The Camp Of The Saints

Archive

Newer | Older

Friday, April 17, 2009

WHAT A MOTHER, RUSSIA

You've heard the expression about Sicilian women: They're more dangerous than shotguns. Well...it would seem, so are Russian women. From The Moscow Times, Carl Schreck reporting:

According to Life.ru, the events unfolded on the evening of March 14 as the stylist was wrapping up her shift at the salon in the Kaluga region town of Meshchovsk.

The robber, a 32-year-old man identified by Life.ru as "Viktor," burst into the salon at around 5 p.m. waving a pistol and ordered all of the stylists and clients to hit the floor and toss him their money.

At this point, 28-year-old Olga, whom Life.ru describes as a "delicate" girl trained in martial arts, was apparently still standing when she offered to hand over her cash. But when Viktor tried to accept her contribution, Olga surprised him with a quick punch to the chest, knocking the wind out of him before she flipped him to the ground.

Olga proceeded to tie Viktor up with a hair-dryer cord, gagged him and dragged him into a storage room.

Curiously, Life.ru reports, Olga instructed the others to keep working, telling them that the police would soon arrive.

But this feel-good moment for the good guy proved ephemeral. Things soon turned ugly, according to Life.ru.

The police did not come. And after the other stylists and clients went home for the evening, Olga told Viktor to "take off his underwear" and, with apologies to John Cougar Mellencamp, let her do as she pleases, lest she call the cops, Life.ru said.

She tied him to the radiator with handcuffs covered in frilly pink fabric, gave him some Viagra and had her way with him several times over the next 48 hours. When she finally let him go on the evening of March 16, Viktor had been "squeezed like a lemon," Life.ru reported.

First, he went to the hospital to have his injured genitals treated; then he went to police and filed a complaint asking that Olga be brought up on criminal charges for committing "actions of a sexual nature" that left him with injured sexual organs, according to a copy of the complaintposted on Life.ru.

Olga was apparently incensed when she learned of the complaint. She had, after all, even tried to be nice to her purported captive.

"What a jerk," Life.ru quoted her as saying. "Yeah, there were a few times. But I bought him new jeans, gave him food and drink, and gave him 1,000 rubles when he left."

The following day, Olga filed a complaint with police, asking that Viktor be charged in the salon robbery. Life.ru posted a copy of her statement as well.

Yikes.

Tip of the fedora to Mark Steyn [who entitled his posting: Song of the Olga Groped-Man]

17 apr 09 @ 10:56 am edt Comments

ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO

There's some very satisfying news from the DOD:

The Navy will commission the newest Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, Stockdale, during an 11:00 a.m. PST ceremony on Saturday, April 18, 2009, in Port Hueneme, Calif.

Designated DDG 106, the new destroyer honors Medal of Honor recipient Vice Adm. James Bond Stockdale (1923-2005), the legendary leader of American prisoners of war (POWs) during the Vietnam War.

Stockdale was the highest-ranking naval officer ever held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. His plane was shot down Sept. 9, 1965, while flying combat missions over North Vietnam. Stockdale spent more than seven years in captivity at prisons in North Vietnam, including time at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton." Four of those years were spent in solitary confinement. While imprisoned, Stockdale is credited with organizing a set of rules to govern the behavior of fellow prisoners of war and for helping to develop a code for prisoners to communicate with each other that included tapping on cell walls. In recognition of his leadership and sacrifice he was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1976.

Stockdale received 26 combat medals and awards, including two Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, two Purple Hearts and four Silver Stars. He was also named to the Aircraft Carrier Hall of Fame, National Aviation Hall of Fame, and was an honorary member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots.

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Timothy Keating, will deliver the ceremony's principal address. Sybil Stockdale will serve as sponsor of the ship named for her late husband. The ceremony will be highlighted by a time-honored Navy tradition when she gives the first order to "man our ship and bring her to life!"

Stockdale is the 56th of 62 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The ship will be able to conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime presence and crisis management to sea control and power projection. Stockdale will be capable of fighting air, surface and subsurface battles simultaneously and contains a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to support maritime warfare in keeping with "A Cooperative Strategy for 21^stCentury Seapower," the new maritime strategy that postures the sea services to apply maritime power to protect U.S. vital interests in an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.

Cmdr. Fred W. Kacher, of Oakton, Va., will become the first commanding officer of the ship and will lead the crew of 276 officers and enlisted personnel. The 9,200-ton Stockdale was built by Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics Company. The ship is 509 feet in length, has a waterline beam of 59 feet, and a navigational draft of 31 feet. Four gas turbine engines will power the ship to speeds in excess of 30 knots.

Several months back, Admiral Stockdale was the subject of one of the entries on the HEROES Page of this site. Please click here to view that entry.

17 apr 09 @ 10:49 am edt Comments

I DARE YOU TO TAKE THIS QUIZ

The folks over at Reason Online have posted a quiz you can take to see, in light of the recent DHS Assessment, if you are a terrorist. If it turns out you qualify, they provide you with a printable certificate suitable for framing. I passed.

Please click here to take the quiz.

17 apr 09 @ 10:44 am edt Comments

AID AND COMFORT

There's no need for me to offer any commentary on the release of the interrogation memorandums by the Administration because, as Andrew McCarthy writes:

In the Wall Stree [sic] Journal this morning, former CIA Director Mike Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey absolutely slay the Obama/Holder rationale for disclosing top-secret memoranda that outline the precise enhanced interrogation methods used by the CIA. It is as thorough, well-written, and convincing as any op-ed you will read.

It is. One highlight that will raise your blood pressure:

Soon after he was sworn in, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that suspended use of these techniques and confined not only the military but all U.S. agencies — including the CIA — to the interrogation limits set in the Army Field Manual. This suspension was accompanied by a commitment to further study the interrogation program, and government personnel were cautioned that they could no longer rely on earlier opinions of the OLC.

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Which side are these clowns in the Administration on? Sadly, we know its not the side of The West.

Please take the time to click here and read the full op-ed.

17 apr 09 @ 9:39 am edt Comments

WOODEN DUMMY

Speaker Of The House and sister of Mortimer Snerd, Nancy Pelosi had this to say about the TEA Partiers:

This initiative is funded by the high end; we call it AstroTurf, it's not really a grass-roots movement. It's AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.

As I've stated here many time previously:
If you want to know what the those on the Left are doing in a particular situation, just look and see what they're accusing the Right of doing. You've heard of 'The Big Lie', this is 'The Big Deception'.

