J’accuse

Friday, May 10, AD 2013

 

 

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom is always brilliant but he outdoes himself in a remarkable post where he explains just how ominous for the Republic the Benghazi scandal is:

I have very little I wish to say today, so sick to my stomach am I from hearing yesterday’s testimony on Benghazi, wherein career civil servants were very obviously, and oftentimes visibly, working to restrain their anger, outrage, and outright disbelief at what their own government had done (and hadn’t done) to secure the lives of Americans.

In short, the subtext of yesterday’s testimony was precisely this:  it does matter.  And those Democrats who have spent the last 24 hours trying to dismiss or diminish or deflect the testimony as a non-story — a tack that the mainstream press has aided them with, failing for the most part to even mention the hearings, much less provide any in-depth coverage of the revelations, save for the occasional story informing us that there were no revelations — are no better than any third-world goosestepping apparatchik whose job it is to provide cover for a Dear Leader.

They sicken me in a way I cannot even put into words — and that’s saying something, given my occasionally-documented facility with the language.  These people are monsters of a sort, but even that appellation can do their rank cynicism and their easy disregard for conscience no real justice.

And the media, without doubt co-conspirators in what is a major scandal — and an even more major cover-up — are so committed to progressive activism, and to their own self-styled righteousness and compassion (which, relying on a surreal tautology and the anti-foundationalism at the heart of their ideology, they presume to claim is a function of their progressivism: they are good, so therefore what they do is good; and what they do is good because it’s being done by good people), that they have found a way to convince themselves that their biases, be it by omission or by massaging of the facts to report that there’s nothing new to report, are somehow noble and are in the service of a Greater Good.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to J’accuse

  • If I have difficulty trying to understand why the Obama gang are continually let off the hook for their ineptocratic government, it must be soooo frustrating for all good Americans who are seeing their great country go down the gurgler – no wonder some states are muttering secession, and your average American is buying extra guns. From where I look, they are totally justified.

  • Fasts and Furious then Benghazi, for far less they pilloried Nixon as if he was the only politician who ever lied. We’ll see if this all theatre if and when the indictments come. Obama of course could not care about the fallout from Benghazi, as it has Hillary’s paw all over it.

  • We all know that if the exact same circumstances had occurred during the administration of George W Bush – the murder of a US Ambassador while on post in a foreign country – the media, and Democratic Party, and the Left would not let the matter rest until they had done maximum damage to Bush and to the Republican Party.

    If the US Secretary of State under a Republican administration had provided the same account of events, and the congressional testimony that Hillary Clinton has, the media, the Democratic Party, and the Left would be relentless in driving that Secretary from office.

    The double standard in the MSM is breathtaking.

  • I hope Jeff Goldstein gets well. He describes a malaise that is rampant in the citizens who want to remain within the foundations of the US. It’s something that is intended by those lemmings to thoroughly weaken the un-indoctrinated by issuing detriments to historically sound traditions, such as virtue, courage, marriage, family, children, elderly, education, Boy Scouts, religion, the military, the flag, decency, modesty, objectivity of journalist and judges, language, the golden rule ‘n stuff. Doses of inhumanity for one and all in every area of life.

    Antidote: Humanity and dignity, striving for purity of soul by remembering to cooperate with God’s help – described so well in the Bible.

    Don’t know if there are enough lawyers, sources of money, journalists, or others with humanity to correct the falsehoods and the inhumanity of the powers that be.

    I heard Fr. Wade Menezes say in his sermon today on EWTN that if he were asked to say in a sentence what is wrong with the culture, he would say that the culture no longer recognizes sin. It speaks of evil, but not sin because sin would imply a sound morality and trample on the moral relativism (that is sickening).

    Could word political parties differently …
    D’s to A’s as AntiFoundationials, building wreckers,
    R’s to F’s as Foundationals, builders.

    ” … progressive activism

    relying on a surreal tautology and the anti-foundationalism at the heart of their ideology, they presume to claim is a function of their progressivism:

    And those Democrats who have spent the last 24 hours trying to dismiss or diminish or deflect the testimony as a non-story — a tack that the mainstream press has aided them with, failing for the most part to even mention the hearings, much less provide any in-depth coverage of the revelations, save for the occasional story informing us that there were no revelations — are no better than any third-world goosestepping apparatchik whose job it is to provide cover for a Dear Leader. …”

Army Values

Tuesday, April 30, AD 2013

Obama's Military

 

There is an old saying in the military:  once is an accident;  twice is carelessness;  third time is enemy action.  Faithful readers of this blog will recall this post here about an Army briefing which labeled Christians, including Catholics, as extremists.  Another incident has arisen this week.

An officer at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where my brother was stationed when he was an Armor officer in the Army, recently sent out a 14 page e-mail to subordinates which makes for interesting reading.  Here is the e-mail from Lieutenant Colonel Jack Rich:

Subject: Domestic “Hate Groups” (UNCLASSIFIED)
 
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
 
Caveats: FOUO
 
Leaders,
 
Many events have been taking place across the country – just want to ensure everyone is somewhat educated on some of the groups out there that do not share our Army Values.
 
When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.
 
We need to make sure that we maintain our standards – starting with reception and integration.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Army Values

  • He’s simply prepping them to shoot American citizens.

  • A Christian in the military today is like a Jew in the SS.

  • This is surreal.
    For Greater Glory, last years release of the true story of the Cristeros, is a wake up call for True Christians in America.
    One of the tag lines in the movie trailer asks this poignant question; “What price would you pay for freedom?”

    When we see the govt. swoop in to abolish our freedom of speech, our freedom to worship and our freedom to bear arms will you be ready to answer the question…at what price?

    I pray we are ready.

  • How disappointing but not supprising. It appears everyone except ones that hold no convictions are hate groups. Tepid water.

  • Pingback: Franciscan Liturgical Art - Big Pulpit
  • So much for the claims that there was no problem in the repeal of DADT. Just a simple equality issue. The floodgates have been opened.

  • A 14 page email? Really? I work with Colonels every day, and I can’t imagine any of them *reading* anything that long let alone writing it. But maybe this was something crafted by one of the PowerPoint warriors at HQ, and it’s just being passed along.

    Sadly, much of the military is now on board with the dominant culture. Institutionally, its instincts are not as conservative as one might expect.

  • If this continues, then though God forbid we will be defeated in battle and what happened to King Manasseh may yet happen to President Obama. God does not change. God does the same thing in the same way because God does the right thing in the right way. And God will punish those who defy Him.

    I shall never ever accept a homosexual or abortive culture of sickening sexual depravity and murder. Never ever.

  • Hosea long ago gave us the best commentary on the Obama administration:

    “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.”

  • Those Sovereigns sound fun.

  • Unbelievable!
    This guy is a colonel? What do his fellow officers say?
    If this sort of crap infects the US military, they’re stuffed (along with the rest of us).
    Obama said he will “fundamentally change the United States of America”.
    He is doing exactly that, and the US is on its way to being the Roman Empire revisited.

  • The Fox News opinion piece “Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted” adds something to this post I think. This is disturbing.

    My wife remarked that one can see Satan’s game plan clearly at this juncture. I think she is onto something.

    When I was a kid (1970s and 1980s) we talked about bad people but the things that were “bad” then are normal and OK now. We are a people without a compass.

    Satan has latched onto the perfect formula: your adherence to the Truth is oppressive and you cannot do that in public. Unless you remain quiet, you will be silenced, drummed out, destroyed. It is the State’s concern for the “oppressed” that trumps your freedom of conscience and speech.

    It is comical that the forces seeking this oppression don’t see their own doom in the architecture they raise. It will assuredly destroy them as it does us.

    America doesn’t deserve God’s Grace and we are seeing His withdrawal of Providence. When His back is fully turned to us, we shall surely suffer.

  • What a load of crap that email is.

  • P promiscuous
    R ridiculous
    I insidious
    D demoralized
    E evil

    Thirty days of gay pride and more!!

    Two events come to mind. One named Katrina. The other named Isaac.
    August 29th. Seven years to the day these two hurricanes hit New Orleans. Coincidental that the raunchy ( Southern Decadence pride fest ) was to begin on the same date?

    Sodom and Gomorrah revisited.

  • oh my. I am reading this on May Day..
    and all I can do is ask St Joseph for help. Help us Saint Joseph!
    On May Day.I remember the Kremlin used to have their military parades to frighten the world and we put up Saint Joseph to go against the Communists. I ask him to protect us today lest we will ALL reap that whirlwind

  • In your Catholic Extremist post, Donald, you said:
    To do otherwise is to simply cede [the military] to the Left…

    To which I responded:

    “I regret to inform you Donald that has already happened in large measure. The political correctness that has run amok in the military with the repeal of DADT (I favor the pre-DADT outright ban on homosexuals in the military myself), forcing male soldiers to go through the day with a strap-on bun-in-the-oven (you know you are getting old if you ever heard that phrase) as an empathy exercise, and women in combat will garuntee our demise if this is not only staved but reversed. Of course, let us not forget Gen. Casey (who was Army Joint Chief at the time I believe) being more worried about “diversity” in the wake Ft. Hood terrorist attack than he was about the fact that it was…well…a terrorist attack. I regret pointing out that the opposition of the GOP leadership on these matters has been practically, if not theoretically, non-existent.”

    I think this latest post proves what I said right in spades. The fact that most conservative do not see how this poses a lehtal threat to military readiness and by extension, national security is beyond astonishing. When you even have someone like Don Rumsfeld, as good a SecDef as we ever had, saying, that the time has come to allow open homsexuals in the military is even more astonishing.

    If my Detroit Public School educated brain can understand how obvious it it how allowing homsexuals to serve in the military when you consider how important the forming of non-sexual bonds is to unit cohesion and how having openly homosexuals living in berthing compartments aboard Navy ships (which is like living in a locker room) is a grave threat to the military, I don’t see how people who are supposed to be much smarter than me don’t get that. But apparently they don’t. Or could it be they lack the political nads to understand that and act accordingly. I suspect it is the latter. And their weakness as well as the left’s aggressiveness will reap the whirlwind!

  • So what implications does this have for Catholic chaplains in the military?

  • One of constant struggle so long as the Obama administration is in office.

  • “One of constant struggle so long as the Obama administration is in office.”

    This problem actually predates Obama. But it has been significantly ratcheted up under his administration. And that cancer will continue to metastasize long after Obama is gone unless a repulibican who has the intestinal fortitude to give the hard push back t will need to begin to reverse it. However, given the present crop of GOP leadership, even among the conservatives, I am not too optimistic about the future.

Fisker Automotive: Obama’s Bad Karma

Tuesday, April 23, AD 2013

 

 

Hattip to Mary Katherine Ham at Hot Air.  Back in 2008 Obama stated that if elected he would create five million green jobs over the next decade.  At this stage it becomes monotonous to bring up the fact that the promises of Obama bear as much relationship to reality as a lightning bug does to lightning, but the failure of Fisker Automotive can be taken as a symbol of the failed economic policy of the Obama administration.

In 2009 the Obama administration authorized a half a billion loan guarantee to Fisker, and about 193 million was spent.  When Fisker opened a plant in Delaware, Veep Biden was on hand.  The car company is now reeling to bankruptcy after spending 600K on each 100K Fisker Karma it sold:

Fisker Automotive Inc. spent more than six times as much U.S. taxpayer and investor money to produce each luxury plug-in car it sold than the company received from customers, according to a research report.

The Anaheim, California-based company made about 2,500 of its $103,000 Karmas before halting production last year, disrupting its plans to use a $529 million U.S. loan to restart a shuttered Delaware factory owned by the predecessor of General Motors Co. (GM) The Karma was assembled in Finland.

***********************************

Fisker has spent $1.3 billion in taxpayer and venture capital money, or $660,000 for each car it sold, the report said.

Fisker stopped manufacturing cars late last year and fired three quarters of its remaining workers April 5. The company’s first repayment of $20.2 million on the Energy Department loan is due April 22, the report said.

Tony Knight of Sitrick & Co., an outside public relations agency representing Fisker, declined to comment.

A U.S. House panel is scheduled to hold a April 24 hearing on Fisker and its government financing. Invited witnesses include co-founder and namesake Henrik Fisker, who resigned last month; CEO Tony Posawatz and Chief Operating Officer Bernhard Koehler, who helped start the company whose customers include singer Justin Bieber and actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Fisker Automotive: Obama’s Bad Karma

  • A123 Systems…….Our cost……$249 Million.
    Solyndrd LLC……..Our cost……$535 Million.
    Fisker and more govt. spending. ???
    Seems as though the thug from Chicago could save U.S. money if he step away from the cash register.
    Bankruptcy not Barack is his first name.

  • Wonder what the compensation for the top 10 people in this bankrupt company are. Dear Lord help me, I hate to be a cynic, BUT I also wonder what their relationship to top people in the current administration are.
    Saw the first ever Fisker Karma, GA plate “ECO ROD” [which I thought was cute} on the road day before yesterday. Beautiful car! Then I read yesterday’s WSJ editorial, then this blog. Woe is me, wow is me.
    AMDG,
    SYW

New Republic as State Organ

Thursday, February 14, AD 2013

34 Responses to New Republic as State Organ

  • I have a feeling you don’t think Fox News qualified as an “organ of the state” when George W. Bush was in office…

  • That’s what’s called a non sequiter, JL. FWIW, despite the mindlessness of the charge, you actually wouldn’t get much love for Fox News in these parts.

  • Just trying to get a more complete picture of the ethos around here. And while it’s perhaps not directly relevant to the charge that the NYT, etc are state organs under the Obama Administration, I think consistency should be striven for. Furthermore, if “organ of the state” tendencies of major media outlets are wrong and to be avoided, I think a website like this would do better to call out offenders within its own camp- that is, if the point of this blog is to attempt to actually engage a willing audience and perhaps admonish them for missteps instead of offering itself self-congratulatory pats on the back.

  • I have a feeling you don’t think Fox News qualified as an “organ of the state” when George W. Bush was in office…

    Fox News hosts have included

    Bob Beckel
    Kimberly Guilfoyle
    Mort Kondracke
    Geraldo Rivera
    Shepard Smith
    Chris Wallace

    So, no.

  • I think a website like this would do better to call out offenders within its own camp- that is, if the point of this blog is to attempt to actually engage a willing audience and perhaps admonish them for missteps instead of offering itself self-congratulatory pats on the back.

    Literally none of what you said is even remotely germane to this post.

  • “Fox News hosts have included…”

    Douhat and Brooks write for NYT so…?

  • “Literally none of what you said is even remotely germane to this post.”

    OK, I’ll save my suggestions that I feel are relevant to this blog’s self-claimed mission for when there’s a post where TAC writers specifically talk about how they don’t criticize errancies on the right.

  • Brooks could only be considered a conservative by someone very unclear on the concept.

    “That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama’s The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was “Run, Barack, Run.”…

    “Obama sees himself as a Burkean,” Brooks says. “He sees his view of the world as a view that understands complexity and the organic nature of change.” Moreover, after the Bush years, Brooks seems relieved to have an intellectual in the White House again. “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he explains. “Of recent presidents, Clinton could sort of talk like us, but Obama is definitely–you could see him as a New Republic writer. He can do the jurisprudence, he can do the political philosophy, and he can do the politics. I think he’s more talented than anyone in my lifetime. I mean, he is pretty dazzling when he walks into a room. So, that’s why it’s important he doesn’t f–k this up.”

    Ross Douthat is a figure of hate for most of the New York Times’ readers of his posts, judging from his posts and reactions to them in the comment boxes. Comparing them to the list set forth by Art Deco of dissenting voices at Fox is weak tea indeed.

  • “No need to get pissy, JL. You attempted to change the subject by offering a weak comparison.”

    Haha. I love the attempt egg me into pissy territory by saying I’m being pissy. I’ll pass.

    I don’t think it’s a weak comparison. I think one’s deluded if they don’t think WSJ and Fox are more or less the ideological counters to NYT and MSNBC. The logic would therefore follow that if one set consists of “organs of the state,” and that’s a bad thing, then the other side should be equally criticized.

    What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.

    I’ve raised this point before, and it was met with the same unwillingness to actually engage it. I’ll probably drop it for a couple of months. Maybe it will have some resonance then.

  • @Don

    “Ottawa Citizen commentator David Warren has identified Brooks as the sort of conservative pundit that liberals like, someone who is “sophisticated” and “engages with” the liberal agenda, in contrast to a “real conservative” like Charles Krauthammer.[20] When asked what he thinks of charges that he’s “not a real conservative” or “squishy,” Brooks has said that “if you define conservative by support for the Republican candidate or the belief that tax cuts are the correct answer to all problems, I guess I don’t fit that agenda. But I do think that I’m part of a longstanding conservative tradition that has to do with Edmund Burke, which is be cautious, don’t think you can do all things by government planning, and Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to use government to help people compete in the capitalist economy.” In the same interview with Howard Kurtz in September 2012 Brooks talked about being criticized from the conservative side, saying “if it’s from a loon, I don’t mind it. I get a kick out of it. If it’s Michelle Malkin attacking, I don’t mind it.” With respect to whether he was “the liberals’ favorite conservative” Brooks said he “didn’t care,” stating that “I don’t mind liberals praising me, but when it’s the really partisan liberals, you get an avalanche of love, it’s like uhhh, I gotta rethink this.”

    Brooks is a mixed-bag. I’ll still maintain that he’s center-right, especially if people like Shep Shepard (when does he actually contribute opinionated commentary?) and Gerlaldo Rivera are trotted out as legitimate liberal mouthpieces. Aside from Wallace, the rest of the people I haven’t heard of, which gives somewhat of an indication of how prominent a position they’re given.

  • “Brooks is a mixed-bag. I’ll still maintain that he’s center-right, especially if people like Shep Shepard (when does he actually contribute opinionated commentary?)”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/shep-smith-fox-news-thin-ice_n_1755454.html

    As for Brooks he is a perfect “conservative” for liberals: He bashes conservatives and votes for Obama. Brooks is a smarmy elitist and there is absolutely nothing conservative about him. His support for Obama makes his citation of Burke and Hamilton a mere sick joke.

  • I think one’s deluded if they don’t think WSJ and Fox are more or less the ideological counters to NYT and MSNBC.

