Word-of-the-Day (Presidential Edition)

PRESIDENTIAL: Befitting a president, especially the office of the President of the United States: criticized the candidate for not looking presidential.

PETULANT:  Contemptuous in speech or behavior.

Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura secretly visited Fort Hood last night and spent “considerable time” consoling those who were wounded in Thursday’s shooting spree, Fox News has learned.

The Bushes entered and departed the sprawling military facility in secret, having told the base commander they did not want press coverage of their visit, a source told Fox News. 

The couple was described as “deeply concerned” about military families on Fort Hood after Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on soldiers and civilians, killing 13 and wounding 38.

Contrast with the pre-heathcare takeover vote pep talk given by the Great Uniter:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Bonus word:

Character:  moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character;  qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.

Feel free to use them in a sentence today.

 

Determined to Make the Aggressors the Victims

Nice to see that our Homeland Security Secretary has continued her tradition of successful threat identification.

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heaven forefend we might actually look at the people who have been at war with us for almost 40 years as a threat.  What else are they going to do, kill more innocents and the unarmed?

Know Thy Enemy

I was pondering some of the facts of the Ft. Hood shooting this week as I perusing blogs this morning.  I don’t really have much to say about it, especially when Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road nailed one out of the park on it.  An exerpt:

In case you’ve spent the last thirty years in a coma, the world has been having a spot of trouble with the totalitarian pseudo-religion called Islam. Some of its adherents think they have a divine warrant to convert, subjugate, or kill anyone who’s not a Muslim. Others among them, while not willing to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest, willingly support the violent ones with money and shelter. The rest will brook no criticism of Islam as the source of such violence — indeed, they’ll argue that a mere verbal insult constitutes sufficient justification for Muslims’ acts of savagery against us “infidels.”

A worthy read.

Advice Worth Every Penny Paid For It

It seems that everyone today has advice for the Republican Party, and whether the advisors are left leaning pundits, still too giddy from the Obama debacle to see it for what it is, or those who label themselves as Republicans who are frustrated with the party’s current situation and view the remedy as a shift to the bland middle ground as its salvation, rather than the doomed compromise of an entity so hungry to gain the world that it will gladly surrender its soul, to the hardcore leftist functionaries and their willing enablers in the old media, who continue their failed formula of reporting the news that they wish to be, rather than the reality that is.

I have but one answer to say to the members of all camps:  Thanks, but no thanks.

Not enough?  Yes, I see the quizzical looks that practically scream “How can you turn down our obvious wisdom?”  Very well.  I shall tell you, with the full expectation of name-calling, general derision, and indignation as a result.

To the lefties gayly chattering away on the express train to ruin:

I’m done trying to rouse you from your state of oblivion.  The euphoria of the Team O victory has blinded you to the fact that you’re going to get “Change”, but it isn’t what you hoped for and if it wasn’t for the fact that your new messiah is going to screw us all, your impending bitter tears would be oh so sweet to the 48% of us who told you so last November.  Now, knowing the real damage the well-spoken neophyte and his collaborating cohorts are planning to foist upon us all will just urge me that much more to punch you in the mouth when you idiots come to realize that the utopia which will so generously absolve you of the responsibility to make your own decisions, and more importantly, live with the consequences, has a price.   Unless you’re one of the worst kinds…the kind that will gladly don the shackles because of the pretty faux pearl inlay, your awaking isn’t likely to come before the reckoning.

To the Republicans who think that salvation rests in leadership labeled “Vanilla”, consider a few things:

1.  If your position is not easily distinguished from what the “other” party offers, you don’t give anyone a reason to vote for you.  If the end result of your proposed policies gets you to the exact same place that we’ll get to with the other guys, but you have placed the steaming pile of crap in a package that you have labeled ‘conservatism’, you really haven’t fooled anyone, because you have not distinguished yourself from the other guys.  [See McSame vs. the Chicago Messiah, pre-Sarah entry into the last election.]  It is no longer an election staged between two clear choices, it is a popularity contest, and the young hipster who reads well will beat the old war hero dude.  Bank on it.

2.  Moderation is not the key to success; it is a slow road to ignominy.  The Random House dictionary defines “moderate” in less than glowing tones:

1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price. 

 2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income. 

3.   mediocre or fair: moderate talent. 

 4. calm or mild, as of the weather.  

5.  of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.

