fact that Muslims threaten to kill people who burn the Koran should give people all the more reason to burn it.