Saturday, May 17, 2008

The Meaning Of "Is" Updated

Mr. Obama drew a distinction, saying his administration would start negotiations with Iran “without preconditions” and being directly involved himself. For that to occur, he added, Iran would have to meet benchmarks or conditions.

That reiterates remarks he has made numerous times in the past year, though not in a YouTube debate last July that the McCain campaign has repeatedly cited.

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "conditions" is. The Times seemed to think it made perfect sense.

I don't know how you can parse this other than "without preconditions" is equivalent to "meet benchmarks or conditions".

If your head doesn't explode then why have one?

No wonder Hillary is losing. O -- with a level of media support that is truly stunning -- makes Bill look like a piker.

I Know! Fox News Doctored The Map!

Barack Obama, Friday, on why he's losing in Kentucky:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

And here's a map of the US...

Can the man who wants to be President please tell us why Arkansas is somehow closer to Kentucky than Illinois??????

Uh, no.

The Missing Invasion

The more knowledgeable about Burma ask why I don’t explain to readers the nature of the Burmese regime, since they do not believe this is made at all clear in most media reports. Specifically they ask, why is an openly Leftist and atheist regime, closely allied with Communist China, that persecutes all religious believers, and especially Christians -- presented as if it were a product of some exotic, lunatic, quasi-religious Right?
But one of the lessons that emerged from the tsunami, was the pointlessness of even trying to land emergency supplies in Burma. There was nothing that could be done then, nor is there anything that can be done now, short of landing the supplies with an invading army.
recommended only with the braggadocio of persons who also express outrage at previous rescue-invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, it is recommended only by people whose value as political allies is nil -- in the tough real world -- and to whom, therefore, we need never listen.

Paragraph One Of Two

clipped from
Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

The Familiar Sound Of Hogwash And "Warmongers"

clipped from
And he finally argues that carving up Czechoslovakia was a legitimate expression
of the nation-state, pre-Munich.
That is simply hogwash, and it attempts to rescue Neville Chamberlain by
ignoring his greatest crime. No nation has ever had the right to dismember an
allied nation without its approval, or even its participation.
The mountains of Moravia and Bohemia presented a formidable natural defense
against German invasion, and the Czechoslovakians had added modern military
fortifications that would have stopped even a blitzkrieg cold, leaving Germany’s
western frontier open to assault from the much larger French Army. Any thought
of stopping Hitler from within ended at Munich and didn’t seriously reappear
until the senior German officers realized the war was lost after Normandy in
The historical context does not acquit Chamberlain, Britain, or France at all.
It shows the folly of coddling dictators who dream of world domination.
And as a commenter notes: "And all of it happened against the backdrop of people like Churchill warning Chamberlain not to believe Hitler and Churchill was called a warmonger for doing so. Hmmm…sound familiar?".

The Racist Margaret Sanger Is Smiling Down On Us

clipped from
I know someone who just “terminated two fetuses” because her husband didn’t
think they could afford two more “babies”. All I know is she is practically
suicidal now. The doctor who was so eager to “terminate the fetuses” didn’t
encourage her to seek any kind of therapy or explain what hormonal changes might
happen to her body. She is crazy with guilt, is sure she will burn in hell and
can barely care for her other two children. Of course husband won’t even think
of getting a vasectomy. That situation occurs more often than the rape
situation, I’ll bet. Abortion is being used to replace birth control and it is
not ok.
I do believe that there should be exceptions taken in truly morally -- and medically -- difficult situations.

But creating a bias toward abortion just proves we have not actually ended the practice of eugenics. Don't forget that Hitler's program of eugenics "only" killed 6 million Jews. Go look up the statistics of how many black babies have been aborted in this country -- just as Margaret Sanger planned...

Hillary's Gift To McCain

Not only did the Clinton campaign fail to offer any pushback against Obama's image as a post racial unifier, as the race dragged on into the winter of 2007 and his poll numbers climbed in advance of Iowa, they served up a montage of ridiculous, ham-handed attacks: a kindergarten essay as proof of Obama's overweening ambition, staffers circulating emails about Obama being a Muslim, prominent surrogates bringing up his past cocaine use and insinuating he may have been a drug dealer.