When I think of these definitions, they don’t paint the picture of leaders.  They inspire visions of custodians, of placeholders, and of regents, the people who sometimes have to keep the leader’s seat warm until he is ready to sit in it.  I have no doubt that among those who are interested, the discussion of the many distinct differences between ‘eggshell’, ‘ivory’, ‘antique white’, and ‘cream’ is spirited and lively, but to 90% of the rest of the country, you’re simply trying to say ‘vanilla’ is different from ‘french vanilla’. Although there is technically a difference, most people simply will not care.

3.  The most damaging myth repeated today by so-called republicans is “We need to be more moderate, and the key to that moderation is the compromise of principle.  Opposing abortion is so very provincial.  Only a backward rube, or those who hate empowered women would willingly oppose a woman’s right to choose.”

I don’t know when it became acceptable to condone infanticide and call those who take a principled stand against it foolish and backward.  Certainly the Supreme Court usurped the power that individual states had to regulate the practice when it handed down Roe, while the tortured procedure and untenable legal reasoning behind it may have made it legal, it seems to me that the shift to conventional acceptance didn’t come until sometime around the time its most vocal proponents dropped the “Safe, rare, and legal” rallying cry in favor of the more current “Its my right.” stance taken today.  [And more importantly, if there was nothing wrong with the procedure, then why profess that you want it to be "rare"?  It would make much more sense to want it to be available on demand, would it not?]

Still, we have come a long way from our understanding in Roe regarding the development of the baby during pregnancy, not that it matters.   Discussions of the stage of development would only be a truly reasonable measure of when the procedure might be permissable if women had ever given birth to anything other than a human being.  If the outcome were ever to be in doubt, or affected by the stage of pregnancy, then I might be willing to accept the idea that there might be good reason to have this practice continue.

“But Blackiswhite,” I hear you say “its about the woman’s right to choose.  Its her body, and to make her carry to term is involuntary servitude.” 

No.  There is simply no other process in this nation where a human being is deprived of life without due process of law.  And in other matters where a child’s best interest may be very different from those of his or her Mother’s, we wouldn’t dream of depriving them of a voice.  Divorce should be about the parents’ right to choose, yet courts frequently appoint guardian ad litems to evaluate and report on the child’s condition.  Children maybe contingent beneficiaries of trusts [think 'potential' beneficiary], and yet the courts wouldn’t dream of letting a parent dissolve that trust in proceedings where the child is not represented.  But in the case of abortion, the child is not capable of speaking on its own behalf, and it can have its life ended on the arbitrary decision of its Mother alone (without any imput from the Father, who in other circumstances could and frequently is made responsible for child support) before it can even draw its first breath out of the womb?  How can that not be antithetical to the very cornerstone of American liberty…the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

“But it is so unfair to have that ‘right to choose’ determined, at least in part by men, who will never have to be pregnant!”

Anymore unfair than having that ‘right’ conferred, at least in part by men, who will never have to be pregnant?  Isn’t this argument just the abortion version of the chickenhawk argument?  You know, the old saw about “President Whatshisname never served in the military, so it is easy/hypocritical/wrong for him send our children  in to battle in some godforsaken part of the world?  I know plenty of people who are in favor of abortion who find such reasoning to be wrong while failing to see that the two are really the same argument.

When you cut through the nonsense, and the rhetorical chaff constantly fired into the air by people enamoured of the ‘right to choose’ argument, those who believe that the woman’s choice is the only one that matters, or those such as Planned Parenthood, who have millions of dollars to make annually for their role in state-sanctioned murder, the truth become very clear: Standing against such an evil is not the wrong place to be.  It is the only place to be. 

And it makes a difference in elections.  The Left knows this better than they will ever admit, and certainly better than the voices of vanilla extolling the virtues of being a moderate.  Don’t believe me?  I have two words for you :  Sarah Palin.

Her entry into the race energized a Republican base that up to that point regarded the prospect of a McSame Presidency as the slow train to the same place that Obama is running the express to.   This is not my characterization; it is the characterization of the Old Media.  Abortion supporters knew this.  Her very political existence underscored every lie the Left and feminists have told women for decades.   She was the living proof that a woman could be successful and happy with a family.  She didn’t put off having children in order to ‘work on her career’.  She rose to a position of power and prominence based on merit and hard work and actually taking a stand for principles.  She believed in God, and wasn’t afraid or ashamed to do so.  She didn’t have an abortion when she learned she was carrying a child that did not meet society’s definition of ‘normal’, and never would.  She stood by a daughter who obviously did not abide by the abstinence she stressed, and did not seek an abortion for the child, or force her to get one herself.