    Art already explained why you’re off, at least as it relates to Fox. The WSJ’s editorial board is as libertarian as the NYT’s is left, but the main news content is hardly comparable as the Journal’s straight reporting is hardly as biased as some of the “newsitorials” offered by the Times. Additionally, it would be fair to say that anyone who thinks that right-wing representation in mainstream news outlets is comparable to those in left-wing outlets is the one being delusional.

    What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.

    Honestly, when I read screeds like this I can only assume you’re just doing schtick. Don’s point is that many left-wing outlets are going out of there way to protect this administration and the left in general. As a tweet I just read so eloquently put it, there’s more media furor over one Latino Senator taking a sip of water than there is for another Latino Senator having sex with an underage prostitute. If you can’t see the inherent bias being demonstrated there, then again, you’re the one who is deluded.

    Furthermore, instead of engaging in Don’s argument you change the subject. That is the sign of someone who is intellectually weak. Why don’t you address the points instead of offering up the equivalent of “Oh! Look over there!”

  • Sorry, I don’t equate an “independent streak” with being a harbinger for the radical left.

    Also, if you want to play tit-for-tat, I guess you win. Here’s what I’m willing to concede: NYT is MORE of a left-wing organ of the state than Fox is a right-wing organ of the state.

  • “Art already explained why you’re off, at least as it relates to Fox.”

    OK, I disagree with Art. As I imparted to Donald, I don’t think counting up the number of token liberals/conservatives and comparing is necessarily conclusive evidence that one side is the clear “organ of the state” and the other isn’t. I don’t see why these things can’t vary by degrees.

    “Additionally, it would be fair to say that anyone who thinks that right-wing representation in mainstream news outlets is comparable to those in left-wing outlets is the one being delusional.”

    I never made that claim, so moving on…

    What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.

    “Honestly, when I read screeds like this I can only assume you’re just doing schtick.”

    I’m not. I imagine mine a perspective shared by anyone who comes on this site who already hasn’t declared there unending fealty to the GOP.

    “Don’s point is that many left-wing outlets are going out of there way to protect this administration and the left in general.”

    And I think the same happened when Bush was in office.

    “As a tweet I just read so eloquently put it, there’s more media furor over one Latino Senator taking a sip of water than there is for another Latino Senator having sex with an underage prostitute. If you can’t see the inherent bias being demonstrated there, then again, you’re the one who is deluded.”

    OK? And that somehow ties up nicely your argument that Fox has not been an apologist for the GOP?

    “Furthermore, instead of engaging in Don’s argument you change the subject. That is the sign of someone who is intellectually weak. Why don’t you address the points instead of offering up the equivalent of “Oh! Look over there!” ”

    Yawn. Don copied and pasted a chunk from Wikipedia to engage my original comment, so I returned the favor.

  • I’m not. I imagine mine a perspective shared by anyone who comes on this site who already hasn’t declared there unending fealty to the GOP.

    Yep, just schtick. Nice knowing you JL.

  • “What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.”

    Also, calling this a screed and then ignoring it doesn’t really speak too highly of your intellectual heft.

  • “Yawn. Don copied and pasted a chunk from Wikipedia to engage my original comment, so I returned the favor.”

    No I did not.

  • @ Don

    ““That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” ……..

    This story is quoted almost in its entirety on Brooks’ wiki page. I assumed that’s where you got it from. My B.

  • OK, my comment got deleted. Which is fine and probably justified. It’d be nice if that was applied uniformly though, so when someone preemptively accuses me of being “pissy” in an effort to actually make my behavior conform to said accusation, or infers that I am characterized by intellectual weakness and mindlessness, they were held accountable as well.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • JL,

    The New York Times and its sister publication the Boston Globe were reluctant and resistant to do what was commonplace among newspapers by 1975 – set up an op-ed page. In contradistinction to the Washington Post, the Times was never able to develop talented practitioners of topical commentary (of any hue) in its own dugout. The Globe hired its first conservative columnist in 1994 – a local attorney, and later publicly humiliated the man with trumped-up ethics charges. The Times, half a generation earlier, hired someone from Richard Nixon’s pr apparat. The man was a haphazard libertarian who preferred to write columns on English usage. Then they hire David Brooks, who is not politically aligned. Then they hire Ross Douthat, who improves with age but has always had the disconcerting habit of seeming to apologize for what he advocates.

    Major newspapers in that era also hired ombudsmen. The Washington Post‘s system – hire someone from the outside, put them on a multi-year contract, and give them dedicated and guaranteed space – was the model. The Boston Globe elected to appoint a pseudo-ombudsman – an inside man and appointed at least one bigot not adverse to functioning as an ideological enforcer. The New York Times was a very late adopter and after initial efforts took to hiring capons.

    The list I gave you had six names from a list of three-dozen program hosts (and not all the remaining 30 are clones of Sean Hannity either). You are not going to find that 15% of the New York Times editorial staff consists of identifiable Republicans. You find one rather pallid and polite fellow in the designated slot on the op-ed page, there to be beat up by the publication’s readers in the comment boxes.

    Opinion research on the social attitudes of reporters and editors of major media (notably by the sociologist Stanley Rothman) goes back 30 years or more and demonstrates that the dispositions of journalists in the national press corps are dramatically different from corporation executives, various other occupational groups, and the general public. Among other differences, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans exceeds that of the national mean by a margin of around 11 to 1.

    A content analysis of stories on economic topics in major newspapers was done some years ago, cataloguing the sources cited as authorities in those stories. Also done was a study of the speeches of Democratic and Republican members of Congress, again remarking who was cited as an authority. Think tanks (Brookings, AEI, Center on Budget an Policy Priorities) have their staff ideologies. The publication whose news articles had citation patterns most resemblant to Democratic members of Congress was the Wall Street Journal. Its editorial page has long been quite distinct from its news pages. Rupert Murdoch used to own the Village Voice. Its content was still pitched to its historic readership. He’s a businessman serving market niches.

    Television news prior to 1996 offered little commentary; if you survey the whole period from 1948 to 1995, I think you will find George Will was the only identifiable Republican employed by network news. Fox News may be of very uneven quality, but honestly, is Scott Pelley any serious person’s idea of quality? The complaints about Fox (which does have wretched production values) are a function of liberals being indignant that there actually are other viewpoints to consider (an indignation with which Mr. Jacoby at the Boston Globe came to be familiar).

    A generation ago, none of the prominent opinion magazines were extensions of the Democratic Party. Human Events, and, during Mr. Reagan’s term of office, National Review, were party organs. Not so their portside counterparts, who tended to regard the Democratic Congressional caucus as a conclave of clowns.

  • JL – I don’t defend Fox News. I don’t watch them.

    I would rather see objective reporting. A second choice is ideological reporting. Partisan reporting is dead last. If The New Republic is moving from loyalty to a point of view to loyalty to a party, that’s the loss of an adult voice.

    I think Don underestimates the complaints about drone strikes from the ideological left. The middle-left is either being fanboys of the administration, or being realistic about foreign policy (you can argue for either side). The partisan left is unable to criticize its people under any conditions at all. If Peretz sees partisanship so clearly that he felt compelled to rip his old publication in public after, I think, two issues, then there probably really is something wrong with The New Republic.

  • Pinky.

    I think your tri-chotomy is very helpful. Objective, ideological, partisan. The distinctions, however, can be a little blurry. I think any principled conservative can say with some certainty that Fox has definitely, at times, crossed from ideological to partisan, or at least gotten itself into the no man’s land where it’s hard to tell. Is it a stretch to say that, if it were Bush in the White House, they’d have no problem with current drone policy and the DOJ’s related argumentation?

    My favorite website is The American Conservative. Dreher, in particular, is fantastic. What are the feelings around here about the other TAC?

  • Jeff Goldstein, bouncing off of Matthew Continenti, has a good take on our feckless media.

  • My opinion is that it has almost nothing to do with American conservatism, at least American conservatism since the American Firsters of 1941 went down the drain. That their writers support the anti-Semite and idiot Hagel for Secretary of Defense says all that one needs to know about them.

    As for Dreher I think he changes his politics almost as frequently as he changes his religion.

  • I used to visit The American Conservative occasionally. I generally stop reading an article when I run across something anti-Semitic. I realized that on that site I had subconsciously started playing a game, where I’d pick an article at random and read it until the evil Israelis made an appearance. It didn’t seem to matter what the topic was. Then I’d start keying in on “gimme” articles (something like “The Truth about the Middle East”) and see how bad they got. It was an unhealthy game.

  • My favorite website is The American Conservative. Dreher, in particular, is fantastic. What are the feelings around here about the other TAC?

    Mr. Dreher can be mildly entertaining on occasion and provoke a discussion. One cannot credit him with an abiding political or religious viewpoint, more a portfolio of impulses, anxieties, and tastes which generates a series of alternating episodes of affiliation and alienation. (R.S. McCain called him “an insecure fad chaser”, which oversimplifies but is not wrong). He is also given to fallacious reasoning when he is invested in a subject (the late Gerard Serafin used to make sport of him during these episodes).

    The American Conservative is not a serious enterprise. It is more a collection of misfits and professional complainers, not an exponent of a line of policy and program. One curio is that the current proprietor has a history as an advocate of a liberal immigration regime, rather odd when you consider the place immigration restriction has in palaeo discourse normally. One of the points well taken about palaeo complaints ca 1987 was for the tendency of teaching and research to be displaced by advocacy and publicity in the conservative world, rendering the ‘career conservative’ a modal type. Waal, the current editor, Daniel McCarthy, pretty much qualifies as a career conservative (to the extent he can be called anything), but one with a bizarre over-estimate of the heft of his stable of contributors (as against the competition, the vulgar ‘movement conservatives’). (For an account of the modus operandi of the previous editorial regime at The American Conservative , see here)

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.konetzki.html

    Consider this piece by Daniel Larison:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/senate-republicans-make-a-spectacle-of-themselves/

    Allowing as how groups can get rather psychologically in-bred, opinions from people outside a certain circle can have considerable value. Now consider the source. Her is a man, now 33 years of age, who spent 12 years on college campuses studying hopelessly impractical subjects; who has no employment history to which he admits; appears to have had no vocational or avocational involvement in workaday politics; no involvement in advertising, public relations, marketing, or promotion; knows next-to-nothing of economics, statistics, business, or finance; and has never served in the military. This professional mouth cum-failed academic is going to tell Mr. Boehner and Mr. Ryan and Mr. McCain how to do their jobs. You think he might just have an outsize concept of his actual abilities?

    Him aside, you have Noah Millman, whose presence is a reminder that the editorial purpose of the publication is to offer complaints about prevailing currents of thought in the Republican Party, and never mind the details (those who frequent the comment boxes make this plain as well). Then you have Philip Giraldi, lapsed scholar of renaissance Italy, purported retired CIA agent, and anti-semite. Then you have Andrew Bacevich, cashiered Army colonel whose shtick is that the military can accomplish nothing of value.

  • Yeah, I read that Larison piece. He seems to think (a) that a lot of non-political people are closely watching the GOP’s handling of the Hagel nomination, and (b) a Senator should only vote against a nominee if there’s something in it for his party.

  • I wasn’t aware of their overwhelming anti-Semitism. I am occasionally put-off by what I consider their unreasonably hardline approach to immigration.

    I guess I don’t entirely care too much about what Dreher thought 5 years ago. What he writes now resonates pretty well. Additionally, I think more favorably of those who leave Catholicism for the Eastern Orthodoxy than I do for people who go the other direction and embrace evangelical Protestantism.

  • And why, setting aside for the moment charges that he’s an anti-semite, is Hegel such a horrible option? What specifically about his foreign policy views are bad?

  • Besides his disastrous lack of knowledge that was evident to all who witnessed his testimony?

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/is-the-white-house-more-worried-that-hagel-wont-be-confirmed-or-that-he-will-be.php

    He is a head-in-the-sand-ostrich when it comes to Iran:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/13/chuck-hagels-ambiguous-stance-on-dealing-with-iran/
    He has a long history of animosity towards Israel.
    He has refused to turn over to the Senate documents relating to funds from foreign donors that he has received over the years.

    To put it concisely Hagel is not competent for the job of Secretary of Defense and he has a history of not knowing who our friends and enemies are in the Middle East.

  • Hey! Why not?

    The worst president in history merits the worst Secy of Defense.

  • i dunno that Hagel will be awful. i _do_ think he subscribes too much to an Israel-centric view of U.S. foreign policy, i.e. if the U.S. does something he considers ill-judged, it must be from undue Israeli influence. it’s a single-cause view of foreign policy that isn’t accurate — for instance it’s been pointed out that Israel was wary about the potential shakeup in the M.E. balance of power in the region if Saddam was overthrown, and only supported the U.S. invasion when it became clear it was gonna happen.

    also along this line is Hagel (allegedly to be fair, but from a source sympathetic to him) referring to the State Department as an “adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry” when institutionally it’s the federal department least sympathetic to Israel. i make a distinction between legit criticism of certain Israeli actions and this sort of talk that is vaguely conspiratorial and assumes mala fides.

    beyond that, the guy is referred to as a “realist” but never has supported any form of tough diplomacy and never criticizes one side in a conflict even when it’s clearly in the wrong. the choice is presented as though Hagel represents a common-sense diplomatic mind vs. the Nuke Iran caucus but it’s a false dichotomy.

    on TAC their only clear principle is America Firstism (still remember pre-election when their editor Dan McCarthy praised Russell Kirk voting for Socialist candidate Norman Thomas as a “vote against Empire,” a completely moronic statement that demonstrates the magazine’s reflexive non-interventionism) and imputing the worst motives onto anything Israel does. it’s like the original writers/editors there extracted the foreign policy views of Pat Buchanan (one of their founders) and absolutely nothing else.

    their newer writers just blather on about Burkean conservatism/how Obama’s really kinda conservative as though conservatism defined by Burke is solely a vague, amorphous attitude regarding change (this is similar to what David Brooks does.) i am for ideological flexibility, but in these cases old conservative thinkers are typically simplified to be compatible with a liberalism lite. even with Russell Kirk’s “conservatism as negation of ideology,” it’s obvious the man was pretty ideological to his core — he just argued his ideology as based in natural truths, as opposed to revolutionary fervor.

  • beyond that, the guy is referred to as a “realist” but never has supported any form of tough diplomacy and never criticizes one side in a conflict even when it’s clearly in the wrong. the choice is presented as though Hagel represents a common-sense diplomatic mind vs. the Nuke Iran caucus but it’s a false dichotomy.

    I think ‘realist’ is being used here to refer to a specific interpretation of the dynamics of international politics associated with Hans Morgenthau (among others). Schools of thought in international political theory do not map precisely to the general run of partisan or ideological disputes. You have ‘realists’ v. ‘liberals’ v. ‘radicals’ as a primary taxonomy and then you have species of realists, liberals, and radicals, and then you have policy differences among the species derived from interpretation of the facts on the ground. Both Henry Kissinger and Andrew Bacevich would be classified as ‘realists’, though their policy prescriptions would likely differ quite a bit.

    I think it would be wrong to attribute to Daniel McCarthy or Ron Paul a perspective on international politics derived from academic literature. Someone once called Dr. Paul ‘a parody of an early 20th century politician’. Parodies of inter-war political discourse about sums up much of The American Conservative‘s stock-in-trade.

Amazons Attack!

Thursday, January 24, AD 2013

 

 

Back in my misspent youth in the Seventies I served some time in the Green Machine.  (I like to think that I greatly contributed to the defense of the nation by leaving the Army.)  While I was learning the mysteries of how to manuever squads, the other officer cadets and I would train with female officer cadets.  Most of them found the fairly arduous training very exhausting.  A few of them were as capable as the least physically in shape of the men.  (I would have been in that category.)  This was only basic training and not the type of training that would go on at an infantry branch school for the Lieutenants assigned to that branch.  Women of course back in those days could not be assigned to the Combat Arms branches of the Army, and I do not recall one woman complaining about that.

However, now Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, on his way out the door, has announced a policy to allow women to serve in the Combat Arms.  Since my service was a peace time comedy of errors, and I have an XY chromosome combination, I will defer to the observations of Captain Katie Petronio, USMC, made last year:

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Amazons Attack!

  • We have lost all respect for women. We went from standing when they entered the room and opening doors for them, to putting them on the front lines?

    Donald your last paragraph summed it up nicely, “Let’s Pretend” mode is in full swing!

  • Why on Earth would the top brass listen to someone with actual expertise and experience when they can listen to a committee with a cool name like “DACOWITS”?

  • I should think of something insightful to say on the subject, but what really struck me is that you don’t often see a split-screen shot where the Fox News gal is the second-cutest.

  • As a former infantry medic I can tell you this woman is spot on. The physical rigors of infantry operations take a toll on men, and this results in accelerated joint degeneration. Knees, backs, feet, anything that bears a load takes a hit. My brother ended up with back problems from his deployment to Iraq due to wearing body armor. I injured my feet from running in boots with heavy loads during training.

    As part of my insurance work, I need to assess people’s employability after an injury, and this includes assessing prior employment within a certain number of years. I’ve had a few who had served in the military prior to a work injury, and that had to be assessed. Combat arms are always classified as very heavy, and involve lifting and carrying over a hundred pounds at times, and doing that in awkward, non-ergonomic positions. Women do not have the same bone structure as men do, and this can increase the likelihood of an acute injury, or a chronic degenerative problem that comes about over time. Once you begin down that road of joint degeneration, its natural course it to continue to worsen over time. When people are young, they aren’t aware of this possibility. They feel great and think they will live forever in perfect health. So they take out loans that their bodies must end up repaying over time. They find out when they are older what chronic pain is.

    I would hardly call this sort of thing compassionate to women.

  • It is not about compassion for women. It is about further transformation of society into the egalitarian utopia. Gays in the military was also part of the process. What next?

  • What next?

    A military disaster (heaven forbid) to knock us to our senses?

  • “What next?”
    Their bringing back Mr. Ed the talking Horse
    and Mr. Lumpit the talking fish. It’s going to be a “dandy” of a good Corps.

  • A military disaster (heaven forbid) to knock us to our senses?

    No, that never works–it just means that things didn’t go far enough.

    What happens next is the female officers that wanted this get their “combat command” box checked, a bunch of enlisted women are put in positions they’re not suited for, lots of folks get killed, and the activists demand more for their ideas. Why not, they’re not paying the blood price.

  • At least it should strike terror into the enemy, if Kipling is to be believed:

    “When you’re lying half-dead on Afganistan’s plains
    And the women come out to cut up what remains
    Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains…”

  • Hmmm…this is an interesting issue to say the least!

    I don’t find Donald’s anecdotal evidence very helpful. It reduces the differences between man and woman to purely physical terms, or at least overemphasizes this approach. Yes, men and women are physically different, a difference that makes men far more capable of enduring the strain of combat. Most woman are not physically capable of undergoing the same type of physical exertion, at least not without a serious toll being taken on their bodies. Most women, like the young lady interviewed by Fox, should not be participating in combat.

    But what about the exceptions? What if there was a woman who was just as physically suited as her male counterparts to participate in and endure the bodily toll of combat? I’m not saying that it’s a certainty that there exists a female physically capable of enduring combat situations, but I think it’s a hypothetical that is most certainly plausible. So on what grounds would she not be able to fight on the “front-lines?” The type of argument used by Captain Petronino and, at least in this post, Donald would fail, because it solely addresses the physical limitations of MOST women. If those limitations are ever exceeded, then what case is left to be made?

    While I still maintain that women, on average, are physically ill-disposed to participate in combat, I don’t think that’s the primary issue we should be exploring. We should be talking about nature, and whether there is something inherent in the nature of woman that would seem to indicate their place is not on the battlefield (on a related note…what do ya’ll think about stay-at-home-dads?).

    Honestly, this dichotomy reminds me of a disturbing trend I’ve seen in pro-life argumentation against abortion. Namely, that abortion is bad not primarily because it’s morally wrong, but because it’s not good POLICY. This is an essay that elevated this concern: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7630/

    The author’s point basically boils down to “proponents said abortion would reduce out-of-wedlock births, would reduce the crime rate, and reduce child abuse BUT IT HASN’T and therefore it’s bad policy.” But what if it HAD done all these things? And yes, I know there is something said about sin manifesting itself in a physical form, but it doesn’t always, at least no in an obvious or quantifiable way. My point is basically that these types of arguments are nice as supporting acts, but should never minimize the primacy of the “main show,” namely arguments focusing on the “nature” of things.

  • Here’s an article that, I believe, approaches this issue from a better place:

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/01/battles-are-ugly-when-women-fight

  • “It reduces the differences between man and woman to purely physical terms, or at least overemphasizes this approach.”

    This post was not meant to explore all the differences between mean and women JL. Having been happily married for over three decades, the father of a daughter and having a female secretary who has been my right hand for 27 years, I think I might have an inkling of all of those differences. It was meant to be a practical look at the drawbacks of this proposal in practical terms even for an uber physically fit woman like Captain Petronio. She would have been precisely the type of exceptional woman thought worthy to be in Combat Arms. Her testimony, riveting in detail, helps demolish the argument for the exceptional. As Foxfier, a female veteran of the Navy points out, this proposal will not be limited to the exceptionally fit like Captain Petronio. There will be immense pressure by the civilian leadership to put a lot of women in Combat Arms to demonstrate that the policy is a success. Physical qualifications will be ignored and a lot of women, especially enlisted women, will find themselves in situations where their inability, through absolutely no fault of their own, to keep up physically with their male colleagues will cost lives, quite probably a great many lives. To people who serve in the military that is what will count the most in regard to this new policy.

  • Not all comments have been about physical issues. As I noted, this was one more effort to engineer our society to an idealized state of equality. Something your link further suggests:

    “Long ago, we made equality our end, and this is the inevitable next stop on our long march. If that requires the sacrifice of our sisters and daughters, say the egalitarians, then so be it.”

  • “It is an army bred for a single purpose: to destroy the world of Men.”

  • “Not all comments have been about physical issues. As I noted, this was one more effort to engineer our society to an idealized state of equality.”

    I agree Phillip, I was simply pointing out that this post overemphasized physical differences in its argumentation.

    “She would have been precisely the type of exceptional woman thought worthy to be in Combat Arms. Her testimony, riveting in detail, helps demolish the argument for the exceptional.”

    No, I don’t think it does. She is one of what, less than 10,000 active women in the Corps? Sure she had some of the highest marks with regards to physical fitness amongst her female peers, but the sample size is still incredibly small when one considers there are over 3 billion women in the world.

    And yes, the Corps is obviously extremely self-selecting in the sense that people in peak physical condition enlist or become officers. This is probably especially true of the women who serve. But arguing that no woman is physically capable of enduring a combat environment because Capt. Petronino was not is obviously fallacious.

    She is not some definitive “uberfrau,” the exemplar of physical prowess amongst her sex. And, in fact, she stands at only 5 feet 3 inches! I doubt many MEN could undergo the bodily toll of combat with a frame like that. Clearly, the link between “fitness” and “combat capability” is not a clear corollary, just as high SAT scores do not necessarily translate into academic success.

    I repeat, arguing that ALL women are not suited for combat because they are not physically capable of withstanding the conditions without a seriously detrimental toll on their bodies is foolish, and will be “demolished” if/when any woman ever shows herself TO be capable, which is a certainly plausible scenario to entertain.

    And yes, not limiting combat assignments to those women who are physically capable of enduring them is idiotic…but the same would be true of giving these assignments to MEN who weren’t physically cut-out for it, would it not?

  • JL, regardless of whether there are some women who might be able to handle the rigors of infantry life, the fact is that most will not. When I was in, I did an inordinate amount of heavy lifting for females. One lieutenant was physically incapable of even carrying her own duffel bag. I got off a plane from Korea once and had to carry my gear and hers.

  • I remember when I was at a Rights and Responsibilities Workshop during my Navy days. The subject of women in combat came up. This was over twenty years ago, mind you. Anyway, a Lt. CDR in our group, an electronics officer spoke up and said some of the best technicians he ever worked with were women. But in combat he wouldn’t want anyone of them around because they would be prime targets for the enemy. The demoralization effect it would have on the men would be insurmountable. He was absolutely correct.

    For similar reasons, I am also against women on NAvy ships. Ever since the Navy started allowing women to serve on auxilary ships like destroyer and submarine tenders, it has been an unmitigated dsisaster. Now, they are on combatant ships. And it’s an even bigger problem.

    Where are all the republicans expressing outrage about this and the overall gutting of our military by Obama? Another example of GOP weakness in the face of Democrap agression.

  • “JL, regardless of whether there are some women who might be able to handle the rigors of infantry life, the fact is that most will not.”

    And….so what? Doesn’t that simply mean that those women who are not physically capable of handling the rigors of infantry life should not be deployed in such a capacity? And isn’t the same true of men who aren’t physically capable? Again, I think any argument against putting women into combat is on extremely shaky ground if it is primarily based on appeals to physical differences.

    “When I was in, I did an inordinate amount of heavy lifting for females. One lieutenant was physically incapable of even carrying her own duffel bag. I got off a plane from Korea once and had to carry my gear and hers.”

    OK, this anecdote is helpful in allowing others to understand how your experiences have shaped your views on the issue, but, like Donald’s account, it really isn’t helpful to the overall discussion. The women you served with were not physically capable of undergoing demanding conditions, but I’m not sure why that leads to an argument like “MOST women are physically incapable of being in combat without severe bodily consequences and, therefore, ALL women should be barred from combat assignments.” Arguments against putting any of our wives, sisters, and daughters on the field of battle should be primarily concerned with the differences in the NATURE of men and women.

    And no one has said anything about stay-at-home-dads yet…

  • Sorry JL, but you are flat out wrong here. Women in the military have lower physical fitness standards than men. They’re not going to change this. There are no special physical fitness standards to be an infantryman vs. an office clerk. At any point, that office clerk can be propelled into the role of an infantry soldier, and so the physical standards are the same for all specialties, with the exception of certain elite units like the Rangers. But for infantry, armor, etc., its the same standard as for the guy changing bedpans in a hospital. Ergo, women, who have a lower physical fitness standard in the Army to begin with, will meet a lower physical standard than the men in an infantry unit. I don’t think you’ve actually served, or if you did you must have forgotten a lot. It’s simply not true that women will have to meet a higher fitness standard. It’s already the case that they have a lower physical fitness standard.

    By the way, it wasn’t only one incident that formed my opinion. It was my overall experience. When I was in combat medic training we had to carry stretchers with an actual soldier through an obstacle course which included trenches, barbed wire, walls, logs, and an assortment of barriers. Women had real difficulty with this, and the men had to take up a lot of the slack. These were female soldiers who had undergone many weeks of hard physical training to build up strength, and who would not even be at the school had they not met the physical standards in place **** for women****. Again, it’s nothing against women soldiers, but they are not physically identical to men and it’s asking for trouble to integrate them into combat arms. It doesn’t sound to me like you served with an infantry unit like I did. It’s clear you’re not familiar with how it works.

    That said, you are correct that there are a lot of other arguments that can be made regarding women serving in combat arms.

  • One factor that hasn’t been mentioned is the fact that women are more liable to be subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of the enemy in the event of capture.

    http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21645/

  • “Women in the military have lower physical fitness standards than men. They’re not going to change this. There are no special physical fitness standards to be an infantryman vs. an office clerk. At any point, that office clerk can be propelled into the role of an infantry soldier, and so the physical standards are the same for all specialties, with the exception of certain elite units like the Rangers. But for infantry, armor, etc., its the same standard as for the guy changing bedpans in a hospital. Ergo, women, who have a lower physical fitness standard in the Army to begin with, will meet a lower physical standard than the men in an infantry unit.”

    I guess I’m not getting too caught up on what the official standards are. As far as I know, men have one standard, women have a different one. People want to merge them into “one standard,” which I think is problematic.

    But here’s the crux of the matter: If there was a women who was just as physically capable as a man who served in the infantry, on what grounds would you bar her from combat duty?

    “It doesn’t sound to me like you served with an infantry unit like I did. It’s clear you’re not familiar with how it works.”

    Nope, I didn’t. But then again, most bishops have never been pregnant. My lack of information is just that, a lack of information, not some unavoidable blemish on my opinions because I haven’t undergone the experience.

  • This would also seem to indicate that you’re wrong:

    “Military officials who briefed reporters on background said occupations such as infantry and artillery have exacting physical requirements and appropriate standards will be maintained.”

    Looks like standards differ for assignments.

    source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/24/women-in-combat-briefing/1861887/

  • One obvious problem is pregnancy. Given that women in combat roles would be in their prime, childbearing years, this can be quite an issue. The Navy is currently dealing with this with one year shore assignments. The problem is, what will be the impact on combat units.

    http://hamptonroads.com/node/343431

  • JL:

    You are speaking from ignorance. They said they won’t lower their standards. I’m sure that’s true. The standards have been in place for a long time, and they are different for men and for women. Given that they are already lower for women, there’s no need for them to lower the standards a second time. It’s already been done. Having served with an infantry unit, I can tell you first hand that all they need to do is pass the APFT to serve with an infantry unit, or any combat arms unit except certain elite units. You can find the actual standards here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test

    An 18 year old male must do 42 pushups. A female of the same age must do 19. In fact, the minimum passing score for a male is considered a “max” for a female who would score 100% on the test for getting the least amount a guy would get. It’s very nearly the same situation with the 2 mile run. They may be trumpeting that “standards won’t be lowered” but that doesn’t mean squat because standards have been in place for years and they aren’t going to change. They have been different for men and women for a very long time, but you won’t see them acknowledging that fact to the media because that would make the public question it. The vast majority of Americans have never served in the military and won’t know to question it. If you pass the APFT, you’re good to go.

    But don’t take my word for it. Go here:

    http://army.com/forum/infantry-requirements

    and see what a recruiter says about infantry requirements. Basically he states there are no special requirements, and you need to maintain a 60% (60 points) to stay in, which anyone in the military must maintain anyway. And it takes a lower level of performance to get a 60% for a female than for a male.

    The spokespeople are playing word games with the press when they say standards won’t be lowered. Technically, that’s correct. But….

  • “Be all you can be” Equality is not the same as sameness. The equality DACOWITS wants is sameness.

  • JL:

    Sorry, I didn’t scroll up far enough to see you other post. Regarding your question about what would happen if a woman met the same physical requirements as a man, as practical matter that’s not going to happen. They go off of percentages. Now assuming you do have some Amazon woman who consumed steroids from the breast milk of her East German Olympic team weightlifter mother, and who can meet the male standards for an infantry unit… no, let’s go even further and say she meets the physical standards for one of the Ranger battalions and successfully goes through all of the various schools that lead to that assignment. At that point, one can assume that unicorns do exist. It’s an absurd assumption. But let’s go with it anyway. That event is going to be so rare that it’s going to be outside the experience of nearly everyone serving in the military. And at the point, the same people calling for women to serve in the military are going to make sure that standards are lower for women in the name of “equality”. To ensure the outcome they prefer, they will absolutely gerrymander the requirements to get women into combat positions by hook or by crook. This will be bad for morale. Men will resent it, except those who know how to play political games. The NCO corps will become nothing more than a bunch of “yes” men rather than independent thinkers who can solve problems on their feet in stressful situations. We will destroy the military by driving away honest, capable soldiers. The only ones left will be the opportunists.

  • In addition to the issue of disparity in terms of physical abilities is the factor the importance of the development of fraternal bonds amongst soldiers in an infantry unit. You inject sexual attaction into that environment, which will naturally follow with the mixing of the sexes, you have a serious problem in its own right.

  • Alphatron. I wouldn’t say I’m “speaking from ignorance,” I’m just simply repeating what professional journalists have said military officials told them.

    I’m going to try to address your points one at a time:
    -I know women and men have different standards.
    -Well, it seems like what the recruiter on the forum is saying contradicts what army officials have explicitly stated. One says there are elevated standards for infantry, the other says there are not. Both seem to have the requisite authority for me to take them at their word, so I’m not going to argue against either of them.
    -I will point out that, since women have been banned from combat, when people say “anyone who meets the requirements to get into the Army can be assigned to the infantry,” it’s possible that they aren’t referring to women at all since they can’t possibly serve in the infantry. So yes, any man who met the requisite standards could be called up to the infantry, but if they were going to allow women to enter the infantry, they probably would revise women’s standards, possibly creating explicit “not infantry approved” and “infantry approved” designations. I am just speculating, but it seems absurd to me to think that women being allowed to serve in combat capacities would mean that any women who meets the general standards for women would be allowed into the infantry.

    “Regarding your question about what would happen if a woman met the same physical requirements as a man, as practical matter that’s not going to happen. They go off of percentages. ”

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. How is it “not going to happen?” If a man in the infantry has a certain score, and a women equals or bests it, how can she be barred from combat duty on the basis that she isn’t physically capable?

    “no, let’s go even further and say she meets the physical standards for one of the Ranger battalions and successfully goes through all of the various schools that lead to that assignment. At that point, one can assume that unicorns do exist. It’s an absurd assumption. ”

    Yah…I’m not really sure why you take my fairly plausible scenario (a single woman having scores comparable to any man serving in the infantry) and made it something ridiculous, which I haven’t even remotely suggested. It’d an absurd assumption because you made it.

    I’m not really sure I follow the rest of what you’re saying. It doesn’t really address my question, which I’ll word differently this time: if an individual woman achieved scores on these standards tests that were equal to or better than at least one man currently cleared for infantry duty, on what grounds could you bar her from the infantry? The “physically incapable” argument obviously wouldn’t work in such a scenario, because she’s just proved that she IS physically capable (unless the standards aren’t really a good indication of this, in which case they should be revised).

  • Alphatron. I wouldn’t say I’m “speaking from ignorance,” I’m just simply repeating what professional journalists have said military officials told them.

    Those same “professionals” think that identifying the spot a shoulder strap is attached to as a bayonet spot is a minor mistake, and using a picture of an AK-47 for a military style AR is no mistake at all.

    Women, even those who meet the same physical standards– which, as linked, are not special— do not respond the same to physical “stress.”
    Medics have pointed out the massively higher rate of injuries, and a Marine officer even wrote a piece for the Marine Corps Gazette.

    Somehow, didn’t get much attention from those “professional journalists.”

  • It has to do with the way it is scored. A person needs a certain score to be in the infantry. Men and women are scored differently. The minimum qualifying physical fitness performance for a man gives a woman a maximum score. The physical performance that would give a woman a minimum score of 60 would give a man a failing score, and he would be drummed out of the military entirely if he did not bring it up within a specified period of time.

    So when the media says they won’t lower the requirements for women, they are correct. A woman will still require a sixty percent score, just like a man will. But a woman will need to do far less to obtain that sixty percent score.

  • The navy had fail, probation, then various levels of “passing,” then “excellent”– it was a point of pride for me that I always got at least a mid-level “pass” for my PFT if I were a male, but so many women couldn’t pass even the low level stuff that they put in a thing where your score could be averaged as long as you didn’t flat out fail in any specific. (From memory, it was largely because the middle aged women couldn’t do sit ups as well.)

  • Hey!

    They can form women’s infantry battalions like the WNBA and women’s soccer, swimming, tennis, track and field, etc.

    In a violent world, peace is maintained by the disciplined valor of a nation’s armed forces.

    Will intergating women into ground combat units advance unit cohesion, discipline, and efficency (at destroying things and killing people)?

    Anybody around here old enough to remember a small Navy avaiators’ embarrassment called “Tail Hook”?

    Or, imagine a daughter of manslaughtering Ares, as it were, bursting into tears, and blubbering, “What difference does it make?”

    I’m glad the warden doesn’t read this.

  • In a democracy, who is a citizen?

    Under the Ancien Régime, the defence of the country was the task of the nobility, and the sword was everywhere the badge of the gentleman. In return, they enjoyed special privileges and a preponderant share in the government of the nation.

    The Republic declared that the nation is the community of all those who are not exempt from taxation, military service and other public duties, and, second, it includes all those, and only those, who are willing and capable of sharing in the service of the country. This was the logical basis of universal (male) suffrage.

    Accordingly, in France, until 1945, women, who were not liable to conscription, did not enjoy the vote and were ineligible for public office. This was logical.

    If women, as a class, are denied the right, or relieved of the responsibility, of defending the nation under arms, in what sense are they truly citizens? If men and women enjoy citizenship on different terms, how is the republic one and indivisible?

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour –
    bad logic, unless you plan to remove the citizenship of anyone who can’t qualify for combat. That would be the old and the disabled, as well as the XX chromosomed.

    France in the 40s is not the place I’d cite as an overwhelming logical argument against how bad of an idea it is to kill of the only people who can make new soldiers. A task, incidentally, which tend to kill more each year than enemy action, and all in the female category.

  • Even women oppose it.

    *waves hand wildly in the air*

    I’ve actually run into more bitter “manosphere” types that support it than women who do– and vanishing few military types that weren’t activists before they got in, or aren’t chasing stars.

  • When the French Foreign Legion in the 19th century came across female warriors in Africa they were reluctant to engage them at close quarters. As professional soldiers the idea of bayonetting a woman was repugnant. I have no doubt that our latter-day Amazons would have no compunction about sticking a bayonet in someone else, but what happens if an enemy soldier, suddenly coming face to face with a woman, hesitates, as well he might? Answer: he’s dead.

    No civilized society should even consider putting women in the front line, and those who advocate it do not understand the psychology of combat. The citizen-soldiers of the First World War, when they were pulled out of line, found that in the rest areas they encountered women, children, animals; this helped them forget for a time the horrors of the trenches. They were able to reconnect with their own humanity.

    Esprit de corps, unit cohesion, the idea of not letting your mates down – this keeps infantry soldiers going in combat. Introduce women into the equation and fighting just becomes a squalid business, devoid of the last remnants of honour and chivalry.

  • “Esprit de corps, unit cohesion, the idea of not letting your mates down – this keeps infantry soldiers going in combat. Introduce women into the equation and fighting just becomes a squalid business, devoid of the last remnants of honour and chivalry.”

    Good common sense John. It is frightening how uncommon common sense is becoming.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Regarding the obligations commensurate with citizenship, I would submit that the bearing and raising of children certainly qualifies. Motherhood imposes obligations that certainly affect the nation.

  • I swear I’m going to strangle the next person I hear whining about it not being fair. The military is not your high school Glee club, it doesn’t matter if it’s fair or not. What matters is defending our country, if putting women on the front lines is detrimental to that (and it has been proven so time and again) I don’t care if the woman in question passed BUDS with flying colors and is the best soldier in the unit, if she lowers unit effiecency she shouldn’t be there. If that affects her chances at promotion, well… that’s not fair, but again, the military shouldn’t be concerned about what’s ‘fair’.

  • Unfortunately the once esteemed virtues of manliness and womanliness are being sacrificed on the altar of the false god of equality. Like same-sex ‘marriage’ it reveals the moral bakruptcy of present-day western society.

Live Not By Lies

Thursday, January 24, AD 2013

 

 

Live Not by Lies is the last thing Alexander  Solzhenitsyn wrote before his exile to the West in 1974.  Solzhenitsyn was one of the giants of the last century.  Thrown into the Gulag while he was an artillery officer in the Red Army during World War II, he tirelessly, at the constant risk of his life, fought a lonely battle for freedom for three decades in the Soviet Union.  His courage and literary skill inspired people around the globe, including me as a teen-ager and a young man.  I never thought what he wrote would be applicable to the United States, the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Alas, in the Age of Obama Solzhenitsyn’s writings have an increasingly unpleasant contemporary ring to them.

 

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

  • Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
  • Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
  • Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
  • Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
  • Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
  • Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
  • Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
  • Will immediately walk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
  • Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.

Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul- don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general–let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Live Not By Lies

  • Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.

    Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed.

    With just these two convictions, you can pretty much count out voting for 99.99% of American candidates, and reading newspapers and magazines (although I notice he said “subscribe to or buy,” so maybe he still allows you to read, just not support financially). On the bright side, that would leave you with a heck of a lot of time on your hands to surf the net for interesting blogs!

  • I don’t remember ever hearing God’s truth from the current administration.

  • “you can pretty much count out reading newspapers and magazines”

    I presume that would also count out working for or contributing any articles to a newspaper (which I do occasionally) or magazine, although I suspect he was thinking primarily of pure propaganda outlets like the Pravda and TASS of his day, or of Communist Party organization publications, rather than the garden-variety American newspaper. Although many American newspapers do have a left-leaning editorial stance, there are letters to the editor published with differing points of view and often guest editorials or columns presenting the “other side”, which someone has to contribute.

We Will Outlast Them

Monday, January 21, AD 2013

Obama Joke

“That on you is fallen the shadow,
And not upon the Name;
That though we
scatter and though we fly,
And you hang over us like the sky,
You are more
tired of victory,
Than we are tired of shame.

“That though you hunt
the Christian man
Like a hare on the hill-side,
The hare has still more
heart to run
Than you have heart to ride.

“That though all lances
split on you,
All swords be heaved in vain,
We have more lust again to
lose
Than you to win again.

G.K. Chesterton, Ballad of the White Horse

Continue reading...

15 Responses to We Will Outlast Them

  • You are the eternal optimist, Donald, but the alternative – despair – is a sin.

  • The truly important event takes place at noon on January 25th. Today was a gathering of pretenders. On Friday D.C. will see the honest Americans.
    Let us call to mind the 55 million plus.
    They, unlike Rosie Parks, never had a chance to ride in a bus, or walk through a doorway.
    Today was a sham.
    Friday American patriots take to the mall, and redeem the once sacred ground of Washington D.C.
    They honor the fallen. We will never forget the unborn dead.

  • 55,000,000 human souls scraped from the womb to prove that there is no God, that a person is who the state says is a person, that the state says that the Person of God is not a person.

    The Person of God was not tried in a court of law before being banned from the public square. The Person of God may be banned from the public square without trial, proof and conviction of wrongdoing, on the complaint of the soul who denies the human soul.

    In the absence of Justice, America has elected tyranny.

  • I too think conservatism will eventually win out. But, as it stands now, things will get worse, much worse, before they get better.

    Obama has been wildly successful in getting a left-wing ideology implemented as policy, unpopularity notwithstanding. And still got reelected. No mean feat.

  • To lighten the mood of a depressing day, go check the top story at my favorite Catholic humor site, Eye of the Tiber.

  • Just back from a board meeting of the Pro-life Crisis Pregancy Center in my county. I’ve been Chairman of the Board for a decade. Donations to the Center have been up sharply since the November election. A good sign I would say of determination of our supporters in the teeth of adversity.

  • I won’t waste one moment of my life watching this evil fraud re-crowned – I just couldn’t stomach it. These certainly are times that try men’s (and women’s) souls. My beautiful country has been subverted and diabolically inverted against herself. It’s a great struggle not to hate the people who out of their stupidity/malice put this guy back into office who will pull us ALL into the pit. We know ultimately the truth will prevail – it’s just very difficult waiting for justice to be done. I just hope I live long enough to witness it.

  • I am having a very rare moment of sanity. Do not worry. It will soon pass. It always does. But let’s remember that St Peter lived under brutal, vicious Roman Emperors who make Obama look like a timid piker by comparison, and he still wrote in verses 13 through 17 of his first epistle (some would say, the first Papal Encyclical ever):

    “13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”

    Therefore, having come across a rather nice prayer for the President in the Anglican 1928 Book of Common Prayer……..

    “ALMIGHTY God, whose kingdom is everlasting and power infinite; Have mercy upon this whole land; and so rule the hearts of thy servants THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, The Governor of this State, and all others in authority, that they, knowing whose ministers they are, may above all things seek thy honour and glory; and that we and all the People, duly considering whose authority they bear, may faithfully and obediently honour them, according to thy blessed Word and ordinance; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth ever, one God, world without end. Amen.”

    Even Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above…” (John 19:11) We have received the government we deserve, just as the children of Israel did in 1st Samuel chapter 8.

    Ok, this rare moment of sanity has passed. I shall now go back to being the right wing conservative nut case extremist (and pro-nuker) that irritates the heck out of all my liberal friends (and I don’t really have that many). 😉

  • Opps, 1st Peter chapter 2, verses 13 thru 17. Hate that there’s no editing function here! 🙁

  • “You are the eternal optimist, Donald, but the alternative – despair – is a sin.”

  • The 1928 Anglican BCP prayer is short and sweet, but there is also the Catholic prayer composed by Bishop John Carroll in 1789 on the occasion of George Washington’s inauguration:

    “We pray you, O God of might, wisdom, and justice,
    through whom authority is rightly administered,
    laws are enacted, and judgment decreed,
    assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude
    the President of these United States,
    that his administration may be conducted in righteousness,
    and be eminently useful to your people, over whom he presides;
    by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion;
    by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy;
    and by restraining vice and immorality.

    “Let the light of your divine wisdom direct
    the deliberations of Congress,
    and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws
    framed for our rule and government,
    so that they may tend to the preservation of peace,
    the promotion of national happiness,
    the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge;
    and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.

    “We pray for the governor of this state,
    for the members of the assembly,
    for all judges, magistrates, and other officers
    who are appointed to guard our political welfare,
    that they may be enabled, by your powerful protection,
    to discharge the duties of their respective stations
    with honesty and ability.

    “We recommend likewise, to your unbounded mercy,
    all our fellow citizens throughout the United States,
    that we may be blessed in the knowledge
    and sanctified in the observance of your most holy law;
    that we may be preserved in union,
    and in that peace which the world cannot give;
    and after enjoying the blessings of this life,
    be admitted to those which are eternal.
    Grant this, we beseech you, O Lord of mercy,
    through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen.”

    The one change I would make would be to insert the name of the President and the name and state of one’s governor. Yes, it would make me cringe a bit to have to say out loud “the President of these United States, Barack Obama” and “the governor of this state of Illinois, Pat Quinn” for obvious reasons. But, these are real people — not just abstractions — for whom we pray, and they are responsible for the welfare of sovereign nations and states that each possess a unique history and culture. And if mentioning their names is an uncomfortable reminder of how much they need our prayers, well, consider it a small form of penance 🙂

  • During the Killing Times, the Scottish Covenanters replaced the State Prayers with the metrical version of the Psalm Deus Laudem (Ps 109/108)

    One must imagine the Precentor giving it out, line by line, to be repeated by the little congregation, “praying ahint a dyke.”

    A sample

    6 Set thou the wicked over him;
    and upon his right hand
    Give thou his greatest enemy,
    ev’n Satan, leave to stand.

    7 And when by thee he shall be judged,
    let him condemn-ed be;
    And let his pray’r be turn’d to sin,
    when he shall call on thee.

    8 Few be his days, and in his room
    his charge another take.
    9 His children let be fatherless,
    his wife a widow make.

    http://www.cgmusic.org/workshop/smp_frame.htm

  • Have just got back from a 5 day retreat for the deacons of our diocese (I’m a Candidate – expect a date for ordination to be April or May).
    I just about puked watching Obama take the pledge, vowing to uphold the Constitution. The bastard has done nothing for the past couple of years but attempt to eliminate it – or at least by-pass it .
    Can’t believe the hypocrisy of the man.

  • “Can’t believe the hypocrisy of the man.”

    Everything Obama says comes with an invisible expiration date.

  • Paul,
    I like your moments of sanity.
    Your correct in bringing us to the truth.
    St. Paul’s day was much worse.
    Thanks.

You Are the Threat!

Sunday, January 20, AD 2013

Right Wing Extremists

 

You may never have considered yourself a terrorist, but if you are a conservative a new government study indicates that you might well be:

The report’s author is Arie Perliger, who directs the Center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point. I can only imagine what his classes are like as his report manages to lump together every known liberal stereotype about conservatives between its covers.

As Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times, who broke news of the report on Thursday, recounts:

[The Center’s report] says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

The Times quotes a congressional staffer who has served in the military calling the report a “junk study.” The staffer then asked: “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

This is not the first time elements of the federal government have tried to smear conservatives with sloppy work and a broadbrush analysis.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to You Are the Threat!

  • “O, Columbia the Gem of the Ocean! . . . Thy mandates make tyranny tremble . . . ”

    Liberal propaganda: everybody that disagrees is a dangerous, evil person that should be liquidated. The same tune ever and always was by mass murdering progressives: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.

    Academia, the media and the Clinton regime similarly tried, convicted, and executed scores of citizens at Waco, TX in 1993. They werecondemned in the lying, liberal media and they were murdered by the government.

    Maybe we the people need to defund the USMA.

  • The thing is that we aren’t even anti-federalists.

    Look at the references Conservatives use in our arguments: Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, et al. I haven’t noticed even the slightest of anti-federalist sentiments in our own Paul Zummo, for example.

    I actually know an anti-federalist. He is a Southerner with a strong Libertarian streak to his Jeffersonian idealism. Given the spirited disagreements we’ve had, I don’t think he would call me an anti-federalist

    If one is going to use a word with an established definition in a published report, one should make sure one knows the definition of that term and can apply it correctly in discussion.

  • I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Perliger. Right wing domestic terrorists abound. Just think of all of the acts of terror that right wing extremists have committed in the past ten years. There’s… uh. Well, never mind that. We know they do it all the time.

    A while back, DHS published a list of characteristics you might find in those pesky ol’ potential right wing domestic terrorists, and so I had to go back and re-think some of my positions so I would get off the list. I can proudly say that I am no longer a potential terrorist because I believe in overthrowing the constitution, killing unborn babies, and I renounced my status as a veteran who had taken an oath to defend the constitution.

    With my new-found cuddly-wuddly non-terroristic tendencies, I will embrace the centralization of government power in one man and seek to crush Christianity, driving that priest-ridden anachronism into the grave, one lion-mauled and waterboarded Christian at a time. After that, we go after the babies in the womb. None shall escape unless genetic testing shows that they are homosexual, in which case we shall demonstrate Lord Obama’s magnificent tolerance…. oh, wait. I guess I wan’t the terrorist after all. Okay, back to my old freedom-loving, Catholic self.

  • I hope that we are a threat to the Democrats, the Administration, liberalism, progressivism, humanism, secularism and atheism. If we are not a threat, then we are doing something wrong.

    That said, the threat should never be one of the initiation of force. But everyone here at this blog knows (or should know) that. What is threatening to Democrats, the Administration, liberals, progressives, humanists, secularists and atheists is that most of us, in placing the highest value on human freedom and dignity, will respond with commensurate force to the initiation of force to coerce us into bowing to Caesar. In some cases martyrdom may result (and it always has in the past). In other cases, armed resistance is required (the Maccabean brothers in 160 BC and the Cristeros in Mexico in the 1920s).

    So yes, I want to be a threat (or at least a humble part thereof). How we think and what we are doing should be threatening to the Satanic forces of evil, and that is as it should be.

  • Paul, we are a threat. Unfortunately, the other side asserts that we are a violent threat, no matter what we do to try to demonstrate otherwise. Case in point, a few months ago we got 90 people to show up at a school board meeting to protest Planned Parenthood’s involvement in our schools. The school administration looked visibly frightened by all of these people showing up. We were peaceful, and polite. At the next school board meeting they had security guards up the wazoo. Why is that? Nobody did anything even remotely considered disorderly. It’s because they consider us a threat. They assume that we will act like they do, which of course leads to their fear of the violence that they themselves promote.

  • Common sense is subversion.

    Hysteria and lies are all they have.

    The following is true under the Obama regime. “Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell.

  • Conservatives had better be a threat to those trying to usurp our Declaration of Independence. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

  • How do you emphasize both minority rights and a balance of powers, even before you add in “emphasis” on civil rights?

    Unless he meant “act like all interests have the same weight.” Still doesn’t make sense, since that just doesn’t work. (Great way to get power, though, being the guy in charge of deciding what’s fair.)

    Seriously, though, this just sounds like pop knowledge mud and gravel with all the gems removed.

  • Anyone thought of doing something non-violent about it like suing the crap out of Arie Perliger, the center, and West Point?

  • I don’t think there is a legal basis for such a law suit. A better tactic might be to attempt to enlist West Point alums, doubtless retired from the Army, to protest this pc waste of resources.

  • Has anyone thought of submitting a Freedom of Information Act request concerning his salary; the syllabus of his course (“social” is not a science); his address; etc.?

    That’s the type of action Obama-worshiping facsists would take against we threats to the liberal, national wrecking ball.

  • Look, I get the whole “shake in rage against liberals” thing, but there definitely are right-wing violent extremists out there. I haven’t read the study, so I don’t know how fair it is, but we all know that such people exist. I imagine that the average Academy man is going to run into right-wing starry-eyed suckups a lot more than, say, Occupiers who are enthralled with the military.

  • Right wing extremism in this country Pinky is simply not a threat compared to the threat from jihadists. The Hutaree Militia Trial and the dismissal of the charges by the judge indicated the normal trajectory of these attempts by government informants to transform molehills into mountains.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-27/hutaree-militia-group-conspiracy-dismissal/53815972/1

    This type of ideological look at terrorist threats is not unusual for the director of the Center. When he was in Israel his focus was on the minute amount of Jewish terrorism rather than on Islamic terrorism.

    What is the chief objectionable feature of this study is the attempt to link mainstream conservatives to terrorism.

  • I agree with Pinky, but while I am a right wing extremist and own a mini-14, I would never ever use it against another human being except in the God-aweful circumstance of self-defense, and then if I survived the experience, I would get my behind to confession pronto! Sure, there are Nazis and Fascists and Skinheads and others, but they aren’t the mainstream conservative movement. However, murdering unborn babies and sanctifying the filth of homosexual sodomy is the mainstream liberal movement, and that’s why it has to be destroyed. Yeah, that’s a volatile term, but it’s still correct. Furthermore, that doesn’t mean destroy it by guns, but destroy it by changing hearts and lives. Yet that is too extreme for liberals.

  • Please don’t help the folks that insist Nazis, fascists and shaved Nazis are “right wing.” I’ll just point over at Jonah Goldberg and leave it at that!

    The guy was pretty clear who he was calling “right wing”– anti-federalists who do not have an “emphasis” on minority rights, “balance of powers” and civil rights.

    The guy’s strawman is bad enough without helping him.

    Pinky-
    feel free to start listing the actual threats from anti-federalists.

  • I haven’t read the study, so I don’t know how fair it is,

    But that didn’t stop you from commenting and making snide comments about the criticisms of it, did it?

    but we all know that such people exist

    No one’s denying that such people exist – we’re denying that they are a substantial threat to the security of this country.

    I do have to hand it to those who want to paint right-wing extremists as the true threat to peace and stability of this country, because they certainly make my little bit of satire all the more on point.

  • Pingback: MONDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit
  • I imagine that the average Academy man is going to run into right-wing starry-eyed suckups a lot more than, say, Occupiers who are enthralled with the military.

    A question– have you been around young officers lately?

    A decade back, my first officer was utterly horrified that someone who seemed like “such a nice girl” would have a Bush/Cheney sticker on her car.

  • I didn’t intend to be snide. More like a little impatient.

    It’s the obligation of the person who’s criticizing the report to be familiar with it. If the author of this article has read the report, he didn’t indicate it. (I’m a big fan of Donald.) On that subject, this article said that the report made a distinction between the mainstream right and the nutty right. If so (and I have no reason to doubt it), then this report isn’t any sort of accusation against the mainstream right. It’s not saying that we are the threat.

    I agree that Islamic fanatics are a lot bigger threat to this country than any home-grown right-wing group. I’m not even sure why West Point has to teach people about domestic threats. But if they’re not teaching them about Islamic terrorists (or Islamist, or whatever), then there’s something really wrong. The battlefield commanders of the next few decades better understand Islamic fanaticism backwards and forwards, because they’re going to be dealing with it a lot.

    A bit off-topic, Paul, why would you feel the need to go to Confession after killing someone in self-defense?

  • Because I will have killed a man, and regardless that I may think it was done in self-defense, I would still go to Confession because I do not belong alone inside my head without adult supervision, especially after such a horrific event as having to kill another human being.

  • I submit that Nazis, skin heads, et al are not “right” at all. I point to Ludwig von Mises proposition of quadrants vs linear for the two axis: economic vs. goverance. Both Nazis and Communists are socialist, both are dictatorships, the only real difference is that the Nazis were national socialist and the Communists were international socialist. Not much of a difference if you ask me. But I swim agaist the river with the lefts faulty premise that Nazis are right of center.

  • Don’t use too much logic, CL, keep in mind that it’s putting fascists and folks opposed to an overpowering federal gov’t in the same group.

  • Liberals are not progressive or future oriented. They’re merely rehashing late 19th century Ideas of Marx, Malthus and Bismarck. Same old centralization and nationalization. Same old materialism, eugenicism, elitism, and inculturation of a national religion (read liberal secularism). Same old using social upheaval to take over more power.

A Guide to the 23 Edicts for the Perplexed

Thursday, January 17, AD 2013

 

We at The American Catholic, among our many other missions, aim to translate Governmentese into English with color commentary.  Herewith is an example of our service in regard to President Obama’s 23 executive orders on gun control, better termed edicts:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Do what the agencies have been supposed to be doing all along.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

The maze of laws and regulations belched out by Congress and the Executive branch each year, and which I have overwhelmingly supported, have a deleterious impact on background checks, as they do with accomplishing anything in these United States.  Shazam!
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Fall in line States or we will deprive you of Federal money.  Federalism, what’s that?

Continue reading...

13 Responses to A Guide to the 23 Edicts for the Perplexed

Laws Are For Our Enemies, Not Our Friends

Saturday, January 12, AD 2013

The District of Columbia, one of the worst governed jurisdictions in the United States, has a law on the books, placed there for political purposes by the uber liberals who run it, banning “high-capacity” ammo clips, of the type waved around by NBC unpaid Obama press flack reporter David Gregory in the above clip.  He did it in DC.  No intent is needed for the criminal prosecution.  It is a strict liability offense.  For the past few weeks the question has been whether Gregory would be prosecuted.  Not a chance I thought, and I was proved correct when Irvin Nathan, the attorney general for DC, released a pompous letter yesterday explaining why Gregory would not be prosecuted  The letter runs to three turgid pages, but I won’t inflict all of that on you.  Instead, here is the money quote:

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Laws Are For Our Enemies, Not Our Friends

  • I wonder if the A-G considered the alternative of offering the parties the alternative of an out-of-court Fiscal fine? If not, why not?

  • Sic semper tyrannis . . .

    Selective law enforcement is banana republic SOP.

    NYS is about to (the Senate now has a dum majority) outlaw “assault weapons” and impose confiscations.

    We will all be much safer. Criminals will turn in their weapons and It will become more likely that an escaped Bengal Tiger will eat you than you will get KIA by an assault weapon (now odds are 343:315,000,000).

    Either I will emigrate/seek refugee status in America (a red state) or I will become a NY felon.

    I will not give up my basic human (Second Amendment) right to bear arms that I have exercised for over 40 years.

  • I doubt that the administration had any feelings about it one way or the other. My guess is that it’s something worse than favoritism – liberal “compassion”. Gregory’s heart was in the right place, so it wouldn’t be right to punish him.

  • Pinky,

    What you said, plus that vile, lying scumbag, Gregory, is a prominent member of the ruling class. The 150 Americans persecuted for similar acts are faceless members of the ruled class.

    Ann Althouse: “If Gregory clearly violated the law, but there is no interest to be served in prosecuting him, doesn’t that prove that the law is not important? If the precise thing that he did — which is clearly what is defined as a crime — raises no interest in prosecution, how can we be satisfied by letting this one nice famous man go? Rewrite the law so that it only covers the activity that the government believes deserves prosecution, so there is equal justice under the law.”

  • Sure. And I think as a practical matter, “prosecute only bad people” can easily turn into “prosecute only your enemies”, because after all, who’s better than our friends? But I think in this case, it’s “prosecute only white trash”. This guy’s kids go to Sidwell Friends School. This is more a public school law.

  • The older I get the more it becomes clear to me that it is idiotic to try to reason with an idoit. This clip only confirms my instinct. It also makes me ask “Where’s Newt Gingrich when you need him?” I mean, I’m no fan of Newt, but he certainly demonstrated how to handle David Gregory.

    Unfortunately, that sucking sound you hear is the sound of repulicans starting to cave on this issue. You have that congressman in GA. I don’t know his name off hand, but does it really matter anyway?, coming out for stricter gun control. You also have Chuck Grassley signaling openess on magazine capacity:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/11/grassley-suggests-openness-to-gun-control-idea/

  • “Where’s Newt Gingrich when you need him?”

    Actually Newt has historically been wobbly on the second amendment.

    “Unfortunately, that sucking sound you hear is the sound of repulicans starting to cave on this issue.”

    Naw, it is the Democrats caving:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/11/dem-senator-mark-begich-im-not-interested-in-a-new-assault-weapons-ban/

    The Democrats couldn’t get new gun control legislation out of the Senate let alone the House. I do hope that Obama gets his second term off to a bad start by a futile attempt to pass new gun control legislation.

  • Note that, not only did Gregory clearly and irrefutably violate the law, he knew he was breaking the law when he did it.

    In a sane world, that factor would make such prosecution more ‘in the public interest’, not grounds for getting a pass.

  • But the whole point of trying to ban large capacity magazines is totally whacko. The guy obviously has had very little experience of firearms. I have an old Lee Enfield Mk.IV .303 – the jungle carbine version – which I have modified to suit my own need – monte-carlo stock and pistol grip etc. and a 4 power scope. It has a 10 shot magazine. But I can have a clip of 10 more rounds which I can reload into the mag in about 1.5 seconds. Great weapon for hunting deer (and pigs – but you’re better off with dogs for pig hunting) even in dense bush, and I have shot deer with it over 400 yards. You don’t need an exotic “assault rifle” if you are a nut job wanting to kill people – anything that fires a bullet will kill a large number of unprepared, unsuspecting victims.
    And why do the libs always go for the NRA? those are the very responsible guys as far as I know. How many NRA members have gone on a killing spree?
    Here in NZ, hand guns are banned, as are semi-automatic military weapons – but otherwise, shotguns, rifles etc are available, and you simply need to get a license to procure, and demonstrate that you are sane, and not a nutter and know the basic rules of handling a gun – idetinfy target,check background, firing zone etc – just the common sense things – and you’re in business – for hunting, that is 🙂

  • Don,

    I have a 1917 Enfield (full size). It’s basically unaltered. I inherited it from my father. I haven’t been able to locate a bayonet.

    No, “it” cannot happen here.

    http://coldservings.livejournal.com/50207.html

    Plus, they want to circulate $trillion platinum coins!

    Ruger makes it extremely easy to contact your politician.

    http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

  • Donald:

    I wasn’t speaking do much to Newt’s position on the 2nd Amendment, but his more aggressive approach to the media, David Gregory in particular. Come to think of it, I think we ought to take a page out of Piers Morgan’s playbook and summon my best fake British accent and say “You really are an incredibly stupid man, aren’t you?” Yes, I think we need to start employing the “Act like one, get called one.” approach. Our side treats some of the most stupid inane questions and comments with seriousness. Although they respond with the right the substance, the style comes off as weak and come off looking like a bunch of pansies.

    No, the democrats are not caving. None of them are CONCEDING anything. Just because some democrat senators aren’t pushing for something they weren’t pushing for anyway doesn’t mean they are caving. Republicans on the other hand are giving up ground on something they had previously stood for. are caving/

    Now, I don’t think Sen. Di Fi thought her piece of unconstitutional crap was going to pass the house or senate in the near future. But she is operating under the minset that the left has effectively operated under for decades. And that is you keep hammering away and little by little and your agenda gets implemented. I thought you would be an asute enough observer of politics to understand that, but apparently not.

    In terms of screwing up the country, Obama’s second term is shaping up to be a rousing success. Not only can he advance the ball on the assault on the send amendment (which is already happening albeit in small measure), but he can use that as a smoke screen under which he’ll get his tag team attack on national security confirmed. a Irael hating anti-military defense secretary and Jack “teh Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization” Brennaman in as CIA chief.

    It is painfull to the republican leadership get punked by a third rate Chicago street agitiator like Barack Obama. I mean it’s just embarrassing.

  • “I wasn’t speaking do much to Newt’s position on the 2nd Amendment, but his more aggressive approach to the media,”

    I liked his aggressive pose to the media during the election campaign too Greg. However, since the election he has been in collapse mode. That has always been the problem with Gingrich. He is undependable long term, especially when the going is tough.

    “No, the democrats are not caving.”

    I disagree. Red State Dems are in collapse mode on gun control, now that the initial furor for gun control after Newtown has subsided.

    “Republicans on the other hand are giving up ground on something they had previously stood for.”

    Nope. I can safely predict that no gun control legislation will pass this Congress.

    “And that is you keep hammering away and little by little and your agenda gets implemented.”

    It certainly hasn’t worked for them on gun control. They have lost a great deal of ground both in legislation on the state and federal level and in the courts over the past decade.

    “I thought you would be an asute enough observer of politics to understand that, but apparently not.”

    Certainly astute enough not to completely misread the situation as you have.

    “Obama’s second term is shaping up to be a rousing success.”

    Complete and total bunk. Gun control is going nowhere The Republicans have made the Bush tax cuts permanent and solved the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax. They stopped Rice for State and by Obama picking Kerry he places in jeopardy that Senate seat. Hagel is drawing fire from both the Left and Right and may not get through the Senate. It has not been an auspicious start.

  • Obama’s 2nd term is proving to be a rousing success in stirring up even more people against him while he seems to consolidate the support of his adoring worshippers in the mains stream media. More and more people, however, are beginning to despise and loathe him for the gangster that he is. And I am hopeful that the political process in Washington will become paralyzed. One thing concerns me, however: can and will Obama use his power of Executive Order to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights? He already shows like the media no respect for the Constitution.

  • Yeah, Donald you also felt pretty safe in predicting Romney was going to win in an electoral blowout. Your understanding of safety makes one want to watch his back.

    Let’s see, you have the 1994 assault weapons ban. After Newtown, the pro-gun control crowd immediately took control of the terms of the debate. To be sure, gun sales have spiked sinced then, out of fear of federal efforts to enact further gun control measures. I don’t think the NRA and other gun advocacy groups share your optimism on this issue. The idea that the left hasn’t made inroads on the gun control issue is ridculous.

    The way things stand now. at the end of Obama’s second term, we will be between 20 and 25 Trilliion in debt, economy still in bad shape, the deliterious effects of Obamacare beginning to be felt, Obama thwarting the Constitution with impunity, the world a much more dangerous place, our military considerably weakened. In terms of screwing up the country, if that’s not a rousing sucess, what is? So, what am I misreading here?

  • “Obama’s 2nd term is proving to be a rousing success in stirring up even more people against him…”

    Umm, Paul, Obama has been doing that his entire first term and still get reelected.

  • As far as the whole Susan Rice thing goes, I don’t think Obama himself thought that was gonna go anywhere. But, instead we are gonna get John Kerry. He will probably get Hagel through, inconsequential pissing and moaning from conservatives notwithstanding. Plus, Jack Brennaman at CIA. In the Obama scheme of things, offering up Susan Rice is a small sacrifice.

  • “Yeah, Donald you also felt pretty safe in predicting Romney was going to win in an electoral blowout. Your understanding of safety makes one want to watch his back.”

    Me and gentlemen like Rasmussen and Barone, who know about far more about politics than either you or I. The Gallup numbers also indicated a Romney win. I was wrong but I was in good company in my error.

    “The idea that the left hasn’t made inroads on the gun control issue is ridculous.”

    No, the idea that their tactics have succeeded is ridiculous. We have no assault weapons ban currently and we are not going to have one. It looks like the Obama administration isn’t even going to ask for one. We also now have recent Supreme Court rulings declaring the Second Amendment as a personal right. The campaign of the Left against the Second Amendment has been a flat failure over the past ten years.

    “In terms of screwing up the country, if that’s not a rousing sucess, what is?”

    I do not believe that Obama wishes to screw up the country. His goal was to move the country permanently to the Left and establish a permanent Democrat majority. Instead in 2010 he lost the House to the Republicans and a host of state legislative seats, more than the Republicans have held since 1928. In 2012 the Republicans retained control of the House and almost all the legislative seats they gained in 2010 outside of New Hampshire. The Gop controls the state legislatures now in 26 states, compared to 18 for the Democrats. When Obama was elected in 2008 the Democrats controlled 27 legislatures to 17 for the Republicans. The Republicans have 30 governorships as opposed to 19 for the Democrats. When Obama was elected the Democrats controlled 29 state houses to 21 for the Republicans. The long term impact of the Obama presidency may be to establish the Republicans as the majority party in the nation.

  • “In 2012 the Republicans retained control of the House”

    Problem is they should have not only maintained control of the House, but taken control of the Senate as well take back the White House. But instead, we LOST seats in the House, although we retained control and lost seats in the Senate. In light of the economic situation, this was a major, major defeat of the GOP. This signals that the GOP is very bad shape nationally. Boehner and the GOP leadership are trying marginalize the Tea Party, the very people who are responsible for the GOP house majority and him being Speaker to begin with.

    This election indicates that one should not put too much trust in the experts. The fact that Barone (who I think is somewhat overrated) and other missed this is embarrassing to say the least.

    At the very least, Obama is indifferent at best to the effect of his policies. He knows this is bad for the country but pursues them anyway

  • Tragically, Romney allowed the worst POTUS in history to avoid answering for the two factors that are destroying the USA: the crashing economy and the skyrocketing debt.

    Gun hysteria is just another distraction from the real problems tearing at our national being.

    Peace and Justice! Green, liberal ethanol scam is driving up corn prices: a disaster for poor people, at home and abroad.

    Maybe the GOP has a bit of fight left.

    From Zero Hedge: “Citigroup floated idea that a temporary government shutdown in mid/late February is possible: first technical default of the US based on prioritization of US debt payments. Politico reports this idea is rapidly gaining support within the GOP, “more than half of GOP members are prepare to allow default unless Obama agrees to dramatic cuts he has repeatedly said he opposes.

    “‘Many more members, including some party leaders, are prepared to shut down the government to make their point. House Speaker John Boehner ‘may need a shutdown just to get it out of their system,” said a top GOP leadership adviser. ‘We might need to do that for member-management purposes — so they have an endgame and can show their constituents they’re fighting.””

    I’m not holding my breath.

  • PS: They need only to say that Obama was against raising the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate. And, that Senator Obama was right.

  • “In light of the economic situation, this was a major, major defeat of the GOP.”

    Retaining control of the House in the teeth of the type of get out the vote drive the Obama campaign put out was no mean achievement. The Senate was a disappointment, although mistakes by individual candidates were the cause of most of the losses. At the state level the part did almost as well as in 2010, its best election on the state level since 1928. I think this is a sign of strength for the GOP. In the House, tea party backed candidates were on both sides of the fiscal cliff deal, because it was a mixed deal with good and bad, but probably the best deal the Republicans could hope for under the circumstances. This year and next year with the Senate and the Presidency in Democrat hands, I think the House will be successful in preventing massive new spending programs and that is the best that can be accomplished for now.

    “The fact that Barone (who I think is somewhat overrated) and other missed this is embarrassing to say the least.”

    What it says is that most polling cannot be trusted for now, at least when a race is close, and that the GOP needs to emulate the Democrats when it comes to using fairly sophisticated data mining to locate GOP voters and make sure they get to the polls. Romney won independents nationally, and in a majority of the battle ground states. The problem for Romney is that he was unable to turn out the base of the Republican party in the numbers needed to win.

Molon Labe

Thursday, January 10, AD 2013

 

 

“While Leonidas was preparing to make his stand, a Persian envoy arrived. The envoy explained to Leonidas the futility of trying to resist the advance of the Great King’s army and demanded that the Greeks lay down their arms and submit to the might of Persia. Leonidas laconically told Xerxes, “Come and get them.(Molon labe).”

                              Plutarch, Leonidas

Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.

“The president is going to act,” said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that “it’s critically important that we act.”

You know, if we have domestic unrest during the second term of this administration, I wouldn’t be surprised if it starts from Joe Biden shooting off his mouth and giving us glaring insight into how Obama would proceed if he thought he could get away with it.  Obama has nothing but contempt for American liberties and Biden merely idiotically repeats what he has heard.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Molon Labe

  • We know that the bloody history of 20th century leftism depended upon first disarming the population.

  • “Come and get them!”

    Damn straight!

  • From Breitbart.com: “Good news — it has become known that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

    “It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.”

    I will not comply with any registration or confiscation order.

  • T Shaw,

    You found an obamarang…
    Kiwi might like that one.

  • Good one philip. 🙂

    You really need to have addressed that to any of our Australian brothers – are there any that lurk here?

    The opening words of our Maori haka challenging an oponent is probaby appropriate:

    Ka mate, ka mate – ka ora, ka ora!………
    “I live, I live – I die, I die.”

    Kia kaha . ( Stay strong)

  • G’day Don the Kiwi,

    Any chance I could immigtate into New Zealand? It’s something like that or “live free or die” the motto of the State of New Hampshire.

    Speaking of haka and diggers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RpW507Y7ek

    Numbers Two and Three sons played college rugby.

    I got to see them play a lot of games. Mother didn’t appreciate it. She saw them both have their noses re-arranged.

    Guns and the man I sing.

    3,900,0000 Americans died in 2010.

    1,500,000 were unborn children killed by abortions.

    600,000 died from eating Whoppers and twinkies (heart disease)

    198,000 killed in preventable medical mishaps

    54,000 Killed by cars

    26,000 Killed by gravity (falls)

    17,000 killed by drunk drivers

    1,694 killed by knives

    726 killed by unarmed assailants (there are 51 ways, and counting, to kill with the empty hand.)

    496 killed with hammers/clubs.

    323 killed by long-barreled weapons (assault rifles, shotguns).

    BAN GUNS!

    In 18 days, NRA added 100,000 new, paid members. They’re aiming at 5,000,000 total membership.

  • Gidday T. Shaw

    I got to see them play a lot of games. Mother didn’t appreciate it. She saw them both have their noses re-arranged.

    That’s all part of character building, doncha reckon? 😉

    NZ is always looking for good migrants, particularly those who come with something to add – not ones that come from islamic countries as refugees, or bludge on our social welfare system, but get let in by the liberals. Trouble is at the moment, we’re inundated with liberals and progressives like the USA and much of western society, so many of our potential good migrants get turned away- like farmers from Zimbabwe, because they’re white, businessmen from South Africa because they can’t bring all their money with them etc. etc. You know the story.

Klavan: Gloom Begone!

Tuesday, January 8, AD 2013

 

 

Andrew Klavan writes a column and notes reasons for optimism in our winter of discontent:

1. Fracking. As I’ve said before, Obama and the EPA will ultimately be splatter on the windshield of this progress. There’s energy in them thar hills and eventually we’re going to get at it, whether these luddite environmental knuckleheads like it or not. That means wealth, energy independence, jobs, power and a reboot of Dallas. Obama may be choosing decline, but the rest of the country may well choose prosperity and growth in spite of him.

2. Federalism. Around the country, conservative governors are taking action that could galvanize reform nationwide. Right-to-work laws, state budget cuts, reduced property taxes and creative approaches to education. As prosperity follows these practices — and abandons California and Illinois and other lagging states — they will gain credence with the general population and make political stars of the governors who supported them.

3. Reality is on our side. When I call Obama a reactionary, what I mean is that he adheres to a grievance-based socialist ideology he learned in college from professors who were probably old even then. As these academics die and go to hell for all eternity, up-and-comers may begin to notice that the poor suffer under left-wing programs and rise under the free market, that education improves under conservative guidance and gets worse under liberals, and that big business actually gets more entrenched and powerful under the left while the right helps the little guy thrive. That, after all, will be the off-beat, radical position, and academics love to be off-beat and radical as long as everyone around them is being off-beat and radical too. A new generation is already on the rise that understands entitlements are unsustainable and that freedom works. It won’t be long at all before we begin to hear their voices in the mainstream. I hope.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Klavan: Gloom Begone!

  • In addition to point 1 on fracking for oil and gas above, we should also mine coal and build new nuclear power plants based on a thorium-232 / uranium-233 fuel cycle. With the gas and oil from fracking, and with energy from new nukes applied to the Fischer-Tropsch process of producing liquid fuels out of coal, we won’t need Saudi oil and can tell the Islamists to go drown in their mineral slime.

  • I really wonder how long it will take mindless American traitors to realize they made the worst mistake in our entire history with the reelection of a socialist president. I expect Gloom to really deepen in the new year.

  • I am sincerely sorry.

    I am positively pessimistic. I can’t talk about it with my sons. They will suffer.

    It all has been shoved too far down the rat-hole. The Obama gang set out to destroy the evil, unjust private sector and they killed the “goose that lays the golden eggs.”

    The vile imbeciles re-elected the destroyer ensuring it cannot be resurrected.

    The gutless GOP House majority now is smaller.

    And, worse, GOP House leadership are equally as bad borrowers/spenders, e.g., their surrender in the so-called “fiscal cliff” deal.

    I see no way they can do any better on needed spending cuts and the debt ceiling curtailments in two months.

    God gave us memory so we could have jobs in 2014.

  • “And, worse, GOP House leadership are equally as bad borrowers/spenders, e.g., their surrender in the so-called “fiscal cliff” deal.”

    I have read that many times on conservative sites T. Shaw and it is rubbish. If the Republicans had done nothing severe tax increases would have been imposed on the American public. Now the Republicans have made permanent the Bush tax cuts for 98% of American taxpayers and solved the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax be having it finally pegged to inflation. In regard to spending cuts I am disappointed but not surprised. With the Democrats in control of the Senate, the best the Republicans can do is to attempt to block new spending and I believe they will do that. So there will be no new trillion dollar “stimulus” and Obama can forget about Congress allocating large funds for new programs. In the wake of an unnerving defeat in November I actually believe the Republicans haven’t done too bad so far.

    My kids are 21, 21 and 17. I refuse to be pessimistic about the future of their country, and as long as I live I will fight to brighten that future. Woe is me pessimism is a luxury I cannot afford.

  • I like Donald’s sense of hope even if I do not always feel it: “My kids are 21, 21 and 17. I refuse to be pessimistic about the future of their country, and as long as I live I will fight to brighten that future. Woe is me pessimism is a luxury I cannot afford.”

    All we have to do to prosper is repent. As I have repeatedly commented before, we have access to enough natural resources – uranium, thorium, coal, gas, etc. – for a more than adequate supply of low cost energy essential to a thriving technological society. God has been exceedingly generous towards us. That isn’t the problem. Rather, man’s attitude and rebellion are the problem. I see signs of that reversing as Life Site News now says 83% of Americans want restrictions for abortion, and as the militant homosexual movement starts revealing itself for what it really is. So maybe Donald’s sense of hope is justified. Besides, isn’t despair a sin?

    I can believe that pessimist me just wrote all that.

  • “If the Republicans had done nothing severe tax increases would have been imposed on the American public. Now the Republicans have made permanent the Bush tax cuts for 98% of American taxpayers and solved the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax be having it finally pegged to inflation. In regard to spending cuts I am disappointed but not surprised.”

    Thing is Obama will take credit for both and the GOP will be more than happy to allow that. Before you say, “Who cares who gets the credit for it?” consider that the propaganda war is an essential battleground of this war and for too long the GOP has conceded this to the Dems, to the detriment of the conservative movement and the country. And there are defintely ways the republicans can do a better job in the propaganda department. For one, they can go on offense and demonstrate the alarming disparity in what we spend on entitlement programs and what is actually received by the recipient. We can propose that we can maintain levels of benefits while cutting overall spending on these programs. Responses to State of the Union addresses and Saturday radio messages can be good venues for starters. A repeated articulate simplified explanation will do well. But to expect immediate results would be foolish. After all, the prediciment we are in now is the result of an aggressive and incremental push by the left over the last 100 years. So, we need to look furhter down the road. Getting young conservatives like Rubio and Cruz, for starters, as our spokesmen would be a good idea. Ryan, in my view, while good where he is at, is too much of a wonk and not really able to convey these things in simple terms. Besides, I think he has demonstrated he is too beholden to the GOP establishment. And we have to stop being afraid to demonize the demons for crying out loud! This, “there ain’t no good guy there ain’t no bad guy. There’s only you and me and we just diagree (my apologies to Dave Mason)” approach has got to go. It is killing us.

    Another thing is there needs to be an effort aimed at encouraging young conservatives to consider careers in the Federal Departments that control our government. We can talk about cutting spending all we want (and yes I agree we need to cut spending) but if the leftists who control these governemnt bureaucracies are still able to determine how the money is being spent, the probelm will not just not get better, but will get much worse.

    “With the Democrats in control of the Senate, the best the Republicans can do is to attempt to block new spending and I believe they will do that. So there will be no new trillion dollar “stimulus” and Obama can forget about Congress allocating large funds for new programs.”

    With baseline budgeting, spending automatically goes up eight percent anyway. There should at least be a propaganda campaign with a view towards repealing it. Ever notice that when the Dems lose elections, they don’t give up on their agenda? They just continue pusuing it with even more vigor. Maybe one day it will dawn on the republicans that they would do well to do the same. But as it stands right now, we lose even when we win.

    In the wake of an unnerving defeat in November I actually believe the Republicans haven’t done too bad so far.

  • With noting to add to the conversation, I looked for a word to describe the video and Robert A. Rowland’s word: “mindless” works.

    Greg Mockeridge: Paul Ryan has maintained his integrity. I believe you underestimate him.

  • what’s the point of calling Obama a reactionary as if that’s a more stinging remark than picking apart his doctrinaire liberalism? it reminds me of how the word “fascist” is abused. why this need to appropriate rhetoric from the Left. i don’t care if something’s “reactionary” as in it’s old established opinion, i just care if it’s right or not. being pedantic i know, just certain semantics i’m not a fan of

    anyway the GOP will win presidential elections in the future, sure. the question though is whether it will continue to exist in its current form, or whether someone like Jon Huntsman will come along and transform it into a less conservative party that has policy differences but no deep philosophical disagreement with the Left.

  • “Greg Mockeridge: Paul Ryan has maintained his integrity. I believe you underestimate him.”

    I wasn’t saying anything one way or the other abgout Ryan’s integrity. It’s just that he goes along with the GOP leadership when push really comes to shove. He probably does so because he thinks it’s the prudent thing to do. And an argument can be made for that. In any event, ma main point is that Ryan is not a leading movement conservative. He is good right where he is, heading up the Budget Committee in the House.

  • “what’s the point of calling Obama a reactionary”

    For the sake of accuracy. Obama is the tail end of welfare state liberalism, a movement that is manifestly coming to an end. He has no new ideas to salvage it and is unconcerned that the funding of it simply does not not exist. “Apres moi le deluge” might as well be Obama’s personal motto.

    “the question though is whether it will continue to exist in its current form, or whether someone like Jon Huntsman will come along and transform it into a less conservative party that has policy differences but no deep philosophical disagreement with the Left.”

    The GOP will be the conservative party, or another conservative party will arise to displace it. THe RINO wing of the party has actually never been weaker.

  • Greg Mockerigde: ” In any event, my main point is that Ryan is not a leading movement conservative.”
    Paul Ryan did support the Right to Life and our founding principles at the RNC, and it appears these principles may be found in his work. My reference to his integrity, is to these points.

    Donald McCleary: “The GOP will be the conservative party, or another conservative party will arise to displace it. THe RINO wing of the party has actually never been weaker.”
    This is absolutely true. You are correct, Donald.

  • “The GOP will be the conservative party, or another conservative party will arise to displace it. THe RINO wing of the party has actually never been weaker.”

    But at this point it’s the RINO wing that controls the party.

  • I have read that many times on conservative sites T. Shaw and it is rubbish. If the Republicans had done nothing severe tax increases would have been imposed on the American public. Now the Republicans have made permanent the Bush tax cuts for 98% of American taxpayers and solved the problem of the Alternative Minimum Tax by having it finally pegged to inflation. In regard to spending cuts I am disappointed but not surprised. With the Democrats in control of the Senate, the best the Republicans can do is to attempt to block new spending and I believe they will do that. So there will be no new trillion dollar “stimulus” and Obama can forget about Congress allocating large funds for new programs. In the wake of an unnerving defeat in November I actually believe the Republicans haven’t done too bad so far.

    Thank you, Donald! I have seen very few conservative commentators make these points, but I agree completely. Of course I would have preferred an even better fiscal cliff deal, but I think that the deal we got is just about the best that anyone should have realistically expected considering we have a Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama in the White House, and considering that the tax cuts were originally implemented with an automatic expiration date.

    If Congress had done nothing, the tax situation would have been much worse. At least many of the Bush tax cuts were extended — and not only temporarily but permanently. Of course, Congress could raise the tax rates in the future, but now the tax rates will not be raised automatically at some point in the future. So as long as conservative Repulicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency, a major tax increase is unlikely.

    I think that the Republican caucus in the House and Senate got the best deal that they could get, and I hope to be able to say the same about the spending battle that is coming up soon.

  • “But at this point it’s the RINO wing that controls the party.”

    Disagree Greg. The only reason Romney was nominated was due to conservatives forming a cirular firing squad, too many no-hopers (Yeah, Michele Bachmann was going to be President.) running and Romney’s cash advantage. If Perry hadn’t self destructed Romney would have gotten an early start on his retirement from politics.

    The GOP controls more states now than at anytime since the twenties. (After the 1976 election the Republicans controlled one state.) Most of those state Republican parties are dominated by conservatives.

  • the thing about the RINO vs. true-blue conservative dichotomy is that it’s not always clear what the latter is supposed to be.

    my view on this may be a little “out-of-touch” in that it’s filtered through certain conservative blogs (not talking this one,) but there seems to be a not-insignificant number of self-proclaimed true-believers who dislike the cultural conservative aspect of the party as much as the RINO consultants. they’re hardcore anti-Obamaites but their conservatism seems to be of a generic anti-government sort. the liberal “Randian right” meme was overdone but it does appear to be true in certain strains of thought, this framing of government as the Great Oppressor, every issue talked about in 10th amendment terms, and no real vision laid out for what an ideal conservative government would do.

    as far as politicians i thought the dichotomy was overdone this last year. i’m not gonna gloss over his chameleon political style but Romney was the best of a weak field. other candidates had flaws that were totally separate from whether they were moderate or conservative, as he did. a “true conservative” would’ve been able to do better than him based on political talent and general appeal, the latter of which doesn’t have to = pivoting to the center.

  • Umm, Donald, the RINOs control the party at the national level and that’s what really counts. Romney get the nomination because he was the next in line. The only reason why Santorum got as far as he did is because he was the last not-Romney standing. He wasn’t even on the radar until after the other not-Romney hopefuls fizzled out.

  • the “RINO” vs. true argument seems to boil down to generic “fight harder” sentiment, not meaningful policy differences (though of course there’s occasional exceptions)

    i roll my eyes at “GOP is sooooo extreme these days” rhetoric but it’s definitely true that the parties have become much more ideologically distinct

  • “Romney get the nomination because he was the next in line.”

    No he got the nomination because he got more votes in the primaries due to a fragmented conservative field, his money advantage and because Rick Santorum could not exercise message discipline.

  • But at this point it’s the RINO wing that controls the party.

    The RINO discourse is silly and should cease. When you are the Republican presidential nominee, you define what an authentic Republican is. The term would not have made sense in any circumstance. Prior to about 1980, the parties had programmatic tendencies, but programmatic preferences were not a boundary condition. There was a difference in priorities, associations, and sensibility that made Thomas E. Dewey distinct from Tip O’Neill; neither was spurious in his affiliations. The odd exception to this was Jacob Javits, who enrolled as a Republican and made his career within the Republican Party at the recommendation of the president of the Hatters Union, who told him he would be more utile to them as a Republican than in any other venue. His preferred affiliation was with the American Labor Party and its successor, the Liberal Party of New York.

    If you can find a politician whose affiliation is purely opportunistic – and Robert Dole did once say he enrolled as a Republican because they exceeded the number of Democrats by a margin of two-to-one in his home county – that would be a RINO. The thing is, who would that be? Olympia Snowe may be an irritant, but her portfolio of expressed preferences would be troublesome to Senate Democratic whips as well. Robert Dole, Capitol Hill apparatchik though he was, was a pure product of the old-line, rural, impecunious bourgeoisie. That social stratum is very foreign to the post-1980 national Democratic Party, and Dole’s most salient preference was a distaste for public-sector borrowing. Mitt Romney is opportunistic, but would an unalloyed opportunist have attempted to build a political career in Massachusetts as a Republican?

  • In the above mindless video, in a low and subdued voice, almost subliminal suggestion, Obama claims to be “like Jesus.” Wish that he were.

  • No he got the nomination because he got more votes in the primaries due to a fragmented conservative field, his money advantage and because Rick Santorum could not exercise message discipline.

    The political parties might consider attempting to rid themselves of the interminable idiot media donnybrook and hold their caucuses and primaries the 3d week of June. Hold the conventions in August and decide the nominee there. We might just be able to break the candidate-centered process and have the selection repair to local elected officials and county chairmen, re-introduce an element of peer review and deliberation into the choice (no more B.O.s), and curtail the advantage the current process gives to knuckleheads inclined to career around Iowa and New Hampshire for 18 hours a day for 18 months to the exclusion of gainful employment. William Scranton’s candidacy in 1964 lasted all of two months. More of that, please.

2 Responses to In the State we Trust

  • I think you might consider relabeling it “Tragedy, Obama Misadminstration”.

    Somehow the humor escapes me.

  • E Pluribus Obama.

    A growing number of this witless ilk thinks that Obama can repay $16 trillion national debt with 16 each, one-ounce US platinum coins with “$1,000,000,000,000” stamped on them; and, of course, Che Guevera’s face on the obverse.

    Actually, that authority is reserved to the Legislative branch: Artivcle I, coining . . .

    Unbelievable as it appears, there is even more glaring evudence of their stupidity: they voted to re-elect the utter failure.

    All this verifies the appellation: “Obama-worshiping imbecile.”

    I desire zeal for the glory of Barry.

    We are in the last chapter of the American Tragedy.

    In Barack We Trust.

A Lazier America

Monday, December 17, AD 2012

 

 

I think that the re-election of Obama will come to be viewed by most Americans as an umitigated disaster in the years to come.  He has been a curse upon this country in so many ways, but perhaps especially in regard to the American character.

 

The London-based Think Tank Legatum Institute recently offered empirical evidence of what many Americans have been thinking lately. Our national well-being is slipping.

Over the past four years, prosperity has increased around the globe, while it has remained stagnant in the United States, the Legatum Institute reports. As a result, the Institute ranked the United States 12th out of 142 countries on its 2012 Prosperity Index, putting the country outside the top ten for the first time.

Go here to read the rest.  The summary of the report in regard to the US makes for depressing reading:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to A Lazier America

  • From John Hinderaker: “For the first time in history, the average Canadian is wealthier than the average American. Canada has a conservative government, and they have passed us like we are standing still. Which we are, at best. . . . Do Barack Obama and his minions want America to be one of the world’s ten most prosperous countries? If you believe, as I do, that actions speak louder than words, the answer is No.”

    Point of Information: The economc/financial crisis ended in 2009. Why, for the past three yrears, are “they” still running up catastrophic, $1.4 trillion annual deficits (fiscal policy); and Fred (monetary policy) is keeping interest rates at zero (negative with inflation), and printing hyper-inflationary, $1 trillion of green confetti a year?

    Even money says we are hurtling toward an economic apocalypse.

    Since 2008, it has been “government of the banks, for the banks and by the banks.”

    Note to self: Sixth Avenue (Canadian Consulate) emigrate to Canada.

  • Losers Psalm #666….
    Very good parody.

  • I think you give Americans too much credit.

  • We are not becoming lazier, we are becoming more godless and a great deal more immoral. The Declaration of Independence is in shambles. The Republic is dead in the water, and those who value freedom better wake up from their lethargy and recover belief in the God our nation once trusted. That is the only answer to all our current problems

  • The economic Utopia this government prepareth for us is a pretty far cry from St. Thomas More’s Utopia. In his, everyone worked or else was shamed by being locked up in solid gold chains. In Obama’s, everyone is offered gold chains or else shamed by being made to work.

  • Thank you, Donald McClarey for this post. It is refreshing to hear clarity: 30% interest is usury. Taxes may not go above 30% before becoming confiscatory, extortion and cruel and unusual punishment according to the Ninth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment for “colonialism” as Dinesh D’Souza says. Distributism is the virtue of Charity imposed by the state. Charity, all virtues, must be voluntary acts of the person’s soul. Either that or it is stolen property being distributed. Even voluntarily donated charity becomes stolen property if the recipient is capable, but refuses out of vice to provide for himself. That recipient becomes the recipient of stolen property extorted or cheated of honest people. Extorted virtues are not conducive to peace and tranquility. Subsidiarity, authentic authority given over to the states, will permit the people to determine how much and what may be done for charity. The Virtue of Charity is the realm of the transcendent and the domain of the human being’s immortal soul, the responsibility of the Church.

  • “cruel and unusual punishment according to the Ninth Amendment” the Ninth Amendment protects rights not inscribed in our founding principles, like subsidiarity. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment like confiscatory fines, penalties and taxes, the penalty must fit the crime. The HHS Mandate defies the Eighth Amendment. Rapacious fines are prohibited in the 8th Amendment. 100% taxes are also prohibited. Being an American citizen protected under the Eighth Amendment prevents deliterious fines and taxes.
    Thanks for listening

Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

Archdiocese launches Campaign for Religious Liberty

Let me explain, in as clear and precise terms as I can, why social conservatives are not going anywhere, nor should they go anywhere, but should remain right at the heart of the conservative movement and gain acceptance among libertarians as well, and should reject as the foolish garbage that it is all suggestions to the contrary.

First, our principles are not electoral losers. Leftists believe they are on “the right side of history”, comparing the campaign for “marriage equality” with every civil rights struggle of past eras. They believe that this fact is reflected in the way the youth vote splits and the purported reasons why. At the same time, they gloat and brag about the size of the Democratic share of the minority vote.

The merits of the “marriage equality” campaign don’t need to be discussed here. I’ve discussed them to death on this blog in previous posts. The fact remains that minorities are opposed to “marriage equality.” If Hispanics can be won over to the GOP on the immigration issue, it will put a stop to this “wrong side of history” nonsense for a generation. The uncomfortable alliance between racial minorities who hold socially conservative views and white liberals will finally be blown apart. Unlike them, when racial minorities finally do side with the GOP en masse, we won’t attribute white liberal hatred for them to “racism” (even though it sure looks like it sometimes). This is a battle of values, not skin colors, and a failure to see that is one of the reasons why the white liberal left will never win the future they mistakenly believe to be theirs.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

  • This is a good post, Bonchamps. This is subject matter in which you are very knowledgeable and very articulate. Thank you.

  • I think this minorities are really social conservatives thing is bunk. When you have aroung 65 to 70% of black children in this country born to sinhle mothers, calling thme social conservatives is grossly ignorant at best. The situation with Hispanics is similar As Heather MacDonald points out:

    “I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

    The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.”

    Now, this is not to say we should jettison social issues. Not at all. Anyone who even has a cursory knowledge of how economics and culture affect one another knows that it would drive the final nail in the GOP coffin if they further capitulated on this issue. After all, the left understands the connection very well, which is why their push for a nanny state has ahd a symbiotic connection with their push for “liberalization” of socila issues.

    As and far as the Akin and Murdoch situations are concerned, the biggest problems weren’t their gaffes but the way the republican party under the leadership of Mitt Romney this election cycle, threw them under the bus.

  • They still come out to vote against gay marriage and still oppose abortion. California Hispanics voted for Prop 8. I think the Church’s influence had a lot to do with this as well.

    Perhaps these positions alone are not sufficient to consider them reliable social conservatives, but it ought to be enough to consider them potential occasional allies. The point is simply that if the outstanding immigration issues are addressed (in a way that does not compromise border security), the real bunk will be found in the line that social issues are what harm the GOP. Hispanics may not be as solid on social conservatism as whites, but white social conservatism will not be a deal breaker for them as it is with white liberals – and really, white liberals alone. Black voters are even more socially conservative than Hispanics.

  • Oh, I do not think that social conservatism hurts the GOP either. In fact, as I said, to operate under that misconcption will be the death knell of the party. It’s just that this idea of minority social conservatism as a means to pander to them vis-avis social conservatism is non sense. What these pro-illegal immigration repulicans are trying to do, in effect, is sell them a knock off item when they can get the real thing at the same or even a cheaper price.

  • I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues. I agree with Greg that this is overblown, but I do note that most elected officials who are Black or Hispanic and Republican tend to be quite solid on the social issues.

    If we can stop illegal immigration, a big if, I think the Hispanic population over time will trend Republican like most immigrant groups if they prosper. Blacks are a much greater problem for the Republicans making inroads but they are a shrinking section of the population, largely due to an atrociously high abortion rate, something that quite a few Black leaders used to be concerned with until quite recently in historical terms.

    One of the factors that may impact on Black allegiance to the Democrat party long term is the shrinking of Black urban centers in the North as Blacks move out to multi-racial suburbs and the South.

  • My point is simply that social issues aren’t a deal breaker for Hispanics. Neutralize the immigration issue and I guarantee you the Hispanic male vote and married vote will break for the GOP, and more women will come along as well. They don’t have to be hardcore social cons and we don’t have to pretend they will be.

    I’m not saying open the borders, either, by the way. But if we address the cartels as the national security menace they are, far beyond a normal criminal problem, we can come to some agreement on the situation within the US.

  • “I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues.”

    I cdertainly blacks and Hispanics in the lower income brackets who vote republican do so mainly because of social issues. Whether or not this is true of blacks and Hipsanics in the upper income brackets do so I don’t know.

    Whether or not we can stop illegal immigration outright is, as Donald says, a big if. But we can secure the border to where we get it under control. Problem is, the federal government, regardless of party, lack the will to do so. To get a good insight into how bad the problem is, particularly in Arizona, I would urge readers to read Jan Brewer’s book, Scorpians for Breakfast. Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.

  • Surely, a fundamental conservative ideal is free and consensual relations between individuals and groups, as expressed in the great Physiocrat principle, “trade knows no frontiers.”

    In other words, the free movement of labour and capital are the conservative default positions. Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

  • In the words of the populist comic strip Pogo, “We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us.”

    “the problem is not with our values, but with their articulation.” That, right there, is the heart of the matter. Why was Reagan popular? He wasn’t nicknamed “The Great Communicator” for nothing!

    [Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]

    It has to start in the primaries, where people will run who don’t give a rat’s patoot whether they win the nomination as long as they get the ideas out there, articulate, principled and clear.

    We must abandon the left’s “groupthink” politics (even as they are being used here) and formulate ideas and propositions, based on principle and character, that can be articulated in such a way as to appeal to individual people as individuals. The Left herds us into groups and then creates issues that put us into contention with each other: Classic “divide and conquer.” That tactic itself needs to be exposed and blared from the rooftops and when opposed, blared even louder. The evidence is damning and the counterpoint automatic.

    Just as a shift from peacetime to war can mean a wholesale change in leadership (remember Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short,) the key now is to identify and “hand out gold watches” to GOP establishment members who can’t get by their shopworn stereotypes and “Ken” doll notions. We did not ask for this war but it is here, “and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    All that need be done is what Bonchamps spells out in the last section. We need warriors who are fully aware of the enemy’s tactics and capabilities. The sine qua non of political candidacy should be an at-minimum-conversational familiarity with Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Clausewitz as well as Scripture. Drop the silver-spoon whitebreads and get some honest to gosh scrappers in there. Stick to policy but pull no punches. Stir up passions! Speak to the people as people and not demographics.

    Like all bullies, the Left is confident only when it thinks its target is cowed and suppliant. It is time to dispel this illusion.

  • Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

    A country is not a hotel. The social and political disruption which would attend open borders would be a nightmare. There are two sorts of countries which can tolerate free immigration:

    1. Societies of migrants with a great deal of unsettled lands (with the proviso that it helps if the migration streams are not from irreconcilable groups).

    2. Countries which are unattractive in which to settle.

  • Art Deco

    In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

    The fundamental neoclassical theory predicts gains from trade in factors of production. Econometric analysis of the dimension of those gains reveals (with regard to trade in labor) the following:

    1. The gains are small
    2. They accrue predominantly to the immigrant populations themselves (the residual to the extant population amounting to around 0.1% of gross domestic product).
    3. The benefit to the extant population is crucially dependent on welfare policy.

    The main brain for this sort of empirical study in this country is George Borjas, who is not an advocate of unrestricted immigration.

    Also, the social and political challenges which derive from ‘diversity’ are not captured in economic statistics.

  • In discussing minorities and values voters, keep in mind that 73% of Catholic Latinos and 95% of black Protestants voted for Obama. They did this knowing, well some of them knew, Obama’s support of infanticide, abortion, gay marriage, anti-religious freedom and secular humanism. These groups may be values voters, but self-interests trump all other interests.

  • Kyle has a point, but it isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports the murder of your unborn children. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports curtailing your most cherished freedoms into the closet while parading filth out in public for your children to emulate. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate whose economic policies keep your people shackled to the public treasury instead of being able to stand up independently without government telling you what to do. Truthfully, I do not think that these people really know what their self-interests are. 🙁 I don’t mean to detract from Kyle’s point – they vote for what they think is in their self-interests, but not for what is really in their self-interests. And then we conservatives are called closed-minded, hateful, intolerant racists because we think its immoral to murder a black or Hispanic baby – or any baby for that matter.

  • “[Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]”

    I’m not sure of what you mean by this question. But the fact of the matter is that Hispanics and blacks are not nearly as socially conservative as those who tell us we need to pander to them are. When you have up to 70% out of wedlock birthrate among blacks and 53% out of wedlock births among Hispanics, you cannot honestly claim that they are predominately socially conservative. Just because you attend Church doesn’t mean you are socially conservative. There are many regualarly mass attending Catholics are not social conservatives.

  • There’s a difference between being a social conservative and being a moral person. I wouldn’t use rates of sin to decide who is and isn’t a social con. If you read Charles Murray’s analysis of white America in “Coming Apart”, he reveals one of the paradoxes of our time: that the poor tend to claim social conservative values while not practicing them in real life, while the wealthy reject social conservative values while actually practicing them in life. He calls upon the new elite to preach what they practice for the benefit of society.

  • By “not practicing,” I would include voting as a practice that has not shown to follow social conservatism some are perceived to espouse. Voting and lifestyles are becoming bedmates. Voting is less driven by what we should do and more driven by what I want. It wasn’t always this way, but more of America is willing to go off the moral cliff. If America showed as much concern for the moral cliff as it does for a hyped up fiscal cliff, there would be no fiscal cliff. But worrying about social values is such a “what’s good for society, the country as a whole” issue. That can’t stand up to the self-interest draw of a fiscal cliff hot topic. That will affect my pocket book!

  • I’m sorry, Bonchamps, but this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. If yu want to support this or that immigration policie, do it on the basis of its merits, not as a means to pander to a particular racial or ethnic group. To do so would kill the GOP.

  • “this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. ”

    What are you talking about? This is my post. I made it the issue.

  • Blacks and Hispanics are much like the “Catholic” vote: an illusion.

    Some people are going to be socially biased against the GOP because they’ve been lied to, and some people just want handouts. It would be much more useful to start sorting people as “cultural democrats” vs “active democrats” and go after votes that way.

    We will not win over people who care more about sex and free money than principles; we already have the people who care more about not killing babies than free money and sex. We need to reach the people who voted for Obama because “that is what decent people do.”

  • Greg: “Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.”

    100% with you there, bro. Dolan is, and has been, incompetent.

    Women on both sides detest him now. The left-leaning women despise him simply because he is a male, and see him as a male that wants to take away their freedom to choose. Faithful women on the right detest him because he has effectively (through is ineffectiveness) stripped us of our freedoms, soon right down to the freedom of a healthcare worker to not perform or assist in abortions and dispensing abortifacients.

    So yes, despise (God forgive me, but this man is not a good shepherd) is the proper word here. And I suspect Our Lady is not real happy with him either, and if Momma ain’t happy…

  • I am very disappointed in Cardinal Dolan and the majority of the USCCB. I had hoped. That his invitation of Obama to the Al Smith dinner was a backfire on Obama, but after seeing photos of him and Obama laughing it up, I was revolted.

  • Tonight’s reading assignment: Mt 9:10-13 or Mk 2:15-17

Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

Monday, November 12, AD 2012

The truth about the Benghazi debacle keeps coming out drip by drip:

1.  Paula Knows-At the beginning of the post we see the alleged mistress of David Petraeus telling an audience at a symposium in late October this bombshell:

 “A group of Delta Force operators are very…the most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and CIA annex that were under attack,” said Ms. Broadwell. “Now I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.”

This is the first I have heard about this.  Was Petraeus sharing highly classified information with his paramour?

2.  Video Schmideo-The above detail from the mouth of Broadwell makes nonsense of the administration claim that the Mohammed video caused this.  That was a lie and the Administration knew it was a lie.

3.  Libyan Prisoners-Libyan prisoners?  What sort of involvement is the administration getting us into in Libya?  The CIA has denied this, but right now I will take the word of the alleged mistress of the former CIA Director over that of the CIA flack who issued the denial.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

  • The scandal deepens. And we have no Cicero.

  • The timing of all this is beyond clumsy. Three days after the election, and a week before Petraeus is to testify? Please. And what did Holder know? The stench is repulsive.

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • 1. Likely pillow-talk obtained classifed information.

    2. This is distraction from the dastardly roles Obama, Clinton, et al played in refusing to save the ambassador and the others.

    3. They Were Expendable.

    4. “I will not lie, cheat or steal; nor tolerate those that do.” BARF

    5. Four more years of apologies, appeasements, lies (“sworn to” by the academy and the media), and surrenders.

    6. It don’t mean nothing.

  • I’ll give you that the Administration orchestrated a delay in his resignation for purely political ends. However, I don’t see the benefit to the Administration, with regards to Benghazi, by his resignation. Doesn’t he still have to testify before Congress?

    The Benghazi story is far from being told and I’m sure it will not reflect well on the Administration (they haven’t crowed about it so there is something disqueting that they’d rather not have revealed). However, I’m not willing to read into Petreaus’ resignation at this point. It looks like a conjunction of unrelated events.

  • The problem G-Veg is that we still do not have a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in regard to Benghazi to judge how this Petraeus resignation plays out, and we do not know, yet, what other factors may be in play as to all of this. Benghazi may be a distraction for other things that Petraeus knows that he may reveal under questioning. The other thing I can’t fathom is why keep him on as CIA Director for several months. Surely the political risk of having Petraeus resign in the summer for example would have been minimal.

  • I think the answer lies in the exclusive focus on polls and campaigning throught his first term.

    Perhaps none of this makes sense because we are looking at it through the lens of governance rather than campaigning. Without a pesky media presence, there was no risk that keeping corrupt figures would blow up before the election and that made Holder, Napolitano, and Petreaus known quantities and their mistakes fairly harmless… Unless they weren’t under thumb that is.

  • Do you think the Roman citizen on the dole cared about the shenanigans of the emperor and his cronies in far off places? The deaths of the four may be criminally negligent and grotesque but Obama voters don’t care in any meaningful way. They care about the dole or about bureaucratic jobs dispensing the dole.

    In other words, this is not going to be a political game changer although Obama’s poll numbers may briefly go down a few points (46% vs 49%).

  • Poor analogy Rozin. Only a small minority of the Roman people were ever on the Dole, almost entirely located in the City of Rome, and by the Empire the mob in Rome had lost any political significance in any case.

    Oh, Benghazi alone won’t cause Obama that much of a problem, although his attempted cover up might. However, if Obama’s second term follows the usual pattern it will be the first of many scandals. Tie that in with a bad economy, and ever increasing, and clearly unsustainable deficits, and I think the draining of Obama’s support will continue apace.

  • I hope that the revelation of scandals continues to the point where even a Democratic Senate cannot ignore the need for impeachment.

  • I forgot too add: “drip – drip – drip”. It there are enough drips, then the bucket will fill.

  • A lot of hand wringing leading to naught except maybe the loss of an underling job or two. The general public doesn’t care. The GOP doesn’t have the courage or fortitude to take it where it needs to go.

    Net result: Noise and flashing lights to entertain conservatives.

  • I believe that was what was said about the Congressional post office scandal before 1994. Large events often have small beginnings.

  • I agree that the GOP lacks the intestinal fortitude for a fight and I’d add that even where thay have gone to battle, it feels inept…

    Why is that? I wonder if part of the problem isn’t that the GOP doesn’t want to take really significant shots at this Imperial Presidency because they want to preserve those unconstitutional powers wrested from Congress for when they re-take the Executive Branch.

    Let me state it differently:

    The Constitution places the Legislative Branch in the steongest position, resting the most significant powers of government in its hands. The Executive Branch is made equal to the Legislative Branch through its power to appoint judges and Justices.

    Over the last 20 years or so, we have seen Congress diminish and the Executive assume greater authority. Boehner said the pther day “we (meaning Congress) need to be led. And Congress after Congress has sat back and let the Executive direct them. In essence, Congress has turned the Balance of Powers on its head, treating the president like he is a Prime Minister and our system as though it was designed to be parliamentarian.

    Why? I fear that the answer is because both parties have concluded that this is as it should be and that striking back and taking back Legislative authority would cut them off from those same unlawful tools when they assume the power of President. Thus, their concern between presidential elections is solely to set the groundwork for their party’s attempt to win the Presidential election, not to govern themselves.

  • I wish it was 1994.

    Whatever become of the constitutional scandal, the Obama recess appointments? I see the GOP is right on top of it.

    Go get’em GOP!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20GyC5ysyqU

    Meanwhile, the top dog, Obama, and his mutts press on with ruining a people and a nation.

  • It is hard to claim the high ground with dirty hands. We need to get our house straight and reclaim a solid, constitutional basis for governance before we can articulate a constitutionally sound plan for reclaiming America.

    As long as we are willing to say or do anything o get power, our party will lack the legitimacy and Providence to win. God does not empower the bad unless it is to correct the reclaimable. He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.

  • “He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.”

    It is always good to act rightly in the eyes of God. I would not take that as either a necessary factor, or a dispositive factor, for political success, as the ways of God are often inscrutable when it comes to secular matters. As Lincoln said, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”

  • Mr McClarey,

    I didn’t want to clutter up a post with the factoids you added. You are making the point not disputing it. The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire. It was the provincials not on the dole who took over both militarily as emperors and bureaucratically as with the rapid expansion of the equestrian class in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

    However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing. It started out in the inner cities but the Left realized that was a loser particularly after Reagan. So now we have the (unmentionable) percentage either on the dole or bureaucratically dispensing it. NV and CA have very high unemployment yet happily voted for Obama. CA even got rid of the few Repubs left in the state because they are so happy with the job the Dems are doing. Europe has had chronically high unemployment for decades but is staunchly socialist. (And why is it you salute the House post office scandal rather than Hillarycare and tax hikes as the reason for Repub majorities? Absent the post office scandal what difference would it have made?)

  • Here is an aspect of the e-mail investigation that I don’t understand: Why did the FBI continue looking into it at all?

    Donald linked (in #5 above) to a Slate article, which had linked to a Washington Post article. The Washington Post article says, law enforcement officials interviewed “said the e-mails were ‘threatening and harassing’ but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges.”

    So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?

    And, once it was traced back to Broadwell – still assuming that there was nothing warranting criminal charges – why go through all of Broadwell’s personal, private email that exposed the Petraeus link?

    If the original anonymous emails weren’t threatening enough for criminal charges, how did this investigation continue from the get-go?

    I’m not trying to claim that there is a hidden agenda behind the email investigation … yet. I really don’t understand how it went from “not enough to warrant criminal charges” to “let’s go through Broadwell’s personal, private email account”.

    Maybe someone with a good understanding of how investigations of cyberstalking work can explain it to me?

  • “So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?”

    The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

  • “The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire.”
    That is because Italy under the Empire as a whole contributed few men to the Roman legions. The greatest role played by the mob of Rome in Roman affairs coincided with the advent of the dole in the late second century and the first century before Christ when the Roman poor formed the “head-count” armies of Marius, prior to that time they had been considered to be too poor to be enlisted, and took boisterous, and often murderous, part in elections in Rome. After the military dictatorship of Augustus was firmly established the elections still took place but they were meaningless since Augustus controlled the legions and thus the state. None of this history fits very well with the jeremiads launched against “bread and circuses” by modern day conservatives since the fall of the Republic had virtually nothing to do with the dole and everything thing to do with the competition of aristocrats which led to endless civil wars and the breakdown of the old Republican order.

    Our modern welfare states are a different matter altogether and we live in a time when they are manifestly breaking down for lack of funds. Rather than marking the beginning of a new order, Obama and his expansion of the welfare state is the last gasp of a reactionary societal model that is nearing its end.

  • The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

    Thanks, Donald. That answers a question I had. So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal, some judge decided to allow the FBI to search a private email account.

    If the threshold is that low, then what’s to stop the FBI/local law enforcement searching someone’s email account for a “harassing” comment in a blog comment? Nothing criminal, mind you; just “harassing”.

  • “So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal,”

    No it was not clear to the Judge or a warrant would not have been issued. Here we have an anonymous individual making threats to an innocent third party. It would not take much for a judge under these circumstances to agree that the FBI should be allowed to investigate futher to determine the identity of the anonymous person and whether they posed a danger to the third party. If charges were pressed the Defendant could attempt to challenge the warrant on any number of grounds including lack of probable cause.

  • Well, I understand what you’re saying, but I think there’s more to the story than that.

    The Washington Post story says that “three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode” determined the threats weren’t specific enough for criminal charges. So, why ask for a warrant?

    As your update indicates, we’re at the tip of the iceberg.

    Thanks for indulging my questions, and for a very informative (and entertaining) blog.

  • With respect Don, I do not agree with your assessment if by your statement you mean that God does not extend or withhold his favor from peoples in accordance with His Plan.

    Perhaps I misread you though.

    Certainly Washington believed that Providence was visited upon the nation at her inception. Given the extraordinary turns of events, it is not difficult to see the hand of God in the twists of history that brought our Republic into being.

    If you mean that we can’t see whoch events are providential and which are not, I entirely agree. But, that we can’t see His actions hardly indicates that they are not present.

    Again, the Old Testament repeats he tale of God showering Grace on a people while the acknowledge Him and then withdrawing His blessings when they set Him aside. I see the same pattern over the last 2000 years in the West.

  • I tend to take a rather Job-like view of the purposes and actions of God G-Veg:

    “42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

    2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

    3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

    4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

    5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

    6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

    That God has His purposes I am sure. That in studying History I find these purposes often obscure to me, I am also sure. When it comes to God faith is always my guide when my discernment fails me.

  • Donald is right again. However, in spite of all its inaccuracy, I like how The Message translation renders this section of Sacred Scripture:

    42 1-6 Job answered God:

    “I’m convinced: You can do anything and everything.
        Nothing and no one can upset your plans.
    You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water,
        ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’
    I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me,
        made small talk about wonders way over my head.
    You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking.
        Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’
    I admit I once lived by rumors of you;
        now I have it all firsthand—from my own eyes and ears!
    I’m sorry—forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise!
        I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.”

  • However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing.

    Federal welfare expenditure can be categorized as follows (approximately):

    44% cash pensions for the elderly and disabled
    24% medical benefits for the elderly and disabled
    9% medical benefits for the generally impecunious
    5% financing of nursing home care
    5% temporary unemployment compensation
    13% various

    The burgeoning of this sort of expenditure is driven by demographic factors and some of the unfortunate effects of poorly structured programs on the way the medical sector does business. These problems can be addressed, but first someone has to be willing to tell the public that first-dollar coverage of medical expenses is not economically sustainable.

    It is really the last category above which is socially problematic, and, no, it was not ‘growing rapidly’ until the advent of the current administration. The most problematic programs (public housing and cash doles for women with bastard children) are a good deal less consequential than was the case a generation ago (enrollment in TANF was at one point one-third in number enrolled in its predecessor program 15 years ago, in spite of the increase in population in the interim).

  • G.K. Chesterton said ”once abolish the God and the government becomes god.” I am not the first to note that many in the West have replaced God with government. Certainly putting one’s faith in government is as much a violation of the First Commandment as putting faith in wealth or intellect or strength is. I am suggesting that the Bible contains ample evidence that a people is as beholden to God as any individual and that individually or collectively, we rebel against God at our own peril.

    The Psalms affirm the idea that there is a relationship between a people’s faithfulness and God’s Providence. (E.g. see Ps. 5, 33, and 67) This was true in the beginning for we see in Genesis, God making covenants with Abraham to give him a blessed people – not only to bless him individually if he followed God’s commands but that his progeny would benefit from his faithfulness. In Gen. 39, we see this promise continued in Joseph. God blesses the people because of Joseph’s faithfulness.

    It isn’t just a tangential concept either. It is an idea at the center of the salvation story. God is explicit in the connection between a people’s faithfulness and His blessings in Deuteronomy 7:13 and in Deut. 8 the consequences of forgetting Him. In the New Testament we see Providence bestowed in abundance on the fledgling church because of their faithfulness.

    In Acts 2: 46-47 we are told that “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” because of the behavior of the Church. This fits Christ’s promise in Matthew 6:33 that if we seek “first the kingdom of God” he will provide everything we need, echoing Zechariah 3:7-9. Again and again in the Bible we are told that, if a people follows God’s laws they will be blessed. (Jeremiah 7:5-7) We are even told that we can reclaim His favor by turning from sin – as a people mind ye – for “if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land.” (2 Chron. 7-14) The whole point of Jonah is precisely this and Ninevah avoids Sodom’s fate by turning from evil as a community.

    All I’m saying is that we cannot, as a people, directly push God away and still expect everything to be OK. It doesn’t work that way.

An Admiral and Two Generals

Saturday, November 10, AD 2012

 

 

Well, I have to hand it to the Obama administration.  Obama reelected on Tuesday, they are already getting a start on the scandals that tend to plague most second term Presidents.  The resignation of CIA Director, retired General David Petraeus, over an alleged affair, a week before he was to testify before a Senate committee on Benghazi, brings to three the number of high-ranking officers connected with Benghazi, or its aftermath, who have seen their careers abruptly cut short.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group in the Mediterranean in late October.  Such a removal is unprecedented.  The Navy denies that the removal was in regard to Benghazi, and indeed the Stennis was in the Pacific on 9/11/12.   However the Navy has issued a fairly cryptic statement that the removal was for “inappropriate leadership judgment” during the deployment of the Stennis to the Middle East and has stressed that this does not involve any improper personal conduct by the Admiral.  All very mysterious.

The Combatant Commander of Africa Command  on 9/11/12, General Carter F. Ham abruptly retired on October 18.  Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz reported that in an interview he had with General Ham in Libya that the General told him that in regard to the Benghazi attach he had never been asked to provide military assistance.  The internet is ablaze with rumors that General Ham attempted to send assistance to Benghazi during the attack and was told to stand down.  Thus far the General has remained mum.

In regard to General Petraeus there are many questions.  Allegedly the  affair came to light months ago when the FBI caught his alleged paramour attempting to access his e-mails.  One might be curious as to why the FBI was involved in this and the answer is quite simple.  The FBI and the CIA have been at war with each other since the creation of the CIA’s predecessor the OSS in World War II and routinely keep track of the higher-ups in each organization.  (Yeah, I know:  our tax dollars at work.)  Apparently the affair has been known for at least several months, and I find it hard to believe that both the CIA and the FBI did not know of the affair before Petraeus was onfirmed as CIA Director, the background checks for such a position being extremely comprehensive.  This all raises the question as to why the affair triggers a resignation now.  His wife Holly works for the White House and unless she was in the dark on the affair, and considering how gossipy the military community tends to be I find that hard to believe, presumably the affair was known at the White House.

Petraeus is up to his arm pits in Benghazi, having denied that it was the CIA that failed to provide military assistance to the two brave Seals, Ty Woods and Greg Doherty, who died heroically leading the defense at Benghazi.  Now that he is retired, his deputy Mike Morell will testify next week.  Eventually I assume Petraeus will also testify, he has indicated post resignation that he is eager to testify, but now the story in much of the Mainstream Media will be pertaining to his affair rather than to his testimony.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to An Admiral and Two Generals

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.

  • I think it will eventually. Too many people know pieces of the story regarding Benghazi for a coverup to succeed longterm, although it did get Obama through election day with the help of the lapdog Mainstream Media.

  • Oh, all of it will come out, but nothing will harm Obumbler. Nothing Clinton did ever hurt him. Democrats have a license to lie, cheat and steal.

    There are other rumors and reports around saying that Obumbler wants to sign on to a UN treaty that effectively bans private ownership of guns. Any treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 Senate vote. Let him try it.

  • Morning’s copy book is all over the ‘extra-marital’ affair for its good readers. Gen. Ham was inside small print. I don’t actually read it, and would cancel if my mother didn’t, so I missed the Admiral story.

    Transparency has a new dimension. It is obvious that these men are not convenient for the Benghazi hearing on the terrorist attack of 9/11/12 so out with them, no – wait, I mean, ‘how can this immorality be allowed in such a moral government’ and ‘we need people who work the way we work for the … country’. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder now.

    The words ‘affair’ and ‘extra-marital’ are good to deflect those who may wonder, with the added bonus of good posture for those who cheat, lie, and steal.

    Imagine the laughing that goes along with this plan or someone saying, that’s the ticket – an affair!. The copy book writers seem more mindless than ever.

  • Penguins Fan,

    Snopes provides information which disagrees with what you wrote about the UN Small Arms Treaty, resolutions on which you can find here:

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

    Snopes specifically states:

    The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by “tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons” in order to “close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.” The text of the proposed treaty specifically “reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,” so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
    No such treaty could “bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,” as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
    The President of the United States cannot enact a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

    Please read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#BKvhTE3UaFA2sjyz.99 

    I myself own a mini-14 rifle. I bought it after Obama’s first election. I had never wanted to own a firearm, but with the rise of “National Democracy”, I thought I should take advantage of my Second Amendment right. I have used the rifle only once or twice at a firing range. Perhaps when my left leg heals from my recent quadriceps detachment accident I will be able to use it in hunting deer, but that won’t be till next year. Outside of the shooting range and hunting, I hope for no use of the rifle (well, I will teach my children how to care for, handle and shoot the rifle, but that will be at the firing range). I truly do not see how the UN can outlaw such ownership and peaceful use of firearms. Private ownership of fully automatic weapons and sensible regulation of revolvers and other small handguns are a different matter. Let’s keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of honest citizens.

  • i never used to think of myself as suspicious, but I changing I guess. I have read that an Illinois politician who Obama needed out of the way was suddenly discovered to have had an illicit affair and O then won that election handily.. that this kind of thing has occurred more than once.

  • That was two politicians Anzlyne: Blair Hull in the Democrat primary for the Senate nomination in 2004, who was expected to win, was effectively knocked out of the race by the Chicago Tribune, at the behest of the Obama campaign, getting his divorce records unsealed. The same exact slimy tactic was then used against his Republican opponent Jack Ryan, who had been married to Jeri Ryan, the Borg Babe on Star Trek Voyager. Ryan dropped out as a result and was replaced by Allan Keyes, who I voted for, and who even I was convinced was crazy by the end of the Senate race. Keyes got 30%.

  • Don, there is nothing “alleged” about it, the general admitted to it. My theory is Petraeus quit to avoid falling on his sword for the so-called intelligence failures of the spooks. Same thing happened with Dubya when he blamed “faulty” intelligence by the CIA on Iraq nukes, which gave him cover when no WMD’s were found. Remember, the CIA has always been the President’s “private army.” Whenever something goes wrong, as it did in Benghazi, it’s not the general who gets the blame but the grunts.

  • There is much that remains “alleged” about it including the identity of the person he had the affair with. Until she confirms it I will keep the “alleged” firmly in place.

  • I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.

  • good one Phillip

  • “I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.”

    The man who saved Obama’s hide in the last election, Bill Clinton, could probably direct the President to some of the female officials who have had affairs.

  • I doubt BIll Clinton will incriminate himself in revealing those women who had heterosexual affairs lest he be so implicated. 😉

    As for the rest who may not be heterosexually inclined and who engaged in affairs, such disclosure would be met with all approval and accolade for a “coming out of the closet” by both Administration and News Media alike. 😉

    Sexual promiscuity is accepted – even welcomed – except when it is a tool to be used to smear an otherwise impeccable record of honesty and attention to duty, hence the situation in which General Petraeus finds himself. Even if the confession of an extra-marital affair is correct, why is it not as forgiveable as the adultery that William Jefferson Clinton committed in the public light with Monica Lewinsky, and his subsequent lying about it to the entire nation? That is a rhetorical question and requires no answer.

  • Thought provoking isn’t it? this kind of thing would provide no leverage at all for O against the C’s should he want to get them out of play.

    Paul FirstTruth is right– nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff– it doesn’t matter.

  • “nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff”

    It’s only significant to the Left because they feel believers are conservative or at least Republicans and they can make political hay. I have heard several Dems brag about it quite openly with me. They said “our guys have no standards to meet unlike your guys. That’s a big advantage. It doesn’t matter what they do or how they lie.” I asked one, “If they are willing to lie to the public why wouldn’t they lie to you as well” Silence.

  • Anzlyne, you are correct. If a 30 year old priest is accused of a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s all over the News Media as priestly sex abuse and pedophilia. if a 30 year old actor actually does have a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s called consensual sex that we have to approve of in order to demonstrate our tolerance and kindness and Christian charity. I for one am disgusted and depressed and angry. Did General Petraeus screw up? Possibly, but unlike William Jefferson Clinton, he did the manly thing and confessed in contrition, something no godless depraved Democrat is capable of doing. Ok, no more ranting. Let’s pray for General Petraeus:

    Hail Mary, full of grace
    The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women
    And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God,
    Pray for us sinners
    Now and at the hour of our death.

    Lord Jesus,
    Please remember General Petraeus
    And be with him in his hour of need.
    Please be merciful and forgive the contrite heart,
    And bring to justice the real evil doers.
    Amen!

  • Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.

  • “Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.”

  • Pingback: SUNDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • The MSM is unlikely to present a coherent pcture until it doesn’t matter or at least until after others have forced their hand. We saw this in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Cold War. Fellows who for all practical purposes were either on the other side or indifferent developed all manner of scruples that led them to denounce Communism, and proclaim the virtues of the free market with religious freedom for all. When in the name of these same values Messrs Regnery, Encounter and the Hoover Institute among others published accounts of life under communism and drew attention to the actvities of their supporters and fellow-travellersin the West , they were dismissed according the prevailing fashion as CIA think-tanks, antisemites or imperialists. It appears that we are now in a repeat of the Pravda years, where those would like to be informed have to flter and piece together factoids from RT, AlJazeera and the fringe press.

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.
    Paul W. Primavera

    Hope really hard. Senate Democrats enjoy tremendous powers of ignorance.