Rusty, on the other hand, argues that we should welcome liberal Muslims as immigrants into the United States and that we should not ban the building of mosques in the west, nor should we ban the Qur'an -- even though he admits it is as hateful as "Mein Kampf" or more so.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Rusty, on the other hand, argues that we should welcome liberal Muslims as immigrants into the United States and that we should not ban the building of mosques in the west, nor should we ban the Qur'an -- even though he admits it is as hateful as "Mein Kampf" or more so.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
When the Obama administration crashes and burns, with approval ratings that
fall through the floor, political scientists can trace its demise to its first
hundred days. While Americans are careful not to consign a presidency they
desperately need to succeed to the dustbin of history, the fact is that this
president has moved — on issue after issue — in precisely the opposite direction
of what the people want him to do.
And he explains why Obama's polls are high regardless of this descrepancy:
So if voters differ so fundamentally with the president on the very essence of
his program, why do they accord him high ratings? They are like the recently
married bride who took her vows 100 days ago. It would be a disaster for her
life if she decides that she really doesn’t like her husband. But she keeps
noticing things about him that she can’t stand. It will be a while before she
walks out the door or even comes to terms with her own doubts, but it is
probably inevitable that she will.
Read it all here.
Via: Melanie Morgan
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Ayers was a gifted young musician who was accepted to the prestigeous Juilliard School in 1970. Due to his growing mental illness, he dropped out in his second year, eventually moving to Los Angeles where he lived on the street as a homeless person.
Ayers continued to play his music (Beehoven is his favorite) on the street, using half-broken and cast off instruments. Lopez, in need of a story to meet a reporting deadline, heard beautiful music one day as he walked in Los Angeles and found a rag-tag Ayers playing a violin in front of the statue of Ludwig van Beethoven. He interviewed Ayers and wrote a series of columns on this musician, which he later compiled into a book: A Lost Dream, an Unlikely Friendship, and the Redemptive Power of Music. The book was then made into the film "The Soloist," starring Robert Downey Jr. as Steve Lopez and Jamie Foxx as Nathaniel Ayers.
The film was interesting and I've ordered Lopez's book.
Below is a video from CBS that tells the story.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Robert Spencer has the pathetic story at Jihad Watch.
Delaware University's Leftist Indoctrination Program for New Students
The FIRE is an organization supporting academic freedom on college campuses and is pursuing very worthy causes. They created a video of Delaware's recent indoctrination program for new students. The program was some of the worst Marxist propaganda I have ever seen. It begins with the premise that America is ruled by "White Supremacy," that all white people are people "of privilege" and that "racism" is whatever supports this system of white privilege. It's ridiculous and asinine in the extreme. Stop the ACLU has the video at this link.
A FIRE spokesman described this program as "not how to think but what to think" and totalitarian in nature.
Our universities, by and large, have long been a cesspool of the most extreme leftist/communist/Marxist ideology -- and it is they who are shaping attitudes and beliefs of our future leaders. This latest scandal only shows how they do it -- with insidious brain-washing propaganda.
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. That's the conclusion of Gerald Warner of the UK Telegraph. He refers to Obama as "President Pantywaist" and the description is apt. Read his article Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
President Obama is a disaster for the United States of America. If the GOP can retake the House and Senate, they should not pass go but proceed immediately to impeaching the traitorous train wreck.
Aunty Belle's Back Porch has a great article of American Aid to other nations. It's called "Foreign Policy 101." Each vignette features some foreigner asking an impertient question with a devastating response from the American official. Each one ends with the sentence "You could have heard a pin drop."
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A couple of weeks ago I think I figured it out. I drank way too much coffee. Sounds too simple to be valid, but I am sure that was the source of my problem. I would drink a pot of coffee in the morning, and another one before bedtime. I thought I was immune to the effects of caffeine. So when I felt fatigued I sometimes had an energy drink with...more caffeine.
Needless to say I spent a lot of time running to the bathroom. I was literally pissing my life away. Or maybe most of my electrolytes, I don't really know, not being a doctor. In any case, I got tired of being tired and running to the bathroom. The sloshing sound didn't help my image with co-workers, either. So one night I thought: I will forego my evening pot of coffee and just go to bed.
The next day I felt substantially better. I felt positively positive. Cheerful even. The urination was less too. No more sloshing sound. Okay, I just made that part up, but the rest is true.
Encouraged, I reduced my coffee still further and limited myself to 2 cups in the morning, or 3 being my dead max. My good mood has continued unabated for two weeks. I'm still cheerful at work. I had to work today (a Saturday) but even so, I felt good. Cheerful.
Now I think I know why I was always chronically fatigued. I was getting very shallow sleep at night. The caffeine affected me a lot more than I thought. Now I sleep soundly and awaken refreshed. Amazing. No more depression or sad and morose feelings. I just feel normal and normal feels pretty damn good.
My friend Carol at No Sheeples Here tells me not to self-diagnose, but I think self-diagnosis is okay in certain instances. Like if you are hitting yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer and you figure out that it feels much better when you stop. This is in that category. I will still take my medications, Carol and I will discuss my caffeine eiphany with my doctor the next time I go in.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
In the worst examples, you are publically slandered, called a racist or an extremist. This is the method employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Some conservatives in the public eye can't take the strain over a long period of time and seek to get back into the good graces of the mainstream media or the public. No one likes to be hated, insulted and marginalized. Many would rather give up the fight then to undergo such sadistic treatment at the hands of the Left. They seek to resume some semblance of a normal life in the safety of anonymity and the constraints of political correctness.
One of the minutemen who was monitoring illegal aliens in Arizona had such an experience. The SPLC branded him a racist. He was totally blown away that anyone would accuse him of that, and asked them to remove this epithet from their website. Some feminist lawyer for that group replied that they would not remove it, and that he was indeed a "racist." Why was he a "racist"? Because he and his group monitored the border with Mexico and reported bands of illgals crossing over to the Border Patrol. This made him a racist in their eyes. Or did it? In any case, it was an effectve way to maginalize him, put him on the defensive, and plant large seeds of doubt in the minds of the public. He has since left the group he founded and is somewhat apologetic for his past activities. He almost sounds neurotic now in statements he has made recently. He has been neutralized.
I wonder if something like this is what turned Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. As an outspoken anti-jihadist, he was regularly slimed by the left, ridiculed and painted as some kind of racist extremist. Today he has all but renounced the positions he once held and is busily attacking former allies in the struggle against militant Islam. Conservatives have abandoned him and his website in droves. Perhaps the pressure of the left's unceasing attacks finally had the desired effect. Some bloggers have wondered if Johnson has had some kind of breakdown. In any case, he has been neutralized.
During the Clinton era certain Republican women, like Kathleen Harris and Linda Tripp, were given a large dose of grief by the Left. Harris was described by a liberal columnist as looking like she "applied her makeup with a trowel." Tripp was treated even worse, insulted almost beyond imagination as to her personal appearance. Tripp later underwent plastic surgery and apologized for her prior appearance, saying she didn't realize how awful it was. She had been thoroughly punished for breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Left had gotten into her head and messed with it effectively.
Then there's the legal angle -- using the law to prosecute Republicans for politics. Tom DeLay was charged with "money laundering" by a ruthlessly partisan Democrat District Attorney in Texas who has misused his office to persecute Republicans in the past. DeLay was forced by the manufactured scandal to give up his seat because he was under indictment, and also so he could fight the charges. There still has been no resolution of the case. In any case DeLay's political career is over and his life may be ruined. He has not only been marginalized, but personally destroyed.
Our most recent example, of course, is that of Barack Obama who has said he will consider bringing charges against attorneys in the Defense Dept. who wrote favorable legal opinions on the use of aggressive interrogation techniques against captured Al-Qaeda terrorists. Now you can be prosecuted for simply providing a legal opinion that some Democrat may later disagree with -- and prosecute you for it.
This is truly dirty pool, but Dems should be forewarned: what you do to others can come back to haunt you. I can see Obama possibly being impeached down the road and tried for treason. It's unlikely, but it could happen, particularly if another succesful 9/11 style attack occurs on his watch.
Democrats believe that "politics is war by other means." And they are at war with America, with common sense and even common decency. Those who would mount an effective opposition had better have a high tolerance for slime, slander and abuse.
Robert Stacy McCain puts it all into perspective in his post today "Who's Purging Whom?" He writes:
Look, we've all been officially branded "Rightwing Extremists," so what's the point of this fearful, defensive, cringing quest for "respectability"?
Via: The Other McCain
Via: KSFO Radio
Monday, April 20, 2009
Carrie's honest, majority opinion may have cost her the crown. She was the first runner-up, losing out to Miss North Carolina. On top of that, she was the target of loud and angry profanity by the judge, Perez Hilton, a champion of gay marriage. He called her a "stupid bitch" and a "c**t."
Perez Hilton's angry diatribe was shocking in its immaturity and intolerance for other opinions.
Long after this day, people will remember that the person opposed to gay marriage was a lovely, polite and honest young woman who was tactful and truthful in her beliefs. And they may very well remember that its champion was a foul-mouthed, immature, small-minded punk.
With those images in their heads as they go to the voting booths, do you think you helped your cause, Hilton?
