The Camp Of The Saints

Archive

Newer | Older

Saturday, May 2, 2009

DIFFERENCES ONCE UNDERSTOOD

Many of us who have used the term 'fascist' to describe the policies, proposals, and thinking of the current Administration have been subject to denunciations, scorn, and ridicule from the Left and some of the Squishy Cons, none probably more so than Quin Hillyer who, in a brilliantly insightful column back on 02 April, showed how Comrade Obamnin's thinking was very close to Mussolini's [please take the time to read that column by clicking here]. In his latest column of 30 April, Mr. Hillyer comments on the reaction to that column and offers further evidence. I reccommend it to you very highly. This particular passage sticks out:

But again, to make this clear for those too dim to understand it the first time, let it be said that to compare policies to those of Mussolini is not to engage in radical name-calling or comparison to Hitler. Mussolini was bad, indeed awful -- an authoritarian thug and bully, along the same lines as dozens of other authoritarian thugs and bullies through the years. The comparison definitely ought to scare those who love freedom -- but no more than a comparison to, say, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.

Authoritarianism is not totalitarianism, though. There is a big difference -- a difference educated people once understood. We are not talking about pure evil, not talking about genocide, not talking about brutal attempts at foreign conquest, not talking about Mengele-like experiments and deliberate killing of "defectives." What we are talking about is the beginning of a tendency toward authoritarianism (so far minus the thuggishness), especially in the economic realm. And we darn well ought to be able to make sober, factual, valid historical analogies, by way of warning -- much as Leonhardt did, in his rather twisted attempt at praise of Obama -- without being accused of foaming at the mouth.

Quite. There was a time when the differences between the two underlied any conversation about the state of the world. If there was any debate it was whether it was moral for the United States to align itself with authoritarian regimes in the fight against Communism. Many of us thought it desirable in the right circumstances such as with the Marcos regime in the Philippines, which, if anything, was a milder authoritarian regime. I suspect the violent objections from the Left to our use of the term 'fascist' arise from the fact that they have spent well over seventy years trying to convince the world of The Big Lie that it is not and never has been a Leftist ideology.

Please do take the time to click here and read Mr. Hillyer's full response.

2 may 09 @ 7:38 pm edt Comments

ABOVE IT ALL

Since mid-Summer last year, I have been going on about how narcissistic Tiberius Obamacus is. Now businessman Jeff Pope has written an analysis of the man's character for Pajamas Media that, in a single article, explains it very well. This is worth quoting from at length:

Even more than what the president believes, however, the nature of his character is emerging as even more disturbing. Through all the high-profile international events of the past month, not once did our president rise in spirited defense of our country — quite the opposite, in fact. He apologized and humbled America while deftly making sure the blame didn’t include him. After all, Mr. Ortega, I was only three months old. In words and actions, he repeatedly degraded the country he was supposed to represent and put himself at the center of attention. Clearly, the country did not come before Obama but often it served as a means to elevate him above all others.

What type of person does this? We all know at least one of them. It’s all about them and their image of themselves as reflected by the reaction of those around them. They are the ones who will ridicule their wives to get a laugh or if they think it makes them appear bold. They are embarrassed by their family and make sure those around them understand that he is not “like them.” He is the good one. He talks down friends when they are not around just to make himself look good. People who otherwise know not to criticize a person’s family to their face don’t hesitate to do so with him — he will join in and rarely defends them. To this day, despite his position and wealth, the members of his extended family live in poverty and deprivation. How would helping them benefit him?

He is the type who stands alone on a massive stage to accept a nomination or be inaugurated. Friends, family, and colleagues are nowhere to be seen. Everyone must know he wrote the speech alone so all can know they are hearing his word in the firm belief they have a need to hear it.

He is the type that will sign a book deal a week before becoming president of the United States; after all, just because the country may need all his time and effort, that doesn’t mean he should pass up his opportunity at a half million, right? He will find the time. In a very direct way, his reluctance to wear the flag pin early on fits his narcissistic character perfectly. The patriotism that makes one proudly wear the country’s flag simply doesn’t make sense to him. It may even embarrass him.

This is one seriously narcissistic person, one who could recklessly and without hesitation change the world because a serious regard for history, experience, and even human nature simply is not there with him. To the extent that evidence or views are contrary to his vision they are simply wrong, misguided, or poorly executed. Barack Obama represents himself, first and foremost, and his vision is the one this country must ultimately accept. Who can doubt that a vision for the world outweighs one for America alone? It is his vision of what the world ought to be, one that is decidedly not an American vision, which is the central focus of his presidency. When dealing in global matters, we are not the lone superpower and greatest hope for a freer and more prosperous world. Rather, as he informed England earlier this year, we are just another country he must contend with on the way to creating his concept of the world as it ought to be. We are just one of the pieces, no more. He will have to deal with our arrogance the same as with Russia’s belligerence, China’s ambitiousness, or European condescension.

Well, I guess we can then expect a lot of sitting down and talking. Hell, he's already been giving us health advice and financial advice.

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

2 may 09 @ 7:15 pm edt Comments

WHO ARE YOU

Over at The American Spectator, Rachel Alexander has a good article up that presents both sides fairly on the issue of anonymous blogging. A highlight:

The Internet has become a great soapbox for ordinary citizens, but there is increasing controversy around the trend of anonymous political blogging. In 2006, it was estimated that 55 percent of Americanbloggers post under a pseudonym. But along with the explosion of anonymous blogs has come a whole host of problems. Some bloggers have used their anonymity to spread false information without ramifications. Others have used it to launch personal attacks against friend and foe alike.

This has led to appeals from all over the political spectrum for regulation. Some blogging platform providers such as Tumblr are taking action on their own and shutting down anonymous blogs. The European Union entertained a proposal last fall to prohibit anonymous blogs. In the U.S., some have asked that the FCC categorize anonymous political blogs under campaign finance laws subject to regulation, but so far the FCC has declined.

In today's era where we live transparent lives, thanks to Facebook, friends and organizations recording our every move online, anonymous speech has become more valuable. It is too easy now to Google a writer's name and attack them personally on the internet for everyone to see, sidetracking a real discussion over politics into a discussion of the writer. And with a few strokes of the keyboard, someone’s reputation can be decimated. Many writers would not provide valuable information if they could not do so anonymously.

