Tony Blankley is either Lying or Stupid

In his latest article, Tony Blankley takes Obama to task for failing to be sufficiently Conservative.

. . . low taxes are not sufficient. When they come at the same time that the White House continues to trumpet threatening class warfare sounds, I fear this dreary economy will continue to flounder.

The president needs to think very hard. If he believes the best bet for the economy (and his re-election) is a full Reaganite embrace of free markets and low taxes, then he should switch comprehensively to such policies and rhetoric. He will get GOP support and such policies will become law.

Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of following the same policies that got us into this mess as a way of getting out of it, the lie comes when Blankley pretends that the GOP will support Obama if he does a full Reagan. The GOP will not support Obama no matter what he does, unless we are attacked, and probably not even then. Their base hates Obama in a primal way, and they cannot support Obama without offending their base. So they won't.

A Flawed Study

Obviously "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" won't be repealed any time soon. Republican Senators are going to delay any action on it till next year, at which point there will be no chance in a Republican Congress. This despite a Department of Defense study that suggests that the change would cause little problems. Cal Thomas though, after reading a Washington Times Editorial, knows that the study is flawed. Who are you going to trust more, the Department of Defense or the Washington Times Editorial Board?

But not content with denigrating our military (while extoling the real homophobic military), he then moves on to this leap.

Gates and Mullen suggest that the troops can be conditioned into accepting openly gay service members. Would that include chaplains and religious soldiers for whom homosexual behavior is thought to be a sin? Will chaplains be disciplined if they counsel someone who is gay that they can change and be forgiven, just as heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage can also repent and discover a new path? This proposed change in the law has more of a "fundamentalist" tone than fundamentalism. Submit, or else.

Hmmmm. This is interesting. We must continue treating Homosexuals like second class citizens in order to prevent chaplins from being persecuted for explaining their beliefs. I mean a Christian Chaplin who believes Homosexuality is wrong can't minister to homosexual troops. That's why we don't allow Jewish or Islamic or Buddhist troops; I mean a Christian Chaplin would naturally have to tear down their religions faith because there is one and only way back to God.

Wait, it just occured to me that we have had Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist troops; so I guess the military is resilient enough to accomodate different points of view without persecuting poor Christians. Maybe we can assume that Homosexual's will go through the same path.

Professionally Obtuse

Right now they are debating on extending or failing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. Republicans want to extend them for everybody, but mostly the wealthy. Democrats want to extend them for the poor and the middle class, but let them expire on the wealthy. Republicans have made it clear that they will filibuster anything and everything until they get those taxcuts for the most wealthy extended. The problem for Republicans is that many Americans might not be impressed by them fighting so very hard for the most privileged among us. So naturally we have seen a string of articles arguing their case, like this effort from David Harsanyi.

Let's all pony up. Together.

After all, it wasn't only the rich who voted for those Republicans who took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. And it certainly wasn't only millionaires who voted for those Democrats who took that large debt and placed it on a trajectory that will have us measuring it in the sextillions.

Anyway, if tax cuts do not generate economic activity, as most liberals contend, why limit tax hikes to the rich? Being in the middle class does not guarantee that you're a productive citizen. (I can attest to that personally.) Surely, some in the middle class can afford to pay more.

That last bit is of course obtuse. Tax Cuts for people who already have plenty of disposable income may not help out much. The wealthy are likely to simply save the money, which doesn't grow the economy. Middle Class may save some of it, but are more likely to spend it, and the working poor will definately spend it (they don't have much choice). That's why tax cuts for the rich may not have the desired effect; that of injecting money into the economy, while tax cuts for the working poor and middle class will almost certainly go right back into the economy.

Harsanyi almost certainly understands the argument; but it's better being obtuse and pretending he doesn't.

Your Weekly Rush - Pretending to be Dumb

Some on the left have suggested that extending unemployment benefits might make economic sense in the current client. Rush Limbaugh disagrees and argues against them in the most idiotic fashion possible.

If "unemployment benefits help drive the economy," we need more of them and an extension here is just not nearly enough. If they help drive the economy, doesn't that say that unemployment drives the economy?

Doesn't it? I mean, you don't have unemployment benefits without unemployment. So unemployment drives the economy.

Hilarious. I hear that wings drive the planes ability to fly. So why don't we see planes with 50 wings on them?

I hear that Aspirin is good for you when you have a headache - so why not down the whole bottle?

. . . no way unemployment benefits create jobs, but this is what the Democrats are saying. (interruption) The unemployed can't hire people, exactly. They... (interruption) No. The unemployed can't hire people, otherwise they'd hire themselves and we wouldn't have any unemployment, but they don't. No, it's just... It is depressingly stupid.

On that point I totally agree. Your feigned ignorance here is depressing. What people mean is that in this specific situation, with unemployment at 10%, extended unemployment benefits gets money in the hands of people who will actually spend it, pretty much immediately. That's the point. They will buy groceries, buy gas, pay their rent, pay their electric bill, and so on. The money takes a very direct path from the government back into the economy, enabling those businesses to benefit.

If you give the money to the wealthy (through tax breaks) as Limbaugh would presumably prefer, you don't know where the money is going to go. They don't have the necessity to spend the money immediately. Some of them may well decide to use that money to hire some new people. But others will spend it on luxuries or simply save it. They have discretionary income already; giving them more, will simply give them more discretion. Unemployment benefits, on the other hand, are not discretionary. The unemployed need money and will spend money. They don't have a choice.

I suspect Limbaugh, despite his feigned stupidity, knows all this. It's just that he knows whose side he is on, and wants to see the wealthy get their money.

More on Wikileaks

Obviously I don't support assassinating Julian Assange; but that's not to say I don't see some problems with what he has done. James P. Rubin over at the New Republic makes some good points.

The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones.

Yet those on the hard left are usually the loudest critics of America imposing its own values, its own way of doing business, and its own culture on other countries. For better or worse, in many parts of the world there’s a big difference between what government officials are prepared to do publicly and what they’re prepared to say and do privately. We may wish it otherwise, but those are the realities faced by U.S. officials. The hard left, so quick to demand that America accept other countries’ political systems, now seems blind to the fact that other governments want to have the right to say one thing in public and a different thing in private. By respecting that difference, American diplomats are doing their job. Surely the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, would prefer for Arab leaders to be as honest and open and transparent as we are in our country. Until such democratic values come to the Arab world, however, we have to work with what we’ve got. U.S. diplomacy has been damaged, not destroyed; it will recover after a time. But for now, Wikileaks is making diplomacy’s task a whole lot harder.

He's not wrong. From what I can tell, a lot of the embarrasment these leaks reveal is that of our friends in the middle east.

Ruling with an Iron Fist

Dustin Hawkins has called for the death of Julian Assange. He has called for the CIA to kill the Wikileaks releaser of confidential information.

Killing Julian Assange would send a message: Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there's no reason that the CIA can't kill him. . . . Legally, we may not be able to do a lot to Assange since he's not an American, but killing him would do more to protect our classified data than any new security system.

I wonder if there would be any consequences to our Government murdering an Australian Citizen. And let's be clear this can't be "an unexpected heart attack" for Hawkin's strategy to work. It has to be clear (if deniable) that we did this.

Also I am continually depressed at how conservatives fail to understand the founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is for all people, not just for Americans. We might not have the power to enforce it throughout the world, but the idas that Americans have rights and foreigners just don't strikes me as mean and unamerican.

Satire

Conservative love to reveal their plans for America, and then, faced with blowback, pretend they were only joking or being satirical.

When the black alumna called she said she had read my recent column “If I Were President.” She wanted to know whether I was really going to abolish the African American Center. At that point, I already knew we were in for an educational conversation. These days, college graduates are not well-versed in satire. As an art form, it is swiftly becoming extinct.

Things went downhill in our conversation when this college graduate told me that she became upset with my remarks about getting rid of the African American Center after she “saw that I was white”. My seventh Great Grandfather fought in the American Revolution in order to preserve our basic God-given rights. But this college graduate seemed to suggest that the expression of basic human rights is contingent upon race. The African American Center she frequented as an undergraduate did not seem to give her the ability to reflect and remedy her own possible racism.