Tip of the fedora to Brian Faughnan over at The Blog, whose comments on this can be read by clicking here.

17 apr 09 @ 9:07 am edt Comments

INCREASING DEPENDENCY, PART XXIII

Our Most Sovereign and Magnificent Fearless Leader, Barack The Unready, announced yesterday His plan for simplifying the tax code. As Veronique de Rugy reports over at The Corner:
Does it mean that he is ready to push for a flat tax? Nope. Under his plan, bureaucrats (likely unionized treasury ones) are going to be preparing taxpayers' tax returns for them. At first, the plan will focus on taxpayers whose sole income comes from one employer and whose interest income comes from one bank. I am assuming it means that the taxpayers will be taken out of the loop and that the IRS will receive taxpayers' W2 and the bank will report directly to the IRS. Then, it could be expanded to more taxpayers.

The Divine Obamacus says his plan will 'make it easier, quicker and less expensive for you to file a return, so that April 15th is not a date that is approached with dread every year.'

Miss de Rugy is not impressed:
...Obama will have to hire more IRS bureaucrats to do the work that tax preparers do right now. Right? Many more bureaucrats. And actually, today, taxpayers with one income from one employer and with no investment income probably don't spend that much time doing their taxes and are probably not paying anyone to prepare their tax return. So the plan is to have a bureaucrat do a job that the taxpayer was doing himself at very low cost? As for the more complicated returns, without a true simplification of the tax code, it will take IRS bureaucrats as much time, and likely much more time, to prepare the returns than private tax-preparers. This doesn’t sound like a money saver to me.

Neither is one of her readers:
It also strikes me that this program would provide incentives, intended or not, to behavior that is perceived to benefit the agenda of the Democratic Party. Being single, not having a mortgage, not giving much to charity and not diversifying your investments would all receive a small benefit in not having to worry about filling out and filing your taxes every year. I wonder, though, if you owe money, how will the federal government take care of getting the payment. Oh, wait, they will know the name of your only financial institution and all your account numbers so that will be no problem at all.

So...we are on our way to the United States Government being our one-stop shop for all of our daily needs. Lovely. Excuse the following vulgarity: Someday, I suppose, they'll take over responsibility for wiping our arses.

Please take the time to click here and read her full posting and here to read a follow-up.

17 apr 09 @ 8:56 am edt Comments

CALUMNY

The most disturbing part of the Department of Homeland Security's 'assessment' of 'rightwing [sic] extremism' is the slanders and lies it hurls at the veterans of this country. Those of us who have been studying the Left for years are never surpised at the virulent hatred they hold towards these brave defenders of The West, but, usually, when it comes to official pronouncements, the Left will feign a support for the troops. That's why the presence of such calumnies in this report have taken many of us aback.

In yesterdays New York Post, Ralph Peters let the Administration and, as he calls her, Janet-from-another-planet Napolitano have it with both barrels. A few highlights:

HOLLYWOOD and countless professors warned us: Military vets are drooling trailer-trash who beat their wives and, at best, wind up as homeless street people -- at worst, as homicidal psychos deformed by war.

Now, thanks to our ever-vigilant Department of Homeland Security, the full extent of the danger has been revealed: Our so-called "war heroes" are rushing back to join right-wing-extremist hate groups to overthrow our government.

Let's not quibble about little things like evidence. The Obama administration just knowsthat vets are all racist, Jew-hating crazies waiting to explode. Thank God, DHS has a fearless leader, Janet-from-another-planet Napolitano, who isn't afraid to call white trash "white trash."

And...
Of course, Timothy McVeigh is invoked. Repeatedly. He's the soleexample of a violent anti-government vet the report's drafters could produce. And there's no mention of the fact that, when he tried to join Special Forces, McVeigh promptly washed out and soon found his butt on the street. No, McVeigh will serve as eternal evidence that a homicidal nut lurks within every former soldier.

Finally...
But never fear: Obama's commissars at the Department of Homeland Security have already responded that DHS simultaneously issued a report on extremist danger from the left. It's title? "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade."

Get the point? Left-wing extremists aren't violent (and right-wingers are too stupid to understand computers). Timothy McVeigh can be invoked, but let's not mention Bill Ayers, our president's good buddy (until he became inconvenient) or his murderous wife. Left-wing fanatics might make a little online mischief, but, hey -- kids will be kids.

Read both reports. You'll find that those on the political right (not just vets) are unable to cope with the stress of economic hardship, the real-estate crisis or job loss. Not a word about those issues driving leftists to extremes. They're just defending animal rights and the environment (honest -- read the reports).

Bravo, Mr. Peters, bravo.

Please take the time to click here and read the full column.

PS: An extra bravo to the person at the Post who altered the author's description at the bottom of the column to read: 'Ralph Peters is so stupid he served in our military for almost 22 years.'

17 apr 09 @ 8:17 am edt Comments

Thursday, April 16, 2009

BEAU REAGAN

As we conservatives plot and plan our own domestic version of a surge, it is important that we understand not only why we believe what we believe, but our past—we cannot afford to view any of it through rose-colored glasses. Over at PowerLine, Scott Johnson has up a very spot-on posting concerning this past of ours:

The Reagan era has receded into the past, losing its partisan currency, and the evidence of Reagan's intellectual seriousness has emerged in the books of his letters and radio commentary. Prominent liberal academics have accordingly given up on the project of trashing Reagan and have even expressed admiration of him that was unthinkable at the time. Yet now conservatives have a hard time getting Reagan right, even as he has become what Steve Hayward calls "the beau ideal of the modern conservative statesman."

Hayward is the author of The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order and the forthcoming The Age of Reagan, 1980-1989: The Conservative Counterrevolution. In his AEI Bradley lecture "The Reagan Revolution and its Discontents," Hayward finds the conservative nostalgia for Reagan in need of adjustment. He confesses that he has grown "tired and impatient with the particular form of Reagan nostalgia as it comes to sight most often today, which is more reminiscent of his flabby 'morning in America' campaign of 1984 than his much sharper and [more] purposeful campaign of 1980."

[I]n his lecture Hayward makes several timely observations. He recalls aspects of the Reagan administration that frustrated conservatives at the time. Having forgotten these aspects of the Reagan administration, conservatives "are not taking seriously some fundamental challenges of conservative governance." In order to get Reagan right, Hayward expands his focus beyond the Cold War.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting.