On the other hand, it is useful for readers to know background information on a writer; not only does it provide context but it exposes their biases. Anonymity permits writers to perhaps falsely persuade people they wouldn’t otherwise. If someone is writing about abolishing gun laws, it would be relevant to know if they have a history of violence as a gangster.

...

Our country began with notable anonymous political speech. The Founding Fathers used anonymous political writing to generate support for passage of the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored the Federalist Papers anonymously using the pseudonym "Publius." Hamilton, a lawyer, also used the pseudonym Publius in three letters attacking Samuel Chase, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court....

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

2 may 09 @ 7:01 pm edt Comments

THRILLING

I just watched a dramatic running of The Kentucky Derby. If you get a chance, I urge you to catch a replay. The backstory on the horse and his owner is quite interesting too.

2 may 09 @ 6:42 pm edt Comments

BARACK OF THE HUNDRED DAYS

I gather by now that you are probably sick to death of reading and/or watching analyses of the first one hundred days of the reign of our Divine Obamacus. Me too. Normally, I would have done a fairly extensive round-up of them here, but, as I say, we both have had enough in the past several days. However, there are a few that I would like to single-out as worthy of attention...

1) Over at Reason Online, Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have sussed-out our Fearless Leader's modus operani[tip of the fedora to Veronique de Rugy]:
...Obama's typical M.O. is to proclaim a new era of responsibility while ushering in a new era of irresponsible debt, promise to close the revolving door of lobbyists and government while keeping it open, and vow to post all bills online for five days without doing anything of the sort. He says the bailout is "not about helping banks—it's about helping people," then gives more of the people's money to banks. He says he doesn't want to run General Motors, then fires its CEO, guarantees its warranties, and wags his finger about the company's surplus of brands. He says he's taking a battle-axe to the budget, then offers to shave $100 millionoff a $3.4 trillion tab. At his gee-whiz, interactive, online town hall meeting, he laughed off the most popular question asked by web viewers—should marijuana be legalized—with a lame joke before embracing the status quo like Jimmy Carter hugging a Third World dictator.

2) National Review Online asked seven people to comment. It was rather disappointing because only three of the seven had anything useful to say.

One, Michael Knox Beran, understands where our Community-Organizer-In-Chief is coming from:
Progressive iconoclasts reject the older culture precisely because it is for them a rival power, an obstacle to their plans to mold a national community under the aegis of the state. A hundred days in, President Obama, though he campaigned on a platform of change, appears committed to the stalest of the old progressive orthodoxies.

Jay Nordlinger gets it:
As he campaigned in the Democratic primaries, some of us said, “He has the mentality of a Marxist grad student.” He was clearly an “associate” of Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and other lovelies. Then came the general election: and he sounded far more responsible. In the presidential debates, he passed for a moderate or even a conservative Democrat. At times, he could even have been a moderate Republican, à la Lugar (whom he cited, favorably). Then he was sworn in. So?

He moved very quickly to throw off the slightest restraints on abortion, and to make embryonic-stem-cell research a free-for-all. He evinced not the slightest moral qualm.

We were in the throes of a financial crisis, as we still are: and Obama and the Democrats used this to impose the spending of their wildest dreams. Very little in the “stimulus” package is of an economic-stimulus quality: This is just that dream Democratic spending. And a vast increase in government power goes hand in hand. The presidential chief of staff said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Now is the time to reverse Reaganism. It may be a long, long time before we re-reverse.

It is in the realm of his foreign-policy gestures that Obama has seemed most like that Marxist grad student: His interview with al-Arabiya (in which he reassured dictators and put paid to the hated Bush’s “freedom agenda”). His New Year’s greeting to “the people and leaders of Iran.” His further message to the mullahs: Hey, just keep on enriching. We’ll deal with you anyway.His deep bow to the Saudi king. His soul-brother shakes and grins with Chávez. His flippancy about the Bay of Pigs. His “apology tour,” or tours. His constant, unseemly, unmanly denigration of Bush. Has he ever stopped campaigning?

His wife said that she had never been proud of America until he got politically popular. The president seems to share this mindset. To me, we have had a long hundred days. Only 2,820 days to go.

Charles Murray gets it as well:
One of Lyndon Johnson’s press secretaries, George Christian, once said that no one should be allowed to work in the West Wing who has not suffered a major disappointment in life — the atmosphere is too intoxicating and the power too great for callow young things who do not know from personal experience how badly things can go wrong.

Unlike George Christian, we don’t have to worry about just a few special assistants. We have a president who, from the time he entered Honolulu’s Punahou School as a teenager, has lived a magical life. Everything has gone right for decades now. Nor are any of his aides crouching beside him in the chariot whispering, “You too are mortal.” On the contrary, if we are to judge by Larry Summers, even his most astute advisers suppress what they know to be true to accommodate Mr. Obama’s wishes.

Down the road, the president’s economic policy will engender a new crisis that, to be met, will require him to reassess his assumptions and to defy his political base — and we haven’t a shard of evidence that he is able to do either of those things. Down the road, a hostile world will require him to make a foreign-policy decision with no good option, only a choice among bad options, in the face of horrific consequences if he is wrong — and we haven’t a shard of evidence that he is able to do that. Worst of all, he will come to those pivotal moments serenely confident that whatever he decides will work out.

How do I think about the Obama presidency as I look ahead? I’m scared stiff.

So am I.

3) Over at the New York Post, retired Colonel Ralph Peters lists the tenets of the Obama Doctrine that have become know so far. Here's three of them:
We're to blame. If there are problems anywhere, they're America's fault. This central conviction of leftist ideology appears to have soaked so thoroughly into our president's consciousness during his lengthy friendships with extremists that it's now second nature to him.

Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. The term's even been banned from government departments. As Muslim extremists slaughter innocent victims by the thousands, we're assured Islam's a "religion of peace" that contributed profoundly to our country's development. (Huh?)

It's as if 9/11 never happened. The "nonterrorists" drenching the greater Middle East in blood and threatening us as loudly as they can are just victims of our aggression. It's all our fault.

Terrorists do exist, though -- among our returning veterans and amid those Americans who don't subscribe to MoveOn.org's revulsion at our country.