After hearing her tell me that she “got all amped up” in response to my satire I made a big mistake. I explained that I would get rid of all the centers if I really were running for chancellor.

Interesting. Apparently this foolish student was upset that Adams would get rid of African American centers if he was President. How silly. She doesn't understand satire. Of course Adams really would shut down the African American centers if he were Chancellor. You obviously see the satirical difference.

But then again maybe the studant was more concerned over shutting down the African American center than what title Adams felt he needed to accomplish this goal.

Obama visits a place Ahmadinejad once visited

Stop the presses. President Barack Obama, during his visit to Indonesia, a predominently Muslim nation, will visit a Mosque and a University where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad previously visited. Not only that, but the somewhat crazy president of Iran said some somewhat crazy things (including bog standard attacks on Israel). And Obama is going to the same places that Ahmadinejad once walked.

I'm not sure what this proves, but it is the theme of Terrence Jeffrey's latest article. He also doesn't exactly explain what the significance of this is, leaving it to his readers to fill in the blanks. Which they are more than capable of doing.

He's (Obama is) in his element, surrounded by Muslims that are interested in the destruction of America, Israel, capitalism, freedom and anything not Muslim. The best thing ever would be to leave him there and not allow his retun.

If Nothing Happens We Win!

Lot's of articles today on what will happen with the new Republican House and how Obama will deal with them. David Limbaugh's article is a pretty good example; essentially President Obama, being a super liberal egotist won't change his positions to be more moderate because he's not smart enough to to realize he should and not politically skilled enough to make the move.

Let me just comment again at how different the right looks at Obama; they see a guy who is stubbornly unwilling to abandon Far Left positions. And I see a guy who barely tried to uphold liberal positions before caving to industry and conservatives again and again. Did we get a public option in health care? No.

But let's consider what Limbaugh's article implies for Conservatives.

As long as Republicans stand strong for conservative principles -- and that's a very big if -- Obama's toast in 2012.

Well, this may be accurate. If they shut down the government, more or less, with gridlock, than the economy may still be in the toilet. In which case the voters might well take it out on President Obama. Unless of course Obama can make it clear that the gridlock over the last few years ('11 and '12) was the fault of Republicans in Congress, in which case who knows (particularly if they put up Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich).

Of course regardless of who wins in 2012, the cynical strategy of gridlock for the next two years kind of ensures that the losers are the American people.

I'm Tired of People Pretending to be Idiots

From Doug Gile's latest article; about how liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin.

According to the Progressives, women cannot be “real women” if they don’t fit the Progressives’ script. Yep, if a woman doesn’t march to the Left’s horse dung definition regarding what “they” (whoever the heck “they” are) have determined constitutes a real woman, she is illegitimate.

First of all who has said that Sarah Palin isn't a real woman? You have a citation on that?

Secondly, what people have certainly said is that Sarah Palin doesn't represent the interests of women. I might well say that. I don't think Sarah Palin will represent the interests of most Americans. She's a conservative, so in my opinion the things she wants to do for this country are bad for this country and bad for the people who live in it. What is wrong with saying that? Nothing. Certainly our Conservative buddies have no problem slamming Obama for not really loving this country because he works for programs they disagree with.

Giles also slams liberals women for not looking like Portia de Rossi. Instead they all apparently look like a stereotypical butch lesbian. Giles is kind of despicable.

Your Weekly Rush - Explaining without an Explanation

Limbaugh is obviously overjoyed at the electoral tsunami that hit America on Tuesday. That said he seems at a loss as to explain how O'Donnel and Angle lost. His narrative is that Conservative Candidates win; moderate candidates lose. Americans want Conservatism. So how to explain the losses of O'Donnel and Angle? It's the moderate influences in the party.

Christine O'Donnell could have won were it not for all the backbiting after her primary victory. Had the party gotten behind her, had Steele had some on-the-ground money for Nevada, who knows how that mighta turned out. We didn't have any money on the ground in Nevada. There was no way we're gonna combat the unions getting behind and the gaming industry getting behind Dingy Harry and who knows what the hell happened to ballot boxes in places, but there was no ground game money in Nevada and very little in Delaware, what the hell was gonna happen?

He strongly insinuates that Reid fixed the run in Nevada, but in both cases the answer is the same; rather than admit that these were weak candidates, he blames the party and party centrists (like Karl Rove?!?) for failing to support these strong Conservative woman.

Of course he goes on to point out how many awful liberals there are that get elected year after year, taking a shot at the late Ted Kennedy in the process. Real class.

New Quote

I was going to do this quote, also from Monty Python.

We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government. Nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent. Nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby, ulcerous, little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across.

Too long, but it does more accurately display my attitude.

This will be a Productive Two Years

From Michelle Malkin's latest article.

No more compromising deals behind closed doors. No more compromising bailouts in times of manufactured crisis. No more compromising conservative principles for D.C. party elites. No more compromising the American economy for left-wing special interests. No more compromising transparency and ethics for bureaucratic self-preservation.

Let us be clear, in case it hasn't fully sunk into the minds of Obama and the trash-talking Democrats yet: You can take your faux olive branch and shove it. Thank you.

Republicans like to explain that they are the grown ups, but this doesn't sound very grown up does it? But it does follow on from conservative philosophy. There's no real need for conservatives to work liberals to make government work, because conservatives don't believe government can work. If Government can't work anyway, why bother getting up in arms to make it work?

No New Tale to Tell

Sorry - I was on the road then I was sick, then I didn't care for a few days. But now I'm ready to pounce on the latest Doug Giles article.

Yes, the masturbatory Progressives who deny the existence of God are the self-appointed gods of the post America milieu, and their Church of the New Groove is a DC on ‘roids.

I think his point is that Liberals and Leftists are their own religion (not, as it turns out, an original idea), and that we deny the existence of God and like to masterbate?

Giles' main theme is that we liberals are tyranically silencing conservatives, but since they have God on their side, they don't have to be quiet. It's always nice to assert that people who aren't taking any risk by speaking up are in fact taking huge risks. Makes their lives seem more dramatic. Kind of like when you are a kid running around playing "cops and robbers." Of course you pretend you are in great danger from the finger and/or plastic guns you have. Makes the game more exciting ("Cops and robbers" is way more popular than "run around and point at each other"). Giles is just updating that little thrill of pretend danger for the modern age.

Don't Worry about the Government

Michael Medved's latest article argues that Character doesn't matter all that much.

These various scandals, embarrassments and imperfections may count as lurid and compelling, but they shouldn't play a major role in swaying voters in the upcoming elections. All the candidates mentioned above have won their party nominations in campaigns for the House and Senate. When the electorate decides their fate in November, the only significant factor involves choosing a direction for Congress and the country.

Interesting. Is this a tacit admission that the Tea Party forced some weak candidates on the Republican party?

Let's Do Some Journalism

James O'Keefe, who pretended to be a pimp and a journalist, has had his latest scheme fail pretty spectacularly. Actually apparently he only pretended to pretend to be a pimp. Anyway his latest scheme . . . well wasn't that well thought out.

According to MediaMatters.org, Fox News has scarcely mentioned how CNN's Boudreau, cautioned by an O'Keefe aide with a guilty conscience, frustrated his bizarre scheme to lure her aboard a boat tricked out like Hugh Hefner's boudoir for the purpose of sexual humiliation.

"For months," Boudreau explained in recent broadcast, "I had been working on a documentary about the young conservative movement. James had called me about concerns he had regarding an upcoming shoot. He asked me to meet him to talk about the shoot ... When I showed up, there was no office, as promised. Instead, he wanted to get me on a boat, which we later learned, was staged as a 'pleasure palace.' One of his colleagues ... told me he had 'strawberries and champagne' waiting for me on the boat, and that he planned to 'hit on me' the entire time. She said it would all be captured on hidden cameras that had been set up on the boat and in the back yard. She said the sole purpose of the 'punk' was to embarrass me, and to make CNN look bad."