16 apr 09 @ 1:43 pm edt Comments

THE TEN OBAM-MENTS

From CNSNews, we learn [tip of the fedora to Andrew McCarthy]...

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.

...

“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.

Some on the Right, especially the Catholics, are not happy about this. I would remind them of what is stated in Obamacus, Chapter 20:1-17...

And the Messiah spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy Obama, which have brought thee out of the land of Rightwing Extremists, out of the house of Bush. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Utopia above, or that is in the healing earth, or that is in the water of the receding seas under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them or Rush, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy Obama am a jealous (and pretty cool) Messiah, visiting the iniquity of the fathers deficits upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me and believe in the free market; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my hopeychange.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy Obama in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain and the LORD will impose the Fairness Doctrine or indict him.

Remember the tax day, to keep it holy. Twelve months shalt thou labour, and do all thy work and have it all taxed: But the 15th day of April is the sabbath of the LORD thy Obama: in it thou shalt not do any work that is not from the stimulus bill, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy nannny, nor thy personal shopper, nor thy cat, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates stealing thy goods: For in sixty days the LORD made heaven on earth, the seas recede, and all that in them is his, and rested the seventh day because he was exhausted: wherefore the LORD blessed the tax day, and hallowed it, but he was still tired and taketh many naps.

Honour thy federal and thy state government: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy Obama giveth thee so thee can payeth many taxes.

Thou shalt not have any will or secret ballots.

Thou shalt not commit TEA Parties.

Thou shalt not steal by keeping thy earned income nor by not sharing thy wealth.

Thou shalt not bear witness against thy progressives.

Thou shalt not covet thy house by paying the mortgage on time, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's government job, nor his manservant unless to get married in four states, nor his maidservant unless to get her pregnant and not marry her, nor his union pension, nor his own ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's or ACORN's.

16 apr 09 @ 11:22 am edt Comments

TAKE IT SLOW

What's an in-the-tank-for-Obama Mainstream Media type to do when confronted with something like this? From The Onion:

WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweekeditor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."

Since the killings took place, reporters across the country have struggled to come up with an appropriate take on the ruthless crime, with some wondering whether it warrants front-page coverage, and others questioning its relevance in a fast-changing media landscape.

...

Nevertheless, a small contingent of independent journalists has begun to express its disapproval and growing shock over the president's actions.

"I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but we are in the midst of an economic crisis here," political pundit Marcus Reid said. "Why was our president ritualistically dismembering the corpses of his prey when he should have been working on a new tax proposal for small businesses? I, for one, am outraged."

The New York Timesnewsroom is reportedly still undecided on whether or not to print a recent letter received from Obama, in which the president threatens to kill another helpless citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the police "stop the darkness from screaming."

"President Obama's letter presents us with a classic journalistic quandary," executive editor Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're giving him control over the kinds of stories we choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that we somehow give the nation's commander in chief special treatment."

I think we all sympathize.

Please take the time to click here and read the full report. [tip of the fedora to Jonah Goldberg and Jennifer Rubin]

16 apr 09 @ 9:59 am edt Comments

HISTORY DOES, INDEED, SOMETIMES REPEAT ITSELF

Over at OpenMarket, Iain Murray has up a very good posting that takes on the argument made by many on the Left that the situation we have today is nothing like the one when the Boston Tea Party happened. His introduction:

Those who say we tried the free market and it failed should research the history of the Boston Tea Party a little. We didn’t even have a free market in the 18th century, a period referred to in British history as The Whig Supremacy. Here’s the background; and to prove that there is nothing new under the sun, it involves company rent-seeking, market distortion, bailouts and stealth taxes.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting.

16 apr 09 @ 9:51 am edt Comments

TEA-ED OFF

I am not the type of person that takes part in demonstrations or protests or even joins groups—something in my DNA won't let me. But, I was very happy to see the huge numbers of people who turned out all across the country at the 700+ [don't know the final figure] TEA Parties. No violence occurred, unlike at the typical Leftist protest. Very little vulgarity, unlike at the typical Leftist protest. The vast, vast majority were well-mannered, unlike at the typical Leftist protest. Those average Joes and Janes who spoke were articulate and reasonable, unlike at the typical Leftist protest. Very heartening.

As you might image, there was a lot of commentary about it all flying through the ether. Here are few choice highlights [none from the Left which was overall ridiculous and hysterical or showed they haven't a clue]...

1) Over at The Corner, Mark Krikorian quotes from a reader and comments:
Update: A reader wrote me saying that at the Greenville, S.C., Tea Party, "They will be selling the 'Obama burger' — you pay for one and they cut it in half and give the rest to the guy behind you for free!!" Our team needs more political theater and fewer marketing consultants.

2) From Pejman Yousefzadeh over at Red State:
The tea parties that went on to commemorate Genuflection To The IRS Day have been a smashing success. A whole host of demonstrations popped up throughout the country and attracted large crowds. Public dissatisfaction with the bailout culture, massive deficit spending, and the general assault against free market capitalism manifested itself and made its presence felt in the national media. Try as some of the various news organizations did to downplay the effect of the tea parties, it cannot be denied that they made an impact.

Naturally, this success worries the defenders of Big Government; so much so that while pretending not to be concerned about the effect of the tea parties, opponents of small government have gone on the warpath to make their disdain clear. It’s a curious sight to see well-educated, fairly erudite individuals veer wildly from “these tea parties don’t matter in the long run and are beneath our attention” to “HOW DARE THESE . . . THESE . . . TEABAGGERS(hahahaha, I made a funny!) EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS LIKE THIS?!?!” The effect would be hysterical if the issue weren’t so serious.

...

To round out the . . . um . . . interesting bits of commentary we have been witness to concerning the tea parties, consider this, from Paul Begala, who tries desperately to engage in Lakoffian framing by calling April 15th “Patriots’ Day.” No, he’s not making it up. Apparently, no one told Begala that doing something that one is compelled by law to do isn’t exactly all that patriotic, just mandatory. But if Begala is right, does this mean that Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Killefer, and Kathleen Sebelius are not patriotic?

Who could have known that some tea parties would inspire so much shrill commentary?

Those of us who have studied the Left for years were not surprised. Some of the Leftist commentary I heard yesterday reminded me of things said and written by the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in Russia during the last decades of the Old Regime and during the Revolution.

As for that little slimy weasal named Begala, if you follow the link Mr. Yousefzadeh provides above and read his posting, you will see a near-perfect example of Leftist ~~propaganda~~ writing: outright lies and distortions wrapped in a cloak of fake patriotism enclosed in a sludge of sarcasm.

3) Also over at Red State, Warner Todd Huston comments on the incessant use of the term 'teabaggging' by Leftist commentators yesterday which was often accompanied by a teen-like giggling:
So what is the deal? Why are these fools twittering and guffawing over the simple words “tea” and “bag”? You see, it’s all a reference to some immoral, immature and perverted sex act. I won’t bother to go into the perversion at which the left is laughing because, well, it is utterly meaningless as legitimate political discussion. But, the whole joke the left is sniggering at is a revealing episode to explain the difference between the anti-American left and the rest of America.

As it happens, when talking to an engaged, informed, and patriotic American, when a tea party is discussed the images of Boston Harbor, taxes and American history immediately come to mind. A true American automatically thinks of the American Revolution, the birth of our nation and that proud tradition of self-reliance and rugged individualism infused into our country by its founders. The words invoke the entire panoply of America in the minds of real Americans everywhere.

Then we come to the left. Apparently, the first thing that comes to their “minds” is some arcane, disgusting sexual perversion and not American history and tradition.

And therein lies a major difference between the left and the right in America today. You see, on the right, America, its history and traditions are always at the forefront of the mind. A deep interest in the health and customs of this country are paramount. And to the left, no thought of America can be found. But sexual perversions are aplenty.

And there you have it. It’s quite a telling difference. But it is a difference as real as any.

Quite. Well put.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term 'teabagging', please click here to see the definitions, but be warned: it is very vulgar.

16 apr 09 @ 9:43 am edt Comments

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

WAKE AND WARN

In a recent posting over at Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball unleashed this spot-on observation:

The Obama administration has launched a societal Blitzkrieg against individual initiative, against inter-generational wealth, against the institutions of private property. His plans to nationalize the health care industry and to hamstring the U.S. economy with so-called “green” (really, they’re pink) rules and regulations, threaten to cripple not only the productive bits of our economy but also the spirit of independence and responsibility that fuelled America’s astonishing achievements in the past. The ultimate horror of the scenario is that we all know how it ends. The sleepwalker careens uneasily along the edge of a precipice. Who among us has the courage, who commands the rhetorical magic to wake and warn the sleepwalker before it is too late?

I wish I knew.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting.

15 apr 09 @ 2:27 pm edt Comments

BY THEIR FRUITS...

Red State's Erick Erickson has reminded me of a passage from The New Testament that I've forgotten to post since late last year:

Matthew 7:15-20

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. Erickson's posting which focuses on another passage from The Sermon On The Mount quoted by the Divine Obamacus.

15 apr 09 @ 2:21 pm edt Comments

HOIST ONE FOR ME

Will our Fearless Leader be hoisted on his own progressive petard? Victor Davis Hanson thinks its possible:

The recent Spanish boast that its courts may indict American officials for supposed transgression of the human rights of enemy unlawful combatants at Guantànamo hasn't earned much of a response from the Obama administration.

But it should. If the administration thinks that the Spanish postmodern indictments are a sort of a surrogate way of tweaking the Cheney-Rumsfeld orb, they are sorely mistaken.

...

Who knows what's in our future — a Spanish indictment of "judge-and-jury" Barack Obama for ordering the executions of Pashtun and Somali suspects in foreign or international territories, without an arrest warrant, habeas corpus, rights to counsel, and recourse to appeal?

Put the court proceedings on Pay-Per-View and I'll buy it.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting.

15 apr 09 @ 2:09 pm edt Comments

THE REAL STORY

Many Lefties have been hurling charges around the Internet about who is 'actually' behind the TEA Party protests. Michelle Malkin has provided a chronological history here that refutes all the accusations.

15 apr 09 @ 2:04 pm edt Comments

MEET THE NEW TERM, SAME AS THE OLD TERM

Yesterday I posted the following:

I have been trying for quite sometime now to come up with a nickname for Pelosi, Obama, and Reed—a word or two that I can use when referring to a joint action taken by the three of them. It finally came like a revelation this past weekend: POR [pronounced: poor, as in 'The policies of this government will make you....]. Fitting, eh?

Turns out Tom Blumer coined the term last year on 03 July over at BizzyBlog:

Today’s employment report, in combination with the ISM Non-Manufacturing Index, should raise alarm bells in Washington.

Instead, I’m afraid that the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the people at Obama campaign headquarters, are raising champagne glasses.

These folks aren’t just talking the economy down; they’re taking the economy down.

They’re the ones who have created what I’m going to start calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy.

Ah, well...someday....

15 apr 09 @ 11:43 am edt Comments

RIGHTWING EXTREMIST ROUNDUP

...What they're writing about the DHS document, not an actual, physical one [yet].

I've been travelling the highways and byways of the ether...

1) From Robert Stacy McCain:
They're "fighting the last war," so to speak, expecting the immediate future to resemble the immediate past. Well, history repeats itself, but not usually in such a direct manner. I'd hate to think DHS was spending so much time checking out every fringe kook in Idaho that they ignored the continuing Al-Qaeda threat.

And...
Mark Krikorian, David Boaz and Antonin Scalia are urged to turn themselves in at the nearest FEMA detention center.

2) From Bill Bennett:
This is a slander of conservatives. This report should have never seen the light of day because it never should have been authorized or written–especially not with all its innuendo and speculation. And that is what it contains, innuendo and speculation–by its own admission it has "no specific information." Isn’t that what a government report is for? Specific information? This is a political slander and I should hope that all the liberal and left wing commentators that railed against the Bush administration for ginning up fears about terrorism (even though that was and remains a very real thing) and big-brother encroachments on speech and press would be all over this. All over this.

Yes, I know some will point out the government has put out reports on the left as well–but those were very different reports. Take the much mentioned 2001 Dept. of Energy report titled "Leftwing Extremism: The Current Threat." It was chock full of examples both international and domestic, specific groups, the origins of leftwing extremism, and it even had an entire section that discussed rightwing extremism as well. That report has further readings, documentation, and sourcing. And it did not define away from credibility liberal ideology. This report is different on every score.

Newt Gingrich said whoever wrote this report should be fired. I agree and will go one step further–a new report should be issued by DHS under the signature of Secretary Napolitano fully recalling and retracting this fish wrap.

