Clap Trap

There's an article by Mary Katharine Ham over at Townhall today and it's entitled, "I know a Marine, and he knows the stakes." It's about the Iraq Study Group Report which she, like many Conservatives, isn't happy about. And her emotional attack on the Iraq Study Group is to say that the Marines who are fighting over there would want us to go on fighting until we win, no matter how long that is.

At Walter Reed, I doubt there are many men who think asking Iran and Syria for help is the “right thing.” They have spent years and lives and limbs trying to defeat the insurgent arms of these radical governments and the violence they foment, and now the Washington policy elite and press corps would ask them to team with them in a misguided attempt to quell violence in Iraq.

Only at Washington dinner parties could such a sell-out be worthy of so many smiles.

I don't know what Ms. Ham's solution is. Presumably it is something along the lines of stay the course or fight the war to win or some other homily that boils down to let's kill them till they love us.

Not matter how long it takes or how many more Marines we put in Walter Reed or in Arlington.

This is not a Post

In case you were wondering.

New Sketch

There's a new sketch and an episode of Sketchy Cooking up over at 70 Sketches. This sketch involves a robber, so you know it's good.

"War is not the Answer"

This is a bumper sticker.

Lazy Republican pundits like Larry Elder love Bumper Stickers.

Bumper Stickers are very easy to argue with.

They always say the same thing, and their very brevity insures you can run circles around them.

Arguing with a Bumper Sticker is like boxing a wheelchair. Not a person in the wheelchair. Just a wheelchair.

So naturally that's what Elder does in his latest article.

Needless to say he invokes World War 2 to suggest that sometimes War is the answer - I'll bet that response took all of five brain cells to come up with.

The bulk of the article is about how we need to invade Iran and Syria. Seems unlikely that this view is going to really catch on, so I can see why Elder would want a bumper sticker as his opponent. Because any living person would point out we lack the means to invade Iran and Syria, we would have no international support, and our experience in Iraq has been mixed at best, a total disaster at worst.

So it's probably better that he stuck with a bumper sticker.

Cal Thomas is a Rough Man

Today is the day we get Conservative Response to the Iraq Study Group's report. And for the most part it's pretty negative. Cal Thomas, for example chides them for their unwillingness to see the real threat that Islam presents.

Enemies like this understand only one thing: power. They do not keep promises, or honor treaties and agreements that do not serve their primary interests. For them, those interests include humiliating the United States, securing Iraq for the acolytes of Osama bin Laden and then moving on to challenge America in other places and finally on our own soil. The problem is that if we wait to crush them until they reach our shores (and too many are already among us), it will be too late.

I've made this point before, but this is standard de-humanization of the enemy. It's ok to kill the hell out of Iraqis, Muslims and Arabs because they aren't real people like we are. They aren't moved by the same emotions or desires - rather they are motivated strictly by hated of us.

Like most of Cal Thomas's "Muslim Menace" articles, this one avoids suggestion any solution to the impasse. "Muslims are our implacable enemies and they cannot be turned away by anything but violence. And there are already far to many living in our communities. OK that's all the time I have, so the solution to the problem of evil implacable Muslims living right next door to your family, you'll have to solve on your own."

If only Thomas had a few more paragraphs he could tell us what we could do about our implacable Muslim enemies. Oh well, we'll just have to hope that Thomas's readers are smart enough to figure it out own their own.

Oh the title of this post refers to the last paragraph in Mr. Thomas's article in which he quotes Orwell about "rough men standing ready." Thomas is certainly always ready to write an article attacking Muslims.

Missing the Point

Janice Shaw Crouse has written an article entitled "Mary Cheney's pregnancy affects us all." In it she decries Mary Cheney's decision to have a baby.

Mary Cheney is among that burgeoning group of adult women over age 20 that are driving the trend of women who don't want a man in the picture, but want to have a baby.

. . . Mary’s pregnancy is an "in-your-face" action countering the Bush Administration's pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-life policies. She continues to repudiate the work to which her father has devoted his life.

There are some words that don't appear in Ms. Crouses article. Word's like "Lesbian." Or "Gay." Or "Homosexual." In other words the article is written as if Mary Cheney were just deciding to have a child because she hadn't found the right man yet. The truth is Mary Cheney isn't really looking for a man, if I understand her right.

So why would Ms. Crouse leave out Ms. Cheney's sexuality? Out of respect to the Vice President? Or does she really not know? Either way it seems goofy.

Don't Be Afraid, be Paranoid.

Ben Shapiro's latest article has the charming title "Will We Ever Win Another War?" Apparently we won't, unless we adopt a paranoid stance. Here is the Math.

1. Fundamentalist Islam will not crumble from within.

2. Anything short of elimination of fundamentalist Islam is a victory for fundamentalist Islam.

3. Fundamentalist Muslims are having more babies than Americans.

4. Fundamentalist Muslims are living in the United States and their numbers are growing (because they are having more babies).

The solution? Being suspicious of Muslims.

There was one Cold War tactic, however, that remains useful today: suspicion of our enemies. Winning the Cold War relied on anti-infiltration strategy, particularly in Western Europe. Unfortunately, western civilization seems unwilling to acknowledge the growing fifth column in its midst, specifically because recognizing the growing threat would seem "racist." This is a recipe for disaster. If fundamentalist Islam relies on demographics to achieve its ends, ignoring the growing demographic threat in Europe is a crucial error. If fundamentalist Islam relies on proselytizing to spread its views, ignoring that proselytizing in the United States is an unforgivable mistake.

It's unclear what Shapiro expects us to do with this information - like most of these sorts of articles, he wants to encourage fear, paranoia, and suspicion, but he's not going to tell you what you should do with that fear, paranoia, or suspicion. So if you just want to be more vigilant towards brown people, well that's fine. If you want to harass Muslims and make life harder for them? Well maybe that's fine too. Or at least there's nothing in this article to discourage doing that or worse.

The Nativity Nap

Bill Murchinson's latest article is about the poor performance of "The Nativity Story" compared to "Casino Royale" or "Happy Feet." It's actually quite good in that it does not chastise America too much for it's failure to jump on this movie (like they did on "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" or "The Passion of the Christ"). Rather it calmly suggests that box office receipts might not be the best way to gauge the righteousness of a nation.

Truth is Truth, projected on a screen or not. I think Christians may hope for, as well as toil and labor for, the success of any commercial endeavor that throws unexpected light on doings at the Red Sea or the Sea of Galilee. And yet, in some measure the thing is out of their hands. "God doth not need man's works or his own gifts," interposed Milton. No bad realization, this. Takes the pressure off to some degree. Man is not -- repeat, not -- the measure of all things. A somewhat higher authority has claimed that prerogative, and doubtless means to keep it.

I will note that most reviews of the movie I've seen contain the words Dull and Dutiful. I like Dull and Dutiful in a way - certainly when it comes to people I'm in favor of it. But not when I go to the movies. Than I prefer words like "Exciting" and "Tour De Force" or at least (like "Deja Vu") "Interestingly Incompetent." Frankly it's hard to imagine anybody making anything that wasn't "Dull" and "Dutiful" out of the Bible store, unless they went for it and created something that they knew would anger a lot of people like, well, Bill Murchinson.

"The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" is a great story with interesting characters, and Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" both upped the violence and gore level, and stoked controversy with accusations of Anti-Semitism. Those movies succeeded because they offered something different (or drew a line in the sand teling Christians they had to come if they loved Jesus). The Nativity Story fails (in so far as it has failed) because it doesn't.

Dennis Prager is not a racist; he's a bigot

What's good about writing one shocking column is that you get two or three weeks of columns out of it. First of all you patiently explain your absurd and bigoted idea (that Keith Ellison should not be allowed to take his oath on the Koran), and then you spend a couple of weeks defending your position while revising it down to something manageable. Last week we got Pragers crazy idea; this week we get the defense.

And apparently Prager is upset that some of us have called him a racist, and I agree with him. Prager may well be a racist, but this article doesn't prove it. Rather it proves that he's a bigot - he's bigoted against those of the Muslim faith. He denies this as well (on the grounds that as a Jew he can't be bigoted against non-Christians. But that's tripe - it's pretty clear that Prager has bought into the idea of Judeo-Christianity - in which those two faiths have a special place in America, and other faiths, particularly Islam, don't.

The LDSCP

In reading the comments to the Mike S. Adams article I posted on below, I came across this chilling letter, which literally sent chills down my spine. Townhall Poster vidyohs brings a horrifying reminder of who the real enemies are.

The problem

May I remind you good folks and Mike that the problem is not Islam, religious freedom, encouraging terrorists/islamists, all of this is distraction and symptoms of the disease that makes these symptoms visible.

The problem is the unrelenting quest of the liberal/democrat/socialist/communist/progressive (LDSCP)believers to destroy America and remove the last shred of freedom from the face of the Earth.

It is the LDSCP faithful through seizure of the Federal fool system, the courts, the media, and the entertainment industry that has reduced our population to mush brained idiots that entertain the idea of electing a radical muslim to Congress. We have been left with no standards of belief, behavior, and moral action and all because of our laziness and ignorance.

First of all LDSCP makes me think Latter Day Saint Communist Party, which is surely not the intended effect.

Secondly you'd think with their control over the Federal fool system they could keep Vidyohs from slandering them.