Too bad such a brilliant piece of journalism didn't quite come off. Or, more accurately, this guy's star is falling like a meteor.

Your Weekly Rush: Does Rush Even believe this?

Barney Frank recently noted that Rush Limbaugh had made homophobic attacks on him. Rush responded, apparently confused and hurt.

I'm trying to figure out what homophobic attack did we launch on him? We've never launched a homophobic attack on anybody. I never launched a "homophobic attack" on anybody!

Limbaugh went on to play Banking Queen, a parody song featuring Frank as the titular Banking Queen and the Barny Frank update theme, something called "My Boy Lollipop." All the while acting like he's amazed that anybody would suspect him of homophobic attacks.

No No No No

David Limbaugh's latest article drives me nuts.

I realize it's unfair and, according to some, even racist to hold President Obama accountable for his failed economic policies and cynical campaign promises,

No! Who exactly says it's racist to hold Obama accountable? Nobody. But some conservatives in holding Obama accountable have used racist and nasty phrases.

The thinking clearly is that not only did America not have a right to respond aggressively to the unprovoked terrorist attacks on our soil but also doing so has been counterproductive and that reversing the Bush policies would strengthen our position and make us safer.

No! Of course America has the right to respond to terrorists act. The Afghanistan War was suppoted by vast majorities of Congressional democrats. Invading Iraq, on the other hand, is a different matter.

I suppose the left's logic is that though Muslims are very peaceful, you'd better not provoke them or they'll turn into jihadists, which is what gave rise to 9/11.

No! And lord almighty what a stupid thing to say. First of all Liberals don't see Muslims as monolithic group the way dumbass conservatives seem to. Some Muslims are terrorists (a vanishingly small, but very dangerous percentage of Muslims as a whole). A somewhat larger group might be influenced to join them by our invasion of their countries.

Saner minds understand that jihadists are not jihadists because of America's tough interrogation techniques or because we didn't Mirandize them on the battlefield.

No! By saner minds, presumably Limbaugh means his own. I have my doubts. It's very simple. Jihadists won't be swayed to like the United States by anything we can do. But not all Muslims are Jihadists (or even all that many). There are larger groups, people that might join them, and people that might tacitly support them. If we torture and if we kill wantonly, and if we show a lack of respect for their people and their religion, than the arguments of Islamic Radicals make more sense.

Transparency

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is particularly transparent. He is writing about Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnels opponent in her race. Tyrrel's point is the media lets Coons of the hook while slamming into O'Donnel.

But do you know what was being taught at the Yale Divinity School when Coons was there as a graduate student? Witchcraft! Had Christine been a bit older and presumably sophisticated, she could have attended classes with Chris and been taught witchcraft by scholars. Perhaps she could have earned a Ph.D. in the mysteries of reading chicken entrails.

Along with classes in witchcraft, there were classes in queer worship and feminist/womanist/gendered theologies, and in the Intro to Christian Ethics II, there was black liberation theology, a study Coons first picked up in Africa. Were the "values" taught in these classes among those absorbed by Coons at YDS? We do not know because Coons is not answering Lord's calls for him to release his transcripts.

. . . His promise to apply the values he learned at YDS does not even call into question what those values might be. Queer worship? Feminist/womanist/gendered theology? Black liberation theology? Witchcraft? The press is too busy digging up dirt on O'Donnell.

Apparently if you study at a university that teaches some flakey courses, you must have taken them and you must be a flake. Here's a newsflash - even Brigham Young University (where I attended, a very conservative Mormon college) has flakey courses. Or, to be more accurate, courses with titles that sound flakey. So this is pretty sad.

And of course Christine O'Donnel's more serious transgressions involve the misappropriation of election funds.

Let Your Freak Flag Fly

Under normal conditions, it's best, politically, to keep your extremist views to yourself. But this political season, with the primary triumphs of so many tea party candidates, I think some Conservatoids have thrown restraint to the win. Case in point, Terry Jeffrey's latest article.

County by county, state by state, Americans should begin functionally abolishing government-run schools and replacing them with a free market in schools. On the federal level, Congress should kill the Department of Education by choking off its funding. The department was not constitutional in the first place.

Say what you will about the merits of this plan, there is no qustion that it is an extreme plan. Eliminating public education would be a far greater change than the mediocre changes to health care that have caused Conservatives to declare that we are now practically a socialist state.

For the record, of course I think this is a horrible plan. Public education is the bedrock of a civilized society, and to eliminate it is to create, purposefully, a caste system far stricter than the one we have today.

Dennis Prager, Historical Blindness, and the Religion of Leftism

First things first. Dennis Prager's latest article makes this ahistorical comment, that I had to point out.

One of the first books I ever owned -- in high school -- was titled "Danger on the Right." Throughout the world, people are fed the message "Danger on the Right" -- and virtually never "Danger on the Left," despite the left's far bloodier and more totalitarian record.

Allow me to point out a few things - the Red Scares (both the 1920s one and the 1940s/50s one) for one. People were pretty scared of the danger on the left then, weren't they? Let's also comment on the many right wing dictatorships that have imprisoned and executed Leftists and Communists (often with the support of the United States). How do you get away with making such a foolish statement? Perhaps because you assume your readers are fools.

But earlier in the article he makes this fairly common statement.

Liberalism and leftism are religions. While I felt I would be sinning against God when I tasted ham, I was certain I was sinning against both God and man were I to vote Republican.

That is how liberals, not to mention leftists, think: It is a grievous sin to vote Republican (unless the Republican is a liberal). One is abandoning their faith, values, community and very identity.

It is a grevious sin for Liberals to vote for Conservatives. I don't know about the grevious part, but it is a sin, as per this definition "any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."

If you are a liberal or leftist, it's because you believe that liberalism/leftism is what's best for the nation. Of course it would be a transgression, if you beleive those things, to vote what you believew ould be bad for America.

Muslims are Americans? Who knew?

Steve Chapman's latest article educates Townhall readers on what American Muslims are like. Turns out they are lot like the rest of us.

Most American Muslims are about as radical as Jay Leno. A 2007 survey by Pew found that only 5 percent have a favorable view of al-Qaida -- a number that drops to 3 percent among foreign-born Muslims. Far from praying daily for the rise of Islamic extremism, 61 percent said they were worried about it.

Unlike the alienated Muslim populations of Europe, American Muslims do not feel estranged from society. "Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live," Pew discovered. Most also believe women are better off in the United States than in Muslim countries.

Their overall satisfaction with the state of the country is no different, according to Pew, from the overall satisfaction of everyone else. They don't sound like a violent cult plotting to impose Taliban-style Shariah law on the infidels who surround them. They sound strangely like ... Americans.

So good on you, Mr. Chapman. But let's see how Townhall Readers have responded to this particular mesasge. 471 comments. That's a lot.

The only good Muslim is the one who apostates to Christianity. Unfortunately, the peaceful Muslims kill him. Therefore, there are no good Muslims.

Chapman is like a bystander on a beach saying it's safe to go in the water when would-be swimmers can see sharks circling patiently.

These so called “Moderate Muslims” in America seem to be facilitating, by their actions and words, the Jihadists creed.

Barak NoBama IS A DAMNED MUSLIM!!!

Stay out of my country Muzzie, it is too good for you and yours..

Anyone that thinks Islam is a legimate religion does not know the Bible or god...

Islam IS radical, period.

In fairness, there were a couple who were supportive of Chapman (although one was clearly a liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that)).

Sometimes the Title Is Enough

Case in point, the latest article from Dan Gainor. It's entitled "Left Calls in the Cavalry But Forgets They're the Bad Guys." And that really tells you all you need to know about it. Apparently we are desperate to win the 2010 elections, and so are calling on former Presidents and God to help us out, without realizing that God is on the Tea-partiers side.

We're not the bad guys incidentally.

Trashing Goldwater

Ann Coulter's latest article is interesting because she takes the time to trash an icon of the right, Barry Goldwater. In contrasting him with Reagan, she calls him "abortion-loving Goldwater" and "gay-marriage-loving Goldwater." But that's not all.

Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

. . . Goldwater wasn't our guy; Reagan was.

