Archive for November 8th, 2009

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?

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »