I Might As Well Turn Myself In Now

Saturday, February 28, AD 2015

WantedThese Right-Wing Extremists

 

Back during the eighties, Time-Life used to advertise their series on the Civil War with an advertisement showing a Civil War soldier with his rifle pointed at the viewer.  The caption of the picture was stark and true:  If the battle of Gettysburg were fought today, you would be the enemy.

I found that slightly chilling in a historical nerd way.  Much more chilling is that documents are in circulation by our government that designate many of us as enemies of the state.  Go here to Doug Ross @ Journal to read the below article by Michael Snyder who has done yeoman service in compiling the list linked to documents in which government officials give the tell tale signs of those Americans engaging in unpermitted free speech:

Continue reading...

30 Responses to I Might As Well Turn Myself In Now

  • The fish rots from the head down. Barack Obama has never shown much evidence of critical engagement with opposition viewpoints, which is telling because his civilian occupations involved turning ideas over in his head. His civilian occupations were law and academe, though not notably committed to performing in either realm. Academe is shot through with people who hardly converse with anyone who would question their worldview and fancy that people who might are stupid or refractory. Recall Robert Bork’s assessment of John Paul Stevens: an amiable man whose life was marked by comprehensive social and psychological insularity. Now look at newsrooms. There was a recent assessment done of the Twitter following habits of New York Times employees the upshot of which was that about 90% of them follow no one who might be expected to have an opinion at a variance with the bog standard New York Times employee. The President arrives from and is succored by subcultures composed of smug people who fancy their critics are engaged in classroom disruption and contempt of court.

  • Item 57 includes anyone who is anti-nuclear in the list of extremists and potential terrorists. Its placement here derives from pages 14 and 20 within the document entitled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008,” by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). These pages within the document refer to single issue groups which are defined as “groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.” The label “anti-nuclear” does not differentiate between “anti-nuclear power” and “anti-nuclear weapons.” There is a significant difference between the two. One can be anti-nuclear weapons and yet be pro-nuclear power, given the megatons to megawatts program (which converted weapons-grade uranium into fuel for commercial nuclear power plants) that Russia and the US used to have before Putin’s escalation of hostilities in Ukraine. The START report, in using the label “anti-nuclear” generically and without regard with detail, promotes confusion.
    .
    Now that said, I have dealt with anti-nuclear power activists in the past (Norm Cohen of Unplug Salem, Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Paul Blanch of Energy Consulting, etc). Not a one of these individuals is a terrorist or even close to being a terrorist. Oh God forgive me for defending an anti-nuclear power activist, but in my experience the one thing which characterizes the majority of these people is left-wing pacifism. I vehemently disagree with them. I think what they are doing is very, very wrong for the country. But they are NOT terrorists, nor can I condemn them for being extremist since I am oppositely extremist.
    .
    As for anti-nuclear weapons activists, they tend to be a horse of a different color as evidenced by 84 year old Sister Megan Rice who last year (I think) broke into a nuclear weapons complex. Regardless of her age, that woman should be locked up indefinitely not because she is a terrorist but because what she did was dangerous to herself and others around her.
    .
    Now article 2314 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church does say:
    .
    Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.
    .
    To all those who cite such an article in the Catechism as defense of anti-nuclearism, will you support the down-blending of weapons grade uranium and plutonium into low enriched or mixed oxide fuel for commercial nuclear reactors, converting weapons into electricity and forever making the fuel unavailable for destructive use?
    .
    Or will you rant and rave “no nukes, no nukes” without providing a solution that eliminates weapons of mass destruction while providing low cost, clean, inexpensive electrical power for the benefit of humanity?
    .
    I will wager that most Catholics, having been so poorly catechized in this post Vatican II environment and knowing little to no science and engineering, will sadly opt for Sister Megan Rice’s idiotic and dangerous response.
    .
    🙁
    .
    Yes, I am extremist, and proudly so. I always have been and I always shall be.

  • Stopped counting when I ran out of fingers to count. I truly don’t recognize my country any more.

  • This isn’t the country that I grew up in…not even close.

  • Perhaps I should be typing this under a pseudonym and from an undisclosed location. It would be easier to count the inapplicable categories. Analogous to an individual person, America has lost her faith. She is in danger of being led by devils and losing her soul. How do we save her?

  • Perhaps I should be typing this under a pseudonym and from an undisclosed location.

    The NSA already knows who and where you are.

    Fortunately, they’re mostly preoccupied with online porn and snooping on celebrities, significant others, exes, etc., etc. to know that they know.

  • “The NSA already knows who and where you are.” Yes Ernst. I know they know and they know I am an old duffer about whom they have little concern. This is despite my falling under so many categories of their alleged concern. I think the list is established as a sort of fictional foundation – an artifice – for the creation of unprecedented bases of probable cause. (Donald: I invite your informed comment, as no lawyer am I. I am merely Irish and you are both.)

  • Not only are we all terrorists, each of us likely violated two or three laws or regulations this day.

  • At least that of crimethink. I’m probably guilty of that often. For me, the chore is to “be angry but do not sin”. Next Sunday we’ll hear John’s telling of Christ’s cleansing of the Temple, a reminder that if some things do not make one angry. one is a lukewarm drink of water. Of course there are limits to anger. A just person uses his temper, while the unjust one loses it. Whether one loves is an intellectual decision. Whether one likes is an emotional response. If I were to say that I do not despise the dictator. I merely find him to be despicable. I describe an emotion beyond my control, not a decision to despise anyone. Or is that a fine Jesuitical distinction? 🙂

  • I almost posted the link to the 72 above on your post a few days ago re: Osama’s (misspelled on purpose) definition of a terrorist that came out of their recent summit of “violent extremism.”

  • At this point in our nation’s history, if you are not on some government “nut” list, you should truly be ashamed of yourself!

    I know I am after the letters (emails) I have sent to former Arkansas Senators Blank (misspelled on purpose) Lincoln and Mark Prior (misspelled on purpose)–as well as President Osama. I have told all of them that I hope that god brings them to account for taking money from me and using it murder children through abortion. To their ilk, those comments label me as a REAL nutjob

  • They only truly become concerned about those of us who actively & publicly stand up against them or seem to be effectively doing so. Then out comes the gov’t baseball bat.

  • A plain example of this is when the IRS began actively using its power to work against conservative groups that potentiqlly were impacting elections nationally. Wham! The IRS took at the baseball bat & pulled out all of the stops to hinder their political enemies.

  • Bring it on!
    I’m ready you gov’t. cowards.
    “Give me freedom or give me death!”
    The traitor will perish, but those who strength is found in God and of God will never die.
    Bring it on!

  • America is an ideal, not a homeland. At some point we as a people became bored with the wonderful and exciting experiment known as ordered liberty. Now we are simply living in a place we call America, in a progressive ideal of socialist order and, for now, soft stifling relentless tyranny…..and most of our fellow citizens rather enjoy it.

  • Barbara Gordon wrote, “To their ilk, those comments label me as a REAL nutjob.”
    With a name like Gordon, you really should not be using “ilk” to mean “sort” or “type.”
    It means “same,” as in the old poem:
    “The cap he wore was crimson red,
    And of that ilk his morning gown.”
    Or in the Parable of the Talents: “He wha had gotten the five talents gaed, an’ coft an’ trocked wi’ that ilk.”
    Maitland of that ilk = Maitland of Maitland (Scots Law required that every landowner be designated by his fief; a tacksman leasing the lands of Maitland would be Smith at Maitland.)

  • MPS, it’s not Mrs. Gordon’s fault that you’re not familiar with American idiom.

  • Oh well! What’s a misplaced idiom among friends? Our greatest concern is with the idiocy in our present public policy. We may need to change the national anthem to: “By the sea, by the sea, by the idiocy”.

  • Here I am Lord. I come to do your will.
    .
    On Saturday, February 28, on EWTN at 6:30 P.M. Heroic Media presented the fact that scientists have determined that the female egg chooses which one, and the only ONE, of the millions of sperm she will allow to enter and fertilize her. Awesome, the female has a right to choose. Of course, this was only after the woman became a wife and invited (see the word “invited”? “Invited” means to bring into life.) her husband, who was busy husbanding, to offer himself up to father.
    .
    Hey fellas, your mom wanted you and only you, and nobody else but you. Yes, the male sperm is a body, a human body part, as is the female ovum, a human body part that cannot be patented, bought or sold. Your mother wanted the unique person who would be fertilized and become you, only you, nobody else, no other, but you.
    .
    According to Rebecca Taylor at Mary Meets Dolly in her blog Meet Gracie Crane, a snowflake baby, there are 44,000 IVF children in the UK whose mother did not get a chance to choose but were forced into human bondage by a scientific experiment.
    .
    The more we learn the closer we get to nature. Saint Thomas Aquinas was given many graces but he, too, believed that the whole and entire human being, a microscopic child, was encapsulated in the male sperm and was placed in the womb. Many people today believe this error. Roe v. Wade did not believe that the sovereign person did exist in the human being at fertilization. A little over a century ago, scientists learned about the female egg. Now scientists have learned that the female egg chooses who she will allow to fertilize her and bring forth a unique individual human being with sovereign personhood. The human being cannot be alive without his soul and his will to survive, his free will, intellect and his right to life.
    .
    It follows, that, if the female egg cannot find an appropriate suitor among the millions of sperm surrounding her, then, she will suffer death and pass. This cannot happen when the scientist punctures the female ovum and inserts the sperm with a hypodermic needle. The scientist removes the natural course of events, denies the human soul and the female ovum’s right to choose whom she will entertain as the father of her child. This reduces the human being to a piece of merchandise to be manipulated at will…the will of the scientist. Not unlike Hitler’s youth camps that forced young people to generate more Aryans. Without God, “We, the people” are doomed.
    .
    “We, the people” are here because our fathers went searching and our mothers chose. Awesome.