Adams gets it right

Mike S. Adams is a bit of a crybaby - most of his articles are complaints about the slights and insults he has to endure being a conservative teaching at UNC Wilmington. Basically he's a cranky guy who feels like everybody is picking on him. Normally that wouldn't be enough to get a regular article gig, as the world is full of cranky guys who feel like everybody is picking on them. But because he works in acedmia, a lot of Conservatoids ar eager to read his complaints, because it confirms their own prejudiceses against acedamia.

His latest article, however. He takes on the current flap surrounding Keith Ellison, and, surprisingly, comes down on Rep. Ellisons side. Now he does spend several paragraphs comparing Ellison's plight with his own suffering at the hands of his colleagues, but it wouldn't be a Mike S. Adams article without him complaining about what a tough life he has. But then he gets around to saying this.

I support Ellison’s decision to take his oath on the Koran just as I would support the decision of a President Romney to take an oath on the Book of Mormon. I would even support an atheist’s decision to take a secular oath so long as it was devised in a manner sufficient to awaken his conscience to the necessity of executing his responsibilities in a truthful manner and in accordance with the laws of this great nation.

. . . Since we can expect a negative consequence no matter what we do with Ellison’s request we should make a decision based on principle rather than pragmatism. In my view, the overriding principle is individual religious liberty, not collectivism hidden beneath the veil of mainstream conservatism.

So score one for Mike S. Adams. His readers were not impressed by this article, though, as one might expect; any article that fails to acknowledge the danger of acknowledging Islam in a non-negative way is not going to be a favorite of theirs.

Intellectual Degradation

One has a greater sense of intellectual degradation after an interview with a doctor than from any human experience. - Alice James

Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD has written a book. As a trained psychiatrist, he's turned his sharp mind towards liberalism and discovered that we are crazy. Thank you Dr. Rossiter. Townhall printed a bit of it today, so we could all bask in his wisdom without shelling out 25 bucks.

Prepare to bask.

The degree of modern liberalism's irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism's distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

Nice. Reminds me of something Rush Limbaugh said back in the day.

You people are walking around in the biggest fog that I have ever seen. You people need therapy! You people all need to be sequestered somewhere for a couple of months to get your minds right because you people can't even be honest with yourselves. You are walking delusions.

This is all pretty amusing, unless you start thinking what declaring liberals insane would justify. I mean if we really are crazy, should we be allowed to roam free across the land? Wasn't this one of the tools Stalin used to control people who might havchallengeded his regime? So while it is a little funny, I'm not laughing.

Poor President Bush

Apparently Senator Reid, in a very unsportsmanlike move, has scheduled too much work for the Senate next year. He's limiting the Senate to taking no more than a week off. That blackguard.

You see with only a week off here and there, it will be hard for President Bush to do recess appointments. Traditionally recess appointments are a convenience to the President so that he doesn't have to leave positions unfilled when the Senate is not in session. But if the Senate is only going to be gone a week, well he can't make the case that he needs to make a recess appointment to keep the government going.

So he won't be able to make any recess appointments. It's like when you want to browse a little before buying your item and the stupid clerk takes you right to your item. Helpful but frustrating. And worse in President Bush's case since he was presumably hoping to use the recess appointment to get some of his more extreme judges through. Poor guy. I guess he'll be stuck nominating candidates the Senate will actually confirm.

Robert Novak, from whom I got this info, shares my annoyance with Senator Reid for his dastardly trick of making President Bush adhere to the Constitution.

Sketch

There's a new sketch up over at Seventy Sketches, about the laziest man in Hollywood. Enjoy.

How to Win in Iraq

Good pair of rants over at Zompist, which Random Goblin pointed me too.

Also there's a new episode of Sketchy Cooking over at Seventy Sketches, and I will be posting a new sketch tomorrow.

Those Stupid Democrats

It appears that the Democrats have made a serious tactical error in winning the recent elections. You see previously this war had been President Bush's fault. But when Democrats take power in the middle of January it becomes all their responsibility. Because people will forget all about President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and his administrations mishandling of the war and start wondering why haven't the Democrats fixed it yet. Or that's the line of thinking in David Keene's latest article.

The lack of any unified Democratic stance on a crucial national security and foreign policy issue — on which the party's candidates ran and won control of Congress — means that my friend is at least partially right.

Iraq is many things, including a tar - baby that congressional Democrats are going to find as difficult to get away from as the Republicans they so gleefully beat up over the last few years.

What's great about this formulation is that the Democrats don't actually have the power to implement any of their solutions. They control neither the State Department nor the Department of Defense. They can't pull our troops back. All they can do is make recommendations or cut funding, and they certainly won't cut funding. So all they can do is make recommendations that the President can helpfully reject.

So the idea that Democrats better fix the war on Iraq or be doomed - well, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

If I were a Bigot

I had intended not to write again till the new year, but I was inspired by Cal Thomas's latest - "If I Were A Terrorist." The article is more or less exactly how it sounds.

Other parts of my plan for destroying America, if I had one, are also coming together. Mosques and Islamic schools, many funded by the extremist Wahaabi sect based in Saudi Arabia, are "exploding." My brilliant idea (if it was mine and if it was for real) encourages Americans to have abortions or small families, while the "peaceful religionists" have large families in order to skew the demographic in Western countries.

I thought it was weird the last time I was down at the old abortion clinic to see an Imam with a sign saying "Hey Christians, get an abortion." Now it's all starting to come together.

But most of this is about the 6 Imams who had the gall to express disagreement with President Bush while flying. And they prayed. And apparently some of them requested seatbelt extenders. Very suspicious. And if I were an anti-Muslim Bigot this would be exactly the kind of thing I'd latch onto to feed my anti Muslim Bigotry. I'd trumpet it to the heavens in hopes of gaining more allies for my anti Muslim Bigotry. Because Bigotry is always ugly, but when surrounded by other people, the ugliness seems more mainstream.

Hmmmm. A lot of conservative authors sure are writing about these 6 Imams aren't they?

It's the Most Magical Time of the Year

It's that special time of the year when we get to read article after article fighting the War on Christmas. For a generic sample, check out this one by Janet M. LaRue. She doesn't flag up any specific cases; she just brings up generic facts.

Fact! Most people like Christmas. Fact! People should be able to enjoy Christmas without conflicting with the Constitution. LaRue doesn't get down to the part where non Christians should have to fork over their taxes to help pay for her Christmas Fund. Or not specifically, although she does assert that Government can set up Christmas displays and doesn't have to set up Hanukkah or Kwanzaa displays.

At any rate the prospect of another Christmas Fandango makes me sick to my stomach, so I'll be checking out until January. Good-bye!

More on Taking the Oath of Office While Muslim

Let's start with sanity - apparently there is not constitutional requirement that the Bible be used, although there is a constitutional prohibition of a religious test on our political leaders. Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams did not swear on the bible when they took their Oath of Office and the Oath of Office is specifically not a religious ceremony. For a more in-depth look at this, check out this website.

And now, to take a break from sanity, let's check in with some reader responses to Dennis Prager's article.

. . . Wow-
It is clear that we are losing are heritage. My forefathers died for the right to have only one Bible sworn on. Jesus was the 1st American. That guy was a patriot. He would surely desire to live in a land where only one book would be worthy of public office. That was His message, right? God Bless America, the greatest nation on God's (the God w/ Jesus attached!) green flat-universe centering earth.

- Seth. Only one bible sworn on? Does that mean his forefathers died not realizing there are multiple copies of the Bible that one can swear on? It's also nice knowing that Jesus was the 1st American.

Bigot alert for this next one.

Congratualtions Minnesota.

You sent a filthy animal to congress, and now look whats going on. Did he state during his campaign that, if elected, he would take his oath on the murdering handbook insyead of the bible? If so, the people who voted this America hating dog in to office, are themselves America hating dogs! If liberals don't like this post...TOUGH! Believe me, thanks to your consistant stupidity, I, and all America Loving Conservatives, will have the chance to say I TOLD YOU SO!

That's from Bill who seems just a little unbalanced.

Finally, a little sanity from another comment there, showing that not all Conservatoids are Bills and Seths.

So let me get this straight...

... an oath to uphold the Constitution isn't recognizing the authority of that same Constitution unless one's hand is on a particular religious text of your choosing? And this is necessary even though it isn't found anywhere in the text of the Constitution itself, nor in the Federalist Papers, nor in the Declaration of Independence, nor in any of the writings of any of our Founding Fathers (at least that I've seen). Interesting.

That's from John Galt, and he's not wrong.

Being Keith Ellison

It has to be a pain. Because he's the first Muslim in Congress, and, to make matters worse, he's a Democrat. Which means he's just got to put up with the right wing assuming he's a terrorist sympathiser. The latest flare up is that he has requested that he take his oath of office on a Koran rather than a Bible. Naturally this has Conservatives all riled up, including Dennis Prager. Frankly it doesn't take all that much to get Dennis Prager riled up at Muslims.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

What's interesting is that Prager doesn't list any sort of constitutional mandate for taking oaths - I'm assuming there isn't one, but I could be wrong. He also claims that no other member of Congress has ever taken the oath something that's not a Bible. I'm going to check up on these claims but for the moment let me just say once again how much it sucks to be Keith Ellison.

Because the right wing is never going to let up.