Fired? They probably want to give the son of a bitch a medal.

3) John Hinderaker has the best analysis of the document over at Powerline. A highlight:
One of the report's most offensive features is its casual defamation of servicemen and veterans:

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."

The "prominent civil rights organization" is the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center. But what support is there for SPLC's assertion that there are "large numbers" of "white supremacists" serving in the armed forces--as opposed to, say, a "tiny handful"? The SPLC's full report is entirely anecdotal; the closest thing to data is this:

[Scott] Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, said he has identified and submitted evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year.

But even this alleged statistic appears to be false. Barfield was a gang investigator, and what he actually said was: "I have identified 320 soldiers as gang members from April 2002 to present." So we now have the Department of Homeland Security defaming our servicemen on the basis of a press release by a left-wing pressure group that misrepresented the principal empirical support for its claim. Nice.

4) From Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner:
Readers insist the report is focused solely on violent groups, and they're probably right that this is the authors' intent. But that isn't how it reads necessarily. Indeed, it goes out of its way to note that many of these groups haven't done anything violent. The concern is that because they are right-wing they might be violent as if there is causation between being right-wing and being violent.

Again, I have no doubt that there are plenty of groups that are right-wing that deserve scrutiny from law enforcement. But this document reads like it is written to lend credence to a political argument more than it should.

And, please, don't say they're "just words."

5) From one of Jonah Goldberg's readers responding to another who thinks we are on the Right are being paranoid:
Is it really paranoid to be concerned that maybe the DHS report's authors really mean what they are apparently saying? That if you grudgingly voted for John McCain because he was really too liberal for your tastes, but better than Barack Obama, then you REALLY ARE a Right Wing Extremist who needs to be monitored by the government?

6) From a Mark Krikorian posting entitled: No Longer A Joke:
Now, I'm not the black-helicopter type and even these outrages don't mean we're approaching the end of democracy; Stacy McCainis still joking when he writes that "Mark Krikorian, David Boaz, and Antonin Scalia are urged to turn themselves in at the nearest FEMA detention center." But this is an unmistakable step toward not just delegitimizing dissent but actually criminalizing it, and Americans of whatever party need to push back, hard.

7) From Andrew McCarthy who warned us about Obama and his supporter's thug-like tactics many times:
...The only conceivable surprise is that it is so blatant and has happened so soon. But all they've done is commit to paper the same stuff they say to each other in conversation. (I'd love to see the email trail and the drafts that led to the final version.)

...Just consider the DHS gambit the first of many Domestic Contingency Operations.

8) The last word goes to Mark Steyn, RWE Extraordinaire:
Ah, right. So a predisposition toward the Tenth Amendment marks you down as a "rightwing extremist." Federalism is now a security threat. Likewise, being found in possession of subversive literature like that right-wing extremist Tocqueville's paean to the glories of American municipal self-government.

...

Oh, well. When the Feds surround my place for the big shootout, I hope my home gets described as a "compound" just before it goes up in smoke. Cool.

I've already instructed Mrs. Belvedere to refer to our humble 1/4 acre as The [real name omitted] Compound and Lounge.

As R.S. McCain would say: Wolverines!

15 apr 09 @ 11:21 am edt Comments

HOLD ON A MINUTE!

What?...You say you're right-wing, but you're not an extremist?

The Department Of Homeland Security thinks you are:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. [emphasis mine][don't they believe in dashes?]

Both Stephen Gordon over at The Liberty Papersand Michelle Malkin have verified that this is a legitimate document. From a posting by Mrs. Malkin:

I spent the day [yesterday] chasing down DHS spokespeople, who have been tied up preparing for a very important homeland security event later today: The First Lady is coming to visit their Washington office. Priorities, you know.

Well, the press office got back to me and verified that the document is indeed for real.

They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on “leftwing extremism” in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specificin identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

15 apr 09 @ 9:43 am edt Comments

FPOD

Good morning fellow 'rightwing' [sic] extremists [very sic]!

15 apr 09 @ 9:12 am edt Comments

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO OUR BELOVED CORE?

Recently, over at The American Spectator, Robert Stacy McCain [The Other McCain] posted a call-to-arms for conservatives that should be read by all who dare call themselves by that name. A highlight:

Back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the resolution to be debated. After a long exchange of trans-Atlantic telegrams, Buckley in exasperation cabled his final proposal: "Resolved: Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile."

In that simple phrase, Buckley summed up a basic truth about the conservative instinct. Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand.

We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.

When they refer to themselves as "progressives," radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest "progressive" demand and asking, "Is this a hill worth dying on?"

My own instinct is always to answer, "Hell, yes." Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. Ergo, to defeat the radicals in their latest crusade (whatever the crusade may be) is to demoralize and weaken their side, and to embolden and encourage our side. Even to fight and lose is better than conceding without a fight because, after all, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

This explains much about why I disagree with some conservatives who say we should not expend much effort defending traditional marriage against the gay-rights insurgency.

Mr. McCain then goes on to offer what to my mind is an irrefutable argument for waging the war. And the reasoning applies to all other fronts where Western Culture is being attacked.

Please take the time to click here and read the full essay.

14 apr 09 @ 7:18 pm edt Comments

THE GREAT UNWANTED

Over at USA Today, Frank Gaffney has up a posting that explains why the Dali Bama is so keen on resurrecting arms control negotiations with Russia and why this is a bad development:

President Obama proposes to deal with the proliferating threat of nuclear weapons and associated ballistic missiles by savaging the nuclear deterrent force and missile defenses that keep us safe. If implemented, his proposals would contribute to a more dangerous planet and a less secure America.

Obama's ideas are a throwback to a world that no longer exists — one in which there were two nuclear superpowers who believed that bilateral agreements on offensive forces and missile defenses were necessary to manage their relations and prevent Armageddon. Today, Russia is no superpower, although it is keen to parlay the vestiges of its once-vast nuclear arsenal into restored international prestige and power. The real danger is actual or incipient nuclear-armed rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, an unstable Pakistan and a militaristic China.

Far from discouraging proliferation, gutting our strategic forces in a new treaty with the Kremlin would increase that phenomenon. Our severe reductions would only embolden China and other prospective foes to build up. Meanwhile, allies who have heretofore relied on our nuclear "umbrella" would lose confidence in us and go nuclear themselves.

Comrade Obamin is stuck in the past. In the face of overwhelming evidence, he doggedly clings to to failed ideas whose only legacy are death and misery.