    .
    An ASPCA ad recently promised “eternal love” from an animal, this was a dog, if a donor gives $18 a month. How does a finite dog give eternal love?

  • Add the marching band of The Immaculate Heart of Mary School to the list. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1NOW12AI20150227?irpc=392

    Courage to do what an Archbishop couldn’t, or wouldn’t do. God bless the school and the children.

    Homosexuality is a disorder.
    Love the sinner….

  • I read about the marching band Philip- and what the band director (Brother Peter Mary) said:
    “It’s not a matter of intolerance, we’re not intolerant because we reach out to these people,” Brother Mary said, “but in an official capacity, there has to be some type of line or else people don’t know the difference between error and truth or morality and immorality, or any particular thing that would put them in a state of compromise where we want to actually help them to save their soul or become better or more virtuous citizens of this country and of the church.”
    Very good. The Brother is an example of fearlessness for us all. We are all going to end on one “list” or the other. I hope I end up on same roll call as Brother Peter Mary.

  • Amen Anzlyne!
    I hope I’m as courageous as Bro. Peter Mary and the young ones defending Holy Churches position.
    A line indeed…for the salvation of souls.

  • Mary De Voe asks; “How does a finite dog give eternal love?”

    ……oh please don’t hate me for this…..

    Answer: Doggie ( style ) 🙁 bad Phil bad Phil.

  • Philip: Doggie (style) Good Phil, Good Phil.

  • “Barbara Gordon wrote, ‘To their ilk, those comments label me as a REAL nutjob.’ With a name like Gordon, you really should not be using “ilk” to mean ‘sort’ or ‘type.’l

    Uh. I didn’t post that comment anywhere.

  • Lol. I apologize. I finally found where I DID post those comments. 😀

  • “An ASPCA ad recently promised ‘eternal love’ from an animal, this was a dog, if a donor gives $18 a month. How does a finite dog give eternal love?”

    Mary, the ASPCA has been taking over by the same “ilk” of animal rights extremists as most other major US animal rights organizations (like the Humane Society of the US.). Those folks truly believe that a dog= a human. They believe animals have souls & spirits. NO I am not kidding.

  • MPS wrote: “Barbara Gordon wrote, ‘To their ilk, those comments label me as a REAL nutjob.” With a name like Gordon, you really should not be using “ilk” to mean ‘sort’ or ‘type.’ It means “same,” as in the old poem”

    Dude. Ilk does mean the same in American usage. It usually means the same type.

    http://grammarist.com/words/ilk/

    PS. The name of Gordon, of which I am very proud, came from my father. Interestingly enough, my father was a combination Scottish, Irish, & Cherokee (native American.) I have strictly English & German heritage from my mother. (semi-typical American combo! Lol)

  • Barbara Gordon wrote, “The name of Gordon, of which I am very proud…”
    As well you might be. Famous throughout Scottish history, at the Reformation, the Gordons remained the principle Catholic clan in the North-East Highlands (along with the Leslies, Irvines and Setons); their traditional enemies, the Forbes, along with the Keiths, Frasers and Crichtons sided with the Reformers, leading to many a foray and raid.
    The 2nd Duke was “out” in the Jacobite rising of 1715 and fought at Sheriffmuir and, in the ’45, Lord Lewis Gordon raised two Jacobite regiments that distinguished themselves at the battles of Inverurie, Falkirk and on the fatal field of Culloden.
    I am myself of immigrant stock; the Seymours originate from St-Maur-des-Fossés in the Île-de-France.
    On my mother’s side, an ancestor of mine, Susan Gardner (Sabia Begum) married Mirza Anjan Shikoh, son of Shahzada Mirza Suleiman Shikoh of the Delhi Imperial Family. He was the grandson of Padshah-e Hind (Emperor of India) Jalal ad-Din Abu´l Mozaffar Mohammad Ali Gauhar Shah Alam II (1759/1788). That makes me a lineal descendent of Genghis Khan.

The Old Issue

Thursday, November 20, AD 2014

 

“Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets,
“Many feet have worn it and the road is old indeed.
“It is the King—the King we schooled aforetime !”
(Trumpets in the marshes—in the eyot at Runnymede!)

“Here is neither haste, nor hate, nor anger,” peal the Trumpets,
“Pardon for his penitence or pity for his fall.
“It is the King!”—inexorable Trumpets—
(Trumpets round the scaffold at the dawning by Whitehall!)

.     .     .     .     .

“He hath veiled the Crown and hid the Sceptre,” warn the Trumpets,
“He hath changed the fashion of the lies that cloak his will.
“Hard die the Kings—ah hard—dooms hard!” declare the Trumpets,
Trumpets at the gang-plank where the brawling troop-decks fill!

Ancient and Unteachable, abide—abide the Trumpets!
Once again the Trumpets, for the shuddering ground-swell brings
Clamour over ocean of the harsh, pursuing Trumpets—
Trumpets of the Vanguard that have sworn no truce with Kings!

All we have of freedom, all we use or know—
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw—
Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law.

Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.

Till our fathers ‘stablished, after bloody years,
How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

So they bought us freedom—not at little cost
Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost,

Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
Suffer not the old King: for we know the breed.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to The Old Issue

  • I cannot remember a President doing so much damage as this guy is doing.

  • People rather like a king.

    As Walter Bagehot explains, “The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is
    an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they
    hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is often said that
    men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be truer to say they are
    governed by the weakness of their imaginations. The nature of a constitution,
    the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation
    of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know, and easy
    to mistake. But the action of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are
    easy ideas: anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget
    them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, “Will you
    be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?” the
    inquiry comes out thus — “Will you be governed in a way you understand,
    or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?” The
    issue was put to the French people; they were asked, “Will you be governed
    by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?”
    The French people said, “We will be governed by the one man we can
    imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.””

  • “The issue was put to the French people; they were asked, “Will you be governed by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?” The French people said, “We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.””

    You have got to be kidding MPS. That plebiscite was a complete fraud, and no wonder. At least Napoleon I had military skill, which Napoleon III completely lacked.

    Marx, for once, was right on the money with Napoleon the Sawdust Caesar:

    “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.”

  • Let’s put this crap in numerate perspective. The numbers of illegals they won’t (cannot deport 5,000,000, in any case) send packing is greater than the numbers of jobs “created” since this rodent began tearing apart the nation in 2009.

    The so-called executive order is bu!!$#!+ and GOP-baiting. (Orwell) “Politics are essentially coercion and deceit.” Pay back taxes! Don’t make me laugh . . . Register? Not receive medicaid, public schools, welfare? Like Gruber, this useless, inexperienced dolt thinks we are effing idiots.

  • ” He shall break his judges if they cross his word;
    He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

    He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
    Watchers ‘neath our window, lest we mock the King—

    Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies;
    Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.

    Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
    These shall deal our Justice: sell—deny—delay.

    We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse
    For the Land we look to—for the Tongue we use.

    We shall take our station, dirt beneath his feet,
    While his hired captains jeer us in the street.

    Cruel in the shadow, crafty in the sun,
    Far beyond his borders shall his teachings run. ”

    In a land where the right to abomination and injustice is promulgated, such as a mother killing her baby, or forbidding innocence in the name of education and advertising, or behaving like bullies, or using the sound of gunfire as music on car sound systems, or denying the existence of or reference to something out of this world, it is good to remember what the coming Sunday celebrates.

  • Barack Hussein Obama gave a rather good speech that will appeal to all liberal progressives and social justice Katholycks. The examples he used were heart-rendering. He even twisted around the Scripture passage about welcoming the stranger to justify overruling Constitutional process. I could not help but think that the Devil knows Scripture, too, so why not his spawn? This man lifts his face up against both Constitution and Scripture. The example of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 4 comes to mind.
    .
    I have always liked the first part of Cicero’s speech against Catiline recently used so eloquently by Senator Cruz. I quoted it to my father during the Watergate scandals some 40 plus years ago when as a high school student I was translating Cicero for the first time. My dad was a country boy with only an 8th grade education and unlike his son, had no knowledge of Latin or Greek, Calculus or Physics, but he remained ever wiser that his son and he saw immediately the parallel with modern politics. Perhaps because he read his Bible nightly and devoutly prayed with ever greater frequency as he aged, he was able to see things that today’s American citizenry cannot see.
    .
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt? Patere tua consilia non sentis, constrictam iam horum omnium scientia teneri coniurationem tuam non vides? Quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos convocaveris, quid consilii ceperis, quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?
    .
    O tempora, o mores! Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit. Vivit? immo vero etiam in senatum venit, fit publici consilii particeps, notat et designat oculis ad caedem unum quemque nostrum. Nos autem fortes viri satis facere rei publicae videmur, si istius furorem ac tela vitemus. Ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat, in te conferri pestem, quam tu in nos [omnes iam diu] machinaris.

