#Bob Costas, a PC libtard, reared his ugly smugness again on Sunday. He decided to school everyone who isn’t offended by the #name ‘#Redskins‘ on why they are wrong … including Native Americans.
After starting off telling everyone that the vast majority of Native Americans aren’t offended by the name ‘Redskins’ (and they aren’t), he went on to say that their opinion doesn’t matter, and that ‘Redskins’ is actually highly #offensive. Apparently, Costas thinks Native Americans are so dumb and naive that they need him to protect their fragile psyche. So he’s stepping up to be offended for them.
I’ve also pointed out that in my many discussions on this topic, Native Americans believe that people like Costas are attempting to erase Native Americans from our culture, and they think it’s motivated by racial discrimination.
It’s hard to argue against the claim that people like Costas are #racist against Native Americans when he goes on national television and tells them that they are wrong for not being offended by something that only they have the authority to decide is offensive.
Black (not so funny) comedian W. Kamau Bell recently said that white people ‘can’t say what’s racist or not’ when it comes to blacks being offended. Ok, if that’s the case, then whites, blacks, asians, etc. can’t say what’s racist or not when it comes to Native Americans. So … shut up about it.
Costas’ logic to support his argument was to make the point that if we go back in time (that would be the 1600’s btw), ‘Redskin’ was a derogatory term used to describe Native Americans.
So what?
Hoosier was a derogatory term used to describe people from Indiana, and now we wear that moniker with pride. Retard and retarded are perfectly legitimate mechanical terms that society foolishly decided was offensive only recently. Can we go back to just 10 years ago and reclaim retard’s legitimate definition like Costas is suggesting with Redskin?
How about if we reclaim the definition of faggot and fag while we are at it. It originally had nothing to do with homosexuals, and isn’t used primarily to disparage them now anyway. Yet we can’t call someone a fag without being accused of being a homophobe. Even though the word is rarely used to describe homosexuals.
South Park explained all of this perfectly:
The professionally offended are destroying our society, culture, and language while stoking bigotry where none exist. It’s time to hold their feet to the fire.
UPDATE:
Mofo Politics has a petition to demand Costas change his offensive name.
The debate has raged for some days now … was the killing of al-Awlaki in Yemen illegal?
Rep. Ron Paul says it was, but he says everything is illegal.
There are two primary arguments alleging the illegality of al-Awlaki’s killing.
First, he was a US citizen, and as such, was due a trial.
Second, the US violated international law by assassinating him in Yemen.
Neither argument holds up, both morally or legally.
First I’ll address international law.
Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, or the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid al-Awlaki’s killing by international law. Right off the get go, proponents of this argument are off to a bad start. In fact, the international law community has often taken the stance that killing an adversary can often fall within the confines of international law.
The clauses that traditionally have been construed as prohibiting “targeted killings” are far from clear prohibitions. In the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), Article 23b states that it is prohibited “to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is not explicitly defined, and it can be argued that using missiles to attack a car in which a target is traveling, while brutal and having a high probability of injuring bystanders, does not fall within the purview of treachery. Similarly, targeted killings can be argued to fall outside the Protocol I Article 37 prohibition on killing, injuring, or capturing “an adversary by resort to perfidy”—described as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.” Article 37 gives examples of perfidy including “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender” and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.”
Basically, you can’t ‘assassinate’ under false-flag circumstances. No such circumstance existed with the al-Awlaki killing. It should be noted that this provision addresses someone belonging to a hostile nation OR army. While al-Awlaki did not belong to a hostile nation, he did belong to a hostile army. This is important later when I argue the relevance of his US citizenship.
In addition to this international law, the US has NO LAW forbidding foreign assassinations. We do, however, have a policy of not undertaking assassinations. Policy does not equal law.
The second component to this operation is that Yemen fully approved, and supported the killing of al-Awlaki. So no argument can be made that we violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation.
The other argument making its way around is that al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal because he was a US citizen. As such, an assassination order by the President of the United States would violate his constitutional right of due process. It should also be noted that al-Awlaki was not the only American killed in the attack.
Al-Awlaki’s ties to terrorism are not in dispute, his actual influence is. So can the president order his killing, or not?
8 U.S.C. § 1481 addresses the issue of US citizenship in situations like this.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention ofrelinquishing United States nationality –
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
The law also addresses taking up arms against the United States in section 7. Considering al-Awlaki’s Yemeni citizenship, which does not recognize dual-citizenship, and his taking up arms against the US, it would appear that he renounced his US citizenship long ago.
Section 7 automatically revokes his citizenship because of his terrorist activities, but requires capture and tribunal. Since he was in Yemen, we revert to international law which permits his killing in order to prevent a further loss of life. More relevant is local Yemen law. Again, they assisted in the killing of al-Awlaki.
Is his killing a gray area? Only in the perpetually unrefined laws of US citizenship. Laws that most Americans agree need to be revamped, but the law nonetheless.
The only component missing to classify al-Awlaki as a non-citizen appears to be a mere formality of choreographed theater that would only serve to satisfy the selfish needs of third party citizens, not the parties directly involved. It’s pretty clear that al-Awlaki, the US, and Yemen were all on the same page.
Both al-Alwaki and Yemen agree that he is a citizen of Yemen. The US agrees that he revoked his citizenship. Who are you to swoop in and negate those facts?
The only sources of outcry appear to come from the ignorant, and those with a vested interest in ideological pacifism. Not from a position of morality or legality.
Ultimately, this is a debate that will fall upon opinion. If you think al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal, you’ll likely never change your mind. Same goes for those who think it was legally justified. Each individual will have to decide for themselves if international law, US law, or Yemeni law should reign supreme.
I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.
No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”
The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers. For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.
If you’re attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.
That sounds nice, but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague. What constitutes an attack? Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders? Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.
What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?
Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the US and her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones. Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?
I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under Clinton proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.
So why bring this up now? Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is dead. Because we may be heading for another war.
Tensions have been rising with Pakistan for years. The killing of Osama bin Laden only catapulted those tensions to the mainstream. During the aftermath of that operation, we clearly learned that Pakistan is no friend of the US. Yet, something far worse was kept from us.
A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.
Yep. Ambushed by the Pakistanis … ahem … allegedly.
Maj. Larry J. Bauguess lost his life in the attack.
This blatant act of war was covered up by both the Pakistanis and Washington. In fact, Pakistan has been well-known to retaliate for collateral damage by US forces with open attacks on US personnel.
Some will blame America for the incident, and say that Pakistan was just retaliating for their losses. An interesting point, albeit one that ignores Pakistan’s hindering our intelligence, and often openly helping the enemy against us.
Then there’s Iran. We know they are sending weapons across the border into Iraq to help kill Americans. There have even been clashes with US and Iranian military forces. Something that was also kept quiet, and has happened more than once.
Right about now someone will say that none of this would happen if we weren’t there to begin with, so we are still the aggressor. That’s about as intelligent as inviting someone over for dinner, and then calling them a burglar.
Am I calling for war with Pakistan or Iran? No.
Were those two incidents justification for war in my opinion? Yes.
I’m saddened that neither party has an option for president that touts legit military credentials. We have, after all, been at war for a decade with no truly experienced military veteran in the White House. Going forward, we may not have an option for peace either. It makes me wonder … how different things would be if a competent military commander were also sitting in the White House.