As for Mr. Gaffney's last point about our allies losing confidence, Caroline Glick has a devastatingly brilliant article over at the Jerusalem Post that looks at the fallout from Barack The Unready's words and actions during his European Tour. [You remember: he proclaimed a brave new world that is decidedly post-American and betrayed our commitments to our allies.]:

Tokyo was distraught by the administration's reaction to North Korea's three-stage ballistic missile test. Japan recognized the betrayal inherent in Defense Secretary Robert Gates's announcement ahead Pyongyang's newest provocation that the US would only shoot the missile down if it targeted US territory. In one sentence, uttered not in secret consultations, but declared to the world on CNN, Gates abrogated America's strategic commitment to Japan's defense.

India, for its part, is concerned by Obama's repeated assertions that its refusal to transfer control over the disputed Jammu and Kashmir provinces to Pakistan inspires Pakistani terror against India. It is equally distressed at the Obama administration's refusal to make ending Pakistan's support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan. In general, Indian officials have expressed deep concern over the Obama administration's apparent lack of regard for India as an ally and a significant strategic counterweight to China.

Then there is Iraq. During his brief visit to Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon, Obama didn't even pretend that he would ensure that Iraqi democracy and freedom is secured before US forces are withdrawn next year. The most supportive statement he could muster came during his conversation with Turkish students in Istanbul earlier in the day. There he said, "I have a responsibility to make sure that as we bring troops out, that we do so in a careful enough way that we don't see a complete collapse into violence."

Hearing Obama's statements, and watching him and his advisers make daily declarations of friendship to Iran's mullahs, Iraqi leaders are considering their options for surviving the rapidly approaching storm.

Then there is Europe. Although Obama received enthusiastic applause from his audience in Prague when he announced his intention to destroy the US's nuclear arsenal, drastically scale back its missile defense programs and forge a new alliance with Russia, his words were anything but music to the ears of the leaders of former Soviet satellites threatened by Russia. The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments were quick to recognize that Obama's strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression.

And let us not forget the betrayel that is most fraught with danger:
If Obama's assertions that Israel must support the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, his declarations of support for the so-called Saudi "peace plan," which requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for "peace" with the Arab world, and his continuous and increasingly frantic appeals for Iran to "engage" his administration weren't enough to show Israel that Obama is sacrificing the US's alliance with the Jewish state in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran, on Tuesday Vice President Joseph Biden made this policy explicit.

When Biden told CNN that Israel would be "ill-advised" to attack Iran's nuclear installations, he made clear that from the administration's perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran. That is, the Obama administration prefers to see Iran become a nuclear power than to see Israel secure its very existence.

This is madness.

Despite all of this, she still holds out hope:
The good news is that no doubt sooner rather than later, Obama's similarly disastrous bid to denude the US of its military power under the naive assumption that it will be able to use its new stature as a morally pure strategic weakling to win its enemies over to its side will fail spectacularly and America's foreign policy will revert to strategic rationality.

But to survive the current period of American strategic madness, Israel and the US's other unwanted allies must build alliances with one another - covertly if need be - to contain their adversaries in the absence of America. If they do so successfully, then the damage to global security induced by Obama's emasculation of his country will be limited. If on the other hand, they fail, then America's eventual return to its senses will likely come too late for its allies - if not for America itself.

We conservatives should support the efforts of our unwanted allies to do this, if only for our own selfish reasons.

I strongly urge you to click here and read the whole article by clicking here.

14 apr 09 @ 2:50 pm edt Comments

NARCISSUS UNMASKED

On last night's Fox News's Special Report, Charles Krauthammer said the following about Tiberius Obamacus invoking the state secrets privilege, but it applies to the Divine One in general and is spot-on [emphasis mine]:

… I think he won't actually explain in public and do a mea culpa on this, to say he has now changed his mind. He never admits to ever having changed his mind. He never admits to any error. It is always everyone else who commits errors.

And the reason is that he is glib enough and still has enough charisma to play a double game. He goes abroad, and he says "I'm closing Guantanamo," and he gets huge applause. He wallows in that applause. He loves it.

And, of course, as Mort indicates, he is shipping Gitmo east. Bagram will become East Gitmo.

And the same on interrogation. He left a huge loophole, and yet he makes these statements in Europe - "We do not torture," as a way to, of course, have himself stand above Bush and America before him.

That's how he operates. And some of the left wing groups in the Democratic Party are aware of his hypocrisy, but it's not a general impression. All these loopholes are fairly well hidden. And as in this interrogation stuff, he will get away with it.

It's no surprise that a president of any party defends the prerogatives of his office, to defend his office. And also because he likes the power, Obama likes the power, he's going to keep it.

Mr. President, as Victor Davis Hanson would likely say: 'Beware Nemesis'.

Please take the time to click here and read the rest of the posting over at NRO. [tip of the fedora to the NRO Staff]

14 apr 09 @ 2:20 pm edt Comments

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!

Let's hope more states do like the Texicans. From the Drudge Report [worth quoting in full]:

AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states' rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state," Gov. Perry said. "That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states' rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union."

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government's constitutionally designated powers and impede the states' right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Please click here for a link to the video.

The 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

14 apr 09 @ 1:59 pm edt Comments

HIGHWAY TO HELL

Some wise man once said that life is a series of tradeoffs. For those of you out there who are concerned about the environment and have decided you want to significantly reduce the pollution and damage done by your driving, be prepared for the tradeoff:

Consumers who buy minicars to economize on fuel are making a big tradeoff when it comes to safety in collisions, according to an insurancegroup that slammed three minimodels into midsize ones in tests.

In a report prepared for release on Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said that crash dummies in all three models tested — the Honda Fit, the Toyota Yarisand the Smart Fortwo — fared poorly in the collisions. By contrast, the midsize models into which they crashed fared well or acceptably. Both the minicars and midsize cars were traveling 40 miles per hour, so the crash occurs at 80 m.p.h.

The institute concludes that while driving smaller and lighter cars saves fuel, “downsizing and down-weighting is also associated with an increase in deaths on the highway,” said Adrian Lund, the institute’s president.

“It’s a big effect — it’s not small,” he said in a telephone interview.

Perhaps, the less-radical midsize car is the way to go. I'll try not to hit you with my Jeep.

Please click here to read the full report in The New York Times. [tip of the fedora to Jennifer Rubin]

14 apr 09 @ 11:32 am edt Comments

NEW TERM

I have been trying for quite sometime now to come up with a nickname for Pelosi, Obama, and Reed—a word or two that I can use when referring to a joint action taken by the three of them. It finally came like a revelation this past weekend: POR [pronounced: poor, as in 'The policies of this government will make you....]. Fitting, eh?

14 apr 09 @ 11:23 am edt Comments

Monday, April 13, 2009

ANNOYING DISTRACTIONS

Our poor, beleaguered President! He can't catch a break. Here he is, trying to radically remake America and eventually the World in His own image, and he keeps getting tiresome distractions thrown his way and preventing Him from concentrating on those things that reallymatter. As Mark Steyn writes:

The Reuters headline put it this way: “Pirates Pose Annoying Distraction For Obama.”

So many distractions, aren’t there? Only a week ago, the North Korean missile test was an “annoying distraction” from Barack Obama’s call for a world without nuclear weapons and his pledge that America would lead the way in disarming. And only a couple of days earlier the president insisted Iraq was a “distraction” — from what, I forget: The cooing press coverage of Michelle’s wardrobe? No doubt when the Iranians nuke Israel, that, too, will be an unwelcome distraction from the administration’s plans for federally subsidized daycare, just as Pearl Harbor was an annoying distraction from the New Deal, and the First World War was an annoying distraction from the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s dinner plans.

...

Er, okay. So the North Korean test is a “distraction,” the Iranian nuclear program is a “distraction,” and the seizure of a U.S.-flagged vessel in international waters is a “distraction.” Maybe it would be easier just to have the official State Department maps reprinted with the Rest of the World relabeled “Distractions.” Oh, to be sure, you could still have occasional oases of presidential photo-opportunities — Buckingham Palace, that square in Prague — but with the land beyond the edge of the Queen’s gardens ominously marked “Here be distractions . . . ”

And, 'Really', our Fearless Leader sighs, 'What's so damn important about piracy anyway?'

Please take the time to click here and read the full article.

13 apr 09 @ 11:49 am edt Comments

PIRATE AWARENESS

While our Fearless Leader deserves congratulations over the rescuing of Captain Phillips, we have to remain weary of what future actions he may take regarding the pirates in light of this statement by him that Jon at Exurban League has unearthed:

For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.

The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entrepreneurial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Some of us wonder if our current Overseas Contingency Operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label Pirates as "thieves," "terrorists" and worse. Such swashbucklaphobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.

To address this issue, I have instructed Vice President Joe Biden to create a cabinet-level Czar of Pirate Outreach and Buccaneer Interrelation. In addition, June 1-7 has been designated as Pirate Awareness Week, during which all federal buildings will fly the Jolly Roger and sponsor sensitivity training. Thankfully, my American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will fund free grog and hard tack for all attendees.

Finally, to all pirates listening to international broadcasts, shortwave services and ship-to-shore radio, let me say this:

Ahoy, me regret arr relationship has set sail in a scurvy manner. Arr people share many mutual 'alues and concerns on t' raging main. Perchance, could ye handsomely release the cap'n o' the ship and I assure that no harm will come t' ye or ye hearties. Let us smite t' reset button and launch our seabond on a new pegleg. Savvy? Godspeed t' ye and t' ye beauties. Aye, me parrot concurs.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting. [tips of the fedora to Jonah Goldberg and Jennifer Rubin]

13 apr 09 @ 11:38 am edt Comments

NAVIGATING STORMY WATERS

Sailing through the ether this morning win the wind at my back, I sighted some very good commentary on the rescue of Captain Phillips, the Navy, and the pirates...

1.) Over at Arts & Ammo, Fitzroy asks some good questions. From the start of his posting:

According to the AP:

Capt. Richard Phillips was in “imminent danger” of being killed before snipers shot the pirates in an operation authorized by President Barack Obama, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said.

We can all be grateful that Capt. Phillips was rescued. That, by definition, is not a botched mission. But I’m left with serious questions:

1. Do we now require presidential approval for the rescue of U.S. citizens held captive on the high seas?

2. If we require presidential approval, what’s to stop congressional Democrats from constructing some right to oversee the president’s decision to rescue hostages? Will the president have to trigger the War Powers Act?

3. Why is there any need for a reference to “imminent danger”? Capt. Phillips had been kidnapped and was being held for ransom. Did this mission require some finding that he was about to be killed imminently - say, today as opposed to tomorrow?

It seems to me that all our ship or fleet commanders should be given the equivalent of Letters Of Marque or Reprisal. To use Fitzroy's phrase, do we really want to rely on a 'bloated chain of command'? I think we can trust our commanders; don't you?

2.) Over at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin is spot-on:

I’m not sure this is entirely encouraging:

“We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region,” Obama said. “To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes.”

If preventing future attacks means eradicating pirates’ safe havens then we may be on the right track. But if the ploy here is to play cat-and-mouse on the high seas and treat pirates as individual criminals we’re in for a long and likely inconclusive outcome.

3.) Over at The Corner, Andrew McCarthy addresses this with his usual thoroughness:

The mere fact that Congress makes a type of conduct illegal does not mean that conduct, thereafter, may be regarded only as a crime calling for prosecution, as opposed to an act of war justifying a military response. Military action was taken against the Barbary pirates long after piracy was criminalized in the United States — and the Mayaguez incident in 1975 prompted military action, not indictments.

Furthermore, virtually all hostile acts that occur in war could also be charged as crimes — conspiring, shooting, bombing, killing, etc. When we are at war and both sides are complying with the laws of war, combatants are priviliged to use force and are not prosecuted for doing so — other than when they commit atrocities (war crimes). But when one side is not complying with the laws of war — or is otherwise in violation of the Law of Nations — that side's operatives are unlawful combatants and not privileged to use force. In those circumstances, the fact that their acts of piracy or terrorism are criminalized under American law gives us an additional option. It does not mean we cannot treat an act of war as an act of war.

Sadly, I think Barack The Unready and his minions will want them tried in the courts just like the non-pirate Islamic terrorists. How's that working out so far?

4.) Like Jonah Goldberg, I congratulated the President yesterday on his actions. And I agree with what he wrote this morning [this is worth quoting in full]:

My morning in-box is full of snark and bile from some folks who think I shouldn't have congratulated President Obama for the rescue last night. It does sound like some of the reports saying he personally ordered the rescue were misleading. But you know what? Congratulations anyway. It's good news the captain was rescued; Obama is the commander-in-chief and this happened on his watch; if he were thoroughly Carteresque he would have ordered that the pirates not be harmed, and you can be sure some of the snark-and-bilers would be blaming Obama if this ended badly (and I might have been one of them).