  • a king is one thing, a tyrant is another.

  • Paul W. Primavera.

    I like your fathers wisdom.
    He in turn would say how pleasing and proud he is to have a son like you.
    Blessings Paul.

  • As Walter Bagehot explains, “The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it,

    Somehow, MPS, we’ve managed with republican institutions in this country for 400-odd years, Walter Bagehot’s wisdom notwithstanding. Come to think of it, they’ve managed in Canada and in the Antipodes with parliamentary institutions with regard to which the monarch treads very lightly.

    If people fancy a monarchy, it’s because Elizabeth manifests so many virtues (and leaves the expression of political viewpoints to confidential discussions with the prime minister).

  • You have got to be kidding MPS. That plebiscite was a complete fraud,

    One might remark also that European publics keep passing up opportunities to restore monarchies (Roumania, Bulgaria, and Serbia being the most recent examples), in spite of the congenial quality of the political life in those countries which have them.

  • “I cannot remember a President doing so much damage as this guy is doing.”

    I am convinced that every bit if it is on purpose.

  • “Let’s put this crap in numerate perspective. The numbers of illegals they won’t (cannot deport 5,000,000, in any case) send packing is greater than the numbers of jobs “created” since this rodent began tearing apart the nation in 2009.”

    These illegals have limited places they can go in our societies. 1. Crime, courts, jails, etc. 2. Low paying jobs bringing the wages even lower for Americans and those who have come here legally. 3. Public schools, hospitals, colleges, universities, nonprofits, etc adding an additional pull on already overloaded systems 4. Highly skilled jobs that would have been taken by Americans and/or other legal immigrants 5. Democrat party voters to keep their subsidies coming 6. Government jobs/contract which recruit/mandate employment of/contractual work of/to minorities before white males.

    “The so-called executive order is bu!!$#!…” “Pay back taxes! Don’t make me laugh . . . Register? Not receive medicaid, public schools, welfare? Like Gruber, this useless, inexperienced dolt thinks we are effing idiots.”

    I agree in part. He is inexperienced in what matters. He knows that whole entire demographic of the US population are effing idiots. He also knows that he will get completely away with this because those in charge of the RNC are “effing idiots” who don’t care what the truth is or what damage is done as long as they can push their liberal leaning agenda through The Republican party. He is also taking steps to destroy our economy, national sovereignty, & constitutional republic–with malice and forethought. He knows exactly what he is doing & is acting on purpose.

  • Refuse the illegal invaders citizenship. There, they cannot VOTE, apply for benefits, etc. etc.

  • “Refuse the illegal invaders citizenship. There, they cannot VOTE, apply for benefits, etc. etc.”

    Technically, they cannot vote or apply for benefits.

    In reality they vote & receive govt benefits with predictable regularity. II have had personal experience in ministering to illegals here in our state through the church, and in this state they are given benefits no matter what anyone says. I have also worked in elections over the last several decades & can guarantee that voter fraud takes place regularly in this state–though Iniave never witnessed an illegal being allowed to vote. Also, the following link is relevant to the topic of illegals being allowed to vote:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/30/New-O-Keefe-Video-Allegedly-Shows-Democratic-Poll-Workers-Assisting-Illegal-Non-Citizen-to-Vote-in-NC

  • Refugees from tyranny or escapees from responsibility to grow their nation into a Republic? Abortion has decimated our population of innocent individuals who bring Justice. These illegal deserters from the work of patriotism and education take the form of victims, but, in reality, they are deserters from civilization, refusing to build their own country into Republics of freedom, civil rights, love of neighbor and/or acknowledging the sovereign person.
    .
    These illegal refugees are abandoning their neighbors in need, deserting their work to establish the civil rights and freedom for their state, and refusing to acknowledge “their Creator”. The illegal immigrants come to America as though Americans are the only human beings created and endowed with unalienable rights. The illegal immigrants have the same gifts and unalienable rights as Americans. The illegal immigrants come here to absorb our prosperity wanting to give nothing in return.
    .
    It is not amnesty, until they have earned amnesty. It cannot be diplomatic immunity because they have not been invited as diplomats or welcomed as refugees. They can only be described as illegal invaders, mercenaries and potential trouble makers as Barbara Gordon has explained.

King Obama

Thursday, November 20, AD 2014

 

 

In Federalist 69 Alexander Hamilton responded to the criticism that the Presidency under the proposed Constitution established an elective monarchy which would be a perpetual threat to American liberties:

 

Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less power than the Governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally, that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude into a closer group.

 

The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an absolute negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of declaring war, and of raising and regulating fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the sole possessor of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.

 

One can only imagine what Mr. Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers would make of this:

According to a senior Democrat familiar with the plans, Obama will announce on Thursday that he is providing temporary protections to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. His orders will make up to 4 million undocumented immigrants eligible for temporary protective status and provide relief to another 1 million through other means.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to King Obama

  • Sorry Mr. Franklin, we couldn’t keep it.

  • Our tax dollars pay for this. This cannot be put on the ballot? If Obama wants these illegal immigrants as constituents, he ought to pay for them out of his own pocket.

  • David Burge – “American voters repudiated in historic landslide 1-0 vote.”

  • Oh but wait Mary De Voe…where is your compassion for these poor? (sarcasm) Where are these children going to sleep eat or receive health care? (sarcasm)

    This is the tidal wave of social justice from the left that see’s a baby seal as sacred yet an unborn human baby as blob of tissue. Now what?

    I agree with you. Michelle Badrock and Uncle Joe can personally fund these immigrant’s. Or, respect the rights of the legal voters!

  • My compassion for the poor begins with the virtue of Justice (no sarcasm) and praying for Divine Providence to care for them. (Truth)

  • This action shows not only deep contempt for the Constitution and the Congress, but also the American people.

    Obama’s spent his life in and among subcultures where a systematic appreciation of ordinary people is not to be found. His grandparents might have attempted to impart it, but Stanley Dunham was so confused as to how to proceed with his grandson that he thought spending time with Frank Marshall Davis and exporting his grandson to a random liberal arts college would be salutary.

    You recall that Edmund Morris — not a bien pensant, really, but a man who had spent his adult life among the word-merchant element — could not make sense of Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave him a brief and explicit précis of interpretive tools – “my life’s an open book”, and Morris was still baffled. For people who manipulate words and images for a living, a man as straightforward as Reagan cannot be who he appears to be; everyone just has to be a poseur (but they cannot figure out what the pose was concealing).

    We’ve had some accomplished men in the White House. Then we have men whose principal accomplishment has been cadging and holding political office (Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bilge Clinton, and BO being examples of that). There’s little doubt Nixon and Ford could have done something else and been someone else; both had military service, Ford had 10 years practicing law in a city of middling size in a firm he himself formed with Phillip Buchan, and Nixon still had enough left upstairs to return to law practice after a 17 year hiatus (electing to go back into politics because the law bored him). Roosevelt, Truman, and (arrgh) Clinton had at least spent time superintending public agencies. As for Kennedy, you cannot take the man’s bravery away from him, nor is oratorical skill. The man sitting in the White House now has to be the most bogus character who has ever sat there. His adult life since 1985 has consisted of waste of time positions in political eleemosynaries, of patronage jobs handed him, and of clever marketing. That’s pretty much the same deal with his wife, whose vital $300,000 a year position at the University of Chicago hospitals was eliminated when she vacated it.

    Not only was he not taught the value of ordinary people, simply assessing his own life honestly would be very painful. The contempt keeps reality at bay.

  • King Obama. Daniel 4:28-33:
    .
    28 All this came upon King Nebuchadnez′zar. 29 At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 and the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” 31 While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, “O King Nebuchadnez′zar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, 32 and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; and you shall be made to eat grass like an ox; and seven times shall pass over you, until you have learned that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” 33 Immediately the word was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnez′zar. He was driven from among men, and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.

  • “The contempt keeps reality at bay.”

    Bingo.

  • Obama, as president, does not decide for any citizen how much charity, the citizen, in good conscience, has the ability to donate. Since Obama refuses to identify the citizens’ conscience as a valid indicator of charity, he must behave like lord of the world.

  • Amnesty announced. Champagne bottles popping heard at USCCB. The Constitution wept.

  • How the word “discretion” is used….
    🙁
    It used to imply a particularity. Singling out a case for a different reaction than what had been expected. Looking at exceptional cases and applying a discretionary judgment.
    You could look at one case details and say, I will decide not to prosecute.
    NOT to look at millions of cases, where the identities of the person are not even known and applying a discretionary judgement en masse.