This made her a threat, which was recognized immediately. In a race where the winning ticket selected Sheriff Slow Joe Biden for the same slot, she was the one constantly derided as stupid by the old media and the Left.  Even after the loss, she remained a lightning rod for the usual suspects, who did everything they could to bring meritless ethics complaints against her in her capacity as governor, hack her personal email accounts, continue to try to shout her down in public fora, and ridicule her in the popular media, even after their own candidate won.  Why?  Because they know that she still has a great deal of popular support among the Republican “extremists” precisely because of who and what she is, and the Left simply cannot afford to let her go unmolested.  To do so would be disastrous for them.

Of course, one might ask if they aren’t running scared because despite their best efforts, the worm is already turning?

Reason # 487 Why I Fear For the Future of This Country

It’s disturbing enough when the ‘leader’ of our nation and Congress display the kind of ignorance of the limits placed on their power by the Constitution, but when I see members of the judiciary who also fail to comprehend that there are limits on their powers, I grow truly alarmed. When I see other members of the bar who are completely oblivious to the usurpation of this power, I am disgusted.

I had court this morning, and I had been order to draft an order continuing my motion until a later date. As I drafted my motion, the judge took the next matter. A divorce where the parties involved were, predictably, arguing over attorney’s fees, with the usual allegations of chicanery and game playing by one spouse who allegedly controlled the finances, real estate, and had some businesses. As the story unfolded, it came out that “evil spouse” had partners in their business, and that the accountants had found a business account with several tens of thousands of dollars in it.

After listening to the parties make their case about how one was bleeding the other dry, and the other was greedy and evil for not paying the bleeder’s legal fees, despite paying a hefty amount in child support, spousal maintenance, and the house payment (think more than my monthly salary), the judge stopped the argument.

Then he ruled. He confirmed that the accountants had found the business account with the tens of thousands of dollars in it, and ordered that fifteen thousand dollars be paid to the bleeder’s attorney as attorney’s fees, within ten days, and if there was no cooperation in doing this from the evil spouse, he would appoint someone and vest them with the authority to get into the account and draw out the money.

By this point, his honor had my rapt attention as I waited for an explanation of how he justified this seizure of funds from the account of a separate entity that did not owe the fees he was assessing, but no explanation was offered. Evil Spouse’s counsel was preoccupied with the details of the future events of the case, as they were withdrawing to move out-of-state; it never even occurred to him that the court did not have jurisdiction over the business or its accounts. The bleeder’s attorney didn’t bring it up; they were going to get paid. None of the other attorneys in the courtroom appeared to be paying attention.

After the judge signed my order, and I made copies for myself and the opposing party, I passed the attorneys in the hall talking to the accountants. I successfully fought the urge to flip my card to evil spouse’s attorney and say “When your client’s partner wants to challenge the court’s decision to steal from him, have him call me.”

When trial court judges don’t know or refuse to abide by the limits on their power, then we are truly in bad shape as a society.

Spelling.

Spelling errors.  They’re never fun, but sometimes, you just don’t want to get the damn dictionary out when you’re typing a comment.  Most people understand this, and either refrain from commenting, or keep it discrete.

Then there are The Others™.  You know the ones.  The ones who lead such drab and unfortunate lives that they have to act like the world is ending and it is all your fault because you misspelled a word.  Or you have committed an offense against the gods of literature and are personally responsible for the deaths of Saints Merriam Webster and American Heritage.

I am guilty of such sins, apparently.  All because I didn’t get the memo.

We have western civilization poised to commit suicide on the twin blades of Political Correctness and Global Warming/Climate Change Hysteria, a nation drunk on the entitlements of economic and political slavery, and yet for some people, it is all about them.

To the members of the e-mail chain reading the Professor Klavan page…

I’m not complaining, but as long as you are making my hit counter go crazy, can you tell me who set this in motion and why?

Thanks ever so much,

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

Something For the Season

Dave Boze called my attention to this article on NRO’s The Corner.   And I got thinking that it seems to be the case for a few different examples of the genre.

Slasher flicks:  break society’s rules, and you die a horrible death.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  This is where I’m torn.  Kevin McCarthy’s performance in the original was a masterful performance in the Cold War allegory, but Donald Sutherland’s performance in the 1978 remake was chilling, as it made you fear creeping conformity.

