NEWSWEEK ASKS: DOES KILLING TERRORISTS PREVENT TERRORISM?

At times, I still find myself surprised by some of the things I come across. For instance, did you know that Newsweek magazine is still around?

Who knew?

I thought they went the way of hoop skirts and coherent liberals. I couldn’t believe Newsweek still had a pulse. And it didn’t take long to discover that they are still as vapid as they ever were.

Take a recent article posted at their blog, “The Gaggle.”

The headline alone speaks for itself.

Does Killing Terrorists Actually Prevent Terrorism?

As tempting as it is to pull that plum off the tree and woof it down, the real fruit of the post in inside.

Chasing terrorists in Waziristan with missiles clearly is not going to end, or definitively win, the “War on Terrorism,” and whether we should think about a diplomatic rapprochement with these groups instead of fighting an endless war with them is a legitimate question. If the U.S. could avoid war with the Soviet Union, a.k.a. the “Evil Empire,” why not Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

To begin with, the headline asks the wrong question.

Killing terrorists clearly – definitionally – prevents terrorism. But it doesn’t prevent all terrorism. No one ever said it did. And the fact that all terrorists will not be eliminated by this country’s continuing efforts to wipe out as many of these thugs as possible doesn’t mean that it’s time to scrap that approach and invite Al Qaeda to lunch for a heaping helping of falafel and tea.

Should the police quit doing their job because there will always be criminals? Should law enforcement sit down and try to come to mutual understandings with child rapists and cold-blooded murderers?

We continue to fight the war – on all fronts – because we must. And that includes killing as many of the enemy as possible.

That’s because the only way to stop those who idealize and pray for death is to give them exactly what they want before they can take any innocents with them.

Second, the United States avoided direct war with the Soviet Union because the Reds did not crave death as do the followers of radical Islam. The USSR was not a suicidal regime. The Soviets truly wanted to expand their evil empire and sphere of influence. They were a genuine nation with borders, a constitution, a standing army and a leader. And they believed that an all out nuclear war with United States would result in mutually assured destruction. They certainly didn’t want that. They wanted to survive; not find ways to make it to the afterlife for a cabana full of virgins.

Third, whereas throughout all of human existence nations who have been defeated in war surrender to the victor, the current battle against Islamo-fascism is unlike any we have ever fought. There is no nation of Islamo-Fascist-Land with defined borders, a constitution and a standing uniformed army who will wave a white flag when handed a major military setback (like the killing of a terrorist leader). Islamo-facists exist in all countries. They live in caves as well as inner-cities. They exist in terrorist training camps and among us. They can be our neighbors or those charged to defend this country. They fight on the battlefield and shelter themselves in civilian neighborhoods. They target innocents and do not compromise. And because they don’t fear death – they revere it – they have an advantage no enemy of the United States has ever had.

That anyone can honestly ask the question, given the endless amount of examples of the nature of Islamo-terrorism, why Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be reasoned with is still astounding.

Astounding.

 

IF WE COULD JUST GET RID OF THOSE BLASTED NUCLEAR WEAPONS …

The news today is that the President of the United States is set to “rewrite” America’s policy on nuclear weapons sometime next week. What that really means is the President has decided a weaker America is a more lovable America.

The immediate objective is to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal while refraining from developing new systems. The ultimate objective is to do away with nuclear weapons altogether.

From the Times of London, via Fox News:

After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Obama is expected to reject the doctrine on nuclear weapons — the “nuclear posture” — adopted by George W. Bush, which included the possibility of the United States launching an attack on a non-nuclear state.

In January, I commented on this painfully asinine, immeasurably naïve and potentially catastrophic approach to national security.

Because this is such an important issue – and because the commentary is timely - it is definitely worth revisiting:

The screeching unclean masses say that war is not the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. The socially conscious (and perpetually stoned) regale the world with chants of “give peace a chance,” but peace without victory only means the side of goodness has acquiesced for the time being. The President once said that the United States will extend its hand if the enemy is willing to unclench its fist – bend-overism at its best.

But such a gesture is not, and never can be, proffered from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The enemy exploits it.

Can there be anyone quite as naïve as a man – the most powerful man in the world, let’s say – thinking that a nuclear weapon-free world is not only something to aspire to, but something that is realistically attainable?

Liberals are almost adorable when they try to be serious. Unfortunately, the stakes are way too high for fun and games.

Why, first of all, is it at all desirable to do away with nuclear weapons given the realities of human existence? What, exactly, would such a feat accomplish? If the world is rid of them – which really means, if the West is rid of them – what then? Does the technology suddenly not exist?

That must be it.

Just like the “War on Terror” doesn’t seem so “George Bushy” if we simply call it an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” or Islamo-fascist terrorism don’t seem so pervasive if we call terrorists “isolated extremists,” the world will seem like a far better place if those nasty bombs are dismantled and filed away next to the aging surplus of pet rocks and mood rings.

Out of sight, out of mind wins the liberal day.

Regardless of the reasons, or the projected effects, or the feasibility, one of President Obama’s stated goals is to do away with all nuclear weapons. To children, dope smokers, tenured professors and MSNBC anchors, it all sounds so stone-cold groovy. No more nukes, baby! Whether or not the President will dispatch disciples to shove flowers into the rifle barrels of military personnel is unclear, but one thing is for certain: there are lots of fists that need unclenching, and lots of hugs just waiting to be shared.

And Obama is the man to make it happen.

To Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, this isn’t a values issue. It’s about the technology. Rather than focus on the ideologies and religious fanaticism that make these weapons a genuine threat to countries like the United States and Israel, the weapons themselves – along with the fact that the United States possesses so many of them - is really the problem.

Shall we all just pretend that such capabilities are make-believe? Will the world magically be safer when those blasted mushroom cloud making boom-booms go away? Is it reasonable to assume that the bad guys will then rethink what they’re doing when they see nations like the United States and Israel disarming?

The naivety and silliness of wishing to make the world a “nuclear weapon-free zone” cannot accurately be charted. Technology has not advanced that far. Childish wish-lists and theoretical gobbledygook contrived in the halls of academia have little to do with the real world.

Perhaps the better question is: why is it so desirable for the “good guys” to do away with them? What example are we trying to set? That the powerful shall not defend themselves? That only rogues, terrorists and despots shall have such weapons? This is akin to arguing with an anti-Second Amendment zealot who can never explain why weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are a bad thing.

The fact is, nuclear weapons exist because they must exist.

(“What?” ask libs, confused, confounded.)

Deadbolts and car alarms must exist because some people steal. Pepper spray and mace must exist because some people assault the innocent. Police must exist because some people do bad things.

It’s really quite simple.

And if countries that wish to “lead by example” do away with the most powerful weapons in their arsenals, knowing that evil does exist, they are as stupid and careless as someone who leaves the door to his or her home swinging wide open when they go out.

The world is in no danger with free nations in possession of these – or any – weapons.

If, for example, in a Barack Obama world of fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies, the United States and her allies were nuclear-weapon free, and a nuclear attack should take place in a city like New York or London or Tel-Aviv, then what? We should feel good that, at least, we stood by our principles?

In the real world, such cartoonish objectives aren’t rational, as Bammy is finding out.

Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:

President Obama’s ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.

Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.

…

The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as “spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented.”

What kind of deterrence is the President in favor of in a nuclear weapon-free world? Name calling? A threat not to have Obama’s hand extended to them? God forbid, sanctions?

The world shivers and shakes.

The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.

The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.

Also looming this year are other elements of Obama’s nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.

The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.

For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.

Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.

Indeed, the threat in a world with nuclear weapons is in who has them – which means it isn’t about the weapons at all, but rather the values of those who seek to possess them. That means the United States (i.e., the President) must be able to summon, with crystal-clear clarity, the courage to make judgments and, without equivocation, openly name the evils that threaten us.

For those who came in after the credits, I’ll repeat … there is no threat whatsoever when the good guys – yes, we are the good guys – possess nuclear weapons.

Period.

It’s all about values, values, values.

In other news, liberals still cannot be trusted with national security.

-

DENNIS PRAGER, TIM TEBOW AND ME

Dennis Prager

I was fortunate enough to get a quick mention on Dennis Prager’s radio show earlier today by name, not because of this blog or anything, but because I found myself doing something I wouldn’t normally do – namely, correcting something the host said.

Admittedly, I felt funny doing it, seeing as I admire Dennis very much. My intent was not to show him up or get the better of him by any means

He was simply wrong on a point he was making and I felt it needed correcting in order for the point to be more effective.

Besides, he welcomes corrections.