Clinton's path to the nomination was under her campaign's nose the entire time,
but they did not see it. The irony is that by missing the opportunity of
bringing up Reverend Wright before Iowa and the vast majority of Democrats cast
their ballots, Clinton not only doomed her chances of winning the nomination but
may have also allowed her party to commit to a nominee with a serious general
election flaw.
Or possibly she did recognize it and decided it was out of bounds as it might expose the fact that BLT is essentially just part of the Democratic doctrine -- which it has for anyone not in a coma...

Change O'rama

On April 11, 2008, Reuters reported: Obama declines to criticize Carter on Hamas.

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter if he were to meet with Hamas, although Obama said he would not meet with the militant Palestinian group. ...

“I’m not going to comment on former President Carter. He’s a private citizen. It’s not my place to discuss who he shouldn’t meet with,” Obama told reporters while campaigning in Indianapolis.

Five days later, on April 16, 2008, Reuters reported: Obama criticizes ex-President Carter’s Hamas meeting.

“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said.


It’s “stick your finger in the wind” politics, from someone who is actually close to becoming the President of the United States. And he’s playing these lame opportunistic games with terrorist groups.

You know, I'm not entirely sure he's doing this by calculation any more. I think there are at least two possible alternatives, both quite frightening:

1) He was just so drug soaked in his youth that he has no memory for positions lasting much more than a week.
2) Building on #1, he has such emotional empathy with his staff -- who were also probably quite drug soaked -- that he just puts out what "feels right" at the time and everyone is high fiving him without any critical consideration.

Or ... I might have been right all along and he really is the Manchurian Candidate. And I don't mean assassin. Unless the bullet's aimed at our country's survival.

Friday, May 16, 2008

That. I. Will. Not. Do.

Without Responsibility (Chain Gang Edition)

Why didn't Hizbullah just overthrow the government? Understanding why Hizbullah refused to take over Lebanon is key not only for understanding Hizbullah but also for understanding Hamas, Fatah and the insurgency in Iraq.

A compelling answer to this question is found in David Galula's classic work, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. ... As Galula explained, one of the main advantages that insurgents have over the governments they seek to overthrow is their lack of responsibility for governance. Far from seeking to govern the local population, the goal of insurgents is simply to demonstrate through sabotage, terror and guerrilla operations that the government is incapable of keeping order. And it is far easier and cheaper to sow disorder and chaos than to maintain order and secure public safety.

Joining the Left, as many will have discovered shortly upon joining it, is not a passport to being a rebel. It's admission into a chain gang. "I owe my soul to the company store."

Brains. Or Lack Thereof.

Supporters of Obama sometimes are prone to sweeping, majestic verdicts. We've heard that Iraq is the worst (fill in the blanks) in our history; that his race speech was comparable to the Gettysburg Address, that Bush's Knesset speech on appeasement (in which Obama was never mentioned by name) was a historic new low in political history, etc. Yet in this entire campaign I can't think of much of anything that any candidate of either party or their supporters have said or done that is particularly novel or unusual in the annals of election history.

That said, the only truly amazing event, one that I never thought I would see in my lifetime (to borrow the language of hyperbole), was Barack Obama's erstwhile pastor addressing a packed NAACP conference, where he outlined genetic differences in the brains of blacks and whites that affect relative learning acquisition—a speech that won a standing ovation from the crowd and silence from Mr. Obama himself. Now that really was unprecedented.

O'Rourke Again

P.J. O'ROURKE href="">SUMS

Two substantive political issues are the federal budget deficit and the war
in Iraq. Now, if you're electing Democrats to control government spending, then
you're marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains. This leaves the Democrats with
one real issue: Iraq. And so far the best that any Democratic presidential
candidate has been able to manage with Iraq is to make what I think of as the
high school sex promise: I will pull out in time, honest dear.

Though, actually, I think Angelina Jolie is href="">smarter
than Obama
when it comes to Iraq.

Just a wee bit more truthful than O'bama...


Uh, dude? If you are not an appeaser, why on earth do you take it personally when Bush criticizes appeasers?

I've done plenty of PR work in my time, senator. Although you shouldn't have released a statement at all, here's how you should have handled a press question about Bush's comments:
"One thing all Americans agree on is that appeasement doesn't work. As president, I will engage in tough, principled, and direct diplomacy just like Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan before me. And of course, no American president will engage with terrorists, least of all those who seek to destroy our stalwart ally, Israel. I look forward to celebrating the 65th anniversary of Israel's independence."
That was easy, wasn't it? If Bush gave a speech about drug dealers, would you release a statement saying, "how DARE you insult me!"? Of course not; you're aren't a drug dealer. So if you really aren't an appeaser, you shouldn't have willingly identified yourself with that group.

No Czechoslovakia

clipped from

In any event, it was a moving thing for many of us to hear Mr. Bush speak so
clearly and eloquently and to speak so affectionately of the man, in title="Ariel Sharon" href="">Ariel
, with whom he once exchanged pointed words about the meaning of title=Munich href="">Munich. That was days
after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when Mr. Sharon, then prime minister,
warned that Israel “will not be href="">Czechoslovakia.” At the
time, Mr. Bush took it as an insult and was hurt, but he embraced the lesson of
Munich in a way that has rarely been matched.

This is something to think about on the eve of our own election. Painful
though it may have been for Mr. Obama to sense himself as the object of Mr.
Bush’s remarks, no one need rule out the possibility that, should the Democrat
gain the White House, he will also gain an appreciation of what Mr. Bush has
comprehended so clearly and of the nature of the covenant of which the president
gave such an eloquent expression.

The Jihad Against Pakistan ... And Its Dhimwits

clipped from

The new government of Pakistan has made clear their disinterest in fighting
radical Islamists on their own soil, preferring to offer appeasement to rebels
rather than demand that they respect the law in the Pakistani democracy. As long
as they keep the jihadists in Pakistan, that would be their business. Now,
though, the new ruling coalition have sent signals that they have href="">little
interest in securing their borders
, which will eventually lead to a showdown
with Afghanistan — and NATO:

Pakistani officials are making it increasingly clear that they have no
interest in stopping cross-border attacks by militants into title="More news and information about Afghanistan."
prompting a new level of frustration from Americans who see the infiltration as
a crucial strategic priority in the war in Afghanistan.

This is far more than just an Islamist terror war; it’s a struggle for national
identity for the Pashtuns and sovereignty for both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pot And Kettle

clipped from

Nouri al-Maliki has given Iraqis in Mosul the same offer he gave Iraqis in Basra: amnesty for those who walk away. At the start of a major offensive against the rump al-Qaeda organization making its last stand in the northern city, Maliki wants to separate the wheat from the chaff by enticing hangers-on to abandon their AQI allies and turn themselves and their weapons over to the Iraqi Army. It serves as a final call before the destruction begins in earnest:

It’s the last chance for the native insurgents to choose their country rather than foreign religious lunatics. In ten days, we will see how well Maliki’s offer played with these holdouts, and how much it exposed the remaining AQI terrorists.

why do all the Libs think that we can and should have control over their

And why is OUR Congress bitchin at them for not doing somthing political,
when ours did not even pass a budget last year, but we continue on a continueing

Pot? meet Kettle?

Thursday, May 15, 2008

All You Need To Know About Our "Betters" On The Nobel Committee...

The word 'hero' is grossly misused today. Sports figures who score a thrilling
goal or touchdown; public figures who use their position in the spotlight to
advance a particular charity or cause; these and many others are called
'heroes'. They're not.

A real heroine has just left us. If you want to
know what true heroism is, take a few moments to think about her life.
Irena Sendler was a social
worker in Warsaw, Poland, when Germany occupied that nation in 1939. Almost
immediately the Jews of that city were confined in the infamous href="">Warsaw Ghetto, which
existed from 1940-1943. Even before the ghetto was established, Sendler began
helping them.

As an employee of Warsaw's Social Welfare Department,
Sendler had a permit to enter the Ghetto to check for typhus and other
infectious diseases. She used that to smuggle Jewish children out, giving them
Catholic identities so that they could be raised in secret by sympathizers
outside the Ghetto.
... is the fact that Al Gore won the Peace Price instead of Irena.

Exactly Right?