  • Art Deco wrote, “For people who manipulate words and images for a living, a man as straightforward as Reagan cannot be who he appears to be; everyone just has to be a poseur (but they cannot figure out what the pose was concealing).”
    One recalls Prince Metternich’s remark, when informed of the death of Talleyrand – “I wonder what he meant by that.”

  • Another aspect of this lawlessness is the abdication by 95% of the media to ACCURATELY report the difference between the “tweaking” of a duly passed law by Congress by Presidents Reagan & Bush & the impatient unilateral action of this emperor. Shame on the presidents “water carriers” in the media!

  • Agreed. Some of the Fast and Furious e-mails Judicial Watch has managed to pry out of the Department of Justice are revealing as to what the pr flacks for the Regime expect of the major media. They expect them to act like Democratic operatives with bylines, and by and large they do. They do not have the budgets to do much anymore, but by and large they’re not motivated, which is why Sheryl Atkisson is out of a job. As recently as 1998, the print media (while biased) were not shills of the Democratic Party and broke inconvenient stories (per Brent Bozell, television news was already suborned at that time).

  • What follows has been read into the Constitution by the President. So long as nothing is done, he does have the powers he has usurped and this is de facto the new law of the land.

    Article VIII

    Notwithstanding any Power granted in Article I above or in Article III above, in time of declared emergency or crisis, all Power shall be vested in the President and officers duly appointed by him, said Power including, but not limited to, all legislative powers, all judicial powers granted herein, and all powers reserved to the States or to the people under Amendment X hereto. The President alone is vested with the Power to declare an emergency or a crisis. In an emergency or crisis, the President and his duly appointed officers shall, as deemed necessary by the President, suspend any and all rights protected under Amendments I – XXVII.

    Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Malone (Connery) from the movie, “The Untouchables”, “And ‘then’ what are you prepared to do?”

  • Obama has chosen to introduce millions of illegal aliens into our country, our towns, our schools, our hospitals, our neighborhood, our charity, into our personal space and our privacy; into our countenance without our permission, our invitation, and our informed consent. Entering into a sovereign person’s privacy and personal space without his welcome, his permission, his invitation is assault and battery.
    .
    As constituents of the President, all citizens are spoken for by the President. If we cannot agree with what the president is doing we actually remove ourselves from citizenship to protect ourselves. So, now Obama owns the whole America without the citizens. and any citizen who chooses to remain will have his personal space violated and his countenance assaulted.
    .
    As far as the Catholic Church goes, after tithing, the Church must pay the bill.

  • “de facto the new law of the land.” must be ratified by three quarters of the states. The states have un-ratified Obama’s new law of the land.

  • Seen at Zero hedeg: “Me the People . . .”

    .
    La republique c’est moi!

  • “Malone (Connery) from the movie, “The Untouchables”, “And ‘then’ what are you prepared to do?”

    “01:47:33 Your Honour, the truth is that Capone is a killer and he will go free.

    01:47:39 There is only one way to deal with such men, and that is hunt them down.

    01:47:44 I have. I have forsworn myself. I have broken laws I swore to defend.

    01:47:49 I am content that I have done right. That man must be stopped, you must…

    01:47:53 I’ll be the judge of what I must do, Mr Ness.”

    Thus far this country has avoided that. Obama is setting some terrible precedents that may eventually some day produce a whirlwind.

  • I told people Osama (misspelled on purpose) was like this before he was elected president the first time. So no one can blame me because “I told you so!” Nothing this man could do–short of lining us up on the White House lawn & executing us with a firing squad–would shock me. There are no words for how angry his actions make me. We are no longer a constitutional republic.

  • “Thus far this country has avoided that. Obama is setting some terrible precedents that may eventually some day produce a whirlwind.”

    Do what? We are in the middle of the whirlwind right now! Check out how many violent crimes are carried out by illegals in this nation.

IRS Scandal: When You Have Lost Piers Morgan…

Saturday, May 18, AD 2013

 

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  Let’s see, it was only back in January that Piers Morgan, Brit and obnoxious CNN talking head, pooh-poohed the idea that America could ever have a tyrannical government.  Go here to read my comment at that time.  In the above video, in which he is talking to my favorite atheist, go here to see why I give Penn Jillette that title, he confesses that what was done with the IRS “borders” on tyranny.

Of course the IRS Scandal would not have surprised the Founding Fathers.  They realized that govenment is necessary among men.  As James Madison noted in Federalist 51:  But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  However, the Founding Fathers also realized that government was no abstraction, but also an institution made up of men and not angels.  That is why Madison in Federalist 51 went on to write:  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.  And so the Founding Fathers framed a Constitution designed to minimize the possibility of government tyranny They built wisely, but they did not delude themselves.  The ultimate safeguard for American liberty had to rest in the American people.

That is why Benjamin Franklin, after a lady asked him as he left Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention what form of government the country was to have, told her, “A Republic madam, if you can keep it.”, placing the responsibility for the preservation of the Republic on each individual American.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to IRS Scandal: When You Have Lost Piers Morgan…

  • One has to be concerned when one has the likes of Piers Morgan and Charlie Rangel on one’s side. Their outrage seems too manufactured, too studied to be sincere. (No one likes the IRS; it’s an easy target.) It’s as if they instinctively know the IRS scandal will lead nowhere higher than perhaps the Commissioner, but Benghazi truly has the chance to do damage to the President.

  • If it weren’t for TAC and facebook I wouldn’t know that this useless Saxon POS is stealing American oxygen.

  • “It’s as if they instinctively know the IRS scandal will lead nowhere higher than perhaps the Commissioner, but Benghazi truly has the chance to do damage to the President.”

    We can pursue both J. Christian. I have absolutely no doubt that the IRS scandal is much the bigger issue with the American public. This week I have had ten people, most fairly apolitical, bring up the IRS scandal. I have never had anyone bring up Benghazi unless I have raised it first. This is an immense scandal and it will do permanent damage to the Obama administration.

  • In the 2012 presidential election, Obama’s IRS shut down various conservative campaign initiatives, i.e., free speech. The gutless GOP candidate, legislators, et al were either too cowardly or too stupid or too contemptuous of the TEA party to rise up on their hind legs and bray something.

    This is no longer a free republic.

    And, the American (outside hugely profitable Wall Street, GM, Buffett and Soros; and borrow-and-spend Washington, DC) people will not recover because Obama and his gangster regime are running them off a cliff.

  • These Obama administration scandals though very serious only began to get traction once a few democrats and THE MEDIA came on board. So we again have been reminded that it is the media politicians right and left fear and controls what goes and comes in Washington.

  • First you have tax cheat Charles Rangel going after the head of the IRS. Now you have Pers Morgan, anti gun nut extraordinaire, going into full lock and load mode over governmental tyranny. Justice tinged with irony is a sweet thing to savor, especially since this is probably the only real justice we will see. Because I thinkwhen the congressional dog and pony show is over, nothing is gonna come of this. Ditto for Benghazi.

    I don’t normally like to be proven wrong, but these are instances where I hope I am.

  • Mr T Shaw
    FYI Mr Morgan is ethnically Irish ! His real name is O Meara. He was born in the UK . Perhaps the name Morgan is more accepted as being British whereas an Irish name may have caused him more bigotry. He s Catholic as well, I don t know how faithful but I haven t heard that he s renounced the Faith.

  • These scandals are interesting theater, but will amount to little. Not because the issues are small; the people are. Their are interests and focus are on events of less significance.

    The right does not have the ability to stoke a fire to get the attention of the general public like the left. Compare the hate for Bush the left successfully attached to him for lesser events. Imagine if these scandals happened when George W Bush was president.

    This is a drama where the pundits on the established left and right know their parts without needing formal direction. Keeping up the noise, feign a desire for justice and collect your commentary or legislative paychecks.

Piers Morgan on Domestic Thermonuclear War

Monday, January 14, AD 2013

 

 

Hattip to Jim Treacher.  CNN talking head Piers Morgan, desperately trying to hold on to any shreds of credibility after his shellacking by Ben Shapiro, emitted this email:

America has over 5000 nuclear warheads. Quite hard to defend against a ‘tyrannical U.S. government’ with that kind of firepower.

 

Where to begin?

First, it is unlikely that even the most mad US President would decide to use nukes to put down a rebellion in these United States.  Too many of his own supporters would be killed and the overall reaction would likely be for the rebellion to grow as a result of his action.

Second, a wide spread rebellion in the United States would likely have the sympathy of factions within the US military, if not their active support.  The order to nuke Americans might lead to an active revolt by the military.

Third, in the event of a widespread rebellion, the rebels would probably quickly have nukes of their own.  In the case of Obama, most ICBMs and tactical nukes are located on bases in Red states.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Piers Morgan on Domestic Thermonuclear War

  • Seems like Morgan is pretty persuasive to me. I mean, when you look at situations in Iraq and Afghanistan where our military had significant problems with obstruction from insurgents using small arms and homemade explosives, we solved the problem by using nuclear weapons, right? And since using nuclear weapons on US soil would be even more popular than using them in the Middle East, it’s obvious that the government would not hesitate to use nukes against any domestic rebels in some imagined future scenario. Heck, the only reason why Russia hasn’t used nukes is Chechnya is that they’re way, way more soft hearted than the US is.

