Appropriately, just as Americans were finishing up observances of the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, President Trump confirmed that Osama bin Laden’s son, Hamza bin Laden, “was killed in a United States counterterrorism operation in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region.”
Hamza bin Laden was considered “heir to the throne” of terrorist leadership. Trump’s statement reads, “The loss of Hamza bin Laden not only deprives Al Qaeda of important leadership skills and the symbolic connection to his father but undermines important operational activities of the group. Hamza bin Laden was responsible for planning and dealing with various terrorist groups.”
Rumors of his death had been circulating since July, but it’s not known if he was killed more recently, if it took this long to confirm it, or if Trump was waiting to insure the safety of local sources who might have helped locate him. Whenever his death happened, the good news is that it did, and congratulations to all US forces and planners who had a hand in it. It sends a message that those who strike at America and at innocent civilians through the abomination of terrorism will never be safe no matter where they hide.
On that subject, last week, the Navy SEAL who shot Osama bin Laden finally revealed his version of what happened. Warning: this story contains exactly the type of rough language you might expect from a Navy SEAL describing how he shot Osama bin Laden.
Saturday, a drone strike on the world’s largest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia caused huge fires that interrupted “about 5.7 million barrels of crude oil production -- over 5 percent of the world’s daily supply.” Oil prices were expected to spike today because of the strike, “credit” for which has been claimed by Houthi rebels in Yemen backed by Iran, although the US government suspects Iran directly.
Either way, some important lessons can be drawn from it. First, it helps to cement the growing trend in recent years of Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia realizing that Israel and the US are their allies and their big worry is Iran. It also shows that Iran is not a nation that can be trusted to abide by words on an agreement. Finally, it shows the absolute braindead idiocy of all the Democrats running for President who are vowing on day one to shut down fracking and other fossil fuel production in the US. Imagine the impact of this disruption if there were no American fuel to bridge the gap.
For the first time in decades, the US is an exporter of fossil fuels. To be a truly free and independent nation, any country needs to be able to fuel itself just as much as it needs to be able to feed itself. If the Democrats had their way, the US fossil fuel boom would be shut down, Russia would be vastly enriched and empowered through its oil industry, and America would once again be dependent on OPEC oil, which we now see can be disrupted by one drone strike from some shadowy rebels. If you really want to bet the future of your country on America-hating radicals suddenly deciding to behave like civilized people after they’ve seen how successful a drone strike on a Saudi oil facility can be, then by all means, elect one of those clowns President.
Say what you like about today’s liberals, but you can never accuse them of being good losers. And for once, I’m not talking about the 2016 election.
Next month will mark a full year since Brett Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court, and the leftwing media are still trying to bring back unsubstantiated charges of sexual impropriety from his high school and college days over 30 years ago in an attempt to get him impeached. But judging from the way the New York Times chose to launch its latest assault, I’d say it’s the Times writers who need a lesson in proper behavior toward women (warning: the language and description in the Times’ tweet are for adult eyes only):
I don’t know how you can think that could ever be described as “harmless fun” under any circumstances. Maybe they meant it sarcastically. Or maybe they meant that back in their own “Animal House” college days, they saw it that way, just as they did later on in the ‘90s, when they lectured us moralistic old fuddy-duddies that what Bill Clinton did after hours was his private life and had nothing to do with whether he should be President, man. Now that they see an opportunity to impeach a conservative Supreme Court Justice over an unsubstantiated allegation of doing the same sort of things they did and defended, they’re more than willing to retroactively impose the strict moral code they’ve spent decades shredding. But only on their political opponents.
This is beyond yesterday’s news, this is an attempt to reanimate three-decade old rumors that were already shot down over a year ago, and just in time for Halloween. If you’re interested in the real story of how this man and his family were put through an unconscionable character assassination by zealots who feared he might vote in favor of limiting abortion, Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino already wrote the definitive book on the subject, “Justice on Trial.” They’ve already examined the new Kavanaugh book written by what Hemingway calls “shockingly biased New York Times reporters,” and she says, “I’m actually kind of enjoying how bad it is,” with its anonymous sources telling stories that contradict each other.
The Times was forced to apologize both for the offensive language of its tweet and for not mentioning that the alleged victim of the assault charge has said she doesn’t recall it happening.
In fact, the New York Times’ book on Kavanaugh is so bad that it didn’t even get a good review in the New York Times!
If you really want to dig deep into this sordid, messy second stab at character assassination, John McCormack at National Review will walk you through it (but watch where you step.)
Finally, it should be noted that these offensive, badly-sourced, misleading, one might say defamatory statements by the New York Times that they had to retract and apologize for were enough justification for both Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris to immediately call for Kavanaugh to be impeached. Not exactly a testament to them having the kind of temperament, wisdom and judgement you want to see in the Oval Office. That job requires taking an oath to defend the Constitution, which, FYI, includes due process rights.