The housing perhaps-not-entirely-a-crisis resembles, in one particular, the curious consensus about the global warming "crisis," concerning which, the assumption is: Although Earth's temperature has risen and fallen through many millennia, the temperature was exactly right when, in the 1960s, Al Gore became interested in the subject. Are we to assume that last year, when housing prices were, say, 10 percent higher than they are now, they were exactly right? If so, why is that so? Because the market had set those prices, therefore they were where they belonged? But if the market was the proper arbiter of value then, why is it not the proper arbiter now? Whatever happened to the belief, way back in 2007, that there was a housing "bubble"? Or to the more ancient consensus that, because of, among other things, the deductibility of mortgage interest payments from taxable income, too much American capital flows into the housing stock?

But We May Not Speak Of It. And Therefore It Begins.

Bush in Israel says "Masada shall never fall again." And he adds, "Some seem
to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some
ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have
heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939,
an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all
this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is --
the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by

, how dare you speak of me in that way?


Peter Wehner at href="">Commentary

Obama’s faux anger in reaction to Bush’s speech is ludicrous. For one thing,
the President did not even mention Senator Obama in his speech. What the
President was rebutting was a (fairly prevalent) cast of mind, one which is
shared by Obama but by many others–including Jimmy Carter, who just returned
from the region

Without The Umbrella Update

clipped from

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. Gibbs’ statement makes absolutely no sense in context of Bush’s remarks or Obama’s previous statements. If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Preview: The O'Carter Second Term

Robert Novak: Well, I think Bill Clinton was a minor league liar compared to Jimmy Carter. Carter would just lie for the sake of lying. He was absolutely incredible.

I put a lot of the cases in the book -- I couldn't put all of them in -- but my two favorite cases are in the book.

Rowly Evans and I had a party celebrating the 25th anniversary of our column and we invited all the Presidents and ex-Presidents to send letters. Nixon didn't like us much, but he sent a nice letter. But, Carter told an aide that the last thing he would do was send any kind of greeting to those guys.

That year, in 1988, at the Democratic National Convention, there was a reception at the Carter Center in Atlanta and as my partner was going through the line -- I told my partner not to do it -- ...(and he said to Carter), "Mr. President, how come you didn't send us a message for our 25th anniversary?" He said, "Well Rowly, if I had known, I certainly would have sent it. It must have gotten lost in the mail."

Hamas Hearts O

Phil Klein calls our attention to an al-Jazeera news report that sounds like a parody, but is genuine: A report on Palestinians in Gaza who are phonebanking in support of Barack Obama's campaign.

I transcribed the most jaw-dropping parts:

REPORTER: It may be hard to believe, but working in this tiny Internet cafe in Gaza City may just be one of Barack Obama's biggest fans.

Before every U.S. primary, 23-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab gathers 17 of his friends to try and rally support for Obama's campaign in the U.S.

So why does a young Palestinian living in Gaza spend so much of his time and money on an election thousands of miles away?

ABU JAYYAB: [translated] It all started at the time of the U.S. primaries. After studying Obama's electoral campaign manifesto, I thought, 'this is a man that is capable of change inside America.' As for potential change in the Middle East, he can also do that. I think he can bring peace to the area, or at least this is what we hope.

About Them


The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.
Somehow, people have come to equate "heroism" with indulgent self-righteousness and appeals to victimization; and "villainy" with market forces.
There is another kind of hero, with a very different motivation, best exemplified by the hard leftists. They act- or rather, pretend to act or demand that others act, with little or no concern about how the consequences of their efforts will impact others. The ‘heroism’ they focus on is centered around themselves. The see themselves as better or special.
A hero, on the other hand, is only heroic to the extent that he risks life and limb for something transcending himself. Since transcendence doesn’t exist for the secularist, the hero must therefore be an idiot or a manipulative liar — as the left regards, say, General “Betray Us.”

They Know Not What They Do

And this is where I feel least hopeful about the future. The desire to defend Israel is being sapped, across the West, by causes ranging from exhaustion with endless trouble in the Middle East, to the thirst for oil, to the rapid growth of Muslim immigration, and thus of an electoral constituency that tends to be extremely unsympathetic to Israel.

But more profoundly, the Left-Islamist alliance -- forged in common opposition to everything the West stands for -- has made the abandonment of Israel a common priority across the spectrum of people who take their politics from fashion.