    Oh wait…

  • He’s become the Bill Donohue of gun control–only less measured and introspective.

  • Suppose you were an idiot. And, suppose you were Piers Morgan. But, I repeat myself. (See Mark Twain on members of Congress.)

  • Donald’s reply brings to mind a couple of points. In the case of Ruby Ridge and Waco, both factions were armed to the teeth, and yet the government was able to ‘subdue’ them (a less euphemistic term might well be more apt). However, it did so only after an aggressive PR/smear campaign that portrayed them as white supremacists and/or child molesters, thereby making a case to the wider populace that both groups were fringe elements beyond caring much about.

    Even so, there was a kind of military (or at least ex-military) blowback that Donald also mentions, in the sense that Ruby Ridge helped provoke homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh, though he was able to murder his victims without guns or nuclear devices.

  • When Morgan is the spokesman for your movement, you clearly have some serious problems.

  • America’s first (known) and most “prolific” serial killer did not use any high- magazine capacity clips, or an assault weapon.

    He ran up a “body count” of over 200.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes

    The most dangerous weapon known to man is man’s evil mind.

  • Mr. Shaw, the case of H. H. Holmes seems hardly relevant to the current discussion. No one’s for banning extended mags because they’re afraid of some psycho killing 200 hundred people one at a time over the course of several years.

  • “No one’s for banning extended mags because they’re afraid of some psycho killing 200 hundred people one at a time over the course of several years.”

    Considering that approximately 312 people out of a total population of 330,000,000 were killed by rifles of all type last year, I think there would be more logic in attempting to ban evil thoughts than in banning any sort of rifle. Twice as many homicides were committed by people using nothing but their bare hands. The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with pistols which no one is seeking to ban, although decades ago there was an attempt to ban cheap pistols known by their critics as “Saturday Night Specials”. Politics is the explanation rather than logic since multiple slayings and their aftermath is the only time when the lost gun control crusade has any traction.

  • JL:

    There you go again, bless your heart.

    Just the facts, man.

    Here are animate and inanimate objects that are far more dangerous to children and other living beings.

    3,900,0000 Americans died in 2010.

    1,500,000 were 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

    496 killed with hammers/clubs

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

    * In NYC there is an expanding outbreak of suicide jumpers, largely attributable to the horrid economy – thank you Obama and liberals!

    And, since NOvember 2008, free Americans purchased 68,000,000 firearms.

    In 18 days, NRA added 100,000 new paid members.

    You are better than the gullible imbeciles those evil people are “playing” with this umpty-umphth gun control PR stunt.

    You are too intelligent to let them distract you the gathering American tragedy.

    Anyhow, I’m praying for you.

  • “No one’s for banning extended mags because they’re afraid of some psycho killing 200 hundred people one at a time over the course of several years.”

    “1,694 killed by knives”

    Let’s ban knives too! Oh wait. They’re trying to do that.

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/british-doctors-want-a-ban-on-kitchen-knives-to-prevent-stabbings/

  • Instapundit: Harry Reid: “Don’t expect an assault weapon ban.”

    “The Second Amendment is something that was adhered to by Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy,” Reid said. “So I don’t think anyone wants to diminish the Second Amendment, but I think everyone should just take a deep breath and realize where we are and where we need to go.

    “We have too much violence in our society, and it’s not just from guns. It’s from a lot of stuff. and i think we should take a look at TV, movies, video games and weapons. And I hope that everyone will just be careful and cautious.”

    January 19 is Gun Appreciation Day. Make it a point to communicate with your politician that you unconditionally support the right to keep and bear arms, and if that pol does not, you unconditionally oppose him/her.

  • Harry Reid making sense? The apocalypse is truly upon us!

    As usual, our intellectual betters look for a technological quick-fix for what is at root a sociological problem.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit
  • Thanks for the prayers Mr. Shaw, but I think you again misunderstand me. I am in no way necessarily advocating for any type of new legislation with regards to firearms, ammo, etc. I mean simply what I said: H. H. Holmes seems hardly relevant to this discussion.

    On a more general note, to no one in particular, a quote from my new favorite book:

    “Sincere—that was the hell of it. From a distance, one’s adversaries seemed fiends, but with a closer view, one saw the sincerity and it was as great as one’s own. Perhaps Satan was the sincerest of the lot.”

    I think the temptation is to overemphasize the last sentence, but clearly that is merely a rhetorical flourish. We know the King of Lies is anything but sincere. Thus, the takeaway is this: your opponents on this issue are just as sincere and well-intentioned as you are. To think they are the height of evil and self-interest while simaltaneously holding that the NRA is some bastion of nobility and virtue strikes me as detached from reality. Quit vilifying your opponents as satan’s complicit minions. It’s uncharitable, absurd, and makes you sound deranged. People can be wrong and still be decent people. Yes, even re: gun control!

  • Thus, the takeaway is this: your opponents on this issue are just as sincere and well-intentioned as you are.

    Some yes, some no. You realize that this issue implicates matters of constitutional interpretation. Something Robert Bork said is relevant here: constitutional law has been destroyed as an authentic intellectual subdiscipline. Characters like Saul Cornell and Ronald Dworkin are many things. Sincere is not one of them.

  • The last time Americans had to use military weapons against their own government was not 1776…

    It was 1946…Battle of Athens Tennessee(returing veterns of WWII took up arms to get their votes counted correctly.

    Pulitzer prize winning writer Theodore White said “the F.B.I. didn’t investigate the local corruption because it went all the way up to the Speaker of the House of the U.S.” (paraphrase)
    check it out on wikipedia…The Battle of Athens (1946)

  • Fascinating David. I pride myself on my knowledge of American history but I had never heard of this incident before. I will make certain however that more people hear about it in the future.

  • @Art

    “Some yes, some no.”

    Well put. But the same applies for those on the other side of the issue.

  • Well put. But the same applies for those on the other side of the issue.

    Depends on the time period. The problem in starboard discourse today is more self-deception than the deception of others. Also, see Jonathan Heidt’s work. The left in this country in our time differs from the remainder of the spectrum in their ability to summarize the opposition’s viewpoint without caricaturing it. See also Robert Bork’s remarks on official Washington. He identifies a large culture shift in that social set occurring around 1981 (“liberals turned vicious”). I think you can identify another one around 2001 (just who are the starboard equivalents of Bradford deLong and Paul Krugman?). Look at our Presidential candidates over the period running from 1968 to 1988 and then look at the one’s since. There is a large change in the balance of integrity, agreeableness, and personal accomplishment between the two parties.

  • Piers Morgan was the editor of the left-wing tabloid the Daily Mirror who was sacked for publishing photographs allegedly showing British soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners but which turned out to have been faked in England. Unfortunately he was not down for long; indeed he keeps popping up to everyone’s annoyance. His recent television series saw him interviewing ‘celebrities’, asking prurient questions about their sex lives in order to titillate the less discriminating viewers. Well, he was a tabloid journalist, after all. I’m glad we’re getting a rest from him and it’s gratifying to see him making a fool of himself on the other side of the pond. Don’t deport him just yet.

    Forget the Second Amendment for a minute; the right to bear arms was part of English Common Law, which applied to the colonies, and later to the United States. It also applied to England; although firearms licences were introduced in the 1870s they were a revenue-raising exercise and were purchased at the post office for a few shillings. The first gun controls came in the 1920s; the government was worried about civil unrest, and a lot of weapons had been brought back from the Great War. In the 1950s there were a lot of unlicensed guns in circulation, but very little gun crime. Criminals tended not to carry them, since murderers who used firearms were unlikely to be reprieved, so the consequence of using them would be an 8 a.m. appointment with Albert Pierrepoint three weeks after conviction.

    The situation in Britain now is that the only people who are armed are black gangsters and crack-dealers on inner-city sink estates, and the police, who have taken to swaggering about looking like Robocop and usually end up shooting the wrong people.

  • We all need to remember these words of Kipling John before “too long” becomes “too late”.

    “Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw– Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law–

    Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing, Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.

    Till our fathers ‘stablished, after bloody years, How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

    So they bought us freedom–not at little cost– Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost.”

  • JL:

    I pray for quite a few living, including several others on this page, and dead. At my age, I have many dear departed for whom I pray. Each loved me better than I loved him/her. I need to work each day on rectifying that deficiency.

    I am not as well read as you. I’m pretty sure your favorite book quote is not from Paradise Lost.

They Said If I Voted for John McCain the U.S. Would Engage in Endless Middle East Conflict with No Concern for Congressional Approval

Thursday, March 8, AD 2012

And they were right.

For those who didn’t watch the video, skip to about the 3:35 mark where Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responds to a question about creating a no-fly zone over Syria.  He states that the administration would seek international approval and then inform Congress about its actions.

That’s right – international sanction for military action would take precedence over Congressional authority.  And that makes complete sense, because in the United States Constitution it clearly states right there in Article I, Section 8 that international bodies shall have the power to declare war and therefore bring the United States into armed conflict.