They don’t occur very often, but when they do, he embraces them, you might say.

I couldn’t get through on the phone, so I e-mailed the show toward the end of the first hour. Much to my delight, Dennis came out of a commercial break during the second hour and announced my correction to an assertion he made regarding last night’s Focus On The Family Super Bowl commercial featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, and his mother, Pam.

Before it ever hit TV screens across America, the spot caused a much-publicized uuproar among many pro-abortionists for what was anticipated to be an “in your face” pro-life message. Based on how controversial the ad was supposed to be, Dennis was among those on the right who felt the ad shouldn’t air. His position raised more than a few eyebrows among his conservative brethren.

After all, why would any conservative not want to see an ad on television that advocated for a genuine conservative value – namely, the right to life? In a world where the mainstream media is so obviously slanted left, one would think that such a thing would garner unanimity among conservatives.

Not so.

Leading up to the Super Bowl, Prager made it very clear that he personally supported the pro-life position. He had no problem with the Focus On The Family message in and of itself, but his reservations were rooted in his displeasure of having advocacy ads airing during the Super Bowl – or any other sporting event, for that matter. He felt that allowing one controversial, issues-based ad to air would open the door to a slew of politically-charged commercials, which would eventually devolve into an all-out political ad war. The Super Bowl, he argued, was no place for that kind of sparring. In a nation already rife with political discontent, there should be some venues, he argued, free from such things.

It’s a fair argument.

Of course, as it turned out, the ad was neither controversial nor political in any way. In fact, after seeing it twice, as Dennis explained today,  unless a viewer specifically knew what Focus On The Family was all about, he or she would be hard pressed to attach any political position whatsoever to the spot. On its face, it was about a Mom loving his Son, sponsored by some family oriented organization. While Dennis continued to maintain that advocacy spots should not be aired during broadcasts like the Super Bowl, Dennis conceded that the Tim Tebow spot did not fall into that category.

Pam and Tim Tebow

Where Dennis made his mistake was in his description of the commercial’s ending for his audience. According to him, the commercial’s final scene, although very brief, gave away the fact that it was, indeed, a pro-life ad  – not because the Focus On The Family web address came on screen, but because the phrase “pro life” appeared in the closing graphic. Dennis argued that if not for that, it would have been impossible to know what the ad was advocating, other than Mom and Son love eachother.

He went on to say that even with the short appearance of the words “pro life” at the end, the commercial was not the kind of issues-oriented ad he spoke out against prior to the Super Bowl.

He ultimately had no problem with the commercial.

Dennis got into a debate with one caller who claimed the commercial was clearly an advocacy ad precisely because the Focus On The Family web address was shown. According to the caller, that alone made it an issues-based spot because all one would need to do is go to the website and see that the organization is, in fact, a pro life organization (among other things). Dennis challenged the caller, saying that no one could possibly know that it was an anti-abortion commercial by its contents – except for the final graphic featuring the words “pro life.”

The problem with Prager’s otherwise effective argument is that the words “pro life” do not appear anywhere  in the ad – not even at the end, as he stated.

Nowhere.

There isn’t a hint of anti-abortion to be found in that spot – and that’s where I felt Dennis needed to be corrected.

His argument was worth hearing – and it was a good one – but for the sake of clarity (Dennis’ best friend), the facts needed to be sound.

On its content, the ad was as much an anti-abortion spot as it was an anti-tofu burger spot.

What actually does appear at the end of the ad are the thoroughly innocuous and inoffensive phrases “celebrate family” and “celebrate life” - and who, in their right mind, could argue with those sentiments?

Not even leftists. (I think).

The Tim Tebow spot was as antispeptic and non-controversial as a commercial could be.

Unless one is ready to make the claim that Life cereal is an anti-abortion breakfast food or that Milton Bradley’s “Game Of Life” is a disguised effort to undermine Planned Parenthood, the most talked-about Super Bowl commercial turned out to be the most wholesome one of them all.

 

-

HOW NOW BROWN IMMIGRANT?

I can sum this up in short order. 

It’s simple.

Not that anything I say will make any difference to my leftist brethren, mind you. (I don’t expect it to).  I’m a conservative, so any policy position I support will confirm in the suspicious minds of the tolerant class that I am motivated by sinister motives.

Because true compassion is not possible from a conservative – only conniving manipulations devised to feed fat cat wallets at the expense of the everyday American – I am to be considered any one (if not all) of the following: homophone, xenophobe, sexist, racist, intolerant and bigoted. (Thank you Dennis Prager for the list).

What else could explain it?

Only embittered, child-eating, puppy punching, gun-wielding, Neanderthal beasts who enjoy putting butterflies in the microwave to watch them explode, or feed Alka Seltzer tablets to baby ducks, can really support conservative positions. It’s simply not possible to support such things as traditional marriage, gun ownership and less-intrusive government without being an intolerant, knuckle-dragging troglodyte.

Well, to the best of my ability, I’ll make this catastrophically simple so even a caveman can understand it … or a liberal.

I am tremendously confident that I speak for the overwhelming vast majority of conservatives when I say that those of us who are proponents of a strong immigration policy (i.e., a strong anti-illegal alien policy) couldn’t care less about the skin tones, ethnicities or ancestral origins of the infiltrators.

Not a damn thing.

Do you hear?

Nothing.

Naturally, I can hear the screeching Leftocrat class call me a liar, pointing their fingers, proclaiming that folks like me would rather see illegal alien babies rotting in the gutters of our American cities than fork out any more tax dollars to feed them, clothe them and give them, at the very least, some old newspapers to wrap up in to stay warm.

Lib perceptions of how Conservatives think can be summed up in what Howard Dean famously said in 2005: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Busted.

Dean must’ve had someone well-disguised sneak into one of our meetings, because I’m not sure how he found out. It’s only a matter of time before the Dems find out about our “My Little Swastika” line of stuffed animals and snack cakes.

I’ve said this before, and I will say it until I am Massachusetts-blue in the face: There is nothing less relevant to me than one’s race or ethnicity.

But that’s not what some of the big boys on the Left believe.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the genius behind the Daily Kos, truly believes, for instance, that because we on the right are for securing our borders and cracking down on illegals, we obviously “hate brown people.”

From CNSNews.com:

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a Democratic strategist and founder of the left-wing blog “The Daily Kos,” told reporters Thursday that “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation sponsored by Rep. Luiz Gutierrez (D-Ill.) — which would provide a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens — has a good shot at passage this year.

But Moulitsas said that “teabaggers” and Republicans who “hate brown people” would try to push back against it.

“I think the votes want to be there in the Senate — I think the House is fairly solid — I think the votes want to be there,” he said of an immigration bill’s chances, “but you have this growing ‘teabagger’ movement that is going to be pushing very hard from the other side.”

There’s that word again … “teabagger.”

Not that the word is meant in the pejorative sense or anything.

He and Roger Ebert ought to play mahjong.

The fact is, the people who come into America illegally from the country south of the Rio Grande could be pasty, white-skinned, blonde-haired, hazel-eyed English-speakers who look like they just came from summer camp in the North of Ireland, and conservatives like me would still feel the same exact way about them – that they have no business being here, and they need to go about the process of entering (and eventually staying) in the country legally. It has absolutely nothing to do with “hating brown people.”

It’s about national security, economic stability, controlling crime, and making America a better place for her citizens and those who wish to come here the right way.

My Lord, can liberals ever get off the race and ethnicity thing?

Ever?

Incidentally, there already exists a “pathway to citizenship” … the same one my ancestors followed: the law.

-

WHO BELIEVES IN REINCARNATION MORE?

If Republicans who converse with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are discounted, then a recent study showing that Democrats and liberals communicate with the dead more frequently than their conservative counterparts is perfectly accurate. (There are so many one liners to choose from). In fact, according to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey, more than a third of all Dems say they have been in contact with the deceased while a mere fifth of Republicans say they have. The same survey reveals that twice as many Democrats have not only seen a ghost but believe yoga is a spiritual practice.

Dems have also consulted fortunetellers by a margin of better than two-to-one over Republicans, and believe in astrology by nearly the same margin.

Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent from the Washington Examiner, writes:

There’s more. Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in reincarnation, while 30 percent of Democrats do … Seventeen percent of Republicans say they believe in spiritual energy, while 30 percent of Democrats do.

There are some areas in which the two partisan groups are similar. When Pew asked respondents whether they have had a religious or mystical experience, 50 percent of Republicans said yes, as did 50 percent of Democrats. But overall, there are sizable disparities.

The disparity is not in the act of believing in something that can only be suggested (God), something paranormal (ghosts), or having faith in that which cannot be empirically proven (reincarnation). It’s an unquantifiable component of human existence – the need to believe in the inexplicable to some degree. Rather, the disparity is where that faith is directed.

Still, there are very interesting differences:

What accounts for them? Pew doesn’t say. But the report does note that there are gender, ethnic, and racial differences in the totals. “Having been in touch with a dead person is more common among women than men,” the report says. “Women are also twice as likely to have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic. Blacks report more experience feeling in touch with the dead than whites or Hispanics. But they resemble whites and Hispanics on other items, such as encounters with a ghost or consulting a fortuneteller.” Some of those gender, ethnic and racial differences might come into play in the partisan totals. But in the end, the Pew report offers no solid answers for why there are such differences between Republicans and Democrats.

It’s not just the “religious right” who exercise faith in that which cannot be seen or adequately explained.

In place of traditional religion – where accountability to a higher being and adherence to universal codes of living are at the core – many choose to call themselves “spiritual” as opposed to “religious.” That’s not to say that religious people are not spiritual (or shouldn’t be) but those who opt for labeling themselves as “spiritual” free themselves from the demands of a religion, and effectively channel their needs in other ways – one might say, looking for their own “religion.”

I assure you, this is not a knock on those who are not religious.

I am merely commenting on York’s article.

Readers of this blog know I do not argue with people over tenets of faith. I am concerned about the goodness of an individual above all else. As Dennis Prager regularly says, “I am more interested in the practitioners of a given religion than the religion itself.” And while I am generally more than happy to engage in discussions over the existence of God at almost any juncture, this is not one of those instances. This isn’t about God specifically.

This is about human tendency.

And I find it fascinating.

-

ACLU: A CHURCH IS NO PLACE FOR THAT

Inside the First Cathedral of Bloomfield

When the American Civil Liberties Union issues a warning, you can be sure of two things: one, that liberty itself is about to come under assault in some context, and two, that a whole lot of powerful, highly-paid, hot-shot attorneys looking for a slot on Rachel Maddow’s show are going to disfigure the Constitution in the name of whatever their latest crusade is.

Like starving buzzards – or Al Sharpton – they sit coiled and ready, just out of eye sight, waiting for a one tasty morsel of what they perceive as incivility to hit the floor before swooping in.

When they do, it is a spectacular sight to behold.

The ferocity with which they infiltrate and operate is unmatched. Liberty-loving people scatter like field mice while a few bitter bellyachers do whatever is necessary to make sure everyone is allotted their fair share of misery in the name of equality. These jack-booted deliverers of lawsuits and Godlessness come in the name of justice to level playing fields and protect people from civil rights violations.

They’re amazing - like microwave ovens, or the Wonder Twins.

And so it is that the ACLU – which is neither civil nor interested in protecting liberties – has warned the Enfield, Connecticut school board that it had better rethink its decision to hold graduation ceremonies in a church … or else.

From WTNH-TV:

The ACLU of Connecticut is warning the Enfield school board to stop holding graduation ceremonies at a Bloomfield megachurch, claiming the graduates and their families are unconstitutionally being subjected to religious messages.

The ACLU, the national ACLU’s Freedom of Religion and Belief Project, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sent a letter Wednesday to the attorney for the Enfield Public Schools. They’re threatening to sue if the district doesn’t change the graduation location.
A message left seeking with the Enfield superintendent of schools was not immediately returned.

David McGuire, an ACLU attorney, says ceremonies for both Enfield High School and Ernico Fermi High School have been held for several years at The First Cathedral in Bloomfield.

My first instinct, of course, was to comment on the ridiculously paranoid contention by the ever-acrimonious “Separation of Church and State” set that visitors who have come to attend graduation ceremonies will be subjected to anything other than tedious speeches from wordy over-achievers simply by entering a building where religious services take place. How exactly? What “constitutional” protections are being violated? What “civil rights” are being infringed upon? These are not religious ceremonies. No one is being made to convert.

Indeed, I was well prepared to unleash my reasoned arguments on what sounded like a typical, liberty-squashing, secularism-über-alles ACLU power play.

However, the story is apparently missing some key elements that I am happy to convey here for the first time.

In the past, all graduating students and their guests, upon entry into the megachurch, were handed crucifixes and told to press them tight against their chests with their right hands. (Each crucifix was treated with a powerful psychtropic solution that was released into the body upon contact). Every patron was promptly handed a card that read “We are all Christians now” while an usher discretely administered small doses of electric current to each visitor’s left temple. At the same time as this, a sound recording with a menacing voice repeating the phrase, “Jesus is your master” filled the beautifully decorated lobby while gift baskets stuffed with Paul of Tarsus raspberry-filled chocolate figurines were handed out. After the strip searches and inoculations were completed, all were re-clothed appropriately and led into the sanctuary where “Obey Jesus” buttons were affixed to each shroud. Patrons were then seated as they were made to repeat the phrase, “Church and State, Forever Great!” two-hundred times.

Diplomas were eventually handed out to the children, but not before electronic “baptism” chips were implanted into the necks of all attendees and “Loyalty to Jesus” oaths were signed by everyone.

That changes everything.

What would we do without the ACLU?

-

SARKOZY’S COURAGE – BURQAS HAVE TO GO

Nicholas Sarkozy

I’ve got a whole lot of “hip hip hoorays” stashed away in a special place, most of which have remained unused since November 4th of last year. They’re easily replenished when the need arises, but it really hasn’t been necessary for a year or so.

Admittedly, there have been a few oases in an otherwise barren landscape of leftist flapdoodle. On occassion, over the course of ten months, I have been able to let out a few fist-pumps here and there – such as when House Republicans unanimously voted against the Obama stimulus package, or when tea party attendees vigorously voiced their opposition to runaway government spending, or when town-hall meetings gave anti-ObamaCare protestors a place to have their concerns heard, or when Republicans won the governorships of two states (including New Jersey) on Election Day.

For the most part, however, my fist-pumping inventory remains in tact, itching to be summoned.

Indeed, for lovers of liberty, it is a backwards time. Not only is the President hell-bent on making sure government will grow as large as conceivably possible in the shortest amount of time, but he just can’t seem to find a kind word to say about his own country – other than it somehow found a way to negotiate through two centuries of injustice and elect a black man to the top spot.

But what makes this time in history all the more remarkable is the fact that people like me (haters, dividers, self-absorbed kitten-kickers) are finding that when we do pull out a “hip hip hooray” it is more often than not being directed at the President of France than the President of the United States – and that just downright defies the laws of existence.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, you’ll recall, sent the panties of the left into an atomic twist with his pro-America chatter after his election in 2007. It was he who said he wanted to “reconquer the heart of America.” It is he who said he loved America and her values. It is he who said, referencing the Americans who fought in World War II, “The children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.”

And now, Mr. Sarkozy, well prepared for the slings and arrows that will inevitably come his way, says that burqas have no place in French society.

Talk about “wow.”

From the Associated Press, via Fox News:

Sarkozy says all beliefs will be respected in France but says “becoming French means adhering to a form of civilization, to values, to morals.”

Sarkozy said Thursday during a speech on national identity that “France is a country where there is no place for the burqa.” France has a large Muslim community but only a small minority of French Muslim women wear burqas, common in Afghanistan, or other face-covering veils.

Sarkozy said in June that burqas would not be welcome in France. Since then a parliamentary panel has been looking into the possibility of banning them in public.

Sarkozy is talking assimilation, and I like it. Sarkozy is talking values, and I applaud him. He’s talking about preserving the dignity of women, and nothing is more relevant.

He deserves a huge “hip hip hooray.”

That every feminist group in all of God’s creation is not erecting statues to Mr. Sarkozy – or President Bush, for that matter – or organizing rallies in his honor, or having coffee mugs made with his likeness, is almost a travesty. Sarkozy has the courage to say what needs to be said. What could be more pro-woman that to speak out against such an oppressive symbol?

But is a national restriction on wearing burqas in public the right thing to do?

Can it be justified?

I am certainly no expert on French culture, but isn’t an outright ban a bit too much?

Isn’t that a line better left uncrossed?

On one hand, it cannot be disputed by reasonable minds that to cover one’s face is to conceal one’s humanity. To do so is a representation of subservience with no other purpose than to eradicate a woman’s identity. It is designedly alienating and subjugating. It’s objective is to strip away dignity. It is demeaning.

In short, the burqa is not a benign religious symbol. Rather, it is a prison.

In fact, let me further my position by saying that women who wear burqas in this country should be made to remove them when required by law, like, for instance, being photographed for a driver’s license. The human face is, after all, the best and most efficient way to be identified.

On the other hand, I have a difficult time justifying the governmentally-imposed injunction of a piece of clothing simply because I (and others) find the practice utterly contemptible. While I personally view the wearing of burqas as not only a slap in the face to the women hidden by them, but a kick in the groin to the society providing the freedom to do so, is that enough to condone a governmental prohibiton?

Where, then, does it end?

Of course, I pose this question as an American, using this nation’s promise of liberty and religious freedom as my catalyst. It means nothing in the context of what should or should not happen in France – a nation that has long ago gone the way of Europe as a whole, all but abandoning its religious past. Conditions are obviously different in that nation than they are here. The assimilation of foreigners takes on a much different dynamic in France than it does in the United States.

America remains the most accommodating nation on Earth – including her acceptance of Muslims.

Still, I applaud Nicholas Sarkozy. His mission is to protect his country from her enemies, including those radical Muslims elements that mean to inflict it irreparable harm. That mission also includes preserving the French system of values and morality. That he has the courage to denounce the dehumanizing aspects of a foreign value set is more than worthy of a “hip hip hooray.”

Good for him.

-

STOP CALLING IT A TRAGEDY – WORDS MEAN THINGS

Nidal Malik Hasan, Murderer

Assuming for a moment I were elected King of the World, the first edict issued would be to ban the use of the word “tragedy” in describing the horrific murders that took place at Fort Hood yesterday afternoon.

If ever there was a misuse of the word, this is it.

This was not a mudslide or an earthquake. It wasn’t a tornado or a typhoon. There was no twenty car pileup on a blizzard-ravaged road.

It was a murderous shooting spree that cost thirteen innocents their lives and injured as many as thirty. It was a ghastly execution of wickedness from a very bad man.

It was an act of evil.

Second, with emerging reports of the murderer as a man increasingly disgruntled with America’s involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and one whose name is said to have appeared on several radical internet postings about suicide bombings – it is not unreasonable to look into the man’s connection with radical Islam.

Third, with reports that the murderer shouted out the love call of the suicide bomber, “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) before unleashing his terror on innocents, it is not unreasonable to pursue the angle that yesterday’s deadly rampage was an act of terrorism.

However, ours is a world where a cold blooded killer, such as the human debris who committed these murders, is referred to as a “shooter” or “gunman” – not a “murderer,” or even a “killer.”

It is a world where people are called upon to begin “healing” long before they’ve finished grieving.

It is an age where the “circumstances” that drive the evil-doer to commit the crime are explored at length, while the innocent dead are counted before being discounted.

We live in an era where there exists a pervasive unwillingness (or fear) to label the evils of our time.

It is both frightening and sickening.

Incidentally, the Fort Hood mass-murderer’s name is Nidal Malik Hasan. Many news outlets didn’t even bother to report that for several hours, even after it was confirmed.

He is also a Muslim.

Had Mr. Hasan been called Bobby Ray Jones or Thomas Alan Smith (or something equally Anglo), and was wearing a “Jesus Is Lord” t-shirt when he shouted “Praise Jesus!” before shooting up an abortion clinic or a Planned Parenthood office, there wouldn’t be enough fiber-optics in all the cable television lines in all the world to handle the coverage it would be given. A new channel would have to be created. Additional satellites would have to be launched to accomodate the load. The murderer would have become a household name by the time Keith Olbermann hit the screen at 8:00PM.

Definitionally, how is yesterday’s mass-killing not an act of terrorism?

-

AROUND HERE, WE CALL IT “CHRISTMAS”

“Christmas” it is.

And so it shall be that the tree that will soon sit on the front lawn of Capitol Building in Frankfort, Kentucky will be officially referred to as a “christmas tree.” It has been confirmed that the imbecilic term “holiday tree” is being dropped.

It has kind of a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

Christmas tree.

(That sound you hear may be the armies of the ACLU mobilizing).

From the Associated Press:

A spokeswoman for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear says he’s calling the tree on the Capitol’s front lawn a “Christmas” tree this holiday season. A statement from the administration last week sparked Christmas consternation by referring to the yet-to-be-chosen evergreen as a “holiday” tree.

Some Christians were perturbed by the terminology.

Spokeswoman Kerri Richardson says the administration received a steady stream of e-mails and phone calls about the “holiday” tree. She says it’s always been a Christmas tree to the governor, and it will be this year, too.

The governor is inviting critics of the “Christmas” tree to a lighting ceremony Nov. 30.

I expect all non-Christians in Kentucky to be rounded up and sent to Tinsel And Garland Indoctrination Camps - also known as You Will Obey Jesus Realignment Centers - by November 25th.

GORE VIDAL – ANTI-SEMITISM, HOOKERS AND OBAMA

You probably didn’t realize that Gore Vidal – an icon, I’m told – is a sharp provocateur, did you? You weren’t aware, I’m sure, that this 83-year old “too smart for the room” cultural relic is as delightfully irreverent as he is engagingly irascible. He is so complex, so enchanting, so cantankerous, so dazzling – a veritable bouillabaisse of pervasive cogitation – that to not elicit his opinion on any given subject is to embrace intellectual apathy. He apparently possesses a “trademark wit” and does “dead-on” imitations of John F. Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Oh, goody.

Mr. Vidal – interviewed by John Meroney of Atlantic Magazine – believes that the United States doesn’t deserve a man like Barack Obama at the helm.

Meroney: Barack Obama’s books seemed to persuade many people to support him. Have you read them?

Vidal: No. Does one ever read a politician’s books?

Meroney: Well, Obama actually wrote them himself.

Vidal: I’m sure he did. He’s highly educated – and rather better than a country like this deserves. Put that in red letters.

Yes, according to Gore Vidal – one time chairman of the People’s Party in the early 1970s, and an advocate of impeaching former President George W. Bush for war crimes – Barack Obama is “rather better than a country like this deserves.”

“A country like this?”

(Vidal once famously said, “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat … Essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”)

And didn’t Bill Ayers, the terrorist, help co-write the Obama book Dreams From My Father?

Vidal goes on to refer to the 13-year old girl that Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized in 1978 as a “hooker.”

Meroney: In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

Meroney: I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

Vidal: First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

Such class.

Such wit.

Trademark, I’m told.

But wait … it gets better. Not only was the raped child a “hooker” – which, presumably, sheds some much-needed light on the misunderstandings that characterize the entire Polanski affair – but the fact that Polanski is Jewish played a major role in what happened to him.

Yes, anti-semitism – not the raping of a minor – is what brought Polanski down.

Vidal: The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

Yes, the story was totally different thirty-one years ago. It has been manipulated by Jew-haters and conservatives alike over the course of time. Why couldn’t the rest of us see that?

Some of the original headlines – “Young Teen Seduces Director – Forced Him Into Sodomy” and “Polanski Hoodwinked By Teeny-Bopping Tart” – have since been lost to the annals of time. Thank goodness the great provocateur Gore Vidal could set it straight for everyone.

Meroney: You think anti-Semitism is motivating the prosecution of Polanski?

Vidal: Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural.

Meroney: What are “American values”?

Vidal: Lying and cheating. There’s nothing better.

If ever there was something that does not require any further analysis, it is Vidal’s definition of “American values.”

-

NOTHING BUT NET FOR THE THOUGHT POLICE

Let’s review …

If a white man comes along (let’s call him Person A) and brutally murders an innocent black man (let’s call him Person B) by beating him about the skull with a cinder block, and while doing so screams, “You son of a bitch! You stole my wife! You ruined my marriage! Take that, you bastard!” it is less of a crime than if a white man (let’s call him Person C) brutally murders an innocent black man (let’s call him Person D) by beating him about the head with a cinder block, screaming, “You nigger! You stole my wife! You ruined my marriage! Take that, you nigger!”

Thanks to the abomination known as “hate crime” legislation, it is.

Sure, murder may be one thing, but it somehow becomes more intolerable if you tack on an epithet or two, according to the stewards of justice who stand as proponents of “hate crime” legislation. Indeed, the smashing of the skulls of two innocent men (Persons B and D) may be equally abhorrent in terms of the physical brutality involved, but Person C’s crime is deemed worse because of what was in his heart. Person A may be a cold-blooded murderer, but Person C is also a “hater.”

After all, there’s good old-fashioned, just-like-grandma-used-to-make, text-book murder … and then there’s hateful murder.

A hypothetical … If Person A murders Person B in cold blood but does not utter any kind of epithet or slur, how does it compare to Person C who badly beats up Person D (without killing him) while shouting out the nastiest, racist invectives imaginable?

Are these crimes closer to eachother on the despicable meter because the latter has the affixed “hate crime” component factored in?

What if Person C badly beats up Person D (without killing him) and says nothing that could be considered hateful, prejudiced, bigoted or racist (as defined by the language of ”hate crime” legislation) until, say, two days before the trial, when he screams, “I killed that rat jew bastard because all jews need to be wiped from the planet!”

Is that a retroactive “hate crime?”

Either way, a great big wet juicy kiss goes out to the Democrats for attaching the latest slice of thought-police legislation to a completely unrelated $680 billion defense spending bill.

Trumpeting a victory against careless spending, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a defense bill that kills some costly weapons projects and expands war efforts. In a major civil rights change, the law also makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.

…

The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans.

Is the President aware that the murder of any innocent – gay, straight, black, green – is the ultimate violation of one’s civil rights? That beating a homosexual is a crime because beating up any innocent is a crime?

So, I can’t help but wonder … If Person A (a white man) murders Person B (a black man) in cold blood and not only uses the word “nigger” during the killing, but also calls him a “fag,” is he twice as hateful? Should he get twice the punishment? Or is all the additional hate combined into one all-encompassing charge?

Bottom line …

If a thug yells out the word “fag” while pulverizing the cranium of a gay person, he should get what’s coming to him because pulverizing a head is a crime. For all anyone cares, he could be screaming out the words “eggs benedict,” and the crime would be just as horrible. The perpetrator may, indeed, be a homophobe, but in a free society, he has the right to be one if he wants. Indeed, he can feel as he wishes – or he should be able to – regardless of how unpopular, archaic or hateful his position(s) may be.

(I thought liberals were all about feelings anyway).

What this skull-smasher doesn’t have the right to do is assault an innocent.

Back in April, when the House, by a vote of 249-175, decided to expand upon the already existing idiocies of “hate crime” law with this newest provision, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner charged that the legislation “places a higher value on some lives compared to others.”

“All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, including crimes in which victims are targeted because of their race, color, religion, or national origin.”

There’s that color-blind, race-blind thing that conservatives seem overly obsessed with again.

The real question is … Are we far away from interpreting religous writings as hate speech?

-

ALWAYS “OUT OF CONTEXT”

Anita Dunn, giving humanity's all-time mass-murderer, Mao, a little bit of love

To misspeak is one thing. It’s fairly common among homosapiens who communicate through spoken language. However, to speak without substance or lucidity, devoid of forbearance of thought – and to be admired for it – is quite another.

It is astonishing to me (and it shouldn’t be) how often Democrats – almost always portrayed as the most astute, most intellectual members of the political gamut – have to “clarify” and “amend” the things they say.

Somehow, so much of what they say need to be placed in “proper context” after the fact.

Perhaps it appears that way because they are afforded far more column space and air time to explain away gaffes, blunders and unqualified stupidity than Republicans are. Or maybe they just say more dim-witted things. (We may be getting warmer). Indeed, a liberal may conclude that the brightest among us are also the most complex of notion, easily misunderstood by the common folk and therefore requiring more time to elucidate their ideas for the masses – in other words, too smart for the room.

Take, for instance, White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, who has not only waged open warfare against the privately owned, free-market media outlet, Fox News Channel (“It’s opinion journalism masquerading as news.”) but admittedly gets intellectual tingles from one of her two favorite philosophers – the man responsible for the most murders in all of human history – Mao Zedong.

It’s true that on a daily basis, I read stories that simply mystify me. At times, I take pause and consider the possibility that I have unwittingly slipped through a crack in the space and time continuum and entered some sort of parallel universe. But this is astounding. The Communications Director of the White House is literally stating in front a graduating high school class that the man who murdered, by conservative estimates, 70 million human beings, is one of her two political philospohical heroes.

She said on June 5th:

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is: You’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal … These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Zedong said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” … Think about that for a second. You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths. It is about your choices and paths. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you.

Of course, Dunn, after the fact,  had to clarify what she meant – for the shallow of mind and unnuanced – and put everything in its “proper context,” blaming a deceased Republican for her misunderstood comments.

She explained:

The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony. The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me.

Yeah, okay.

First off all, it is obvious that Dunn’s knowledge of history on the matter could be misplaced on the head of a pin. 

Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists had “everything on their side?”  Really?

Except for the nuclear arsenal and full support of the Soviet Union, I suppose there may be truth in that.

Second – and most relevant – assuming that the mass murdering madman Mao Zedong even had a “philosophy” from which to draw, since when does anyone quote from a philosophical point of view – stating that the philosopher in question is a personal favorite - without actually being sympathetic to that ideology?

Do liberals ever pay attention to the things they say?

And so what if Lee Atwater quoted Mao in the 1980s? What on earth does that have to do with anything? As long as a Republican quotes a murderous totalitarian, then Obamacrats are free and clear to claim that totalitarian as a major philosophical influence without consequence?

No one can master the non sequitor like a liberal.

I wonder … Would Dunn have ever dared to speak the names Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence?

This was, after all, ”only” Mao.

There aren’t the plethora of video images and photographs, nor the comprehensive and easily accessible evidence, of the 70 million murdered like there are of the atrocities of the Holocaust, so it hasn’t the impact. Thus, the word “evil” isn’t as readily associated with Mao as it is with Hitler … or even Gorge W. Bush.

As a result, Dunn is tagged a deep thinker, a master of wrangling the ironic, a challenger of convention – someone way too smart for the room.

HBO’s Bill Maher, host of the program Real Time, summed up this Leftocrat thinking in a column he penned  just a month before last year’s election suitably titled, “Republicans, Stop Calling Obama Elitist – Because the real reason you don’t like him is that he’s smarter than you.”

In one of the most telling sentences ever written highlighting liberal elitism, Mahr wrote:

Barack Obama can’t help it if he’s a magna-cum-laude Harvard grad and you’re a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That’s why George Bush is president.”

Nice.

But it’s not just the “I-went-to-Harvard-so-I-am-obviously-superior-than-you” school of thought, mind you, that pervades the liberal mind. Democrats, besides being the brightest among us, also mean well, are the upholders of true compassion, and care far more about human beings than Republicans do.

They’ll tell you so – my favorite example of which comes from former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who famously said on Meet The Press once that “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

Robert Reich

Any indignation or outrage emanating from the right over patently ridiculous or embarrassing comments made by Democrats will boil down to “misinterpretation.”

They’ll tell you so – like when former Labor Secretary Robert Reich spoke hypothetically, saying that someone running for President of the United States, if he or she did not actually care about being elected and actually spoke the truth about what health care reform was really all about, would be able to say, “If you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Admidst a firestorm of reaction (from conservatives only), Reich later explained that he was “taken out of context,” saying, “The whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth because they’ll be taken apart by the Right or the Left.”

I’m not sure how that is “out of context,” especially because he prefaced his “mock exercise” with this clarifying statement:

I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them.

Recall when Senator John Kerry notoriously asserted that young people in America who don’t study or get an education “get stuck in Iraq” – one of my all-time favorite “misunderstandings.” According to the leftocracy, Republicans “got it all wrong” when attempting to interpret that one – including MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who cracked open his Democrat/English dictionary to offer the most salient clarification of all. He explained that Kerry was actually referring to President Bush’s intelligence, and was attacking Bush’s “team” as being dense for not understanding that. Said Olbermann, “Kerry called them stupid, and they were too stupid to know he called them stupid.”

Recall then-Senator Barack Obama at the now famous Saddleback Forum saying that he couldn’t appropriately comment on when human life began because it was “above his pay grade.” He eventually had to clarify his statement by explaining, “All I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

(It’s interesting to note that he apparently felt he knew enough to be able to decide that the killing of that “unknown” quantity was perfectly reasonable).

When candidate Obama, talking about small-town Americans, said, “It’s not surprising … they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations,” he eventually clarified what he really meant by saying, “So I said … when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people … vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”

How ironic it is that Democrats, always self-promoted as the party of the common people, have such a difficult time talking to the narcissistic, driveway-resurfacing Wal-Mart set.

-

SHARPTON – FIRST CLASS ASS

contemptible, as always

Whenever the repugnant slice of human debris that is Al Sharpton declares anything a moral victory, it should be an unmistakable signal to anyone with a functioning cerebrum that taking the opposite position is the best – and ethical – course of action. So sure am I in making such an authoritative statement that I am willing to stand up on any stage, in any forum, in any location, anywhere on God’s green Earth to not only state it with conviction, but explain in impassioned detail why it is so.

Sharpton is to civil discourse what ulcerative colitis is to the large intestine. That the repulsive race-baiter Sharpton is given even a whit’s worth of credence by anyone in the mainstream media, let alone camera time and print space, indicates that white America is still very afraid of him.

It also shows that the bulk of racist Americans live and thrive on the Left.

It is they who infuse race into every nook and cranny of American life.

It is they who reject assessing their fellow human beings based on the content of their character, and instead focus like laser beams on the color of their skin.

Do the names Maureen Dowd, Charlie Rangel, Henry Louis Gates, Diane Watson, Paul Krugman, Jessie Jackson, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (among others) ring a bell?

Following Rush Limbaugh’s booting from the investment group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team late Wednesday, the lying, riot-inciting, shakedown king Al Sharpton said in a statement, “It is a moral victory for all Americans — especially the players that have been unfairly castigated by Rush Limbaugh. This decision will also uphold the unifying standards of major sports.”

This statement fascinates me, because if there is anything I am obsessed with, it is the truth.

What players, pray tell, have been unfairly castigated by Limbaugh?

Who are they? What was said about them?

Are these “castigations” as provable as the malicious falsehoods spread across the internet about Limbaugh’s sympathies with James Earl Ray? Or Limbaugh’s belief that there was good that came from slavery?

Mr. Sharpton, you are a boldface liar.

I am an American, sir, and this is no moral victory for me.

Unlike Reverend Al, I do not see people in terms of race, and I do not slander those with whom I disagree.

And just where has the melanin-obsessed reverend’s moral compass been during the NFL’s ethically-challenged nine-year period dating back to the year 2000? Surely he’s aware that over 450 NFL players have been arrested since then for a veritable cavalcade of offenses, ranging from sexual assault to domestic violence to drugs.

I’d love for the slick-haired, unapologetic slanderer of innocent men to explain the moral victory in keeping someone like Leonard Little in the National Football league. Remember him? Eleven years ago, he killed a 47-year old mother of two while driving drunk. Where was Sharpton on behalf of the innocent back then? Where was Sharpton’s deep concern for the “unifying standards of major sports” then? And where was he when Mr. Little found himself arrested yet again for drunk driving six years after that?

Sharpton went on to say that major sports leagues like the NFL shouldn’t welcome owners who are “divisive and incendiary.”

Divisive and incendiary?

Kettle, meet pot.

And yet, Rush Limbaugh – who hasn’t a racist bone in his body, and adores the game of football - is a moral threat to the National Football League? 

Rush Limbaugh is somehow more intolerable than convicted felons?

Excuse me, have I slipped through a crack in the space-time continuum?

Do the names Dante Stallworth, Adam Jones, Plaxico Burress, Michael Vick and Travis Henry ring a bell for the adjudicator of all that is morally sound and ethically conscious, Al Sharpton?

This isn’t an issue of race. It’s an issue of values.

By all means, let the scrupulously upright powers-that-be in the National Football League (and those outsiders who influence it and shake it down) crucify Rush Limbaugh and stand in the way of his free-market right to invest in a team that can use all the help it can get, but let’s be sure bona fide criminals are afforded infinite chances to play the game.

Do the words “upside down world” mean anything?

Please don’t misunderstand me.

League owners, players and observers can certainly hold any opinion they wish regarding Rush Limbaugh. The NFL is well within its rights to deny Limbaugh the opportunity to invest in one of its teams as a minority partner.

However, all credibility within the ranks of the anti-Limbaugh brigades is shattered as they squawk about what’s good and bad for a league that accomodates thug players with no regard for decency and the law. It is laughable to hear these people portray Rush as being the worst thing that could ever happen to the game because of things he never said or did while common criminals are accepted and embraced as heroes.

How about a little moral clarity?

Moral victory, my ass.

-

BARACK OBAMA AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Yes, President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But remember, perspective is crucial. Context is critical.

Take a moment and think about it.

This is the same Nobel Peace Prize awarded to global warming warrior Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years ago. A peace prize – because scientifically unfounded, unproven theories that induce global hysteria advance the cause of peace.

This is the same Nobel Peace Prize awarded to PLO leader – and murderous vermin – Yasser Arafat in 1994. A peace prize – because everyone knows a lifetime dedicated to destroying the State of Israel is at the very heart of nurturing and promoting peace.

It isn’t as if the meandering moral compass and twisted value set of those who hand out this particular award should be startling news to anyone.

What exactly is the big deal? What is the big surprise here?

Before too much energy is expended by pundits and wordsmiths commenting on the unmerited or inappropriate awarding of the Noble Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and realize that this shouldn’t be shocking to anyone.

Perspective.

Laugh about it. Grab a cream soda. Relax.

Does it really matter who wins this particular award? Does this award really have anything to do with peace?

To be perfectly honest, I’m actually a bit surprised that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn’t go home with the prize. He hasn’t launched a single missile at Israel over the past year. Nothing says “peace” quite like not firing weapons at anyone.

The fact is the Nobel Peace Prize – along with all of the other honors handed out by world’s anti-American progressives – is a product of those who believe that the greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States. To them, America is the real obstacle to achieving international harmony and understanding. Barriers like American exceptionalism, the belief in the individual, free-market capitalism, and the fact that America is the most powerful nation on Earth only hurt the peace process.

The interesting aspect of all of this is the fact that the deadline for nominations came on February 1, 2009 – a mere ten days into Barack Obama’s presidency. According to the committee – his lack of tangible achievement or accomplishment not withstanding – the President is receiving the award because of his ”extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

That may be the most meaningless sentence never to come from one of President Obama’s teleprompters.

Pray tell, what “extraordinary efforts” could have possibly taken place during the first ten days of his Presidency – and the campaign-intensive year that preceded it – that secured the gold for him?

I don’t know the answer to that, of course – being the war hungry, xenophobic racist monster that I am – but, just imagine if the deadline for deciding who wins the award had been October 1st instead of February 1st.

What might have been?

What if his refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama was thrown into the Peace Prize mix? What if his standing by, with that deer-in-the-headlights charm of his, and saying absolutely nothing while the government of Iran slaughtered its own citizens was taken into consideration? What if a few more apologies for his country on foreign soil could have been taken into account? I can only imagine how it would have impacted the decision to give him the award. A new award might have been created just for him – the Nobel Prize for Superhuman Greatness, the Nobel Prize for Total Awesomeness, the Nobel Prize for Coolest Demigod.

Of course, Bracak Obama is receiving only one Nobel Prize this year.

Hopefully, the President’s unmistakable achievements in Chemistry, Physics and Literature will be recognized next year.

Still, nothing emasculates like the Nobel Peace Prize.

The real question is … How will this affect President Obama’s decision making on what needs to be done in Afghanistan? Or Iran? Can the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize dare to come across as an Afghanistan surge-endorsing hawk? Or a nuclear-program busting tough guy in Iran?

-

MICHAEL MOORE, SEAN HANNITY AND LOVING YOUR ENEMIES

Hannity speaking with Moore

If the world were void of clichés, empty bromides and feckless platitudes, how exactly would a leftist fill the time while being interviewed? If they could not rely on silly slogans and bumper sticker smugness, what else would they have to offer that could be passed off as substantive?

At the great Ace of Spades blog, Ace posted a portion of an exchange between fuzzy-bunny film maker Michael Moore and conservative commentator Sean Hannity. It was one of those back-and-forth television time-killers that changes no one’s mind, rarely goes beyond the time-constrained familiar superficiality of left versus right, and draws high-fives from supporters who believe their guy was head and shoulders better than the other.

(Of course, I love that kind of television).

Without actually posting the video here, I’d like focus on one small portion of the exchange between the two.

The segment in question involved Moore – thinker, philosopher, scholar – asking Hannity if he loved Al Qaeda because of Jesus’ commandment to “love your enemies.”

Hannity responded, “I love them in the sense I want to destroy them.”

Indeed, as Ace points out, it was a funny line – although I am skeptical that Hannity actually meant it that way. I am more inclined to believe that his response was the first thing off the top of his head as he tried to keep pace with the portly movie maker. (I certainly could be wrong).

Either way, it was a good line.

Ace then posts the following:

Incidentally… Hannity’s line is funny, but glibly dodges the question through humor. I’m curious how religious folks resolve this question in their minds.

As I’m not religious, I just flat-out hate Al Qaeda and feel no need to even attempt to “love” them, except in a Hannity sense of love. (Which, given that love is a battlefield, actually does make some sense, but I digress.)

The left loves trotting this chestnut out (and here Michael Moore trots out nothing but cliches, cant, and chestnuts, making Sean Hannity look positively contemplative), but I am curious as to the response to this.

He loves America, except for everything about it

There is a trap that most anti-religious types, like Moore, seem to stumble into that predicates the type of hostility they are prone to exude when confronting people of faith. Often they forget that Christians (or any religious people, for that matter) are as human as atheists and agnostics. Religious people do not claim to be less imperfect than anyone else. Indeed, they are subject to the same fallibilities and frailties as those who reject God. Yet, somehow, folks like Moore – who make a living at scoffing at the traditions and institutions of America, and routinely pull out words like “hypocrite” when describing a person of faith who stumbles – believe they are exposing the fraud of religion when those who try to live more righteous lives fall short.

Leftists use the human condition as a “gotcha” tool.

Another trap that angry anti-God types fall into is the one that suggests that loving others somehow precludes justice. The fact is, punishing those who commit crimes is neither related to nor dependant on love. One can love another, or pray for another, or wish for their genuine repentance, but still understand that crimes committed by that person must be punished.

What does one have to do with the other?

I can love my daughter or spouse, but if they are guilty of a crime, they must be punished appropriately.

Indeed, both Jews and Christians are commanded to love each other as individuals, but not necessarily to love groups, associations, or nations that perpetrate evil.

But even if one believes we are, so what? Who says that one cannot love someone and still fight them? (Think of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple).

The bottom line is … when an individual is engaged in an evil action, it is incumbent of us – indeed, God commands us – to stop that individual from harming the innocent. Even if violence is required, there is no inherent contradiction in stopping the evil-doer and loving that individual.

There is such a thing a moral violence.

Loving someone in not synonymous with letting someone “off the hook.”

Think of the famous verse from the Book of Matthew:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Mat. 5:38-39)

Does anyone truly believe that “turning the other cheek” really means one is to permit evil to run rampant? As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “In the context of World War II, do you think ‘turn the other cheek’ means that the United States should have rolled over and offered the West Coast of California to the Imperial Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii?”

Pastor Pastor Bob Enyart, in his commentary “God and The Death Penalty” writes:

Pacifists have an unworkable interpretation of this passage. Imagine applying the pacifist view to a woman being raped? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Pacifist father to daughter being raped: “Don’t resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, ‘Love your enemy.’ If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two.”

Rather, this teaching is similar to Paul’s teaching, “Do not avenge yourselves,” knowing that the government is to bring wrath and vengeance against the perpetrator. The command to not avail oneself of “an-eye-for-an-eye” is not a strictly New Testament concept. Many falsely presume that this is a New Testament teaching which opposes Old Testament teachings. However, the command to avoid personal vengeance was just as applicable to Old Testament believers as to us. “Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work” (Prov. 24:29). Graciousness from the believer in his personal life is an enduring virtue and not a new concept.

Enyart goes on to explain that there is a distinction between individuals and governments, and that Jesus said so in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.” (Mat. 5:25-26)

Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God wants the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy. (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4)

In the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – there is only one law that appears in each of those books. It is the commandment to kill those who have murdered the innocent. Genesis 9:6, for example, reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

For me, as a Jew, this commandment is central to understanding how precious human life truly is. A murderer has no right to his own life if he has stolen the life of an innocent.

God requires us to fight evil.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book The Book of Jewish Values, writes:

Regarding those who set out to murder others, the Book of Exodus teaches that if a thief tunnels into a house at night and is discovered, the householder has the right to kill him. At first reading, this ruling seems surprising, since Jewish law forbids killing someone who is committing a property offense. However, the Torah assumes that a thief breaking into a person’s house at night, aware that it is probably occupied, is prepared to kill the householder; therefore, if the householder preemptively kills the thief, “there is no bloodguilt” (Exodus 22:1).

The sole exception is when the householder has reason to be certain that the thief has no intention of killing him or her (see Exodus 22:2).

In the Talmud’s language, “If someone wishes to kill you, get up and kill him first.”

The logic informing this Talmudic teaching applies to national as well as individual threats.

Think the War on Terror.

God commands us, “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.” (Leviticus 19:16).

If there is a better, more appropriate way to “love thy neighbor” than defending him against evil, I don’t know of one.

-

“GIDDY” REPUBLICAN HERE!

CNN Political Analyst, Roland Martin

One day after President Barack Obama’s bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games homes to the United States failed – and an apoplectic mainstream news media descended into broadcasting pandemonium, coping as best they could with the shock and horror of the President’s embarrassment – CNN political analyst Roland Martin penned an opinion piece, taking “giddy” Republicans to task for basking in the President’s failure.

He effectively challenged the patriotism of those nasty old, mean-spirited, transformation-hating right-wingers who celebrated Chicago’s elimination from contention.

Never one to mince words, let me state, without equivocation – free of any apology or excuse – that I proudly wear the ” giddy” Republican label that Martin is busting a journalistic pimple over.

I’ll tattoo it on my forehead, if necessary.

Admittedly, prior to the announcement that Rio de Janeiro would be the host city for the 2016 Olympics, I was fairly neutral on the whole matter. I actually couldn’t have cared less. I even said so on this blog.

Outside of the nose hair trimming techniques of early 8th Century Persians, I don’t know that there is much that is less interesting to me than the Olympics.

However, since the announcement last Friday – and witnessing the reaction of the Obama-backed media complex since – I have shifted my thinking.

I will use Martin’s piece to help me explain why.

Martin wrote:

Whenever President Obama has traveled overseas and offered pointed and direct assessments of the United States, some of them critical, Republicans have ripped him for criticizing America, saying a president should always defend the United States.

So I want to hear the explanation by these so-called patriots of their giddy behavior over the United States losing the 2016 Olympic Games.

Yes, the United States. The bid that was rejected Friday by the International Olympic Committee was not a Chicago, Illinois, bid. It was the official bid submitted by the United States Olympic Committee and was representative of the nation. Tokyo’s bid was that of Japan; Madrid’s was that of Spain; and Rio de Janeiro’s was that of Brazil.

Republicans want to spin the decision as a massive loss by President Obama and the Democrats who have always controlled Chicago politics.

“Hahahahaha,” wrote Erick Erickson on the conservative “RedState” blog, “I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone.”

What the critics don’t see is that Obama’s loss on the Olympics is America’s loss. Any red-blooded American who loves to see the American flag raised and the national anthem played when one of our own wins a gold medal should blast the Republicans’ giddiness over the loss.

First of all, for clarity’s sake, no President of the United States has ever criticized or apologized for his own country on foreign soil. It is inconceivable that any President would ever do so. It simply would never serve the best interests of the United States, in any way whatsoever – yet, President Obama has done it on several occasions. In no uncertain terms, it is unaccepatble behavior for the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. It is not how a President preserves, protects and defends the Constitution.

That he – President Obama – finds it appropriate to do so, with mere months under his belt as the nation’s Chief Executive, while effectively thumbing his nose at the over two centuries of American history that preceded him, is, at the very least, arrogant; it is, at most, a dangerous precedent that isolates and instills less confidence and security in those nations that look to America as the world’s defender against evil (think of Poland and the Czech Republic). It is a weakness that emboldens America’s enemies.

This criticism of President Obama would apply to any President who asserts that kind of spinelessness, regardless of his party affiliation, skin color, or city of origin.

As far as the “red-blooded” Americans Martin is referring to whom he says should be blasting “giddy” Republicans like me, I must ask:

How exactly is not getting the Olympic Games “America’s loss?” In what way?

It seems that Mr. Martin is somehow equating patriotism with support of the games coming to Chicago.

Typical liberal non sequiturism.

I’m an American – a proud American – and whenever that flag goes up (when possible), regardless of where I am, whether there are Olympic Games going on or not, I stand and salute it. Likewise, wherever and whenever I hear Star-Spangled Banner, I take a moment (when possible) to stop and honor my country. Whether it is played in Rio, Chicago, Europe, or on the moon, the significance is not – nor should it be – diminished based on locale.

It’s true, I am not a fan of the Olympics. But so what? Patriotism has nothing to do with the Olympic Games.

For what it’s worth, before each sporting event I attend, I remove my hat, face the flag, and salute my country. I fly flags proudly at my home, and handle them properly, removing them at night and during inclement weather. I proudly wear a flag lapel pin because I honor this nation and those who fight to defend her. I don’t need an international athletic competition held on American soil to serve as a barometer of how patriotic I am, or whether or not I support the United States of America.

Besides, there are plenty of people who fervently support our Olympic athletes who would rather see the games played elsewhere. Let someone else deal with the nightmarish traffic, pollution, community upheaval, and ever-present terrorist threats that accompany the event.