Photo of Carrie Prejean, from the Miss USA website.
via: Fox News
Sunday, April 19, 2009
They described him as a "racist and white-supremacist." He's nothing of the sort. Once again, as they have done countless times before, the SPLC slandered a conservative figure with total disregard for the truth. As usual, they provided no specifics to prove that this individual was a "racist," and relied on innuendo and "guilt by association" commentary. He was once a member of the "white supremacist and racist League of the South." Hey, so was I. The only problem is that the League of the South was not "white supremacist or racist. " At least it wasn't in its early days, when my friend and I were members. I haven't really looked into its political positions as they may have evolved since then.
In the early days of the League of the South, various groups were vying for control. There was a very definite racist faction, small and vocal, and here I will define "racism" as being a strong antipathy towards black people and other non-whites. The anti-racist faction fought this racial antipathy and didn't want it to be part of the League. They wanted membership open to all. The individual slandered by the SPLC, as described above, was a leader of the anti-racist faction. When the book "the Bell Curve" came out, describing a lower average IQ for black people, this individual refused to believe it. He stated publicly that he didn't believe that God would do that to black people. He even came up with arguments from other authors to refute the Bell Curve.
This high-mindedness, however, proved to be of no benefit to leftist slimes like the SPLC. On their website they brag about how they cost this individual a job by revealing his "extremist past" to his employer. The only problem is that he has no "extremist past," unless being a libertarian makes you one. Oh yes, and a former member of the League of the South.
He later left the League, as did I; I won't go into the reasons. However, note the SPLC's highly refined sliming technique. They pick out a conservative organization and declare it to be "extremist" and "racist." Now that they have defined it as such, they can declare that you have "an extremist past" if you've ever been a member!
You are an "extremist" only by their subjective definition, not by objectively proven facts. Also, your alleged "extremism" is based only on your peaceful, political beliefs that you pursue in peaceful ways. Most people think of an "extremist" as someone who blows things up and murders people. However, to the SPLC, an extremist is anyone who doesn't agree with them, no matter how peaceful or lawful they are otherwise.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is in the business of slander to achieve political and financial ends. It's a great way to marginalize conservatives who are becoming too effective, and it's a great advertising gimmick for the SPLC, who can claim that they are "fighting hate" when all they are really doing is desseminatng vicious propaganda. Notable conservatives like David Horowitz (for opposing reparations for slavery) and Michelle Malkin (for opposing illegal immigration) have been SPLC targets in the recent past. (A great project would be to list all conservatives who have ever been called a "racist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It would be a long list.)
Anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration is a potential target. The SPLC will call you a "nativist" and a "hater." What then can be done about illegal immigration, in the eyes of the SPLC? Absolutely nothing. Anyone who wants to come in can come in, citizen or not, and we are powerless to stop them, lest we be labeled "racists," "nativists," or "extremists" by the SPLC.
The SPLC is despicable. Someone really needs to sue their asses off.
It would be time consuming and expensive, and the plaintiff would be treated to public excoriation, slime and slander on a massive scale by the SPLC. I suppose that's why no one has sued them before. Also, they are an organization of leftwing attorneys and have plenty of in-house counsel, so getting sued wouldn't cost them the massive fortune it costs the targets of their slander.
What can you do? Here are a few thoughts:
1. Don't quote the Southern Poverty Law Center on any statistics regarding "hate" or "racism." Hate and racism, to the far left, is anything that impedes the socialist revolution. The SPLC is not a credible source of such statistics.
2. Be aware that the SPLC has a serious political agenda, that it is far left, and that it colors all of their beliefs, practices and public statements. On the question of racism, "white-supremacy" and extremism, they are the boy crying wolf. They are not remotely objective and are dishonest and unfair.
Give them a wide berth.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Breaking News: Southern Poverty Law Center Finds A Conservative Group That Isn't Racist, White-Supremacist or Extremist
Further information from the SPLC website indicates the Center will press for legislation making it a "hate crime" to register as a Republican or to laugh at Joe Biden's hair plugs.
The SPLC took exception this week to a claim by Michelle Malkin that the SPLC has labeled the American Legion a "hate group" for opposing illegal immigration. The SPLC is adamant that they never said any such thing. They only said that the American Legion was a hapless if not willing tool of rightwing racist, white-supremacist and extremist groups and that they were in bed with these groups and up to their earlobes in such groups, but they never said the Legion was one of these groups. Thanks to the SPLC for this important clarification.
Last week the SPLC released its annual report on the growth of hate groups in the United States. Not surprisingly, the report once again shows an astounding growth in the number of hate groups in the U.S., making the role of the SPLC ever more important and their need for higher dues, fees, grants and donations all the more obvious (hint, hint).
In fact, the hate group racists now outnumber regular folks by 10,000 to 1, with only 3,232 non-racist people living in scattered enclaves throughout the United States. Hmm, come to think of it, if hate groups are expanding so rapidly, shouldn't we fire the SPLC and hire someone who can actually do something about it?