Our military is dangerous. Beyond Obama's cynically choreographed appearances with our troops, he and his coterie clearly disdain military advice and uniformed service. The administration views our troops as primitive creatures who must be collared and leashed, not as part of any solutions.

Quite a come-down from the days of the Monroe Doctrine.

4) Jonah Goldberg is onto something:
The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama’s first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.

There’s no denying that this is liberalism’s greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limit of their imaginations.

“The world has changed,” Sen. Charles Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. “The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes . . . [in] traditional-values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over.”

Right. “Family values” and “strong foreign policy” belong next to the “free silver” movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.

No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.

I am reminded of the scene in the remake of Scarface where we see the foyer of Tony Montana's gaudy mansion for the first time and get a glimpse of the statue topped by a globe that has a banner around it that announces: The World Is Yours.

2 may 09 @ 6:11 pm edt Comments

ENHANCED THOUGHTCRIME

On Wednesday instant, the House passed the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [aka: the Matthew Shepard Act]. David Freddoso has up a spot-on and succinct posting up over at The Corner that explains why this is a very bad piece of legislation and a threat to constitutional rights. A highlight:

Conservatives have pointed out several problems with the hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard, which passed the House Wednesday (249-175) and awaits action in the Senate. Several attorneys and lawmakers have pointed out deficiencies and vague language in the bill, but it is important to note up front that some concerns are spurious. The specter of preachers being arrested for sermons against homosexuality appears to be one of them. (Unless, perhaps, the preacher happens to be committing a federal crime and using firearms to threaten someone in a protected class with violence at the same time he gives his sermon.)

But the two classic arguments against hate-crime legislation still apply to the Shepard bill, which expands the number of protected classes to include particular genders, sexual orientations and “gender identities,” without precisely defining all of the terms involved. The arguments are (1) hate crimes laws effectively place society's valuation of some victims' lives and well-being above that of others and (2) they create opportunities for prosecutions based on a defendant's attitudes or opinions rather than his acts, effectively violating freedom of speech and thought.

Another problem with this particular bill is that it explicitly encourages federal prosecutors to try defendants twice for the same crime, even if the first trial results in acquittal.

Freedom of speech, double jeopardy...why should they stand in the way of the Left in its efforts to build a better new world? For too long, we've allowed this kind of legislation to pass at the national and state levels without a serious fight. These kinds of laws are grave threats to our basic rights and liberties. This new legislation is merely building on statutes that have been in place for quite some time and have always been insidious. A is A and these laws should not be labeled 'hate crime' laws, but what they really are: thoughtcrime laws.

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

2 may 09 @ 5:31 pm edt Comments

COME BACK TO THE FIVE AND DIME, BOB BELVEDERE...

I apologize for not having posted since Thursday. I have been feeling a bit under the weather and haven't felt like reading anything or traversing the ether. Also, yesterday I had to start and complete a deck project for Mrs. Belvedere that, if not finished, would have held up her on-going deck restoration project. This would not have pleased her and, thus, my already complex life would have become more knotty. I'm sure every husband out there will understand. Onward and upward...

2 may 09 @ 5:05 pm edt Comments

Thursday, April 30, 2009

WARNING TO THE WEST

On Monday instant, Geert Wilders had this to say in his acceptance speech of The Freedom Award given to him by the Florida Security Council about the slow collapse of Europe [Jean Raspail's scenario on downers] and the nature of Islam:

The Europe you know from a tourist visit or from the story of your grandparents is on the verge of collapsing. We are now witnessing profound changes that will forever alter Europe’s destiny and might send the continent in what Ronald Reagan once called ‘a thousand years of darkness’.

The take-over of Europe is part of the global fight of Islam for world domination. Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology. Islam’s heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is a book that calls for hatred, violence, murder, terrorism, war and submission. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. Churchill compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

The core of the problem with the Koran is twofold. First, the commands in the Koran are not limited by place or time, they apply for all time, to all Muslims. Second, the Koran is Allah’s personal word. That leaves no room for interpretation. Therefore, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Of course, there are many moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once put it, “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam.”

Apart from the Koran, the life of the prophet Muhammad plays a crucial part in Islamic ideology. Muhammad is the model for all Muslims. He was a pedophile, a conqueror and a warlord. In establishing Islam he preached violence and the slaughter of non-Muslims. He took part in 78 battles and slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. Mohammed said, “I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger.”

Muhammad’s behavior inspired Iran’s former Ayatollah Khomeini to say, “The purest joy in Islam is to kill and to be killed for Allah.” And Muhammad’s behavior – and the Koran – inspired Jihadists that slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London and Mumbai. Ladies and gentlemen, Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. And it has done so for centuries. The Christian city of Constantinople fell in the fifteenth century. And now, in the twenty-first century, Islam is trying again. This time not with armies, but through the application of Al-Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of migration. As expounded so masterfully by my good friend Sam Solomon in his book Al-Hijra, this doctrine is based on the example of Muhammad, who himself migrated from Mecca to Medina.

The month of May will see the 556th Anniversary of the Fall Of Constantinople to the Muslims hordes. It was one of the worst moments in the history of mankind. I think it very possible and likely that we will witness such an equally awful event in our lifetimes: the Fall Of Europe to Islam. We shall see the beginnings of a darkness that will become the Islamic hegemony.

Please take the time to click here and read the full speech. [tip of the fedora to Robert Spencer]

30 apr 09 @ 8:55 am edt Comments

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Before a crowd at a town hall meeting in Missouri yesterday, Barack The Unready said this at one point, as reported by Alexander Burns over at Politico:

"Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around," Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security."

Over at Red State, Moe Lane had this comment:
He’s not really all that gracious when it comes to dealing with people that don’t already love him, is he? Kind of smirky, with a faint flavor of exasperation.

Well Mr. Lane, how dare the peons challenge the Divine Obamacus...How Dare They! How dare they protest against The One.

I've had a revelation: our Fearless Leader is actually a Borg. He certainly displays all of the characteristics of one. From the entry in Wikipedia [emphasis mine]:
...The Borg have become a symbol in popular culture for any juggernaut against whom "resistance is futile".