Oh.  Wait.  It’s Congress that has the power to declare war.  Silly me.  But we live in an international age, and if the Supreme Court can rely on international law in order to decide cases, then by golly the President of the United States should be able to commit American troops to armed conflict with a nice note from the U.N. or some other international body.

And at least he’ll be nice enough to let Congress know.  Maybe he’ll text Speaker Boehner about it, but only after he gets off the phone with Sandra Fluke.  Priorities.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to They Said If I Voted for John McCain the U.S. Would Engage in Endless Middle East Conflict with No Concern for Congressional Approval

  • I think this might become a major issue:

    “WASHINGTON — The US offered to give Israel advanced weaponry — including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes — in exchange for Israel’s agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli newspaper Maariv reported Thursday.

    President Obama reportedly made the offer during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week.

    Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year. The newspaper cited unnamed Western diplomatic and intelligence sources.

    Netanyahu said Monday that sanctions against Iran had not worked, adding that “none of us can afford to wait much longer” in taking action against Iran’s controversial nuclear program.”

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/attack_offered_israel_advanced_weaponry_vJzadL8Qw5XoQ7akSRO9yK

  • Paul and Donald, et. al.,

    If the attacks on Libya without congressional approval did not become a major issue, and Solyndra did not become a major issue, I would not hold my breath.

    –Jonathan

  • No one cared about Libya Jonathan because it was a no casualty war, and most members of Congress thought that it was a good idea to take out Khaddafi. I think that this story is quite a bit different. It is all over the conservative blogosphere already and Fox is running with it. Let us see what happens.

  • Ahh, Donald. That’s just my “Federalism and separation of powers” idealist showing up again.

  • Well, as a side note to all of this. I think it’s an awful idea to insert ourselves into Syria.

    From all the reporting I have seen Christians generally support Assad only because what comes after him would be much worse. I think the Christians on the ground understand as bad as Assad and the Alawites have been they can only look forward to an even worse oppressive Islamic government taking hold. They see what is happening in Egypt and the Coptic Christians.

    Syria: bishop says government must crush uprising
    http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=18424

    Maronite Patriarch: Violence turning Arab Spring into winter
    http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/04/198548.html

The Lure of Authoritarianism

Wednesday, March 31, AD 2010

61 Responses to The Lure of Authoritarianism

  • That’s a very poor measure. China is starting from a lower base. Even if it does everything right, the U.S. will have a higher standard of living for a while.

  • “There seems an odd attraction towards Chinese-style authoritarianism among certain more technocratic/elitist segments of the left-leaning political elite.”

    An excellent post as usual Darwin but I disagree that it is odd. Most Leftists since the time of the Russian Revolution have had an attraction towards totalitarian regimes of the Left. Orwell was very much the exception to this rule. China, although it has strayed in many ways from the days of Mao and his little red book which thrilled so many contemporary Leftists in the days of their youth in the Sixties, still is officially a Communist regime and antagonistic usually to the policies of the US, and thus something to be mentioned in praiseworthy terms by the herd of independent minds on the Left, another typical example being linked below.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/06/china-useconomicgrowth

  • (it is, after all, rather easy to dislike the US for a number of reasons — we are, as the saying goes, over-paid, over-sexed, and over here)

    The phrase was supposedly common in Britain during the Second World War. The trouble with this thesis is that the overwhelming majority of American soldiers and sailors billeted overseas are in one of seven countries where reside about 5% of the world’s population (Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Japan, Germany, and Britain). I do not think social contact with the American military explains much of the generic hostility to the United States you find abroad.

    Orwell was very much the exception to this rule.

    Prof. Paul Hollander has said this was true among the subset of chatterati who went on guided tours of communist countries (“for every Andre Gide there were ten G.B. Shaw’s”). In fairness to our leftoid intelligentsia, there has always been a vigorous and at times modal strain which had no time for this sort of thing (Reinhold Neibuhr, Irving Howe, Michael Walzer, and Robert Leiken being examples).

  • “In fairness to our leftoid intelligentsia, there has always been a vigorous and at times modal strain which had no time for this sort of thing (Reinhold Neibuhr, Irving Howe, Michael Walzer, and Robert Leiken being examples).”

    Quite right, although they usually were regarded as heretics by a fair amount of the Left.

  • Art Deco,

    I was perhaps being too clever by half in using the “overpaid, oversexed, and over here” phase, but to clarify: My intent was not at all to convey it was contact with members of the US military which turned people off the US, but rather that:

    1) We are the richest country in the world (and thus its easy for people to claim we’re spoiled, out of touch, greedy, etc. (thus overpaid)

    2) Our popular culture (which is widely exported) is fairly degraded from the point of view of many traditional cultures. (thus oversexed)

    3) Our cultural, financial and political influence per pervasive throughout the world. (thus over here)

    Restrained Radical,

    It seems to me that people general emigrate to a country based on the degree of opportunity they believe they’ll experience there. It would seem pretty clear then, that people see more opportunity in the US than in China. I suppose one could claim that the rapidity of change in China suggests that at some point in the future there will be more opportunity for people there than in the US — but I don’t think you’d actually find many people who believe that.

  • Discussions of net immigration are of passing interest. What is most unsettling in all of this is the admiration of authoritarianism. Although the American Left has always flirted with authoritarianism, and I have no objective historical measure of it, my personal sense is that there’s a growing impatience with democratic processes, a growing desire to use executive and judicial powers to force unpopular or controversial policies, and a growing feeling that we can no longer abide politics as usual.

    I’m not sure why I have this personal opinion, except for perhaps the kinds of stories linked to by Darwin. Even a casual reading of news headlines today gives one the impression that there’s a sense of urgency to the progressive agenda like never before. The previous president was such a bogeyman in the Left’s imagination, they believed that the only way to counter his “disastrous” administration was to have a strong executive of their own. And whatever faults Bush had — one might argue he was at the vanguard of the “strong executive” model — there’s no comparison to the breakneck speed with which the Left wants to take that ball and run with it.

  • Friedman’s Lincoln Steffens-ish cheerleading for China is well past embarrassing.

    Otherwise bright people have the strangest blind spots.

  • Our current cultural elites go on pilgrimages to Cuba and Venezuela. It’s the same thing.

  • Its perhaps human to believe that what you know is perfectly right and it must be implemented. This seems to be more a problem of the left than of the right though both are possessed of it. of course one can say that it is in the nature of the left to want to change society into their “progressive” vision (of course not realizing their progress may be over the edge of a cliff) as opposed to the right which seeks to be skeptical of change.

    It doesn’t help that this country handed those on the left the means to enact a radical agenda (the most liberal president in history, a fillibuster proof Senate and a solid House majority with an ultra-liberal Speaker.) It doesn’t help that most Americans were not informed enough to vote against this.

    One can then understand the impatience of the left when members of Congress didn’t toe the line and enact all of the ultra liberal agenda. The answer then begins to reject the democratic process.

  • Of course all of this in the context of some who believe the “right” to pump breast milk in a special room is a right to life issue.

  • Phillip:

    Weeeelllll…

    While I find the overall illogic of the argument risible (a few sops in a bill that vastly expands abortion funding and access does not make it palatable), I think a good case can be made that provisions which make pregnancy and motherhood more reconcilable with work are in and of themselves pro-life.

  • Though it is quuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiitttttteeeeeeee a stretch to say that mandating a separate, private room for pumping breast milk vs. using a the current, private bathroom for pumping breast milk is a major pro-life move and a major advance for pregnancy and motherhood. Sorry, it really isn’t.

  • And thus the silliness of much current thought on social justice.

  • Maybe some will consider this to label me some sort of knuckle dragger, but I’m not clear how cementing the normality of women going back to full time, in-office work while their children are still nursing age if necessarily a pro-life victory.

    Which is not to say that no women should be working outside the home shortly after giving birth, but it would seem that from a point of view of upholding the natural family, situations that involve putting a child under 12 months in daycare are less than ideal. Not everyone can pull off being a single income family, and perhaps some don’t want to, but I don’t see that pumping breast milk in one’s cube or in the bathroom or in some other private place is a major anti-life problem. And I do see the increasing societal pressure that all mothers should work full time, and do so outside the home starting at most 2-3 months after birth, as being a serious negative from a pro-family point of view.

  • I’m sympathetic to the argument that another mandate from our increasingly intrusive current government is onerous.

    But forcing the mother into the crapper presents its own problems. As my wife (who used a breast pump in the toilet back when she was in the wage-earning workforce) pointed out: “Who else has to prepare their meals in the bathroom?”

  • Even beyond that, there is the silliness of saying that it is a “pro-life” issue. This while the real probability that abortions will be paid for and probably increased as a result is ignored. But heck, we get special breast pump rooms in the workplace.

  • Sure, Darwin, it’s a problem. Ideally, Mom would be able to stay home. That’s what *we’ve* been able to do, all thanks to God.

    But that doesn’t work for everyone, and there are good (as well as not good) reasons for the mom to work. Starting with an absent dad, and going from there.