More as the situation develops.....
Some of the effects of the Tea Parties:
1. The leftwing, Democrat supporting mainstream media has lost all pretense of objectivity and impartiality, further eroding their credibility with the public. CNN and MSNBC were sarcastic and insulting to the Tea Parties and the people who attended them. Attendees were browbeaten by a CNN reporter who tried to engage them in debate over the Obama administration's bail-outs. Snickering MSNBC "reporters" covering the events called them "tea bagging," referring to an oral sex practice. Fault Line USA has many of the details at this link.
2. Fox News has resumed an editorial conservative stance, openly refuting leftist comments by Janeane Garafalo and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Garafalo was particularly egregious, calling the Tea Party attendees "teabagging rednecks" who were racists, "hating a black man in the White House." No Sheeples Here has the video.
3. The conservative movement has been energized by the groundswell of American opposition to Obama's policies.
4. The leftist blogosphere has gone ape in their frenzy to disparage the Tea Parties, recalling the old adage that "if you are picking up flak, it means you are over the target." See Scott's take on it at Powerline.
5. Obama's Department of Homeland Security further emphasizes the flak analogy, as it released a highly politicized and false report of "right wing extremism" posing an immediate threat to the peace and security of the United States (read "Obama's agenda").
6. Texas Governor Rick Perry has raised the option of secession in the event Obama radically transforms the United States into something it was never meant to be, i.e. a socialist tyranny. Walter Williams pointed out on KSFO radio yesterday that the secession option is necessary to dissuade would-be tyrants from their goals, in the same way that divorce is an option women can use against an abusive husband. He also pointed out that the American Civil War did not settle the secession question because it was decided by brute force and not the rule of law.
It's a beautiful day here in Hollister, California. I have to do some work for my company today, but I will do it out here in the backyard via my wireless connection, with my pooch by my side, listening to birdies tweeting in the trees.
What I feel today is satisfaction. The battle is enjoined.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
This is not a simple book to read. It's a little like a college text. You have to read it carefully to fully understand the points it makes. I am highlighting key passages and points. It is an excellent defense of free markets, individualism and capitalism. Hayek dissects the false promises and premises of socialism, collectivism and "central planning."
Don't be lazy -- if you want to understand the foundations of freedom, you have to work a little. I think it's worth the effort.
A lot of people are on our side, folks of different colors, genders and other persuasions. Patriots all!
To all of my brothers and sisters in the patriot movement, I say, "well done!"
I'm glad you're out there.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Reports coming in on the radio and internet indicate the tea parties were a raging success, with thousands of people attending.
1. The mainstream (Democrat) media has studiously ignored the tea parties, even though many have already been held throughout the nation. It is media bias in action, again. They can influence opinion not only by the spin on what they choose to report, but on what they refuse to report.
2. The now politicized Homeland Security Department announced a widespread, rightwing terrorist threat to the nation. They released the following information:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those
groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on
hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are
mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local
authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and
individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion
Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.
Oh God, they're on to us!
This B.S. from Homeland Security is nothing but Democrat talking points; now they are coming from the federal government itself rather than from James Carville. Many conservatives believe this "terrorist alert" was issued the day before the tea parties in order to provide a false context to the tea party movement. John at Power Line stated: "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this Homeland Security report is politically motivated, and reflects the authors' political prejudices more than an objective evaluation of a significant terrorist threat."
3. Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke at a tea party in Austin and supported Texan state sovereignty, stating (correctly) that Texas has a right to secede from the Union in the event the United States abandons its founding principles of limited government. Various states are now proposing or passing resolutions emphasizing their sovereign status and support of the 10th Amendment.
The spirit of REBELLION is alive and well and lives in the hearts of many Americans. We will not sit still for Obama's planned transformation of our country into a bankrupt, socialist tyranny.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Let me rephrase and enumerate my beliefs for you, in the event I didn't make myself clear enough in my last post.
1. Meghan McCain believes we Republicans should treat gay people with kindness and should support same sex marriage.
2. Meghan was partly right: we should treat gay people with kindness. I would never recommend that the GOP take an official position in favor of gay marriage. See no. 7 below.
3. The same sex marriage issue is for individual states to decide for themselves under the 10th Amendment, it is not an issue for the federal government, which has no constitutional authority to decide it for the union as a whole.
4. I personally don't approve of same sex marriage; however, I feel less strongly on this point as time passes. I will never vote in favor of gay marriage. However, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if it is passed in my state. I don't see gay marriage affecting me or harming me personally.
5. I believe that in time many, if not most, of the states will allow same sex marriage, because it is a freedom issue and it doesn't cost me or you any money or personal security.