The Borg manifest as cybernetically enhanced humanoid drones of multiple species, organized as an interconnected collective, the decisions of which are made by a hive mind. The Borg inhabit a vast region of space in the Delta Quadrant of the galaxy, possessing millions of vessels and having conquered thousands of systems. They operate solely toward the fulfilling of one purpose: to "add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to their own" in pursuit of perfection. This is achieved through forced assimilation, a process which transforms individuals and technology into Borg, enhancing, and simultaneously controlling, individuals by implanting or appending synthetic components.

Yup...he's Borg alright...our very own Locutus.

30 apr 09 @ 8:36 am edt Comments

ANOTHER TITLE

Barack Obama, President of The United States Of America, Fearless Leader and Duce, Lowerer Of The Seas, Defender Of Islam, Apologist Of All That Is American, Sovereign Of The Stimulus, Healer Of The Earth, Duke Of No Nukes, Sovereign Restorer Of Images, Messiah Of The Mob, Leader Of The Lay-Abouts, Sovereign Organizers Of Communities, Duke Of Alinsky, Sovereign and Most Honourable Provider Of Health Care, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of Narcissists, Financial Adviser-In-Chief, has another new title: Physician-In-Chief.

From The New York Times transcript of last night's press conference [tip of the fedora to Michael Goldfarb]:

MR. OBAMA: ...So wash your hands when you shake hands; cover your mouth when you cough. I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference.

If you are sick, stay home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school. If you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane, don't get on a -- any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus.

So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now.

Your Excellency, whose shoes I am not fit to lick, if I may humbly beseech thee with a question: my arm hurts when I go like this; what should I do? In great anticipation, I humbly and meekly await your reply. I exist only to serve Caesar. Ave Obamacus!

30 apr 09 @ 8:13 am edt Comments

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

SAD FACT

There's a very insightful bit of wisdom by Charles Moore up over at The London Daily Telegraph. He's writing of the two major parties in Britain and the income tax specifically, but it can certainly be applied to our two and taxing matters:

But when you put up the top rate by 25 per cent, as will now happen, you are not only driving potential payers away, you are also making a statement about how you think society should be organised. You are saying that money taken out of the hands of citizens works better than staying with its owners.

To a remarkable extent, that is what governments of both parties believe. The more sensible ones know that if they grab too much, they will eventually get less. But few truly think that the money they take would be better spent if they never took it in the first place.

Too true...so sad.

Please take the time to click here and read the full column. [tip of the fedora to Mark Steyn]

29 apr 09 @ 7:36 pm edt Comments

LET THE TRUTH GO FORTH

I'm just finally getting to this, so you may have already read it, but just in case...

Noemie Emery wants the 'truth commissions' to be formed and begin holding hearings. Her logic is impeccable. A highlight:

...Let's tell the truth about all the liberals who went on record supporting real torture, not to mention the Democrats in Congress, when it was cool to want to seem tough on our enemies, who couldn't be too warlike. Then war and tough measures stopped being cool, and "world opinion" became more important. Nothing like statements under oath to revive ancient memories! And rewind the tapes.

Let's get at the truth too about the word "torture," which to different people, means different things. Some think "torture" means standing on the 98th floor of a burning skyscraper and realizing you have a choice between jumping and being incinerated. Some think torture is being crushed when a building implodes around you. Some think torture is not thinking you might drown for several minutes, but looking at burning buildings on television and knowing that people you love are inside them. They remember that being crushed, incinerated, or killed in a jump from the 98th story happened to almost 3,000 blameless Americans (as well as a number of foreigners), and that 125 Pentagon employees were killed at their desks, while many survivors suffered terrible burns. They think the choice between stopping this from happening again by slapping around or scaring the hell out of a cluster of brigands, or leaving the brigands alone and letting it happen again, is a no-brainer.

A powerful argument.

Please take the time to click here and read the full article. [tip of the fedora to Andrew McCarthy]

29 apr 09 @ 7:29 pm edt Comments

TWEAKING?

From The Guardian, Robert Tait reporting:

Barack Obama's offer of a hand of friendship to Iran after 30 years of hostility may have met with a sceptical public response from Tehran. But now a rapprochement of sorts may be under way amid evidence that the US president's can-do electioneering tactics have struck a chord with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama's signature campaign slogan, Yes We Can, has been replicated by the Iranian president in a promotional video issued for Iran's presidential poll on 12 June, when Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election.

The video features a cover picture of Ahmadinejad wearing his trademark white jacket and pointing to the Farsi phrase Ma Mitavanim (We Can) on a blackboard. The film is aimed at students and capitalises on his former status as a university lecturer.

Interpret this one as you will.

Please click here to read the full report. [tip of the fedora to Instapundit]

29 apr 09 @ 7:20 pm edt Comments

THE PROPHET CLIFFORD

President for the Foundation For Defense Of Democracies Clifford May of the was interviewed last night by Jon Stewart for an episode of The Daily Show that will be aired tonight at 8:00 P.M. Eastern. He posted about the experience this morning over at The Corner and here are his concluding words:

There is, however, at least one point that I wish I had made — or made better:

Jon kept talking as though the war we’re fighting, defending ourselves against the militant Islamist jihad, is over. It is not.

And the policy he prefers — granting full Geneva protections even to al-Qaeda leaders we know possess knowledge of future attacks, which really means asking (nicely) only name, rank, and serial number — is a return to the policy we had in place after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

We were hit again in 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (two embassies in Africa), 2000 (the USS Cole), and of course 2001.

If we go down the road he and others on the Left are directing us, we must expect — and accept — that we will be hit again, and probably hit much harder than were on 9/11.

The enemy most certainly does not think the war is over. And Mr. May is quite correct: the next attack, which will come, will be much worse. Two key factors will cause this:

1) They believe the new Administration is letting its guard down because it doesn't believe there is a war. Thus is will be easier to carry out their plans.

2) The believe we have become so weak that a severe enough blow will make us capitulate.

Neither one of these need be reasonable conclusions.

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

29 apr 09 @ 7:15 pm edt Comments

FIFTH COLUMNIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

The Dali Bama has appointed hajib-wearing American Muslim Dalia Mogahed to the White House Interfaith Advisory Board. Here is an excerpt from an interview she gave to IslamOnline [tip of the fedora to Eeyore]:

What do you think of the rising Islamphobia in America?

Islamphobia in America is very real. Gallup finds that Muslims are among the most unfavorably viewed groups in the US and only a little over a third of Americans say they have no prejudice against Muslims. This presents a grave danger to America as a whole. The disease of racism, by definition, is a bias in judgment. This means that racism clouds sound judgment and leads people to make irrational decisions. It also divides a nation and prevents the full utilization of its intellectual and cultural resources. Racism is wasteful. Racism is a strategic disadvantage. I am very proud of the progress America has made in fighting this problem as it relates to the relationship between blacks and whites. In 1956 only 4% of Americans approved of a marriage between whites and blacks. The marriage that produced our president was illegal in Virginia when he was born. Today 80% of Americans approve of marriage between blacks and whites. Last year, Barack Obama became the first Democratic Presidential candidate in decades to carry Virginia. We are a stronger and smarter nation because of this growth. Our next growth spurt will be in ridding our society of anti-Muslim prejudice.

As Eeyore commented over at Vlad Tepes:
As you read this, it may be worth keeping in mind, that this woman clearly relates disagreeing with, or even not liking Islam with racism. For the umpteenth time, Islam is a political philosophy and a religion. It is not deserving of any rights and especially not the right to be liked or respected. These attitudes are earned and not earned by sending out retarded women to be detonated by remote control in order to murder unexpecting and uninvolved people, which is still going on in Iraq, in the name of Islam. Muslims are not a race and should be viewed as we would view any other group with stated violent goals of violent manifest destiny.

By equating the disagreeing with Islam with rascism, Miss Mogahed is playing a very slick game. If she and others of her ilk can get people to start associating the former with the latter, virtually any argument against Islam will become off-bounds in our politically correct culture. She seeks nothing less than to intimidate her 'fellow' Americans. Her end is insidious; her means dishonest and deceit-filled. Par for the Stealth Jihad course.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting from Eeyore which contains the full transcript of the interview.

29 apr 09 @ 6:56 pm edt Comments

AND 100 DAYS HAD PASSED...

For just one hundred days—seems longer—Barack The Unready has been ruling over us; reigning over His disciples and 'rightwing extremists' both. Large amounts of gaseous emanations have been pouring forth from the Left on how well our Fearless Leader has performed. I have been sailing through the ether and have been sampling the good, the bad, and the sickly sweet. I will spare you, fellow soldiers in The Camp Of The Saints and residents of The Beloved Cityfrom the last two and, instead, offer some of the useful commentary which is emanating from starboard side...

Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg had a number of spot-on comments. On the Divine Obamacus's arrogance:

As for those offended by me calling Obama arrogant. Get over it. Of course he's arrogant. He's a guy who brags about how good a president he is. He once defined "sin" as being "out of alignment with my values." For Pete's sake.

People keep asking me, "if he's so arrogant, why is he so popular?" What does one thing have to do with the other? Being arrogant doesn't mean necessarily mean he's not likeable or a good man or anything like that. Lots of people are arrogant and popular (think of actors, sports stars, conductors, etc). But I'm not even really talking about his personality, I'm talking about his governing style and his political philosophy. How you can watch what he's been doing and not see it as the greatest manifestation of the arrogance of intellect, of progressive hubris, and ultimately the fatal conceit, in our lifetimes is beyond me.

Love the last sentence. In another posting, he makes another very good point that is not often mentioned or discussed:

One remarkable development is the dog that hasn’t barked: Obama’s race. Sure, it’s come up, but not nearly so much as you would have expected. And the people who've really tried to play the race card have made fools of themselves. For instance, Janeane Garafalo lived up to her reputation as unparodiable liberal when she went on a tear about how the tea parties were “about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

Overall, Obama’s status as the first African-American president amounts to one of the few areas of pro-Obama consensus out there. It’s not that everyone is equally ecstatic about it, but even most anti-Obama conservatives see it as, at minimum, a nice bellwether of social progress.

...

But here's the thing. Polls show he's popular now. Eighty percent of Americans— that means a lot of conservatives and Republicans — find him likeable. I'd even put myself in that camp, and I think he's wrong about so, so, so much. When Obama's numbers fall to Earth, it will be interesting, and entirely predictable, to hear his supporters blame it on racism of some kind or another. It's going to be a hard argument to make, unless you believe that a large chunk of that 80% are lying racists of some kind. But it's going to happen. Mark my words, or if you prefer, bookmark this link.

The Rock Star will soon, in my estimation become The Man Who Fell To Earth, so we conservatives have to be prepared for the name-calling. Future posting title: WE'RE ALL RACISTS NOW—that will become a 'standing lead' [sic? newspaper people].

Jules Crittenden has a very good round-up of commentary from across the ether here. The beginning of his posting captures the way many of us, I'm sure, feel:

Joyous event of the 100 days of the Obama Idea happily celebrated by cheering workers of the liberated United States Peoples Democratic Republic with inspiring song and deep reflection of gratitude!

Dunno why, this just feels like it wants to be recorded in Kimspeak.

And finally, this would not be complete without looking at what His teleprompter thinks:
I'm sorry, I don't think I heard you correctly, you mean I've got to put up with 1360 more days of this?

29 apr 09 @ 2:54 pm edt Comments

LET'S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF

In a posting yesterday, I commented on the objections by some Muslims and Jews about the term 'Swine' in Swine Flu. The U.S. Government has stopped using the term for other reasons. From Jake Tapper's blog over at ABC News:

In the Oval Office last night as Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was sworn in, President Obama said, "we wanted to swear her in right away because we've got a significant public health challenge that requires her immediate attention, and that is the H1N1 flu outbreak."

"H1N1"?

Well, yes. That's the virus subtype the world is dealing with here.

Huh? Not "swine flu"?

...

What changed?

As has been noted by others, China, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates have all banned meat and pork products from some parts of the US, according to the office of US Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

The World Health Organization reiterated that one cannot contract the virus by eating pork, and pointed out that no pig had been found yet with this particular virus.

Representatives of certain agricultural industries made their displeasure known to the Obama administration, especially Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who said during a briefing on Tuesday that "there are a lot of hardworking families whose livelihood depends on us conveying this message of safety...and we want to reinforce the fact that we're doing everything we possibly can to make sure that our hog industry is sound and safe and to make sure that consumers in this country and around the world know that American products are safe."