Interesting. Of coures Barry Goldwater wasn't unelectable because he wasn't Christian enough. And Barry Goldwater's campaign pushed this country to the right, essentially setting up Reagan down the road. And certainly Reagan's assessment of Barry Goldwater was pretty positive.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

That was from one of Reagan's most famous pre-presidential speeches (on behalf of Barry Goldwater).

It's all about Obama

Dick Morriss and Eileen McGann's latest article is intresting, in that they seem to acknowledge the possibility that their candidates may not have universal appeal.

The Democrats are gleeful over the missteps of Christine O'Donnell. Too many leading Republicans do not realize that all of our fates in the midterm election are tied to her. If the Democrats can discredit her, they can discredit all of those like her and raise lasting doubts about dozens of Republican candidates who would otherwise be victorious.

If the grass-roots tea party is foisting unqualified candidates upon us, and if our very own party leaders think this is true, what a weapon we are handing the Democrats. Those critical Republican leaders who would criticize the O'Donnells of our party must realize that she is here to stay, she is one of us now and she deserves all our support. Fortunately, the grass-roots knows this fact and has showered her campaign with donations and support.

Kind of confusing there as Morris seems to recognize that O'Donnel (and others) are weak, but stressing that they must be supported.

The larger point though is that this election needs to be about Obama; it shouldn't matter what kind of candidate we put up, so long as America focuses on how badly Obama has failed.

New Quote

I used to do a post everytime I did a new quote - since reinvigorating the Quotes page i am updating it more often, but don't feel the urge to highlight it as I once did. At any rate there's a new quote up there at the top.

What if Christine O'Donnel Loses?

The current mood on the right is interesting; it's a sort of eager triumphalism. Everybody expects 2010 to be very good for Republicans, but one wonders what the takeaway will be if more mainstream republicans win while people like Christin O'Donnel lose.

But what do I know? According to David Limbaugh's latest article, I'm an extremist.

But Christine O'Donnell isn't really the issue here. The more interesting and relevant stories arising out of her primary victory are: 1) the liberals' efforts to paint her -- along with other mainstream conservatives, including the entire tea party movement -- as extreme and, frankly, a bit wacko when the real extremism resides in the Democratic Party . . .

We are back in Clinton territory in a way; Clinton was described as an extremist for his 8 years as well; even though he was pretty moderate all the way around, and sold out the liberal base repeatedly. But going back to my main theme, what happens if O'Donnel loses?

The tea partiers are not splintering or otherwise threatening the Republican Party; they are making it more accountable, more conservative and more effective. It can no longer be said that incumbents in either party are shoo-ins. We're witnessing the healthiest paradigm shift in modern politics, and it is an extremely positive development.

What happens is that Conservatives continue to fool themselves about the Conservative nature of this nation. If O'Donnel loses, Limbaugh et al won't take that as a lesson not to put up extremist and shakey candidates just because they are more strictly conservative. They never do.

War Without End

Mike S. Adams has parleyed his annoyance at people disagreeing with him into a quite a little career. That said his latest takes it up a notch.

This debate is about more than two people in love. It is about two factions of society, which are sharply divided. One chooses to live in accordance with God’s word and the other chooses to live in rebellion against it.

Because the stakes are so high the debate must be joined by everyone. It cannot be dictated by those who call themselves gay but use anger to silence those who object to the same-sex union. Now more than ever, we must speak now or forever hold our peace.

I do agree that we should have a debate - there are honest disagreements. On the other hand how do you debate "We should follow God's word" vs. "We should live in rebellion to God." I mean if those are the terms, shouldn't everybody on the "We should live in rebellion" side just give up? What kind of debate is that?

If Wishing Made It So

I got sick last week which is why posting tailed off, but I did want to point out this article from good old Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator. This week Ben has girded up his loins in a silly attempt to be an Ann Coulter like fire breather.

. . . we don't need to be lectured about our intolerance for Islam when we object to radical terror-supporting Muslims building a mosque on the bodies of those murdered by radical terror-supporting Muslims. Our objections to the ground zero mosque aren't based on xenophobic notions about brown people or baseless ideas about the nature of all Muslims. Our objections to the ground zero mosque are simple: We will not submit to a group of people who agree with terrorists in ideology, share funders with terrorists, and seek to use a site of Islamist victory as a site for the worship of an Islamist god.

The key argument here is that Imam Ruaf is a terrorist supporiting radical. He isn't. He clearly isn't. His public statements show him to be the opposite of a terrorist-supporting radical, unless you carefully cherry pick his statements.

I don't know whether Ben knows the truth, but has decided it's more fun to lie, or if he genuinely doesn't know that Imam Ruaf is a moderate.

I'm also amused at that "We will not submit" line, as it does seem to imply that simply complaining about the Mosque isn't going to be enough. This is amusing because plenty of consrvatives have been keen to point out that nobody is saying Muslims can't build a community center there; they just would prefer that they didn't. It's clear that some, young Ben among them, would like to see more stringent opposition that would actually stop the Cordoba center.

The general thrust of the article is about Michael Moore; young Ben really doesn't like Michael Moore.

No True Scotsman

The popular fallacy seems applicable after reading Doug Giles latest article.

How do I know I’m not a terrorist? Well, you pretty much have to be a Muslim or a progressive to be one, and I’m not Islamic but rather a Christian and a conservative.

Hilarious. You wonder if he has heard about those acts of terrorism committed against doctors who perform abortions. Or violence against Homosexuals. But presumably he either condones that sort of violence or he is willfully blind (let's be charitable and go with the latter).

Drown them in Cliches

Scott Wheeler's latest article was written with the aid of Buckley Carlson, and it is weak. Just a collection of pithy sayings and non-sensical assertions. For one thing they seem to think that there's nothing wrong with burning the Koran.

There were no Korans burned or mosques opposed before the Islamic terrorists burned nearly three thousand Americans. And yet, we are not supposed to burn the book they say inspired them to do it…or there will be more violence, Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us. Let’s get this straight: not burning the Koran lead to the burning of nearly three thousand Americans. And now, burning the Koran – we are told – will lead to more Americans dying?

What incredible stupidity that statement reveals. First of all, let's dispense with the notion that America was just sitting around minding it's own business when the terrorists involved. We have been involved in the Middle East for decades. At the very least we are staunch allies with Israel. There are valid or at least defendable reasons why we have done these things, but they are at least one source of Islamic Terrorists actions.

Secondly, dumkoffs, the situation is different now because we have stationed troops in the middle east in far greater numbers than ever before. Deciding to take actions, which should be offensive to decent people even if there were no downsides, has greater risks when you think about the troops serving in those parts of the world.

The pair suggest that Rauf threatened violence if he didn't get his way with the Mosque (he didn't). They then suggest that since the Media believes the Tea Party to be violent (they don't), they should follow the pattern established by treating Muslims as American Citizens worthy of respect (which they see as a terrible concession), and give the Tea partiers whatever they want (omg).

Oh and we should dump Obama.

What puts more American lives in danger than burning a Koran in Florida? Answer: having an unqualified, anti-American street punk for a president! So, if you liberals take Obama at his word, then you must call for his immediate resignation with the same enthusiasm that you are now denouncing the kookie Koran-burner.

Street Punk? That's subtle. Except of course that, my dear dunderheads, most Liberals don't see Obama as all that threatening.

Enemies

Pat Buchannan's latest article is interesting (if sad), particularly set against his previous work. He is essentially an isolationist and nativist; this is well known.

Buchannan's thesis is that we need to be willing to identify Islam as our enemy.

If we are not at war with Islam, why are we fighting the Taliban? They did not attack us. If Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims massacring Christians in Nigeria and Sudan? Why did those Afghan mobs also yell, "Death to Christians"? Why are Christian Copts being attacked in Egypt, and Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq? Did these Christian communities start a holy war against their vastly more numerous Muslim brethren?

What do the terrorists and "state sponsors of terrorism" -- Mohamed Atta, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- have in common, except for Islam?

. . . How do we win a long war when we cannot name the enemy?