6. The same sex marriage issue should be decided by the people of each state in a democratic vote. It most certainly should not be imposed on a state by judges "legislating from the bench."
7. The National Republican Party should remain neutral on this issue as it is not a federal issue. Local chapters of the Party can take whatever stand they see fit.
8. I consider any gay who is a political conservative and/or patriot to be my ally and his sexual orientation is of no concern to me.
9. We have a lot bigger fish to fry without getting sidetracked on an issue that we are destined to lose in the long run anyway.
Or so it seems to me. It's just one man's opinion. I could be wrong.
via: The Other McCain
Photo: Me after smoking a cigar sent to me by Stacy McCain. Wow Stacy, that stogie really packs a punch!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Stacy isn't related to Meghan -- she's the daughter of Senator John McCain, former presidential candidate for the Republican Party. Meghan's politics are a lot like her father's...confused. However, she has a point.
I am not in favor of gay marriage, but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep if it were passed by the various states (the Federal Government should have no say under the Constitution). Further, I think it is only a matter of time before most states adopt laws making gay marriage legal. Why? Because it's a freedom issue. Because two guys or two women getting married and living together really doesn't affect me or you.
I would prefer that marriage remain between one woman and one man, as it has been for thousands of years in hundreds of different cultures. I fear that the gay marriage issue may be "cultural Marxism," wherein the Left seeks to undermine tradition and culture for the purpose of undermining western civilization. Are they really sincere about gay equality in marriage, or is it just a vehicle for promoting discord and civil unrest? It is difficult to say if gay marriage would ultimately prove beneficial or harmful to our civil society. The jury, for me, is still out.
There is one point though, where I agree with Meghan: anti-gay rhetoric, anti-gay hostility is not beneficial to the conservative cause. It was a gay man, Oliver "Billy" Sipple who in 1975 saved the life of President Gerald Ford when a radical leftist, Sarah Jane Moore, attempted to assassinate him. She fired one shot and missed, and was attempting to fire again. Sipple, an ex-Marine, grabbed her arm just as she was aiming the gun, spoiling the shot. I remember that incident and how it substantially altered my opinion of who gay people are. This guy was no limp-wristed wimp. The incident provided me with a personal epiphany: sometimes gay people are downright heroes, worthy of admiration, gratitude and respect.
Another gay man is also one of my personal heroes: Mark Bingham. On September 11, 2001, he was one of the passengers on Flight 93. He was one of the heroes who rushed the cockpit and foiled the terrorist attempt to crash the plane into Washington, D.C., probably the White House or the Capitol Building, saving an untold number of lives. Like all the other heroes of Flight 93, he gave his life in the service of his country. God bless him.
I do agree that a person's sexual orientation is but one aspect of that person's makeup, and not the most important one either. Both Sipple and Bingham proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't give a damn that either of them were gay.
Over at the blog GayPatriot, you will find a lot of wisdom and good conservatism in the posts and in the message section. Do I consider these people my friends and allies? You bet.
I'll never be a cheerleader for the gay lifestyle, but gay or straight, a friend is a friend.
via: The Other McCain
Yes, I do deny Obama the credit. He wasn't on the scene; he didn't give the order to fire; he didn't fire one of the weapons. "Oh, but he gave the order to fire, as the Commander In Chief!" No he didn't. All Obama did was to stay out of the way and allow the Navy to rely on standard Rules of Engagement, wherein they are preauthorized to kill terrorists who pose an imminent threat to the life of a captive.
If merely being the current occupant of the White House means Obama gets the credit, then he gets the credit, but I see it more of an administrative procedure than anything real. The success of the operation does not prove Obama's personal judgment, bravery, wisdom or decisiveness. If anything, he was indecisive as hell. The smartest thing he could have done, and finally did, was to allow the professionals to use their judgment at the scene. So for that, I can truly say, "well done, Obama. You didn't screw it up."
Obama should be judged for his military leadership based on the complete picture of what he is doing to promote U.S. security. And what is that? The answer is, not much. He is making deep cut in weapons systems and ending research into new weapon systems at a time when despotic regimes like China, Iran and North Korea are building up militarily. He is going around apologizing to world potentates for what an "arrogant" country he leads.
I'm perfectly willing to give Obama credit if he does something really good, something beyond minimal expectations, like the pirate episode. But we haven't see that yet. Frankly, given the nature of Obama's personal anti-military politics and philosophy, I don't expect to. I do hope I'm wrong.
via: Crooks and Liars
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Apparently Phillips jumped into the water for a second time, allowing the U.S. Navy to rapidly dispatch three of the four pirates, while capturing the fourth alive. Oh well, three out of four ain't bad.
To the three dead pirates, we wish a pleasant trip to Hell. To the fourth, a speedy trip to the nearest gallows. And to Captain Phillips, thank God and congratulations on your bravery!
And of course, to the U.S. Navy, thanks for being an arm of the greatest military force on earth. Again you make us proud.
Photo: U.S. Navy. Phillips is on the right.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Instapundit also posts a great video, copied below, of the liberal/left's answer to the Tea Parties: a "New Way Forward" protest against the banks in Washington D.C. Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger, informs the huge crowd of 25 protestors that "Fox News is financing the Tea Party protests." When confronted by a conservative and asked to elaborate and describe her proof, she makes an excuse and runs away.
In this article McCarthy describes and refutes the sophomoric beliefs that Jihad is a "peaceful, inner struggle" rather than a violent one, and that Sharia (Islamic law) is compatible with our western laws and, therefore able to be accommodated.
McCarthy describes our western angst in refusing to acknowledge that it is Islam itself that is the threat. He writes:
Because America is a beacon of religious freedom, we’ve limited our focus to operatives who plot and execute acts of terror; the ideology fueling this savagery is not our concern — lest we betray our first principles and smear every Muslim as a terrorist. This disposition is suicidal, for at least three reasons. First, Islam is not merely a religion. It is a comprehensive socio-economic and political system, which believers take to be ordained by Allah, its elements compulsory and non-negotiable. While those elements include tenets we would regard as a religious creed, these tenets constitute only a fraction of the overarching Islamic project.
McCarthy makes a lot of sense in this article. He dispels a lot of popular nonsense about the so-called "Religion of Peace."
Via: Creeping Sharia
The San Francisco Chronicle reported:
This appears to have been an act of cyber-terrorism. Perhaps it was a practice run for bigger operations. If an enemy wanted to sow chaos in our society, knocking out the internet and phone lines would seem an effective strategy.
Ten fiber-optic cables were cut at four locations in the predawn darkness. Residential and business customers quickly found that telephone service was perhaps more laced into their everyday needs than they thought. Suddenly they couldn't draw out money, send text messages, check e-mail or Web sites, call anyone for help, or even check on friends or relatives down the road.
Several people had to be driven to hospitals because they were unable to summon ambulances. Many businesses lapsed into idleness for hours, without the ability to contact associates or customers.
More than 50,000 landline customers lost service - some were residential, others were business lines that needed the connections for ATMs, Internet and bank card transactions.
This morning all services appear to be restored and functioning.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Conason never really gives a coherent explanation of how the Obamessiah is going to do this. However, we can glean from this idiotic article:
In America’s struggle against the extremists and terrorists epitomized by
Al Qaeda, the strategic imperatives are to divide the enemy and neutralize their
base. Fortunately for the United States and its allies, the new American
president understands how to do that—and is uniquely suited to accomplish the
1. Muslims like Barack Obama's Muslim name. Yes, especially his middle name, Hussein.
2. Obama "embodies the message that Americans bear no ill intentions towards Muslims or their nations." What he embodies is incredible naivete, wishful thinking, denial of reality and utter weakness. His foolish "reassurances" to the Muslim world will not change the nature of their hateful, expansionist ideology. This is a typical and one of the most foolish liberal beliefs: that when despots seek to destroy you, it is just a big misunderstanding, easily dispersed with some kind words and candy-coated BS.
3. The inability of the Bush Administration to broadcast no. 2 was one of its most salient failures. (What a shame...all we really needed to do was to verbally reassure al-Qaeda, Hamas and Fatah that we bear them no ill-will, and peace would have come. They probably just wanted a hug).
4. "That belief was impossible to sustain during a decade of war, destruction and torture. Now the burden is on the president to revive latent admiration for our country and our values. " All we needed to do to have peace is to refuse to fight! That would have convinced the Muslims to shower us with flowers and candies instead of say, blowing a hole in the U.S.S. Cole or flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. Even though they attacked us, the war is our fault because we waterboarded three terrorists and consequently saved many American lives.
5. "Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts resonate with special strength in Europe as well as across the Mideast, Africa and Asia precisely because he does not claim that his own beloved nation is without fault or flaw." Yes, Obama is living proof. Blame America first. Apologize to other nations who have attacked us or wronged us. Just like a beaten wife apologizing to her violent husband, "I'm so sorry I forced you to beat me!"
Barack Obama is not Muslim extremists' worse nightmare. He is the answer to their prayers. How utterly foolish to believe that terrorists like the mass murderers of Mubai, the London and Madrid bombers, the barbarian savages who sawed off Nick Berg's head while he screamed in horror and agony, could be reformed by sweet talk and pacifism.
As for Consason, he should be wearing a pink tutu to signify his profound grasp of the "Clash of Civilizations" and his awesome studliness.
Oh, wait a minute, all of that is already happening; and Obama isn't even wearing a pink tutu.
Who would have guessed?
Sunday, April 05, 2009
1. The Constitution
3. The Free Market
4. The Welfare State
5. Evironmentalism ("Enviro-Statism")
7. Self-Preservation (the military and foreign policy)
Levin describes how all of these aspects of our democracy have been undermined by statists, i.e. big-government advocates who misuse each of them to obtain and extend their power. He shows how these efforts have reduced our freedom, our security and our prosperity. Last of all, he describes how all of these areas could be restored to constitutional health.
Levin doesn't just put blame on Democrats, but also Republicans, particularly the weak Republicans who see the battle as lost and their only alternative in "working with the Democrats" or fiddling around the edges of these major areas. What is needed is not tinkering, but deep, systemic changes in our government to restore the nation to its founding principles.
He is critical of George Bush where such criticism is justified, e.g. in putting the damaging "bail-out" plan into operation, the same one that Obama is now advancing and expanding.
I found much of the book truly eye-opening. He shows how Herbert Hoover was not, as is commonly believed, a laissez-faire free marketer by any means. Hoover intervened heavily in the economy in an attempt to reverse the Great Depression. FDR merely took over programs and policies that Hoover started and expanded on them -- a parallel situation to Bush and Obama today.
The chapter on Enviro-Statism was particularly enraging to me, where Levin documents the extent of the environmentalist fraud, particularly as it involves "man-made global warming." These false concerns are merely fuel for increased governmental intervention into the lives of the citizens and the economy. Other leftist accomplishments in this area include the banning of D.D.T., which has resulted in millions of deaths in the Third World to malaria. When you think left, think death -- the two are joined at the hip.
The chapter on immigration was no less disturbing. It describes the insane policies the nation has followed since Lyndon Johnson and Congress passed the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, allowing for chain migration that ended both quotas and preference for European immigrants. The result has been a heavy influx of less educated and more impoverished immigrants who are more apt to go on welfare rolls and are less capable of adding benefit to the civil society. The Statist, of course, sees this change as opportunity, as it provides him with a large influx of friendly voters.
It seems to me that many Americans are too intellectually lazy to read such a book and informing the public won't be an easy task. It will take some cataclysmic event to shake them out of their stupor and motivate them to both understand the problems and devise a means of fixing them. Perhaps the secession of a few red states would do the trick; I don't really know. In any case, the compact agreed to by the various states upon entering the union has been effectively obliterated. With some states, like California and Massachusetts, that's probably a desired outcome. Other states like South Carolina and Texas may feel differently.
In any case, the damage to our Constitution and founding principles is so extensive and deep that I despair of the possibility of turning it around. Still, we must try with everything that is in us.
Austrian economics advances the premise that it is government controlled money and credit that causes the business boom and bust cycle. The Federal Reserve is the most guilty agent in this phenomenon. In the free market, credit is just another commodity that is subject to supply and demand and interest rates should be left to float as dictated by market forces. It is when the Fed screws with those interest rates that things start to go wrong. Artificially depressed interest rates send erroneous signals though the ecomomy, resulting in bad decisions by businesses that in the long run come back to smack them in the kisser.
That's because low interest rates, in a free market, indicate more savings by the private sector, resulting in more money to lend by banks. In periods of naturally low interest rates, businesses undertake long-term projects that would not be feasible when interest rates are high. However, artificially low interest rates, as set by the Fed, cause businesses to undertake these projects without a sufficient savings pool to borrow from, resulting in aborted projects and wasted resources when the rates suddenly increase. That's because you can artificially lower the rates for a time, but not indefinitely.
Think of it as pressing a lid down over a boiling pot to prevent the steam from escaping. The pressure will build until it is no longer containable, resulting in a sudden and dramatic explosion. Artificial stimulation of the economy is like that -- repressing market forces now only results in sudden and more dramatic shifts down the line. That's why all such attempts at "stimulus" and "bail outs" have backfired in the past, e.g. in the Great Depression and more recently in Japan. Bail-outs make things worse.
Woods examines various depressions and recessions of the past and describes the money/credit problems that caused them. His explanations are clear and easy to follow, are logical and make sense. Further, he supports his analysis with facts from history that are highly analogous to today.
The solution to a crisis like we have now is to leave it alone and let the market sort it all out. That will result in the fastest route to recovery. Woods shows how the depression of 1921 (which preceded the Great Depression by eight years) was left alone -- there was no government intervention at all. The result was that the depression of '21 soon righted itself and prosperity returned quickly.
FDR's interventions into the Great Depression of 1929 was very damaging to the recovery. Two economists at UCLA conducted an extensive study of the Great Depression and concluded that FDR's intervention actually prolonged the Great Depression by six or seven years. So much for "stimulus" and bail-outs.
In similar fashion, the bail-out now underway will make the economy worse, by simply delaying the efforts of the market to end unprofitable businesses and reallocate their resources to more productive sectors of the economy. Further, it will saddle future generations with onerous amounts of debt, and for no good purpose: the bail-outs will fail because they make no economic sense whatsoever.
Woods argues, convincingly in my opinion, that we should return to a monetary system based on gold and silver. This will prevent the government from screwing with the money supply to steal our purchasing power through inflation, which is nothing more than an insidious form of taxation.
He also argues that the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I also agree to that, as the Fed causes the boom and bust cycle by manipulating the interest rates. It was a major factor in the current recession we are in today.
"Meltdown" is a lesson in sound economics. It isn't an ideological screed, putting forth bromides that are based on mere theory, faith or partisanship. It is a serious look at how government interacts with the economy in damaging ways and the steps and policies that are needed to restore the economy to health.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
File this one under "Rude, Crude and Socially Unacceptable."
Nevertheless, I fear this may be Obama's usual position in matters of foreign policy.
The only problem I can see is that all of this blood would eventually clot, causing one hell of a mess, and the flies it draws is just awful.
Using Photoshop, I have designed a more practical fountain for the martyrs, one that makes use of an alternative body fluid to blood.
You don't have to die to shed this bodily fluid and you don't have to kill anyone either. I can see its advantages already, can't you? Also, there is no clotting or flies involved.
Yes, bladder relief is preferable to bleeding, dying, and killing. The fluid produced is still a bright color and is reflective of life rather than death. That and a whole lot of beer drinking. It's just a suggestion.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Powerline, one of the most successful conservative blogs in the country, featured one of Zack's most recent cartoons, called "Film Noir." See it at the link above.
Indeed, "Film Noir" is one of Zack's best! Congratulations, Zack!
One of those books is "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. It's an explanation of the causes of the current financial crisis and why the bailout will make things worse. Woods writes an easy to follow, logical analysis and supports it with facts and examples. The federal government caused the financial crisis by insisting that mortgage companies and banks loan money to poor credit risks based on their ethnicity rather than their ability to repay loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac further compounded the problem by buying the subprime mortgages from the mortgage companies and banks so the latter could make even more subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie then securitized the subprime loans and sold the mortgage-backed securities to investors, i.e. banks and pension funds.
George Bush did his share of the damage by initiating lending based on "no down payment" so that even more citizens could buy “the American dream.” Note: bad ideas by Republicans aren’t any better than bad ideas by Democrats and are just as damaging. That’s why we Republicans need to elect conservatives, not liberal or “moderate” big-government Republicans like George Bush or John McCain.
Finally, the Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) exacerbated the problem by keeping the interest rate artificially low. Easy credit for one ethnic group soon spread to everyone, and home buying proliferated, fueled by speculation and the belief that the price of homes would continue to rise indefinitely. All of this activity drove the prices ever higher.
When interest rates again began to rise, payments on adjustable rate mortgages also rose and many owners couldn’t make the payments and home loan defaults began to soar. This put a lot of houses back on the market, and an increase in supply generally causes a decrease in price. Soon, thousands of mortgages were collateralized by homes worth less on the market than what was owed on the mortgages. Many people, particularly those with nothing to lose (the no down payment folks) just walked away.
The result of this was a major chain reaction throughout the economy: banks and other lenders failed because payments on their loans stopped coming in; AIG failed because it had insured many of these mortgages and too many of them defaulted all at once, overwhelming AIG’s ability to pay. Thousands of pension funds that were heavily invested in mortgage backed securities lost value, debilitating many people's 401K's.
The major lesson that should be learned (but won’t be learned) is that the government needs to keep its big rotten hands out of the economy. Forcing private industry to finance bad loans and artificially deflating the interest rate was terribly damaging to the economy. The bailout addresses none of these problems and will make the recession longer and deeper. Things will get worse for some time to come. Hope you are ready for hard times.
The second book, "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin, is a best seller that is going viral and is selling out everywhere. I am only a third of the way through the book so can't fully opine on its contents just yet. Here's my impression so far: Levin describes the country America was intended to be, how the three branches of government were supposed to work, and how the Constitution has been eroded over time. Leftists, or as he calls them, Statists, have slowly but steadily shifted power away from the states to the federal government. Just reading it raises my ire.
So I will spend the lovely spring weather this weekend nursing a cigar in the backyard while I absorb the wisdom of these two authors.
Oh, I almost forgot, check out Robert Ringer's latest articles (follow the link in the left sidebar) on the rise of fascism in the 1930's and its parallels to today. Carol at No Sheeples Here blog also has a great post on this same subject.
Obama is looking more like a brownshirt every day and is following a similar path to absolute power as did leading fascists before him.