    I’m not saying it’s ideal, nor should I be construed as regarding it as a pro-life victory for the ages. But we have to meet people where they are, and any reasonable incentive supporting, or removal of stigma from, motherhood in the workplace should be welcome and seen as pro-life.

  • Actually it really isn’t much of a pro-life victory. Not at all. Such thinking belongs in the crapper.

  • Phillip, I said that at the outset. I said it’s an abortion funder. It’s not to be celebrated. In fact, from the perspective of the blog poster in question, it’s as ludicrous as a pro-Iraq War blogger calling the War pro-life because of the reconstruction funds given to Iraqs.

    Bracketing all of that, as I expressly did from the outset, I think those provisions which support pregnancy and motherhood are helpful from a pro-life perspective. Not that any can counterbalance the great evils stemming therefrom, but helpful.

  • Again, pointing out that I do not believe it is a pro-life issue. It is really morally neutral. Some may be in favor. Less bacteria in a separate room (perhaps if it is kept very clean. Though of course there are about as many bacteria in a nursery room as a bathroom and women pump there.) But some may see it as not much of an issue at all from a pro-life perspective. That it really isn’t pro-lefe. And it really isn’t.

  • May you and yours have a blessed Triduum, Phillip.

  • And to yours also as we disagree on this small, prudential point.

  • I guess it’s something that goes both ways. Within the modern context, it is a slight concession towards parenthood, and in that context thus good. On the other hand, it strikes me as upholding a modern, individualized lifestyle over a traditional one, and in that sense strikes me as a negative.

    One thing that sometimes strikes me when progressive pro-lifers list these kind of things as pro-life victories is that things like subsidized child care, extra working-mom mandatory concessions, etc. end up increasing the marginal cost of being a more traditional family. Essentially, I as a single income end up making less (both because of taxes and because my company devotes more money to offering benefits I have no use for rather than to wages) in order to subsidize people who due to their two-income households make twice what I do in order to support fewer kids. (These same people, around the office, often express wonder as to how one could possibly afford to have four kids rather than their own one or two — despite the fact their household incomes are twice mine.)

    So there’s a sense in which pushing these benefits too hard (as, for example, with the amount of subsidized childcare, leave, etc. in Western Europe) makes it even harder to break with the system and have a more traditional family structure instead.

    On the other hand, moves which reduce the “my world will end if I carry this pregnancy to term” factor are clearly a good thing from the pro-life point of view.

  • Phillip:

    Agreed. And I wanted to remind myself that I was speaking with a Catholic brother in Christ. It wasn’t one of those passive-aggressive “I’ll pray for you” digs-drenched-in-piety.

  • Darwin:

    Good points, all. Recognition of “unintended consequences” doesn’t pop up often enough in evaluating these sorts of things.

  • Thanks Dale. I have been brusque and apologize if offense was taken. I will say that I tire of those (not saying you) that will take minor provisions (that often in fact are prudential judgments) and ignore massive support for intrinsic evils. Part of the problem I think with the USCCB Faithful Citizenship document. Seen some use that document to say that so and so is pro-abortion, but is in favor of increased food stamp funding and gun control so he is pro-life on two out of three issues – vote for him.

  • Well, Darwin, there is a considerable degree of antagonism to the United States in Western Europe, which approaches or exceeds us in its level of affluence and in the prevalence of bastardy, among other metrics of cultural degradation. One might also note that the bulge bracket banks in Britain and Spain are actually larger and more inclined toward international business than their American counterparts.

    Maybe the characters at Vox Nova

  • Well, nowhere did I say the breast pump law was a “major pro-life victory.” But it is certainly a pro-life victory. How strange that some ostensibly “pro-life” Catholics can’t see that. Perhaps they are out-of-touch with actual parenthood? Good to see that not everyone in this thread is so dismissive of a pretty significant and praiseworthy bit of progress.

  • DarwinCatholic, there’s greater economic opportunity in the US because of the higher standard of living. Compare the earnings of a restaurant employee in China to one in the US and you’ll see why they come here. There are large immigrant populations in Singapore and Dubai, very authoritarian countries with very high standards of living. Authoritarianism is usually opposed to economic development but there are plenty of exceptions (China today, Pinochet’s Chile, Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan, pre-1990’s South Korea).

    There’s also the lure of excellent higher education. An internationally respected university takes many decades, perhaps centuries, to build so the US is safe in that department for a while.

    Ethnic diversity also helps. Pretty much any citizen of the world can move to the US and find an ethnic enclave to live in, making the move much easier.

  • Good to see you here Michael. Actually as Darwin points out and as Dale agrees, there may be unintended consequences to this “pro-life” measure that wind up being anti-life. That as opposed to the actual,intrinsically anti-life reality of the health care bill.

  • Perhaps they are out-of-touch with actual parenthood?

    Hmmm. That’s an interesting theory, Michael. Maybe you could flesh it out a bit. You’ve been a parent for how long, Michael? You have how many children? You have spent how many years, as a parent, working in offices consisting of 50 employees or more and understanding the financial and personal pressures that apply to single and double income families respectively?

    To help ground our discussion, I can provide the following answers to the above questions:

    Eight years. Five. Six years (during my first two years of parenthood I was working for a company with only ~30 employees.)

    Doubltess your longer years being a parent, larger number of children, and more extensive workplace experience as a parent gives you a deeper and broader understanding of all this. Surely you wouldn’t simply be praising this as a “significant and praiseworthy bit of progress” simply because it’s a progressive point-score and you enjoy tweeking the noses of people who actually vote against abortion and support more traditional family structures…

  • Now Darwin, you know our betters know more about parenting and business even though they are not parents and have never been in business. Even as our betters know more about minorities even though they are white Europeans while we are Hispanics.

  • As for authoritarianism being a leftist philosophy, I mentioned above, Pinochet’s Chile, Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan, and pre-1990’s South Korea. Add Batista’s Cuba. On civil liberties, Bush was very authoritarian for a US president.

  • RestrainedRadical,

    Agreed that there can be fairly rapid economic growth for a while even under an authoritarian regime, but for Friedman and Meyerson’s concerns to pan it, it seems to me that one would have to argue that the combination of authoritarianism and development seem in such examples is in danger of being a more attractive model to the peoples of the world than the US model. And I’m not seeing why one would think that to be the case.

    Certainly, authoritarian and developing rapidly may be more attractive than authoritarian and povety-stricken (thus making China more attractive than North Korea) but I fail to see the danger that Meyerson in particular is concerned about that developing nations will look at the US and China and conclude, “Wow, we really better have a technocratic dictatorship rather than a democratic republic.”

    That’s the sense in which I think that immigration direction of the US relative to China is indicative. Given the choice, people voting with their feet seem to clearly prefer the US over China.

  • I don’t think anyone was actually dismissive of the provision; in fact, I thought Darwin gave a very balanced view of the matter. (Rarely are matters of public policy win-win situations, anyway. There’s always a cost to every benefit.)

    All of this is beside the point of the article. Even the point about immigration patterns is a side issue. What’s more at issue is our willingness to circumvent the political process and flirt with authoritarianism.

  • This is certainly a wide-ranging thread. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that…)

    I agree, j. christian, that this is a disturbing trend — one more pronounced on the left in that they have many more things that they positively want to do, while conservatives are currently mostly engaged in resisting change. On a number of issues (perhaps most notably environmentalism) there seems to be a waning patience with actually persuading the public to support “the right thing” and an increasing frustration that technocrats cannot simply impose new regulations and structures without consulting the troublesome electorate and their representatives.

  • But it is certainly a pro-life victory. How strange that some ostensibly “pro-life” Catholics can’t see that. Perhaps they are out-of-touch with actual parenthood? Good to see that not everyone in this thread is so dismissive of a pretty significant and praiseworthy bit of progress.

    I don’t really think so, even though I think the existence of a comfortable place for a woman to pump is a good thing – but it’s more of a plain ol’ decency thing. Then again, having six kids, two of whom have special needs, I’m out of touch. Oh, and one of those special needs kids was born with a cleft palate and therefore couldn’t suck. My wife pumped exclusively for over a year – we even had to rent a medical grade pump that was so heavy and awkward that it brought on excessive scrutiny from airline security.

    Yeah, out of touch…

  • Technocrats grow impatient because they “know” what is best for us. They have the knowledge that we don’t have even if they haven’t the experience. Thus someone who is not a parent or business person can know what is good for parents and business. Why someone who is a white European can know what racial programs are good for ethnic minorities even if those minorities disagree.

  • While I see the breast-pumping rooms as something beneficial to working mothers, I still can’t help but see it as an oddity.

  • It seems the briefly aired Firefly series was rather prophetic. The (Sino-American) Alliance exercising galactic totalitarianism in the name of peace, efficiency and happiness. Could it be the Tea Party are the Browncoats?

    The elite financiers and their academic lackeys have always sought to merge the USA with a Communist regime to use capitalism to fund a global totalitarian oligarchy. Used to be think tanks (foundations) were preparing us to merge with the USSR. However, Reagan, Thatcher and Blessed John Paul II put a stop to the attraction for that horror. So now they are working on merging us with China. China is the future model of world government and many people are willing to make a deal with the Devil so they can have the comfort of security (slavery) rather than living in fear of failure (freedom).