Alas, most of the West’s internal enemies, demanding the abandonment of Israel as first step, do not even know what they are doing. They are like parasites upon a host organism, and do not understand that when the host organism dies, they too will die.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The "Failure"

clipped from

When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered a military offensive against rogue Shiite militias in March, it was widely panned as a failure that was one more reason the U.S. needed to abandon Iraqis to their own "civil war." Well, several weeks later the battle for Basra and Baghdad against Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army looks to be both a military and political success.

Mr. Maliki took a big risk when he decided to move against his fellow Shiites to reclaim Basra for the government.

In the last year we were told first that the surge was a military failure, and later that it was a military success but that Iraq's political class had not lived up to its end of the bargain. In fact, just as surge supporters said, the Iraqis have become more confident and effective the more they have become convinced that the U.S. was not going to cut and run.

Hamas's Man

Barack Obama and his legion of supporters in the MSM may not like the fact that Hamas supports his candidacy, or that John McCain and his supporters mention this fact. But it's not difficult to understand why Hamas favors Obama. Consider this statement by Obama regarding Lebanon:

This effort to undermine Lebanon’s elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. . . It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.
Obama may well fail to comprehend the first point and believe the second, just as naive leftists of an earlier generation thought that Ho Chi Minh was, at root, an agrarian reformer.

No wonder he's Hamas's man.

The Profound Ignorance

clipped from

It is well-known among climatologists that large swaths of the physics in GCMs are not well understood.31 Where the uncertainty is significant GCMs have “parameters,” which are best judgments for how certain climate processes work. General Circulation Models have dozens of parameters and possibly a million variables,32 and all of them have some sort of error or uncertainty.

A proper assessment of their physical reliability would include propagating all the parameter uncertainties through the GCMs, and then reporting the total uncertainty.33 I have looked in vain for such a study. No one seems to ever have directly assessed the total physical reliability of a GCM by propagating the parameter uncertainties through it. In the usual physical sciences, an analysis like this is required practice. But not in GCM science, apparently, and so the same people who express alarm about future warming disregard their own profound ignorance.

Manchurian Rules

Forget "bitter"; Obama must believe that most Americans suffer from an attention-deficit disorder so crippling that they can't concentrate on their own interests or values.

Obama has an acute self-interest in so diagnosing the American electorate. His campaign knows he's vulnerable to the charge of being an elitist liberal. Unable to argue the facts, it wants to argue the law -- defining his weaknesses as off-limits.

Here are the Obama rules in detail: He can't be called a "liberal" ("the same names and labels they pin on everyone," as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ("attempts to play on our fears"); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ("the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives" and "turn us against each other"); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ("pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy"). Besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Got It

When Jeffrey Goldberg interviews Barack Obama, the candidate offers some reassuring statements, like this...

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.”

... but then out of the blue he offers this:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists

The security of the "constant wound" and "constant sore" that "infects" our foreign policy is non-negotiable. Got it.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Without Preconditions

It's no surprise that the media are in the tank for Barack Obama, but the willingness of the New York Times to simply misrepresent the facts--while pretending to act as a fact-checker!--is pretty breathtaking.
[I]n a fund-raising letter sent out in April, a spokesman for Mr. McCain wrote: “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.”

That, the Times says, is wrong. It quotes Obama adviser Susan Rice denying that Obama has advocated "unconditional" talks with Ahmadinejad:

That's good enough for the New York Times's "fact checkers." The problem is that, contrary to his campaign's current revisionist effort, Obama plainly has advocated unconditional talks with Iran on several occasions.

Obama's web site contains this statement:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

The Time We Wasted

Abu Kais over at From Beirut to the Beltway has a takedown of the half-term Senator from Ilinois' statement on Lebanon that is a must read.

Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago.

As Tony Badran wrote me this morning: “I think Obama's statement is counterproductive in that it will be read by Syria as confirming their hope that there might be a chance with an Obama presidency to get back Lebanon.

“And so, there's a good possibility that the first thing the Syrians will do in 2009 is to coordinate Hezbollah launching an attack on Israel.

O'Never Mind The Guns

What is manifestly clear however is that Obama and his banished adviser/non-adviser share the same worldview. Consider this passage from a press release expressing his “support” for Lebanon.

It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

Yes, the problem with Lebanon is not the militia backed by Damascus and Tehran that who have squared off against almost every US ally in the Middle East. No, in the Obama worldview, the issue is about “the corrupt patronage system.”

Never mind the guns, it's essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics!
the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy.