How dare you politicize Loughner's actions! And anyway he was a Liberal!

Yeah some of the less bright members of the Conservative Pundit core are going down this route, among them Terrence Jeffrey in his latest article.

Would it be fair to at least entertain the hypothesis that Loughner's disdain for religion and admiration for the writings of Marx and Hitler had some connection with his manifest disregard for morality and the sanctity of human life?

Yep. Life means nothing to us Liberals; it's amazing we aren't all out shooting Democratic Politicians.

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.

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.

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.

A Clear Statement

I have to applaud Terry Jeffrey's latest article for making the case against Gay Marriage so clear.

Any inquiry aimed at discovering the nature of marriage must ultimately arrive at one of two conclusions: Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God and thus unchangeable or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.

Yeah that's pretty much it. Jeffrey's conclusion is, naturally, that God created Marriage and we have a duty to preserve the traditional definition of it. Because if we don't than we will have plural marriage and other bad stuff.

The weakness in the argument is that it presupposes that we should legislate based on what God wants. God may very well be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (I believe he is) but our mortal and fallible opinions on what God wants are as changeable as the wind. More to the point we live in a multicultural society. Americans practice a multitude of faiths and some practice no faith at all.

What Jeffrey is explicitly asking for is that we set a theocratic law - we rule from the Bible, or to be more precise, his interpretation of the Bible. I personally think that's a very bad precedent, and if that is the strongest argument proponents of marriage discrimination should bring to bear, than I hope we start coming to our senses.

You are known by the company you keep

Terry Jeffries latest article argues that Obama should be against marriage, church going, prosperity and longevity. Apparently Obama does well with people who aren't married, who don't go to church, who aren't prosperous, or who haven't lived that long.

This is kind of a slam on Obama but it makes no sense if you spend even a moment thinking about it. The Church Goer thing, well, that's been around for a while, but the other ones? Does it occur to Jeffries that maybe the reason the poor support Obama is that they would like the opportunity to get prosperous? And the split between youth voters and older voters has been around since the 60s.

He also presents statistics that, for example, show that 42% of church goers support Obama (although a higher percentage of non-church goers or occasional church goers support Obama), which kind of implies that many church goers do, in fact, like Obama and like what he is doing. He presents similar statistics for the other groups. Similar figures exist in all of his categories. And yet he has the courage to make this statement.

The people who form the backbone of our society -- the married, churchgoing, hard-working, experienced members of our national community -- do not believe what Obama is doing today as president serves their interests.

Jeffrey is positing a split in this society based on faulty math and wishful thinking. He is pitting the successful against the failures, the old against the young, the married against the singles, when the figures he presents don't really support that interpretation. At the very least you have to admit that all of the categories he presents are divided on whether or not President Obama is doing a good job.

Fair enough. He's not making an argument that actually makes sense, rather he is stroking the egos of his readers. Always a popular policy, even if it is less the honest at times.

Predictable enough

It turns out Republicans weren't keen on President Obama's inaugural speech.

President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech was supposed to be one of the great inaugural addresses of all time. It was supposed to encourage us, to inspire us. Instead, it deflated us.

Obama’s inaugural address deflated us because it perfectly crystallized the quandary America now finds itself in: we wanted our faith renewed through a “transformational moment” -- but now we’ve got a faithless man for president.

Ben Shapiro, "Obama’s Inaugural: Hubris Will Bring Him Down"

President Obama's Inaugural Address?

Clichéd, surprisingly dull, naive, and memorable only insofar as it was forgettable.

Wynton Hall, "An Army of Clichés Marching Across the Presidential Palate"

Obama's speech was a carefully crafted self-contradiction, with a beginning and end that could have been delivered by a conservative and a middle that envisioned government unleashed from constitutional restraints.

Terence Jeffrey, "We the Government"

It was more somber, just listening to it and looking at the occasional crowd shots, the occasion seemed to be more somber than anybody was led to believe. All this is surprising to me, that there was very little inspiration, that there was soaring phrases that just weren't there. Now, it was said that Obama was writing this himself. And that was the news that we got. Obama was going to write this speech himself. He sequestered himself for two days and didn't want to be interrupted with anything while he worked on this. If that's true, it was said that he was writing it himself, the results show that he probably did, because most of his speeches are written by David Axelrod. But this was buzz kill for the assembled billions out there. This was buzz kill. This was no buzz. There was bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz. You'll have to forgive me if this offends you, folks. I'm just sharing with you my honest reaction to elements of the speech.

Rush Limbaugh, Yesterday's Show.

To be fair Thomas Sowell and George Will were largely complimentary towards the speech.

Football and the American Dream

Terence Jeffrey's latest article takes football as a metaphor for the American Economy.

Americans love football because it rewards those who deserve to be rewarded. It does this because its rules are well known, commonsensical, and unchanging during any particular game and season, and also because what it takes to win in football transcends the natural physical talents of those who play it.

Just as the kid who never graduates from high school can end up being the largest employer in town, so the kid who is too slow to run track and too short to play basketball can became the fullback who is too hard to tackle -- especially when it is fourth and one and the game is on the line.

Yep. And the point is that the Government wants to act like bad referees - picking the winner regardless of what happens on the field.

However when it comes to the economy - I feel like the refs are totally asleep or totally in the bag for one side. Consider attending a game in which players on one side were given every benefit of the doubt, and could commit multiple infractions before getting in trouble, while players on the other side were ejected from the game for minor rules breaking. Now consider how our criminal justice system treats wealthy whites and poor blacks.

We don't suffer from too many refs or too many regulations whatever the squealers on the right say. The rich and corporations really are getting enough breaks; it's time to give a few to the middle and working class.

You Must Learn!

Well, Cal Thomas has dug deep to come up with the solution to the current woes plaguing our economy, in his latest article. People should be less greedy. Yep.

John McCain wants more regulations. What McCain should be demanding is an investigation, especially of those members of Congress who failed to provide oversight. It also wouldn't hurt to recommend more self-control and an embrace of the Puritan ethic of living within one's means.

No I suppose it wouldn't hurt. And I think it would be nice if people would choose to live in their means more. But I'm not sure this is really a strategy for dealing with the problems in our market.

Let's just say it, we could do away with laws against stealing if everybody agreed to not steal. But we have laws against stealing because some people do steal. And more people are tempted to steal, but are dissuaded by the possibility of jail time. Presumably Thomas wouldn't think the solution to crime is simply to convince criminals to not commit crimes.

But the same mentality doesn't apply to corporate crime. When it comes to corporate crime, our first line of defense is to convince the people running Wall Street to be puritans. The upshot of it? We waste our time scolding them, while allowing them to take the actions that have gotten us into this mess.

I'm also impressed by the contrast with another article at Townhall by Terence Jeffrey. Apparently puritanism or living within ones means isn't the solution to every problem.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives sent a message this week to hard-working commuters forced to pay historically high prices for gasoline: Ride a bike.

Yeah I guess if people did ride bikes we'd need less gas, and prices would go down and our supplies would last longer. Seems like the Puritan thing to do. But of course Jeffrey's point is that what Congress should be doing, instead of encouraging us to live within our means, is going out and getting more gas for us so we don't have to.

Terence Jeffrey spends a lot of time thinking about Democrat's Fantasies

Look at these phrases from his latest article.

The Democrat's dream scenario . . .

In the Democrat dream, . . .

In the Democrat dream of dreams . . .

. . . the Democrats fantasize . . .

. . . Smart Democrats know this is important because even in their dreams . .

The key point to our fantasies is apparently Rudy Guilliani. We dream about Republicans nominating Rudy Guillinai because that would take family values off the table (as Guilliani's history on those issues is not satisfying to the Republican base. If we have to fight on Abortion/Gay Marriage we would lose. For sure.

I have to say I spend a lot more time dreaming about . . . well other things than Rudy Guilliani.

He then shares the Republican fantasy - they will nominate a strong "values voter" conservative. None of their top tier candidates fit this description but let that slide. The war in Iraq will go smoothly for the first time. And Hillary will advocate national health care. To put it another way, the Democratic Dream is to run against Rudy Guilliani. The Republican Dream is to run against Hillary Clinton. Apparently.

Is the Surge Working?

On the morning after of President Bush's ballyhooed veto, let's consider an article by Terrence Jeffrey at Townhall that suggests that maybe the Surge Strategy isn't working.

Petraeus explained President Bush's chosen tactic: using our military to suppress violence to give Iraq's government time to make the reforms. This tactic rests on the additional hypothesis that the Iraqi government truly wants to make the reforms.

The tactic proposed by congressional Democrats is to threaten the withdrawal of U.S. troops if the Iraqi government does not meet deadlines for achieving the reforms. This tactic rests on the additional hypothesis that the Iraqi government does not truly want to make the reforms.

An early analysis of how the president's tactic is working yields two conclusions: Americans are dying in greater numbers for it, and Iraqi politicians are not paying us back with the political progress this American sacrifice demands.

The Iraqi Parliament has yet to really put in place those reforms that will preserve their country. Bad news for us; since the long term success of the surge depends on them making those reforms.

Play it to the Bone, er, Base

Terrence Jeffrey, in his latest article, has some advice for President Bush. Essentially he should start picking fights with the Democrats and Liberals.

Jeffrey praises Bush for putting the warrentless wiretapping program front and center. He then suggests Bush "deploy troops to secure the Mexican American Border", "offer supplemental spending cuts and enforce them with a veto", and "lift the moratoria on offshore drilling and enforce it with a veto."

Of these three plans, the first is ludicrous. We don't have enough to do occupying Iraq, so let's occupy the American Southwest. Brilliant. The third would cost the Republicans Florida, so it isn't likely either.

The middle one might have some legs, but it's esoteric enough that it will appeal mostly to conservative policy wonks. I admit they would get super happy at any spending cuts, and Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

But so would most Republicans. Because you would end up cutting "pet projects" as the most politically viable. Cut welfare programs and you get a few years of ads explaining that Bush wants those of us who have the least to shoulder the cost of his war. So it will be things like bridges to nowhere and tree research stations. I guess I could live with that; but Congress critters won't be keen on it. So, even if President Bush enforces it with a veto, I don't think it's going to fly.

On the other hand, even if he can't actually accomplish these plans, trying to accomplish them could certainly invigorate the base. There's nothing they like better than a good donnybrook (that's true of all bases, incidentally), and this would certainly give them one. But my feeling is that the Bush Administration doesn't want any losing fights just now.

Real Fences

Terrence P. Jeffrey's latest article concerns the construction of a virtual fence to protect our boarder. This virtual fence would use cameras, motion detectors, and unmanned vehicles to patrol the boarder and track anybody who tried to cross it. Then our border patrol units could swoop in and say "Hey, we see you - you gotta go back."

Jeffrey favors a real wall because it is both discriminatory and proportional. That is to say, it would stop people from attempting to cross, but people (and large squirrels) on this side of the fence wouldn't risk triggering these cameras and whatnot.

I don't know - he's kind of convinced me that the virtual wall isn't much good, but I am also unhappy with the idea of a big physical wall. It would work as a deterrent (if it were well done), but would be enormously expensive to build and to man. And I have to admit, I just don't like the imagery.

Townhall Report

I just read every article over at Townhall for Thursday, June 23 (as of 9:10 in the morning, more articles may be added later).

There were articles by Brent Bozell and Ann Coulter about Dick Durbin's comments from last week. Apparently he said something along the lines of "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Republicans do not like this being said, apparently. They are pushing the idea that we are, in fact, too nice to our prisoners (Ann Coulters article is entitled "Guantanamo loses 5-star rating."

Emmet Tyrell and Robert Novak both wrote on Senator Biden. Novak reveals that apparently Biden uses political means to achieve his ends. Shocking. Emmet Tyrell's article is devoted to calling Biden (and any other Democrat he can think of) a liar.

Ak'Bar A. Shabazz also writes on congressional matters. In this case he covers an official Senate apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws back in the day. He did make a minor misstatement in his article though. "Many have blamed 'southern conservatives' for filibustering anti-lynching legislation. They would be more accurate if they attributed the opposition to 'southern Democrats'. For, it was the Democratic Party that was most active in opposing civil rights legislation during that movement." While technically accurate, this formulation gives the impression that there were separaterate groups - Southern Conservatives and Southern Democrats. In fact, at that time, they were one and the same. It would be most accurate to say "Southern Conservatdemocratsrats." But perhaps accuracy isn't Mr. Shabazz's point.

Suzanne Fields rights on the sanctity of Marriage. Debra Saunders writes on PETA (wembarrassinglyngly enough, recently had some of their charges die). Larry Elder writes on how Senator Kerry's grades show him to be a dummy (compared to President Bush). Alan Reynolds writes a somewhat confusing article on why Oil Prices aren't controlled by demand for car gasoline.

This is tiring.

Terrence Jeffry comments on a subcontractor at Oak Ridge Nuclear facility who hired undocumented aliens. As you might imagine, he's opposed to that.

Cal Thomas comments that PBS and NPR are too liberal. And by too liberal, he apparently means liberal at all.

Both Ross Mackenzie and Tim Chapman do columns that collect a lot of different short themes in them. Kind of like this post really.

Finally, Michael Furtado writes a column filled with links on how Scientists will defeat Germs. Because Scientists are smart and Germs are not. And Marvin Olasky writes an article recommending his five favorite Civil War Battle Grounds for you to visit.

None of those articles is really jumping out at me to comment on so I present them all. Enjoy.

A Good Question

Well there are several interesting articles today on the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction story. Terence Jeffrey suggests that presidential candidate Bob Graham of Florida, who was on the intelligence committee, knows that the evidence presented was good. In his argument he presents a discussion with Paul Anderson, Graham's communications director, who says of his candidate, "He believes that the intelligence that was presented suggested that." Theres the rub right there--was the intelligence presented complete enough to paint a full picture? Paul Anderson, Graham's communications director suggests that Graham believed it was honest information, but that's a) his opinion and b) still doesn't answer if the picture presented was complete.

Then David Limbaugh takes a different tack and simply presents the evidence gathered so far, denies it, and asks, "Whom do you trust, and who truly has the nation's best interests at heart?"

That's the $64,000.00 question.