Uncommon Commentary #289: A 'Phone from a Phony

An internet video that has lately attracted attention refers evidently to a federal program called Lifeline (which pre-existed our transformation into the Obama Nation, but which has grown far more costly under the current president's mismanagement) that gives cellular telephones to the penurious.  The reason for my mention of the video is that it features some woman saying "Keep Obama as president.  He gave us a phone [sic]."  Now there's a good reason to re-elect a president!

Uncommon Commentary #288: Obombast's Administration Is Definitely Not an "Intelligence Community"

It's question-and-answer time at the Doman Domain, with the answers supplied by me:

Q: Is it true that what happened in Benghazi, and the anti-US riots that have taken place at our embassies elsewhere in the Moslem world, are responses to a film that reportedly disparages Mohammed?

A: Obama's administration and the media have gone by that assumption, but so far it seems unsupported by any evidence.  If that film has played any rôle whatsoever, it's been that of a pretext (almost certainly suggested to the rioters inadvertently by the US Department of State, as I noted in the previous uncommon commentary).

Q: Was the attack upon the US Consulate in Benghazi a deliberate act of terror?
A: Is Joe Biden a windbag?  Who ever heard of a "spontaneous" assault that employed mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices (i.e.d.'s)?  Even in Libya, those things aren't just lying around on the ground, waiting to be used by "extremists".

Q: But, isn't there a consensus in the "intelligence community" that it was not planned far ahead of time, and that the fact that it took place on 11 September is just coincidence?

A: That's what we've heard from the Obombast Administration, not from the "intelligence community" itself.  The only source of intelligence to have spoken up so far—one in Libya—has contradicted the administration's position (as has the Libyan government).

Q: Why, then, is the administration lying to us?  Is it just force of habit?

A: In this case, it's because Obama doesn't want to admit that Moslem terrorists have successfully targeted the USA during his presidency; it's the same reason (along with, naturally, Political Correctness) why they're unwilling to refer to, e.g., the Fort Hood massacre as terrorism.

Q: Is history repeating itself?

A: There is a marked similarity, regarding unpreparedness on the part of the US government, between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the bombardment of the Benghazi consulate.  In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt—a president to whom, interestingly, Obama is often compared by his supporters—knew from deciphered Japanese communications that Japan planned to assail the USA somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, yet he failed to alert our bases to the fact; on 11 September of this year, Obama's administration had similar reason to fear a terrorist incident in eastern Libya, yet there were no Marines on guard at the consulate in Benghazi, or, indeed, additional safety precautions of any sort.

Q: Was there any time in history when as many things were going wrong for the USA as have gone wrong under Obama?

A: I, an historian, can't think of any.  The War of Southern Secession (i.e., "Civil War") and the Great Depression, for example, obviously were great trials for this country, but at least our civilization was not falling apart as it is now.  (Anyway, Obama's policies may well be propelling us toward a true civil war and an even greater depression.)

Q: Is there anything that you can add to what you've already said here?

A: Certainly, but I'll save it for some other uncommon commentary.

Uncommon Commentary #287: The US Statement Department

At first, I was not inclined to agree too strongly with those who criticized the US government's handling of the latest post-"Arab Spring" crisis.  The official statement that "The Embassy of the United States [sic] in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims …." impressed me as a typically politically-correct, overly apologetic proclamation by Obombast administration officials—note the use of the word "continuing", as if Muslims ought to feel persecuted by the West—but I couldn't censure them for trying to snuff out a flame before it could become an inferno; I also knew that the reportedly anti-Islam video The Innocence of Muslims—I have not seen it—that has been blamed for arousing the ire of the Mohammedans was posted on YouTube, and can thus be watched anywhere on Earth that people have access to the W.W.W.  Then, however, I realized the significance of the fact that the embassy's statement was made prior to the beginning of the "violent protest" (i.e., riot) in Cairo, and that the violence broke out in the very city where said statement had been issued.  If The Innocence of Muslims is guilty as charged, the logical hypothesis is that the embassy unwittingly drew attention to that film, and thus helped send the present wave of anti-US expression over the Near, Middle, and Far East and North Africa.

Uncommon Commentary #286: A Kooky Man and a "Snooki" Fan

I would never have believed it, but there apparently is one way in which Obama is preferable to Romney.  A few years ago, the former appeared on that sober forum for vital issues, The View; asked for his opinion of "Snooki", he replied that he had no idea who that is.  Romney, on the other hand, has admitted that he's a "Snooki" fan. (For those of you who have done better than I at ignoring the USA's insipid popular "culture": "Snooki" may sound like a name for a teddy bear rather than for a human being, but it evidently refers to someone on the pointless and objectionable "reality" show Jersey Shore.)  And so, I would finally have a reason to support our president for re-election, if only he weren't a duplicitous, unprincipled, left-wing, egomaniacal, intolerant gangster!

Uncommon Commentary #285: If They Didn't Oppose Restrictions on Arrogance and Stupidity, Party Membership Would Drop to Zero

The Demagogic Party's official platform opposes "any and all" restrictions on fœticide, and therefore must include antagonism even to parental consent for a minor to have abortion induced.  Are the Dumbocrats saying, then, that a girl of, let's say, 13 years of age, who's not old enough to vote or even to drive a car, is old enough to decide whether her unborn child should live or die?

Uncommon Commentary #284: Taking the Dip out of Diplomacy

Originally, states—true states, not the 50 de-facto provinces of the USA—sent ambassadors to one another only on those occasions when they actually needed to communicate diplomatically; embassies later become permanent, but their establishment was restricted to those polities that had significance in international affairs; not until after World War II did countries adopt the current practice of exchanging official representatives with every sovereignty on Earth.  In consideration of this history, there's an obvious way for our government to save money: close US embassies in lands that play no important rôle in world politics, which the majority of them do not.  This might offend the pride of many foreigners, but pride, although we usually speak of it as if it were something positive, is a deadly sin anyway.