"This really isn't swine flu. It's H1N1 virus," Vilsack said. "We want to say to consumers here and abroad that there is no risk to you, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that there is any link between consuming pork, prepared pork products, and the H1N1 virus."

The U.S. Government is pro-active is fighting the H1N1 Virus. The U.S. Government has always been fighting the H1N1 Virus.

Over at Protein Widom, Dan Collins has a better name that fits the style of this Administration[tip of thef edora to Jules Crittenden]:

Officials want to remove the word “swine” from the name of the flu, for fear that it will hurt the pork industry. Mexican Flu is also not kosher, of course. MedFlu isn’t fair to medflies, either. Hannitizer Flu does seem unfair to Shawn [sic] Hannity, though it contains the handsanity that experts are recommending. I suggest Congressional Flu, or Murtha Flu, but feel free to suggest your own.

Heck, on second thought, who needs “flu” in there? Domesticated Animal Transmitted Health Concern will do.

Makes sense to me.

29 apr 09 @ 2:27 pm edt Comments

COME ON, GET HAPPY

Over at AmSpecBlog, Robert Stacy McCain offers a necessary corrective to all of those who are predicting a woeful future for conservatives and the Republican Party. In this posting, he is specifically addressing recent columns by Ross Douthat and Jonathan Chait, but his message can be applied to all the doom and gloomers:

The relevant questions now are (a) what are the prospects for a Republican resurgence in the 2010 mid-terms? and (b) what political strategies might best accomplish such a resurgence or, if you're a Democrat, prevent it? Douthat and Chait appear to be in agreement that the GOP is unlikely to regain power without a drastic overhaul, both in policy and politics.

However, the problem is that both of them are rather young (Douthat 29, Chait 37) and both are Beltway pundits, not hands-on political operatives. In the hurry-up breathlessness of the Information Age (there were no Web sites, let alone blogs or Twitter, in 1993), they're rushing to be the first to prophesy the electoral landscape in November 2010 based on polls and other auguries on the eve of Barack Obama's first 100 days in office.

A Republican resurgence in 2010, if there is to be one, will in large measure be a function of candidate recruitment and fundraising that are only now getting underway in the aftermath of the last election. Douthat and Chait -- ideologues naturally concerned about the ideological content of politics -- lack the inclination and expertise to evaluate the kind of nuts-and-bolts electoral mechanics that take place at the state, district and county level.

Douthat and Chait each tell a different narrative of where we have been, where we are now, and where we're likely to go in the future. But if you've lived long enough -- and I remind the reader that I am an ex-Democrat who proudly voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, when I was 33 -- you know how suddenly the political landscape can shift. I became a conservative about the time Jonathan Chait graduated college, and while Ross Douthat was still in ninth grade.

One thing that has been consistent in recent American political history: There have always been many men like Douthat and Chait who sit around Washington observing and commenting on trends, and then there have been those rare men who make trends happen.

"I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Whether or not a conservative resurgence is likely, it can only be accomplished by those who begin with the assumption that it is possible, and then work tirelessly to turn possibility into reality.

I'm forty-seven years old. I have been a Republican since the age of seven. I have been a conservative since the early 1970's. I have lived in the Northeast all of my life. These kids are experiencing their first Leftist hegemony. I lived through the last half of the 1960's and all of the 1970's [the aftermath of Watergate], and I lived through Bubba Clinton. I can tell you that Mr. McCain is spot-on.

Even if our chances of success are not great, we have to fight on because our cause is just. Battling back from where we are and defending The Permanent Things is the right thing to do.

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

29 apr 09 @ 2:06 pm edt Comments

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

SEN. ARLEN SPECTOR SWITCHES TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Once he was merely a RINO. Now he's a full-fledged ass.

28 apr 09 @ 2:41 pm edt Comments

PC BEFORE SWINE

We're less than a week into the Swine Flu scare and already things are starting to get a little ridiculous...well...actually, they already have: what with Janet Napolitano being put in charge of handling it....but, anyway: from the AP we learn:

JERUSALEM – The outbreak of swine flu should be renamed "Mexican" influenza in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork, said an Israeli health official Monday.

Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman said the reference to pigs is offensive to both religions and "we should call this Mexican flu and not swine flu," he told a news conference at a hospital in central Israel.

Both Judaism and Islam consider pigs unclean and forbid the eating of pork products.

Tip of the fedora to Mark Steyn for the link. He had these comments:

What about Mexican sensitivities? Undocumented Flu?

A Wahhabi health official adds: "But doesn't swine influenze refer to the sinister Zionist influenze on the American government?"

28 apr 09 @ 2:36 pm edt Comments

I, BIGOT

Over at The Corner, William Duncan has up a very good posting on the implications of redefining marriage. A highlight:

The question is, do they really believe existing conflicts are going to be alleviated by redefining marriage? The law of marriage creates duties for all kinds of people: employers who have to provide benefits to spouses of employees, businesses (especially ones in wedding-related fields), adoption agencies, social-service providers, professionals (such as marriage therapists or fertility doctors), etc. Redefining marriage will necessarily create conflicts between faith commitments and legal duties for organizations and individuals in any of these categories, who have a religious objection to treating a same-sex couple as equivalent to a married husband and wife.

And...
When they cannot ignore the conflicts, gay marriage advocates reveal their real position — the price of participating in the public square should be abandoning “bigoted” beliefs and practices. In other words, they are saying: “When we win by getting gay marriage designated as a civil right, everyone, including religious people, will need to accept the change or leave the public square.”

I've got my bags packed.

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

28 apr 09 @ 9:08 am edt Comments

WHERE HIGHER TAX RATES LEAD...

...They lead to a loss of talent. From Iain Martin's latest column over at The London Daily Telegraph:

His name, as they say, is Michael Caine. And he's not a happy bunny. The 76-year-old film star has revealed in colourful terms that he has had it, and will leave Britain if taxes get any higher.

"The Government has taken tax up to 50 per cent, and if it goes to 51 I will be back in America," he said at the weekend. "We've got 3.5 million layabouts on benefits, and I'm 76, getting up at 6am to go to work to keep them. Let's get everybody back to work so we can save a couple of billion and cut tax, not keep sticking it up."

While I have no doubt America will welcome Mr. Caine with open arms, he may find the same situation here. Will there be anywhere left for the talented and financially successful in all professions to go? As Mr. Martin concludes his column: 'But that if that nation is to prosper, it must nurture talent, not squash it.'

Please take the time to click here and read the full column. [tip of the fedora to Mark Steyn]

28 apr 09 @ 8:52 am edt Comments

SIC TRANSIT

From the Financial Times, John Reed and Bernard Simon reporting, we learn:

US taxpayers would take a majority shareholding in General Motors under a sweeping debt-for-equity restructuring proposal that the carmaker revealed on Monday in a bid to avoid bankruptcy.

...

Fritz Henderson, chief executive, said: “The objective here is not to survive. The objective is to develop an operating plan that allows us to win.”

My, how things have changed in fifty years: what is good for GM is now not good for America.

Please click here to read the full article.

28 apr 09 @ 8:41 am edt Comments

LET'S GET AWAY WITH IT ALL

Out of all of the commentary on the unannounced flying of one of the President's planes over New York City yesterday, Brian Faughnan's is the best so far:

This clip is from the local Fox affiliate in New York today. New Yorkers seem to be very angry about having been chosen for what seemed to many a re-enactment of 9/11. Buildings were evacuated and people fled in fear of their lives. Some were injured trying to escape what they imagined to be a new terrorist attack. And all because the White House wanted to update its file photos of Air Force One, and failed to consider the obvious: that jumbo jets flying at Manhattan without warning are bound to terrify people.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Republicans charged that Obama and his team lacked the experience and judgment to tackle the challenges the nation faces. But did anyone expect that one of those ‘tough’ calls would be whether to send a jumbojet screaming toward Manhattan at low altitude, chased by F-16s? Before today, I would have told you that was one of the easy questions - especially when it was nothing more than a photo-op.

...

...it boggles the mind to think that there were no grownups in the White House who recognized what a terrible idea this was. But then again, lapses in judgment seem to be par for the course with this administration.

I don't think they really care. The implications of their decisions on the people of this country ultimately don't enter into their considerations. This is merely another example of the Administration's serial arrogance.

Please click here to read the full posting.

28 apr 09 @ 8:31 am edt Comments

Monday, April 27, 2009

FEDERALISM, R.I.P.

In his most recent weekly column, Mark Steyn was gloomier than usual—by that I mean his trademark sense of humor was missing from it. The title, or rather what's left out of the title, indicates his mood: The End Of The World As We Know It. No '...and I feel fine' which would indicate he still retained his sense of the absurdity of life. He is not a happy man.

A highlight:

...And 100 days into a new presidency, Barack Obama is giving strong signals to the world that we have entered what Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Postcalls “the post-American era.” At the time of Gordon Brown’s visit to Washington, London took umbrage at an Obama official’s off-the-record sneer to a Fleet Street reporter that “there’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.” Andy McCarthy of National Reviewmade the sharp observation that, never mind the British, this was how the administration felt about their own country, too: America is just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. In Europe, the president was asked if he believed in “American exceptionalism,” and replied: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Gee, thanks. A simple “no” would have sufficed. The president of the United States is telling us that American exceptionalism is no more than national chauvinism, a bit of flag-waving, of no more import than the Slovenes supporting the Slovene soccer team and the Papuans the Papuan soccer team. This means something. The world has had two millennia to learn to live without “Greek exceptionalism.” It’s having to get used to post-exceptional America rather more hurriedly.

It makes sense from Obama’s point of view: On the domestic scene, he’s determined on a transformational presidency, one that will remake the American people’s relationship to their national government (“federal” doesn’t seem the quite the word anymore) in terms of health care, education, eco-totalitarianism, state control of the economy, and much else. With a domestic agenda as bulked up as that, the rest of the world just gets in the way.

Mr. Steyn is quite correct: we no longer should or can use the term 'federal' anymore. A federal system has powers, granted by a people who are the sovereignty, that are divided between the central government and smaller, independent entities. Our Founders developed a mode of government that did the dividing between the national, the state, the county, and the local governments [I've noticed that these last two are often forgotten when the elements of our system are listed]. They recognized that certain functions performed government were best performed at particular levels. And history has proven them right.

In our current age, the national government has taken over a vast number of the functions that used to be performed at the other levels. States, counties [if they still exist and function in any meaningful way], and local governments have become extremely dependent on the central government's largesse and, as a result, subject to accompanying heavy regulations. They no longer control their own destinies and have pretty much lost all of their independence. This new way of governing has been in place since FDR and has never stopped growing.

What Tiberius Obamacus wants to do, and is doing, is go after the last bastion of individuality and sovereignty that still controls most of its destiny: the individual American citizen. He would have us become dependents of the central government. This would be nothing more than indentured servitude.

Please take the time to click here and read the whole of Mr. Steyn's column.

27 apr 09 @ 7:17 pm edt Comments

IS IT JUST US?

In a blistering posting on his blog, Is It Just Me?, over at The London Daily Telegraph, Gerald Warner wonders why Barack Obama hates America:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

...

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Tip of the fedora to John Hinderaker of Powerline for linking to this posting. Mr. Hinderaker commented:
...I don't think the question is entirely fair, however. I think Obama only hates America as it was before it elected him President in November 2008. He might even be willing to forgive his country as of the date he was elected to the Senate.

I must disagree. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that this man does not like the country of his birth. He has shown no respect for it's institutions, it's glorious history, it's traditions. He is ignoring all of those and seems to be treating America as if it were a laboratory where he can conduct a grand lab experiment in defiance of reality, where he can try out the tired and failed ideas that he absorbed in college, in his church of twenty years, and from his Leftist mentors. There is also a certain lack of empathy in him that makes one shudder.

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. Warner's full posting.

SIDENOTE: In my posting of earlier today, REAP THE WILD WIND, I stated:
Plan on seeing former Administration members being threatened with arrest if they step in certain countries. Plan on said members being the subject of physical assaults by fanatics. This current Administration is setting in motion a whirlwind the may swerve back and encompass its own members in its thuggery and lawlessness, and then swerve again and encompass us all.