I'm not sure how to take this - obviously the disdain for Islam lies right in line with Buchannan's nativism. But underneath that there is a sense that he feels this war is foolish; we don't have the stomach for wiping Islam out and because of that we probably shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Earlier in the article Buchannan underlines this.

. . . if we are perceived as at war with Islam, we will lose that war, and Osama bin Laden will have won by having broadened and defined what the war was about.

So we can't win the war without naming the enemy, but once we name the enemy we will lose the war. Kind of a catch 22; the implication being we'd have been better served by not involving ourselves with those filthy foriegners.

"Ground Zero" Mosque Builder Threatens America

Or so Doug Giles' latest article would have you believe.

Feisal seems to intimate this, going against his own script (and, coincidentally, the MSM’s) by suggesting that if we offend them by not letting them build a Muslim Theme Park at Ground Zero that this will cause Muslims to explode with violence, . . .

He is referring to an interview Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in on the Larry King show with host Soledad O'Brien. Rauf's point was a bit more nuanced than "let us build our Cordoba Center or we'll kill you."

If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world.

. . . I have a niece who works in the Army and served in Iraq. The concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

This is essentially the faultline that Giles and other conservatoids aren't going to see. Rauf represents a secular Islam that champions America as a nation that is compatible with Islam's ideals. Our secular and multi-cultural society is what Allah wants. This is Ruaf's view, and he hasn't exactly made a secret of it.

Opposed to that view are those of radical Muslims like al-Qaeda and others who believe that America and American style Democracy are antithetical to Islam, that we intrinsically threaten Islam.

In the middle are the vast majority of Muslims; if they see Imam Rauf's actions as being successful, than his views will likely become more dominant. On the other hand if America essentially says that Muslims don't belong and aren't really Americans, than radicals like al-Qaeda will seem to be more correct.

One thing Imam Rauf doesn't want to say because he is a man of peace is that of course if he moves the Mosque Conservatives in this country will claim it as a victory and the likes of Giles and Hannity and Pamela Geller will paint it as a victory of good honest Americans over evil anti-American Muslims. He doesn't want to say that this controversy has been ginned up by certain people for political ends. He does finally reference the Anti-Islam attitudes in this country, which has been growing all year.

Because in a sense Giles agrees with Osama bin Ladin. Islam and America aren't compatible; they are natural enemies. I personally would rather stand with Imam Rauf than Doug Giles.

Is the Media to Blame for Terry Jones

This is the Thesis of Mona Charen's latest article.

He became news because he fulfilled a need for the press. They had to have another side to the ground zero mosque story. Why? Because members of the press are total suckers for "both sidesism." There is nothing they like better in a news story than to present two conflicting views and to pronounce that "both sides" are guilty of provocation, mistrust, violence or bad faith. They are confident that truth nearly always lies between two extremes.

. . . They had to turn over rocks in rural Florida to find the handlebar moustache-sporting Quran burner.

But attempting to present "both sides" as having their extremists, their provocateurs, is quite simply absurd in this case.

Yeah I don't buy that, frankly. Partially because of this report from Salon, which indicates that this has been a much bigger story overseas.

Lynch said that the first story in his files on the Quran burning is this July 28 report from the Saudi TV station al-Arabiya. That in turn "generated discussion on jihadist forums and other media outlets way back then," Lynch said.

By that point in July, according to Howard Kurtz's timeline, the story had gotten some play in the U.S. but had not attracted much interest.

Meanwhile, the story was percolating through the media in Muslim-majority countries, where it was often framed as the latest and most egregious example of rising Islamophobia in the United States, according to Gregg Carlstrom, a journalist with Al-Jazeera English who is based in Doha, Qatar. And given the history of angry reaction to real or perceived vandalism of the Quran, there's no doubt the stakes were high. In Afghanistan and Indonesia there have since been protests of the Quran burning.

This was the context in which Petraeus was asked about -- and decided to comment on -- the Quran burning in an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter on Sunday.

In other words, this was actually a story, not just something pulled out of thin air (or Florida air). This has been a story in the middle east and as such, I think Petraus needed to comment on it. And once he commented on it, well, it naturally became a much bigger story.

This will be our year

Well maybe not. According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, we are pretty well screwed.

The magnitude of the catastrophe facing the Democratic Party in the fall elections is only gradually becoming clear to the leaders of both parties. The Democrats will lose both the Senate and the House. They will lose more House seats in 2010 than the 54 they lost in 1994, and they will lose the Senate, possibly with some seats to spare.

Pretty much all the articles over at Townhall follow a similar theme this week - I guess it's the post labor day period - time to pay attention to the election. And the goal of articles right now is to both convince your voter to fight like hell for victory and to discourage the opposing party to pack it in because they have already lost. So it's hard to put too much stock in these articles.

But it's still depressing to read article after article about how your side is going to lose. So I suppose it's better to be enthusiastic about how foolish these two will look in November.

Every Title Tells a Story

Sometimes it is fun to respond to a title before reading the article proper. The title of Ben Shapiro's latest article is "Why We Treat Obama Like a Dog."

Nice.

I don't believe in calling every conservative racist, and I am not sure Shapiro is racist - I tend to think he isn't. But a statement like that - did it even occur to him how that would read? I mean there's being a racist and just being stupidly insensitive, and I am pretty sure this article title falls into the later camp.

As for the article itself let's take a peek.

If Obama were a dog, he'd be a bad dog. The kind of dog that routinely drinks from the toilet, and simply will not be taught that drinking from the toilet is bad manners (think Obama on health care). The kind of dog that barks at all hours of the night, just for attention (think Obama's pathetic need for constant adulation). The kind of dog that runs from intruders when danger's in the air (think Obama on Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, China -- hell, just think about Obama's position on any country that isn't an American ally).

In fairness Shapiro is using the dog metaphor because the President complained that his enemies see him as a dog. That said, it's a bit uncomfortable to read him talking that way about the President.

Religious Liberty

Good article by Michael Gerson over at Townhall on the Cordoba Center. He makes some salient points. He notes that plenty of those who oppose the Cordoba Center oppose all new Mosques in America, which is something some of those who oppose the Corodoba Center haven't grasped.

Gerson also notes that the Christians who are attacking this and other Islamic buildings, face much the same attacks from the left wing. Perhaps tolerance wouldn't be that un-Christian.

Christianity, as an Abrahamic faith, sets out another vision -- an assertion of human worth and dignity that transcends tribe and nation. Christianity has accommodated this belief in slow, halting, often hypocritical stages -- a history that should leave Christians tolerant of the slow, halting, hypocritical progress of other traditions. The implications of this shift within Christianity, however, are profound. In light of this belief, the purpose of social influence for Christians is not to favor their own faith; it is to serve a view of universal rights and dignity taught by their faith. It is not to advance their own creed; it is to apply that creed in pursuit of the common good. This is what turns religion into a positive social force -- a determination to defend everyone's dignity.

I kind of agree with this (at least in the political sphere), while noting that many Christians would strongly disagree with this theory. Evangelicals do, of course, feel a need to advance their on creed, and many Christians of every faith beleive it an act of charity to explain the one true way to Heaven.

Responses to the article are interesting; there are soem more libertarian Conservatives who are glad to see it, but obviousl there are also comments like these.

Mr. Gerson, you are a dhimmi, a useful shill for Islam.

Is mr. gerson a closet muslim or merely a "fellow traveler" that will sell them the rope by which to hang us??

"Muslims on our side" is a contradiction in terms.

Islam itself IS the enemy. It is the Anti-Christ of religions.

Mr. Gerson, please tell me how you, as a supposed Christian, (or anyone else, for that matter) can corroborate the claims of Muhammad?

And if you cannot, then why do you defend them?

Just a sampling. I particularly hate the one about "Muslims on our side is a contradiction in terms." Just flat out hatred. That last one just baffles me. There are all kinds of religious beliefs I can't corroborate; that doesn't mean I forbid them.

Let's Check in with Ann Coulter

After all it's been ages since I did one of Ann's columns (almost a year). Lets check out her latest; how bad could it be?

Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?

. . . All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.

Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers.

Oh, now I remember why I don't bother with Ann Coulter. She's insane. She is, if she believes this stuff, certifiable. The larger question is why someone so clearly delusional is a prominent voice in the Conservative movement (although her star has been slipping for some time, she's still up there).

Alternatively she doesn't believe this stuff, but knows what her audience likes to hear. Which I have to admit is at least as likely.

What does a Moderate Muslim look like

Frank N. Gaffney's latest article is pretty awful, in that it argues that while Obama may not be a Muslim, he clearly supports extremist Muslims like the Muslim Brotherhood.

A better explanation is that more Americans are taking note of the accumulating series of statements and actions by the President that display favoritism, or worse, towards Muslims.

. . .In instance after instance, Mr. Obama has seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate not just Muslim-Americans, but a deeply problematic organization - the Muslim Brotherhood (or Ikhwan) - that purports to represent their interests here.

Among the awful things Obama is doing?

He stated that America was a land of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." Putting Muslims before Jews in his little speech is a mark of disrespect towards Jews apparently. One might argue that we aren't that worried about convincing Jews they are equal citizens with the rest of us.

Obama also wants to allow Muslims Zakat, their form of tithing or religious giving, something. Gaffney, frankly isn't clear, although it seems he believes that this initiative would allow American Muslims to support terrorism more easily.

He supported a United Nations Resolution.

In September 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution eagerly sought by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends. The resolution called on member nations to "prohibit and criminalize" speech that offends Islam and its followers. Such an accommodation would clearly violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.

Yep - I went to the Human Rights Council's website to see if I could track down this offensive document. Let me quote from it, assuming I found the right one.

Recalling also that States should encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful
dialogue,
1. Reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of their choice, and the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs;

Wait I guess that may not be it, except that later on it does talk about respecting all points of view, and a line about not letting the war on terror interrupt the free exchange of ideas. The document calls on all states to "To refrain from using counter-terrorism as a pretext to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression in ways that are contrary to their obligations under international law." Unless Gaffney got the date wrong, I really don't know what he is talking about.

Also Obama has argued that allowing AIG to continue underwriting shariah compliant insurance is a breach of the separation of Church and State; this is just silly. AIG sells a number of products and supports a number of different clienteles - to argue that they should simply shut down part of their business to please xenophobes is nonsensical.

Obama supported the "megamosque" near Ground Zero, by which I assume Gaffney means the community center with a mosque in it.

Subsequent efforts to distance himself from that stance, in the face of intense criticism from the public and politicians of both parties, has only put into even sharper focus his pandering to this community.

Hilarious. Obama's immediate abandonment of his support for the Cordoba Center shows how subservient he is to the Muslim Brotherhood, who must be very very easy to please.

Anyway going back to my initial question - how many Muslims of any type would want to see Shariah compliant insurance shut down? How many support the Cordoba Center? More to the point, how many are OK with being seen as second class citizens the way Gaffney seems to want them?

You may already be living under Shariah Law

At least the Imam behind the Cordoba Project seems to think so. He said that the American political system is "Shariah compliant," according to Media Matters.

The reason why Muslims are fleeing many of their societies to countries like Australia, western Europe, United States and Canada is because the societal mandates of an Islamic society and Islamic State is in fact the kind of structure of society that we see in Western societies - the ability of people to participate in issues of governance, issues of the economic wellbeing and economic pie are fundamental to Islamic principles of governance.

Interesting thought. But of course, those who see Islam as something to be feared and opposed, will naturally be uncomfortable at the idea that our Society is compatable with Islam.

I do strongly suggest checking out that link; puts the lie to some of the fearmongering about this guy.

Seeing Both Sides of the Issue

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on Liberals for being narrow minded and not seeing both sides of the issue.

A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.

. . . This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.

This is somewhat laughable, not in the least because of Pragers previous statements.

The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America's values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

. . . The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

And these are just Pragers words. I haven't even brought up beloved Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who certainly are important in the conservative movement and certainly hate and express hatred of Liberals.

This is related back to the Cordoba Center Controversy; Prager spends the bulk of his article printing intemperate remarks on the issue which suggest that bigotry might explain some of the opposition to the Mosque. Which, of course it does (one need only watch the video of a black man happening through an anti Mosque rally and getting immediately harrassed by the crowd to realize the ugliness of some of those who oppose this Mosque).

However, in the spirit of Pragers criticism, I will concede that while much of the Mosque Opposition is inspired by Anti-Muslim Bigotry, not all of it is. There are good people on both sides of this debate. And a whole lot of bigots on one side of it.

Does She Believe It

Sometimes when you are reading an article, and they say something particularly non-sensical, you wonder if they believe it themselves. Carol Platt Liebau's latest article provides a case in point.

From the gay marriage case to the Ground Zero mosque debate, the elites don't even offer the courtesy of presenting principled rebuttals of their opponents’ arguments. Instead, they dismiss them scornfully as the product of inferior minds, unworthy of consideration by intelligent people.

Laughable. The truth is that of course Liberals and Populists have expounded on why they support Gay Marriage and support the Cordoba Center ad naseum. How you can read, for example, Mayor Bloombergs defense of the Cordoba Center, and feel like he hasn't presented a principle rebuttal of those who oppose is impossible. And there have been plenty of other well reasoned responses.

Return of the Quotations Page

Yep - we have the Quotations Page back. Perhaps I will begin to change the Quotations more often, and start updating it.

What Motivates Glenn Beck?

Or, does Glenn Beck have messianic tendancies?An article by Ben Dimiero at Media Matters suggests that maybe he does.

Earlier the same week, Beck explained that he was promoting "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think, to you," against "darkness." While notable on their own merits, Beck's comments were especially striking because they marked what was (at the time) the culmination of Beck's regular portrayal of himself as fighting on behalf of "good" against the forces of "evil" and "darkness."

Since then, Beck has made it abundantly clear that he does not use this sort of language metaphorically -- he quite literally believes he is fighting on the side of God against Satan.

Some of this is excusable. Mormons and many other faiths take comfort in the thought that God has a plan for them, that if they live rightly they are in some way fullfilling the plan that God has for them. This provides some comfort; when you succeed it is God's will, and when things don't go great, perhaps it is God placing you on a different path.

That said, given that Beck apparently sees liberals and progressives as evil and as essentially on the side of Satan (he even compared Obama to Lucifer), well it's not entirely healthy. It's one thing to believe that God loves you; it's another to believe that God hates or condemns someone else.

Mosques and Obvious Lies

Emmett Tyrell's latest article concerns the Mosque issue, and particularly Obama's decision to speak out on it. It's a common response; Obama is inexperience and stupid and out of touch or he would never have gotten involved in this particular SNAFU. While Tyrell pretty clearly attacks the Cordoba Center, at least he isn't calling Obama a secret Muslim.

Still he does tell a bit of a fib.

It put me in mind of his inability to defuse the controversy over health care. Any sensible president would have relented as opposition to health care reform grew to the majority position. He would have settled for some sort of compromise, but not the community organizer turned president. He wanted it all. He lunged on and created among the electorate a row over national health care that divided the nation and put some of us in mind of a civil war that continues to rage.

What a nasty lie. In fact Obama abandoned single payer immediately, and abandoned the public option not long afterwords. Yes the Health Reform bill improved a few things, but to pretend that the White House was unwilling to compromise is just to deny reality. They compromised enormously, and frankly more than they should have based on how many Republican supported the final bill.

As for the Mosque issue, and Islam in general, check out this post at the Slactivist, and consider who nice it is to be a Christian when it comes to the apology department.

A Non-Mosque Post

I have to admit I've been hitting the subject of the "Ground Zero" Mosque pretty hard lately (and may return to it later on today), but for a change of pace let's call John Stossel a liar.

Stossel's latest article is about privitizing Social Security; he notes accurately that the public taste for this idea is pertty low. But then he has to lie in order to make his case.

First, there never has been a trust fund! Your FICA tax payments were not saved or invested. Social Security transferred them to current retirees. Second, in return for IOUs, Congress raided Social Security's budget surplus every year and spent like any other tax revenue.

Those IOUs are what most of us call US Treasuries, one of the most secure investments on the planet. It's possible that Stossel doesn't in fact know this; he imagines the Social Security office recieving scribbled IOUs from congress. If he doesn't know this though, that shows a certain amount of stupidity or lack of care. I think he probably does know it, but chooses to fudge the truth anyway.

This 9/11 Mosque Stuff just keeps coming

In a way I'm tired about blogging about it, and in another, this is something I legitimately feel passionately about. So there you go. And now that Obama has weighed in on it, you can expect another week of articles. Today's article comes from Michael Medved.

No, all Muslims aren’t the same, but all Mosques are the same, in one important sense at least: they all celebrate Islam. They exalt its teachings, traditions, history and adherents.

Yes, American Muslims enjoy a right to celebrate their faith in their mosques.

But it remains wildly inappropriate to celebrate and glorify one particular faith at the scene of one of the most notorious crimes in its history.

Lets take these in reverse order.

1. If someone wanted to build a Christian Church in the exact same spot, Medved would have nothing to say about it.

2. The first bit essentially proclaims that any Mosque is the same as the Mosque that Osama bin Ladin worships at (assuming he gets to go to a Mosque atall). Which is another way of saying that all Islam is responsibile for what Osama bin Ladin did; a point Medved makes clear later on his article.

The insistence on creating such a building on such a place sends a dishonest, disturbing message: that Islam itself bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11, and that the Mosque’s planners feel no shame over their co-religionists who planned and executed those crimes.

What a poorly constructed paragraph - Medved suggests that the Cordoba Centers funders are putting forward two lies. The first lie is that Islam bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11; presumably Medved believes this to be a lie.

The second "lie" is that the Mosque's founders feel no shame over their co-religionists attack on 9/11. But presumably Medved actually believes that they don't feel any shame; he probably believes they should, but they don't. All Muslims should feel terribly guilty to be Muslims all the time, and certainly whenever they are in New York City, near Ground Zero.

On Cordoba House

Good article about Cordoba House (or the "ground zero" mosque) by over at "Inside-Out the Beltway."

First, the Cordoba House is deliberately, expressly, and unequivocally intended to stand for the diametric opposite of what the 9/11 attackers believed. It would stand for inclusion, reconciliation, and understanding across faiths and cultures. In fact, in many ways, the Muslim founders of the Cordoba House (and its imam) are the sorts of people that bin Laden and his adherents hate most, because they are seen as traitors to the radicals' beliefs and cause.

. . . So the only way that someone could ever confuse the Cordoba Initiative with radical, militant Islam is if that person thought that Islam itself is inseparable from terrorism or terrorist sympathies (or had been misled by demagogues to believe the Cordoba House aligned itself with radical Islam).

And there it is - read the whole article, it's very good.

Fear and Loathing at Ground Zero

In this case Fear and Loathing of Muslims, at least according to Kevin McCullough's latest article. Apparently Obama made some remarks in favor of the right of Muslims to build a Mosque on land that they own that happens to be near Ground Zero.

Question, Mr. President, "Do you feel that all Muslims have a right to exercise their religion?"

How about the nearly 2 million of them world-wide that buy into the exact same brand of Islam that the killers of 9/11 practiced? Do you feel that they have the right to practice that brand of Islam in the United States? How about on the sacred ground of Ground Zero?

Even the "moderate" practitioners of that faith seem to be having some real trouble coming to clarity on not encouraging their fellow Islamists to be so very insensitive.

"Moderate" Muslims, like "Moderate" Blacks or "Moderate" Hispanics need to spend a certain amount of time berating their fellow Muslims for not being more accommodating the white males who basically run everything.

Let's also point out that McCullough doesn't understand what the free exercise of religion entails. Allowing Muslims to exercise their freedom means letting them worship; it does not give them permission to commit terrorist acts. It's also clear that the Mosque at ground zero is not going to be sympathetic to Islamic Terrorists, except in so far as just advocating Islam is sympathetic to Islamic Terrorism.

One wonders if a Baptist organization that seemed sympathetic to Anti-Abortion terrorists was to want to set up a church across from an Abortion clinic, if McCullough would have trouble separating the terrorist act from the religion itself.

Your Weekly Rush - Mosques

Well Rush has been speaking about the "Ground Zero" mosque, as you would expect. He's against it.

There are 23 mosques in New York, the Constitution does not guarantee you can put your church anywhere you want, it just says you cannot be denied the practice of worship. There are all kinds of mosques in New York, 23 already. They could put another one anywhere they want. This site is purposefully provocative. There's nothing good that can come of this. Nothing good. It's a bad idea all around. Nobody's against mosques, and the First Amendment does not guarantee you can put one up wherever you want it to go.

. . . Ladies and gentlemen, zoning laws. I'm sure have encountered them. Zoning laws tell churches where they can and can't go all the time.

A few points we might point out here. First of all, earlier this week we discussed the fact that the Ground Zero Mosque is hardly the only one being protested / harassed in this nation. So to pretend that conservatoids are happy with mosques, just not there, is a bit disingenuous.

Secondly, when you propose that Zoning laws be changed to prevent Muslims from building a Mosque on land they own, and that is what Rush is proposing, you are infringing on their religious freedom. I don't see any other way to look at it. It would be one thing if they were applying to put a Mosque in land not zoned for that; at that point they would have to go through a review process. But this Mosque has already gone through that process. Rush is proposing, as many others are, that the process be changed, essentially, to harass Muslims.

Particularly Stupid

Ben Shapiro is regularly grist for my mill, but sometimes he outdoes himself, as he did in this weeks article.

We used to call it tyranny. Now, apparently, we call it an "independent judiciary."

At least that's the way the left sees it. The role of the judiciary in this country, according to liberals, is to act as a sort of super-Senate, qadis on the hill who decide based on whim and fancy how the rest of us should live. The American people are benighted morons; the judiciary is full of brilliant moral thinkers. They must rule us.

Note how Ben thoughtlessly avoids any engagement with what the courts are actually doing or with what Liberal might actually think. But to clarify, Courts interpret laws in regards to the Constitution and precedent; if a law is found to be in conflict with constitutional principles, the courts will overturn said law. This isn't because these judges are "brilliant moral thinkers," this is because they know what the constitution says. Now we might disagree with their assessment (with the current Supreme Court I often disagree), but let's not pretend it's something it's not.

Shapiro basically then argues for the legislatures and Congress to remove several hot button issues from the Jurisdiction of the courts (those issues regarding Gay Marriage, Abortion and Immigration), and if the Courts continue to hear such cases to defund them. I'm not sure exactly how this would work; if you have a case involving abortion you could go to the lower courts but not the higher ones? More to the point, once we've taken this idiotic step, what's to stop the Legislature from moving such cases as Worker Safety and Consumer Protection out of the Courts Jurisdiction as well? Seems like a pandora's box.

Quayle's Kid

Apparently Dan Quayles kid is running for Congress.



I like the way he starts marching directly towards the camera at the end. It gives the impression he can't wait to finish the ad so he can march to Washington and "knock the hell out of the place." I also like how he underlines that he was raised right.

Except, as Salon notes, he helped found a gossip site called "Dirty Scottsdale."

Is this a Theocracy?

Terrence Jeffrey's latest article takes on the courts striking down Prop 8 out there in California.

The Founding Fathers understood the laws of nature, the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to be wholly consistent with one another. Judge Walker and the same-sex marriage movement have declared war on them all.

So I guess this is a theocracy after all; or at least the founding fathers intended it to be so.

Jeffrey also notes that it is apparently as much of a crime for children to be raised by homosexuals as it is for you to be robbed or murdered. I don't know, that girl from Glee seems to be doing ok.

Why do those Muslims have to Build a Mosque in Lower Manhatten?

I have to be honest about this one; it's very simple to me. Are the people who want to build the so-called Ground Zero Mosque American Citizens? Yes. Do they own the land they want to build on? They do. Than what the hell business is it of yours what they do with the land?