Look, I think my credentials as a critic of Obama are pretty solid. But I find the idea that I have to be critical no matter what Obama does to be exhaustingly unappealing.

Quite.

13 apr 09 @ 11:28 am edt Comments

Sunday, April 12, 2009

STEYN OF THE WEEKEND

From his appearance on last Thursday's Hugh Hewitt Show:

HEWITT: 30 seconds, Mark Steyn, also in the New York Times today, Obama to push immigration bill as one priority. I’m not surprised by this. Are you?

STEYN: No, I think one of the things that I think one can respect about this man just in naked political terms is that he’s basically decided yes, he is going to be a radical president, and he’s going to move ahead and do it very fast. And that’s one thing, as I said, I do respect about the Democrats is that when they get power, they use it and they use it very fast. And Republicans tend not to do that.

Please take the time to click here and read the full transcript.

12 apr 09 @ 7:13 pm edt Comments

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

Over at Pajamas Media, there's a good and thought-provoking article by Pam Meister in which she analyzes why the Left is so organized and the Right so unorganized. She sums up her theory in this paragraph:

The belief that you can do for yourself better than any large conglomeration can do is a conservative core value. This may explain why conservatives almost instinctively shy away from anything that is mass-organized, which is why you see fewer conservative rallies and protests converging on Washington the size of those put together by the Left. Of course, it helps when liberal college professors offer students with malleable minds course credit for attending anti-war gatherings and the like — who wouldn’t want to get an A for skipping class? The running joke is that conservatives don’t have time to go to protests and rallies because they’re too busy going to work and taking care of their families, and there’s something to be said for that.

She then urges...
It’s time to get past our distaste of mass-organized events that somehow reek of the 1960s and make them our own, and we can do it without giving up the individuality that we cherish. I don’t claim to have the magic solution, but the Left isn’t going to stop. It’s time to fight fire with fire, and the only way that’s possible is to use their tactics. The tea parties are a great start. It’s time for the next step. Are you ready?

What she advocates is most definitely worth considering. I just worry that we may lose our souls in the process. I don't know. I am consoled by the example of those who threw off the shackles of tyrannic Britain: they were not revolutionaries, but, in fact, sought only the restoration of their rights as British citizens. When, after many appeals, it was obvious the British Government would not do this, only then did they declare their independence and everyone kept their heads. If we are to organize, we must assure that we emulate the Founders and not the French.

Please take the time to click here and read the full article.

12 apr 09 @ 7:08 pm edt Comments

PIRATES AND THE RULE OF LAW

What great news that our beloved Navy Seals have rescued Captain Phillips from the clutches of the Muslim pirates. Three cheers for the Seals and the brave Captain who bore the ancient responsibility shouldered by all worthy captains, that of protecting the lives of the men under his command by willingly offering his own life.

A cheer also to the President who ordered the rescue attempt. Now, he must take the next step, and like Pompey, seek out and destroy the pirates in their nests.

There's an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy over at NRO on the importance of the rule of law and why it is imperative that it be enforced and maintained:

...What impresses, as all America’s enemies from the Barbary pirates through Osama bin Laden have always known, is the strong horse against the weak horse. What makes possible global trade, which turns into American wealth, which turns into unparalleled American largesse, is American might — American might and an American commitment to use that might as necessary to ensure a civilized global order.

“Civilized” is a much-misunderstood word, thanks to the “rule of law” crowd that is making our planet an increasingly dangerous place. Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.

There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem.

The men who founded our country and crafted our Constitution understood this. They understood that the “rule of law” was not a faux-civilized counterweight to the exhibition of might. Might, instead, is the firm underpinning of law and of our civilization. The Constitution explicitly recognized that the United States would have enemies; it provided Congress with the power to raise military forces that would fight them; it made the chief executive the commander-in-chief, concentrating in the presidency all the power the nation could muster to preserve itself by repelling evil. It did not regard evil as having a point of view, much less a right to counsel.

That’s not our position anymore. The scourge of piracy was virtually wiped out in 19th century because its practitioners were regarded as barbarians — enemies of the human race (hostis humani generis, as Bret Stephens recently reminded us in a brilliant Wall Street Journal essay). They derived no comfort from the rule of law, for it was not a mark of civilization to give them comfort. The same is true of unlawful enemy combatants, terrorists who scoffed at the customs of civilized warfare. To regard them as mere criminals, to assume the duty of trying to understand why they would brutalize innocents, to arm them with rights against civilized society, was not civilized.

We don’t see it that way anymore. Evil is now just another negotiation. Pirates and terrorists are better known for their human rights than for their inhuman wrongs....

The world has been reminded in a small way today of the right of American might. It is imperative that we follow-up with a greater effort to enforce the Pax Americana.

Please take the time to click here and read the full article.

12 apr 09 @ 6:46 pm edt Comments

TRANSNATIONALIST-IN-CHIEF

Friday instant, Charles Krauthammer published a column that takes no prisoners in its chastising of the President for celebrating the decline of American prestige he himself has caused in less than ninety days in office. As Mr. Krauthammer puts it:

Our president came bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

And what did he get for this obsessive denigration of his own country? He wanted more NATO combat troops in Afghanistan to match the surge of 17,000 Americans. He was rudely rebuffed.

He wanted more stimulus spending from Europe. He got nothing.

From Russia, he got no help on Iran. From China, he got the blocking of any action on North Korea.

And what did he get for Guantanamo? France, pop. 64 million, will take one prisoner. One! (Sadly, he'll have to leave his swim buddy behind.) The Austrians said they would take none. As Interior Minister Maria Fekter explained with impeccable Germanic logic, if they're not dangerous, why not just keep them in America?

When Austria is mocking you, you're having a bad week. Yet who can blame Frau Fekter, considering the disdain Obama showed his own country while on foreign soil, acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating between his renegade homeland and an otherwise warm and welcoming world?

After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in."

It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate.

What does one expect from a 'Citizen of the World' with a 'unique' background?

Please take the time to click here and read the full column.

12 apr 09 @ 6:27 pm edt Comments

Archive

Newer | Older

Dispatches are archived by week; click on the links above.