In Mr. Warner's blog posting, he reports the following:
Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas.

27 apr 09 @ 6:48 pm edt Comments

UNGRATEFUL BASTARD

The New York Times Magazinehas published an excerpt from Christopher Buckley's soon-to-be-published memoir about his parents, William F. and Patricia. If you were expecting a collection of fond reminiscences, forget about it. As Scott Johnson reports over at Powerline:

The Times excerpts seethe with hurts and resentments that the passing of Buckley's parents appears to have done little to assuage. He sees his father from a son's perspective as neglectful and self-involved. He refers to the Hundred Years' War he waged with his father over religion. By the evidence of the excerpts, Buckley is still in dubious battle even though his antagonist has passed on. Buckley even recalls his father's poor conduct at the time of Buckley's graduation from Yale some 35 years ago.

One excerpt portrays Bill Buckley's physical decline culminating in death. When Buckley attends his father as his condition weakens, he finds him dependent on stimulants and depressants like a latter-day Elvis Presley (coincidentally, the subject of Bill Buckley's Elvis in the Morning).

Buckley's mother Pat fares even worse. She comes across in the excerpts as something of a mean drunk, guilty of numerous outrages over the years. Buckley characterizes the outrages as "serial misbehavior."....

Mr. Johnson then goes on to comment:
Buckley badly needs to achieve some perspective on his parents. Their deaths should have helped provide it, but it appears still to be lacking. He claims on occasion to be feeling "some sort of primal liberation" in his parents' deaths. It is a feeling suggestive of how raw the material presented in the excerpts is. But can he really be happy to have contributed a Mum (and Pup) Dearest to the literature of muckraking children of illustrious parents?

The excerpts suggest that Buckley is working out deep hurts and settling grievous scores. They read like an act of vengeance. Buckley's public acting out was palpable last fall in the terms of his endorsement of Barack Obama. As it turns out, that was the least of it.

One can only hope that Mr. Buckley ends up travelling down the same road Michael Reagan did and ends up in the same place. He has certainly started down it. For now, Christopher Buckley is nothing but a spoiled little rotten brat and a shit.

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. Johnson's full posting.

27 apr 09 @ 2:48 pm edt Comments

TOYS-R-US ADULTS

Over at The Other McCain, Robert Stacy McCain comments on the appearance of Jessica Valenti, author of The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women. In the course of making many spot-on points, Mr. McCain makes this observation that is dead, solid perfect:

Why does Jessica Valenti derogate virginity? An excerpt from her book explains it all:

I was once that teenage girl struggling with the meaning behind my sexuality . . . I was the cruelly labeled slut . . .

Which is to say, It's about her. Remember my rant about Bill Maher, who seems stuck in a phase of eighth-grade rebellion? Jessica Valenti is his distaff analog.

Valenti's mislabeled "pro-sex feminism," like Maher's childish atheism, is merely an unresolved adolescent emotional issue carried forward into adulthood by immature personalities. Unable to accept and adjust to their own failures to live up to traditional ideals, they manufacture their own counter-ideals, which naturally compel them to scoff and sneer at tradition.

This is all part of a general resistance to maturity that seems prevalent in The West. So many adults do not want to adopt the mantle of the grown-up and want to remain forever young, or 'youngish'. This has led to much foolishness in beliefs being espoused and accepted. Too many adults end up sounding like giddy, temperamental, or melodramatic teenagers when they open their mouths. And, as with teenagers, it is near-impossible to have a coherent and mutually respectful conversation with them. I won't even go into the adolescent-like ways they dress and groom themselves. Could this be one explanation?

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. McCain's full posting where he makes many good points.

27 apr 09 @ 2:36 pm edt Comments

REAP THE WILD WIND

Over at The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson, from earlier today, reacting to the statement made by UN official Michael Nowak that Bush Administration lawyers and officials should be prosecuted for torturing prisoners:

The current Third-world practice in the U.S. of serially trashing an outgoing administration, whether by demonizing it abroad or seeking to try its former officials, is already bearing fruit, as it brings the likes of Professor Nowak out of the woodwork. Soon, when the Obama administration releases pictures, more memos, etc. (of course, prepped by the now mandatory denials on the Sunday-morning talk shows that it would ever do this, and the now mandatory postfacto "anguished" pep talk to the particular intelligence agency in question), we will see even sharper reactions from our enemies.

And if we are going to go down this Orwellian route, then let us at least be consistent, and call in the U.N. to find out who gave the "order" to blow apart the heads of the negotiating Somali teen pirates (no habeas corpus there), and the Predator "execution" of "suspected" Wazirstan purveyors of man-made catastrophe, and perhaps even those in the media who not all that long ago falsely reported that U.S. guards had "flushed" Korans at Gitmo — all the latter are not matters of supposed torture, but had consequences that led to death.

Do we really wish to turn our country into something like this?

Plan on seeing former Administration members being threatened with arrest if they step in certain countries. Plan on said members being the subject of physical assaults by fanatics. This current Administration is setting in motion a whirlwind the may swerve back and encompass its own members in its thuggery and lawlessness, and then swerve again and encompass us all.

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

27 apr 09 @ 2:16 pm edt Comments

THE PETER PRINCIPLE AT WORK

The U.S. Government has declared a public health emergency over the rapid spreading of the latest version of the Swine Flu. As reported by Donald McNeil in The New York Times:

Responding to what some health officials feared could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, American health officials declared a public health emergency on Sunday as 20 cases of swine flu were confirmed in this country, including eight in New York City.

...

As a news conference in Washington, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the emergency declaration “standard operating procedure,” and said she would rather call it a “declaration of emergency preparedness.”

“It’s like declaring one for a hurricane,” she said. “It means we can release funds and take other measures. The hurricane may not actually hit.”

American investigators said they expected more cases here, but noted that virtually all so far had been mild and urged Americans not to panic.

When the government tells me not to panic, that's when I begin to. The question you have to be asking yourself is: do I trust the government to give me the truth?

Over at The Blog, Mary Katherine Ham commented:
Swine flu emergency declared. Don't worry...Napolitano's got this.

Ya...I feel better already. See y'all later; I'm heading for the hills of New Hampshire.

27 apr 09 @ 11:21 am edt Comments

Archive

Newer | Older

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