I understand that those who are protesting the Mosque and complaining about it incessently have the freedom of speech to do so; similarly I have the right to suggest that if you don't want a Mosque there or anywhere else in America, you essentially don't believe in Freedom of Religion. Maybe you are ok with freedom of religion for your church and churches like it, but not in general.

The test of your belief in freedom isn't your willingness to tolerate religions or ideas you like; it's your willingness to tolerate religions and ideas you hate (but that you can't point to them causing direct harm).

I note this because as it turns out there are people all over the United States protesting Mosques. Both Salon's War Room and the New York Times are covering this wave of mosque opposals. Sort of answers the question of why the Ground Zero Mosque builders want to keep at it. If the "Ground Zero" mosque is stopped, what happens to all these Mosques around the country that people are trying to shut down? Well they probably get shut down.

And if you are uncomfortable with a Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, uncomfortable enough to ask them to shut it down, how can you really argue against the decisions of citizens of Murfreesboro, Tenn., Temecula, Calif., or Sheboygan, Wis., to protest the Mosques in their communities?

I am, I should say, heartened to note that one of the Defenders of the Mosque in Temecula is a fellow Mormon.

Larry Slusser, a Mormon and the secretary of the Interfaith Council of Murietta and Temecula, went to the protest to support the Muslim group. “I know them,” he said. “They’re good people. They have no ill intent. They’re good Americans. They are leaders in their professions.”

Of the protesters, he said, “they have fear because they don’t know them.”

Religious freedom is also at stake, Mr. Slusser said, adding, “They’re Americans, they deserve to have a place to worship just like everybody else.”

So after all this Prop 8 stuff, that's nice to see.

False Gods

Cal Thomas, like many Consrvatoids, is upset that a judge struck down Proposition 8, and argues so in his latest article.

The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia (not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, to also invalidate) is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe vs. Wade.

I strongly believe that it is not the capacity of any Judge to set themself up as a God, false or otherwise. Judges are there to interpret the law not to reign in heaven!

That said, I also don't think Judges should be rulling based on what they think God wants, but should interpret the law. Prop 8 violated the California Constitution, according to Judge Walker, so he overturned it. Cal Thomas obviously disagrees with me as his article is largely about how a vengeful God is probably upset at us for failing to serve God sufficiently.

It's Not Me, It's You

According to Star Parker's latest article, the people building the Ground Zero Mosque believe that by doing so they can reach out to Americans and create more harmony between Islam and America. No need, apparently.

Critical to grasp here is the suggestion of the need for dialogue. That the existence of Islamic terrorism is the result of problems with us Americans as well as problems that may exist in Islam. And it all would be fixed if we understood each other better.

This is simply false.

Americans don’t need any lessons about freedom and tolerance.

. . . Feisel Abdul Rauf should spend his $100 million, wherever he is getting it from, to advance the cause of freedom in Islamic countries. That is where the problem is. It’s certainly not here.

So that's comforting. We Americans have never done anything for the Islamic World to be upset at, and there is certainly no need for us to understand Islam.

Personally I think this debate over the Ground Zero Mosque proves the opposite. The essential problem is that one group of American Citizens wants to build a religious center on lands they own. And as American Citizens they should have the right to do so. Unless, somehow, you don't think Muslims deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

Hallowed Ground

Pat Buchannan, in his latest article, doesn't like the Ground Zero Mosque either.

The issue here is the appalling insensitivity, if not calculated insult, of erecting a mosque two blocks from a World Trade Center where 3,000 Americans were massacred by Islamic fanatics whose Muslim religion was integral to their identity and mission.

It is no more religious bigotry to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque than it would have been religious bigotry to oppose building a Shinto shrine in 1950 on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor, next to the Arizona.

To Americans, the land on which the twin towers stood is hallowed ground, a burial site made scared by the suffering and deaths of all who perished in the horrifying minutes those towers burned and fell.

And there's the rub. Muslims don't count as Americans because of what happened on 9/11. American Muslims aren't citizens in the same way that you and I are citizens (assuming you aren't a Muslim); they are guests here, and should remember their place.

The Muslim Menace Strikes

And their goal? To confuse you. Yep. Fourth Generation Warfare as practiced by the Muslim Menace, strives to confuse you by being provocatively Islamic, according to Scott Wheeler and Buckley Carson, in an article over at Townhall.

Which is why it’s no surprise that Islamists have publicly acknowledged adopting the tactics of 4GW to wage its war against the West; in an open society, we are never exactly sure who the enemy combatants are because they may not shoot at you, or blow something up. They might smile and say “all we want is peace” while provoking you and stretching the limits of your societal tolerance, leaving their targets confused.

Apparently these menacing Muslims know that we intend to maintain our free and open society, which means allowing them to live among us as citizens, invested in the same rights and privilages as any other citizens. They can then provoke us, by acting Islamic, into attacking them. At which point their buddies in the media elite will trump up stories of bigotry.

Islamists know that legal rights and protections provide them the ability to strain our security without even breaking the law, right up until the moment they commit a deadly act of aggression; and since the terrorist often kills himself in the attack, there is no prosecutorial deterrent there either.

And when Middle Eastern looking men intentionally act suspicious and provoke a response from civilians or police, they find a very sympathetic American media willing to help portray them as victims of American bigotry. Which is not too dissimilar to my experience with what should have been a reasoned, legitimate debate over the Ground Zero Mosque; . . .

Alas he wanted to have a sensible rational discussion about the need to treat American Muslims as suspicious foreigners who didn't belong her, and certainly didn't enjoy the same rights as the rest of us, and the evil media and others got in his way.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has weighed in on this issue as well (as quoted at Salon), and frankly is a lot more convincing than these guys.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

He's right; there is no rational reason to oppose this mosque unless you just consider American Muslims somehow not deserving the same civil rights as the rest of us.

The Second Great Depression

Ben Shapiro really is dumb. I mean really. I make fun of him a lot, but it takes a certain kind of idiocy to write todays article. Not because he's conservative; a lot of conservatives think that Obama is messing up this country. Nothing wrong with that per se. But . .. well just read this.

And just as during the First Great Depression, economic liberals are declaring that it doesn't exist. "The depression is over," President Herbert Hoover told a group of clergymen in 1930. "I am convinced," he said in 1931, "we have passed the worst and with continued effort we shall rapidly recover." . . .

Hoover was wrong and so are Obama and his lackeys. And just like Hoover, Obama will take measures that are economically feasible in a strong economy but absolutely disastrous in a weak one.

He does, I have to admit, point out that the tariffs passed were a pretty bad idea. But he also suggests that Obama is just like Hoover in that he is proposing Government spending and higher taxes. Except that sounds a bit like good old Roosevelt too, who doesn't appear (directly) in Shapiro's article.

If you are going to rip into Hoover for Government projects, isn't it almost necessary to point out that Roosevelt did much the same thing on a far larger scale? Hoover frankly didn't spend a fraction of what Roosevelt spent, and in fact wasn't really an economic liberal. Certainly not by today's standards.

More to the point, Shapiro even references Roosevelt at the end of his article, albeit obliquely, with "Happy Days are Here Again." Does Shapiro really believe that his readers aren't going to remember the existence of Roosevelt, the great liberal president?

Radical - a useful adjective

Cal Thomas, one of our nations foremost proponents of the "Muslim Menace," continues on that vein in his latest article. But he touchingly adds an adjective - radical - to make it clear that he's not against Islam itself. Just radical Islam. Of course even a shallow reading of his work reveals that Radical Islam is a term so broad as to include most of the Islamic world and certainly the bulk of American Muslims.

Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as "tolerance," which is being used against us?

. . . Instead, they build their mosques with minimal opposition from the squishy politicians and elites who could stand against them if they had any backbone. And so those radical Islamists who would dominate America move forward with plans to subjugate us all to their religion and way of life.

See that sounds like it's not just Radical Islam that is the problem. Or to put it more clear, it's seems like Thomas is incapable of recognizing a non radical Islam. But on some level he recognizes that others would be upset at the bigotry of attacking Islam (not to mention the logistics of such an illogical approach), so he adds Radical as a fig leaf.