    Ai ya women wanle!

  • Darwin, your tactics and “arguments” (bullying) are boring.

  • bullying = pointing out when someone claims authority/experience he lacks

    Well, we aim to please. 😉

  • Darwin, you might be interested in a post I wrote today for Rock and Theology on children. Pay close attention to the seventh paragraph.

  • Let me chime in here as a full-time working mother who pumped milk for over a year for my daughter and plan to do it again for my forthcoming baby (I think MrsDarwin and I are due about a week apart).

    My family is a little unusual because my husband stays home with our children while I work. This decision was not made because of an unexpected unemployment situation but something we deliberately chose. We felt strongly about not sending the children to daycare and having a stranger raise them. One of us was going to stay home and, since the economic potential in my field is much greater than his, we decided it would be my husband. Over time, I think we have made the right decision, but, in these child-bearing years, it can be very hard.

    Now, in a lot of ways, we get the worst of both worlds. We live far out from the city and I have a long commute because we cannot afford to live near the city on one income. Pricing of many things seems dependent on two incomes and the assumption that everyone has a paying job. So I am not in favor of anything that reinforces the “necessity” of a dual income household and that it is proper to outsource the raising of one’s children.

    On the other hand, there is very little corporate support for working mothers beyond pats on the head. I get zero paid maternity leave. All the time I take off of work for childbirth comes from my accumulated sick and vacation time. What that means in reality is that our family just doesn’t go on vacation beyond a handful of days around major holidays to visit nearby family. Taking a week off to go to Florida (or go visit family across the country) is just not feasible. I am relatively healthy and don’t get sick that often, but am fearful of ever getting put on pregnancy bedrest. We can’t afford unpaid leave because I am our only income. And I know that I am lucky in that I actually get sick and vacation time to bank and can actually take time off after childbirth. So it would be nice if working mothers had more concrete support.

    Now the law in my state (Tennessee) already required employers to offer a private, non-bathroom area to pump. So while it is nice thought that federal law now requires everyone to be decent to pumping mothers, I’m not sure it is that great of a pro-life victory. If even pro-business, low tax, redstate Tennessee has this law, it must not be that controversial and could be passed state by state respecting our federal system.

  • bullying = pointing out when someone claims authority/experience he lacks

    This is a great line to remember the next time you pontificate about, say, liberation theology.

  • Or the next time you give an opinion on breast pumping, I suppose. If you want to claim you have more experience at breast pumping than I do, go right ahead.

  • Michael,

    Perhaps you should rely on Jenny’s experience noted above.

  • Michael,

    The reason I called you on your “Perhaps they are out-of-touch with actual parenthood?” line is because you were using it on people some of whom you knew very well to have much more experience being working parents than you do. If I’m out of touch with actual parenthood, then you clearly don’t have standing to even possess an opinion on the matter. Next time I suggest to you in a condescending fashion that you are perhaps out of touch with actual liberation theology, or suggest to a mother that she is out of touch with actual breast pumping, I strongly encourage you to parrot the line back to me. I’ll deserve it.

    As it happens, I read your Rock & Theology post even before you linked to it here (it was a slow day, so I read it when you linked to it at Vox Nova) and I did indeed crack an amused smile at that seventh paragaph, since it seemed like such a classic example of choosing to characterize others rather than understand them. I’ll see about leaving a comment there with more detail, if you’d like.

  • “I did indeed crack an amused smile at that seventh paragraph, since it seemed like such a classic example of choosing to characterize others rather than understand them.”

    ..Sort of like treating people as objects rather than subjects, wouldn’t you agree? That passage was pure argument by assertion. He might’ve just as easily claimed that parents in big families don’t love their children — it would be just as factually correct, and just as devoid of substance.

  • Jenny,

    Fair points. You’ve definitely taken the harder road, and I have a lot of respect for you and your husband on that.

    Certainly, the extra burden to large companies in having a room somewhere which can be used for nursing mothings is not large — I wouldn’t consider it to have nearly the kind of blowback for those of us (like you and me) who are slogging through the single-income lifestyle that mandating company-paid or taxpayer-subsidized childcare would.

    The concern about being forced to subsidize the two-income lifestyle does, I guess, spring to mind for me since the very large company I work for does provide a fair number of benefits clearly designed to help out the two-incomes-two-kids-in-daycare set. And on various teams I’ve been on over the years, it often seems like as someone who doesn’t have to rush out right at 5pm in order to pick the kid up from daycare on “my day to pick the baby up”, I would often get extra tasks dumped on my by my two-income-household co-workers at the end of the day. The combination of working later so they can rush out to daycare on time (and thus getting home later to my own wife and kids), while hearing them talk about how they can’t imagine affording a “large family” like mine, gets to rankle a bit. (Though clearly, excess cynicism isn’t the right response.)

  • (Though clearly, excess cynicism isn’t the right response.)

    Ah, but sometimes it can be a satisfying one. Rather like when I am dealing with a client who is on bankruptcy number three and who is complaining to me about a bank which, for some unfathomable reason, does not wish to extend a loan to him.

  • I also find Jenny’s insight good. She is struggling but still finds that a breast-feeding room is not a “pro-life” issue. Rather, as others have pointed out, it is a decent issue for a mother’s sake where appropriate.

  • Perhaps you should rely on Jenny’s experience noted above.

    My wife’s experience is key for me, as well as women in my family.

    If I’m out of touch with actual parenthood, then you clearly don’t have standing to even possess an opinion on the matter.

    Um, I didn’t say you were out of touch with parenthood.

    He might’ve just as easily claimed that parents in big families don’t love their children — it would be just as factually correct, and just as devoid of substance.

    Why? It’s a completely different, unrelated claim than the claim that I made.

  • So what are your wife’s experiences on breast feeding in the workplace?

  • Phillip,

    I didn’t say the breast pump rooms were *not* pro-life. It is just that they are more in the “children deserve the best nutrition that can be given” vein of pro-life, as opposed to the “it should be illegal for your mother to kill you” vein. But I don’t think it is a grand victory or a significant gain for the pro-life position. If Tennessee has laws protecting public nursing, extended (albeit unpaid) maternity leave, and pumping at work, these issues must not be that great of a battle and could be passed in all the states.

    Darwin,

    My company doesn’t really offer benefits that only apply to dual-income households beyond the flex account for daycare, but I view that as more a federal issue than a company one. And amazingly none of my coworkers have kids in day care, so getting work dumped on me is not really a problem.

    What does set my teeth on edge is the federal tax credit for daycare. I find the provision to be anti-family and discriminatory against one income, two parent households. While it is true that the direct cost of our “day care” was zero dollars, the actual cost of this free service was an entire year’s salary.

    If we, as a society, have decided to subsidize the cost of daycare, then every child’s family should have the cost subsidized, not just the families that have decided to outsource the job. The best way to do this is to increase the child tax credit and abolish the day care credit.

  • Agreed on the federal daycare tax credit.

    Actually, it comes into play far less frequently that some of the child care related programs and policies at my company, but the thing which perhaps galls the most is a policy which was adopted after a PR snafu a few years back that in any layoff, if both spouses work for the company they will never lay both off, even if both would otherwise have been targeted, because they don’t want to wipe a family’s entire income.

    Of course, for those of us who already are our family’s only source of income, no such promises…

  • Actually Jenny then we disagree. I think there is an abuse of language to claim that such an issue is pro-life. Sure there is a charity to allow women a private room to breast feed. But is this a fundamental issue of justice? Is justice violated in a basic sense if a woman has to breast pump in a bathroom? Is it really? Not at all. And the trivialization of what is pro-life is part of the problem with such arguments.

  • While a private pumping room may be a charity for the woman, I *do* believe it is an issue of justice for the baby.

    The problem with pumping in the bathroom is not necessarily that it is a bathroom. It is that the bathroom is a public place. Breast pumping requires a loud machine, an electrical outlet, partially disrobing, attaching two largish suction pumps to a private area of the body and relaxing enough to let the milk flow. Next time you are in a public bathroom at work (or wherever), take notice of the electrical outlets. They probably are not in the stalls, so the pumping would have to be out in the open. Imagine standing in this vulnerable position next to that outlet while your boss, your coworkers, and who knows who else comes in and out of that bathroom.

    Most women will not endure that type of humiliation three or four times a day for however long the child needs breastmilk. They will simply choose to formula feed and some children will pay with their lives. The pro-life angle of the policy is that it allows women better opportunities to feed their children the best possible nutrition and may save lives. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100405/D9EST98G0.html

    Now all that being said, I do agree that the language can be (and often is) co-opted to justify all manner of minor pro-life policies while allowing the one major pro-life issue to go unchecked. Do these minor victories redeem a monstrous bill? No. And I do agree that it is a trivialization to label a bill “pro-life” because it federally mandates private pumping rooms, but allows funding for abortion.

  • I guess we will still disagree. A benefit perhaps. But an issue of fundamental justice no.