But it seems to me that the best example is the modern-day zombie movie,  such as the recent remake of Dawn of the Dead.  People forced to take responsibility for themselves and work together reluctantly, as they arm themselves and shoot what used to be friends and neighbors who now will tear them apart in a murderous rage to obtain something they lack.  Head shots seem to work surprisingly well against these beings who are no longer using them for anything else.

How about you?  Any ideas?

 

 

Public Service Announcement #247

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

Of course, knowing that this is the dominant philosophy in the West Wing, thanks to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s unusual candor, when I read this morning that The Great Pretender and noted Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barrack Hussein Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, I had to wonder, what is the end game really is.

The excuse given in the article was:

Health authorities say more than 1,000 people in the United States, including almost 100 children, have died from the strain of flu known as H1N1, and 46 states have widespread flu activity.

While no one likes hearing about people dying, except Democratic lawmakers who push Unconstitutional Health Insurance Takeover plans, replete with bureaucratic panels who will decide if we are too old to receive the care our doctors prescribe, or if the care is simply too expensive, the fact is that this is not a startlingly high number for flu deaths. Spend a quick few minutes with a search engine, and you will find that in a typical year in the U.S., the numbers of deaths attributed to influenza number in the tens of thousands. The CDC categorizes these deaths with pneumonia, so it is hard to say what their total is, but other sources put the number between 30,000 and 66,000 deaths annually.

When taken in this context, it hardly seems to be an “emergency”. So what does declaring it an emergency get the Manchurian Presidunt?

Again, from the article:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now has authority to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as offsite hospital centers at schools or community centers if hospitals seek permission.

Some hospitals have opened drive-thrus and drive-up tent clinics to screen and treat swine flu patients. The idea is to keep infectious people out of regular emergency rooms and away from other sick patients.

Hospitals could modify patient rules — for example, requiring them to give less information during a hectic time — to quicken access to treatment, with government approval, under the declaration.

It also addresses a financial question for hospitals — reimbursement for treating people at sites not typically approved. For instance, federal rules do not allow hospitals to put up treatment tents more than 250 yards away from the doors; if the tents are 300 yards or more away, typically federal dollars won’t go to pay for treatment.

So far, so good…and then a clue:

The national emergency declaration was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius extraordinary powers during a crisis.

On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one.

So this got me thinking, “What other powers would the blood-money grubbing HHS Secretary have?”

I don’t know that I have satisfied myself as to the answer, but I did find a copy of the National Strategy on Pandemic Flu. It was appropriately vague. Then I found a presentation on the applicable federal law (pay attention to pages 56 to 76) Of more concern was the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which is the model language drafted by the CDC for review and adoption by the individual states.

Of particular concern:

Under the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, upon the declaration of a “public health emergency,” governors and public health officials would be empowered to:

1.Force individuals suspected of harboring an “infectious disease” to undergo medical examinations.
2.Track and share an individual’s personal health information, including genetic information.
3.Force persons to be vaccinated, treated, or quarantined for infectious diseases.
4.Mandate that all health care providers report all cases of persons who harbor any illness or health condition that may be caused by an epidemic or an infectious agent and might pose a “substantial risk” to a “significant number of people or cause a long-term disability.” (Note: Neither “substantial risk” nor “significant number” are defined in the draft.)
5.Force pharmacists to report any unusual or any increased prescription rates that may be caused by epidemic diseases.
6.Preempt existing state laws, rules and regulations, including those relating to privacy, medical licensure, and–this is key–property rights.
7.Control public and private property during a public health emergency, including pharmaceutical manufacturing plants, nursing homes, other health care facilities, and communications devices.
8.Mobilize all or any part of the “organized militia into service to the state to help enforce the state’s orders.”
9.Ration firearms, explosives, food, fuel and alcoholic beverages, among other commodities.
10.Impose fines and penalties to enforce their orders.

Now between extensive quarantine powers, and states that could have provisions 6-10 of the above list on their books, it is enough to say “Yeah. I can see how this certainly is a crisis that Komisar Emanuel and the rest of the O Crew just might want to take advantage of. You might never know when that awful Swine Flu might strike the red states…say right after passage of an illegal Health Insurance Takeover Bill, maybe?”

Just sayin’, s’all. Maybe you’re still the trusting sort. I’m not anymore. When a snake pokes its snout into my life and says “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”, I watch it very closely, and start wondering if I can cut it’s head off before it bites me.

H/t to the loverly SoHoS for the second image of Dear Leader.
Cross-posted at Taxes, Stupidity, and Death.

Cross-posted at The Hostages.