And just to keep my friends in the environmentalist movement happy, what about the massive carbon footprint that human beings from well over a hundred countries would leave behind?

Having recycling bins strewn about the Olympic Village just isn’t green enough.

Martin continues:

Americans love home field advantage, and we always desire to show the rest of the world what we are made of.

I don’t care if Republicans want to rip President Obama over going to Copenhagen, Denmark, to pitch for the games. This isn’t about politics. It’s not about ideology. This is about America. OUR pride. Our chance to shine. Our loss of the games.

So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

You should be shouted down for not backing your own country. The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.

Mr. Martin, Americans show the world what we are made of by our values. We show the world what we are made of by standing up to evil and defeating it. We are the Shining City Upon The Hill because we are a nation that believes in God-given liberty and the power of the individual. We stand as a beacon to the world’s huddled masses not because we have the longest jumpers, fastest runners and strongest weightlifters. We are the greatest nation on Earth because America gives anyone and everyone the opportunity to be the very best they can be, without government restraint.

That’s how America’s greatness is measured.

People come here not because we have killer sprinters and world class pole vaulters.

It’s interesting how Mr. Martin can make the claim that this was not about politics.

Why on Earth would President Obama personally jet to Copenhagen to pitch his adopted home city if there was not political pressure to do so from his cronies back home? I mean, why Chicago? Why not other American cities that could probably have been more accomodating than the splendidly corruptible Windy City?

Because everything is about the ever-enigmatic, charismatic, President of the World, Barack Obama.

He is the Liberal King. He can do anything.

I also love how Mr. Martin says that the bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago was “about America.”

Does he have any inclination of how ridiculous he sounds?

The Olympics are not about America. They’re about multiculturalism. They’re about leveling the playing fields between nations. They’re about moral and cultural equivelancy. They’re about the whole world coming together in some sort of pseudo-hand holding, kumbaya-type of kinship manifested through athletic competition.

“America,” Mr. Martin?

How about the troops in harm’s way? Why the hell has the President dragged his feet on Afghanistan while American fighting forces literally hang in the balance waiting for him to decide what he is going to do? How good is it for America that, at one minute, Afghanistan is a war of necessity and at the next, it is an issue he is unsure about? Aren’t the men and women of the Armed Forces “about America?” Do they not deserve the President’s attention before he makes himself available to the damn International Olympic Committee?

American pride is not about where the Olympic Games are being held.

Sure, one can make a case that America is about winning in those games. I’ve nothing against that. When America wins – even in the Olympics – it is a good thing.

But the locale of those games is all “about America?”

Who’s brain is “small-minded,” sir?

America shines when she liberates oppressed peoples. America shines when she defends her allies and keeps her promises. America shines when she come to the aid of people in trouble, in all walks of life, all over the world. America shines not because her athletes throw a jevelin the longest, or swim the fastest. America shines because she is a shining city upon a hill, as accommodating as any nation that has ever existed.

And by the way, as a New Yorker, I did not lose when my city was rejected as the host of the 2012 Olympic Games, nor did my family, friends and fellow New Yorkers.

I actually celebrated.

And keep in mind, that was while George W. Bush was President, not too long after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The fact of the matter is, the Olympics are not good for local economies. The 2016 Games, if the pattern had held true to form, would not have been a boost to Chicago, as many instinctively (and reflexively) believe. Since the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, every host city has actually lost money.

Stefan Szymanski of the Washington Post writes:

The truth is that the local economy doesn’t get much of a boost while those shiny new athletic venues are being built. Many of the jobs created are filled by specialists who come in from outside — to construct a BMX bicycle track, it helps to have built one before — and they take their pay home with them. To the extent that local labor is tapped, suppliers are taken away from other projects in the area, raising costs in the process. It would be nice to think you could create an Olympic city by hiring an army of the unemployed, but mega-projects like this do not work like that.

My charm will conquer all

President Obama’s grandest mistake in this whole affair was never giving anyone the impression that he wanted the Olympic Games to come to Chicago because it was good for the United States of America. Nothing in what he said or did surrounding his attempt to bring the games to Chicago was ever about his country.

It was always about him.

And whether justified or not, the impression that he was paying back some old debts to former Chicagoland chums was foremost in the minds of many.

It was his arrogance – the continuation of his United Nations “America-Has-Been-Great-For-Nine-Months-Since-I-Came-Along” approach – that killed Chicago’s chances. It was his belief in his own power to persuade, simply by virtue of his unprecedented presence before the OIC in Copenhagen that killed the bid. It was his self-centered, rambling, unfocused gobbledygook about how the Games would feel to him and his family that deep-sixed it. It was his wife, Michelle, emoting about how the games would make her feel, and how it would remind her of her father that helped knock Chicago out in the first round.

For those reasons, President Obama needed to be brought down a few pegs.

This country is not about him.

With each failure of his radical agendas and misprioritized deeds, America wins.

That is why I am “giddy,” Mr. Martin.

-

MORALITY’S EXPIRATION DATE

For the sake of argument, let’s say a high-profile conservative talk show host was embroiled in a sex scandal involving an underage girl. Specifically, let’s pretend that Rush Limbaugh was the talk show host in question, and the underage girl was thirteen years old. In our hypothetical scenario, let’s make believe that Mr. Limbaugh, responding to a fan letter, made a promise to an aspiring thirteen year old broadcaster – a ninth-grader – that he would fly her to his studio in Florida and put her on his radio show. Let’s say he contacted the excited girls’ parents about the plan, and they agreed.

The thrill of a lifetime, right?

Now let’s say that during her visit, Mr. Limbaugh got the young girl drunk, fed her drugs and sodomized her.

Let us all try to imagine the absolute firestorm that would inculcate every free molecule of print, airwave and bandwidth of the mainstream media and beyond. Let us all try to envision and comprehend the totality of not only the expansive media coverage of such a disgusting thing, but the sheer outrage that would blanket and dominate the national dialogue.

Everyone from the uninteresting and self-absorbed Keith Olbermann to thinker-extraordinaire Whoopie Goldberg would be calling for the head of Mr. Limbaugh on any platter. Unbridled indignation would sweep across the nation faster than a college kid can mutter “Dude.” There would be nonstop coverage of Limbaugh the Rapist on every news channel, website, blog, and checkout-stand tabloid. Limbaugh’s reputation would be instantly obliterated, and his career would be over – and rightly so.

But here’s the real question … Could anyone ever envision a time when the public’s outrage of Limbaugh’s crime would ever diminish, especially given the fact that he is an outspoken, unapologetic conservative?

Not likely.

Let us assume that Limbaugh went to jail for the crime, lost everything he had, served his time, and eventually attempted a comeback of some sort down the road. Would he ever be able to shake the tag of child rapist?

Wouldn’t it follow him everywhere for the rest of his natural life?

“Former talk show host and convicted child rapist, Rush Limbaugh …”

“Conservative child rapist Rush Limbaugh …”

After all, despite overcoming his drug addiction to Oxycontin years ago – an accomplishment normally lauded by the Left – Rush is still blasted as an addict by the likes of the tactless and unfunny Congressman Barney Frank, the gay brothel’s best friend.

What I’m really asking is … Does the rape become less terrible with time? Does any rape?

The answer seems obvious, but perhaps the reality of the answer depends on who is committing the rape and who is being asked the question.

Thus, let us remove Rush Limbaugh from the discussion and instead insert celebrated film maker Roman Polanski.

What has changed?

Polanski - film maker, rapist

For one, we move from the hypothetical to the real. Polanski actually did drug a young thirteen year-old gal before raping her.

Second, while Limbaugh (like Polanski) is a celebrity, Limbaugh is not widely admired or held in awe by the most influencial forces of popular culture. To those who control the “drive-by media,” Polanski is seen as flawed, but still eminent and significant.

Limbaugh is simply a hater and a divider.

And so it was that 76-year-old Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland on Saturday – more than thirty years after the fact.

And as expected, the star-studded, morally-bereft Left is rallying to his cause – primarily because of his “brilliance” as a director and the fact that the crime took place more than three decades ago.

From Harrison Ford to Debra Winger, from Woody Allen to Martin Scorsese, the “Free Roman” cheers are filling the air.

Morality, apparently, has an expiration date if you’re left of center.

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post exemplifies this attitude perfectly:

There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision (to arrest Polanski in Switzerland) was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

So, in other words, because it happened so long ago, and because the crime is not nearly the emotional lightning rod it was in the 1970s, the desire to administer justice all of these years later must fall within the realm of the bizarre. (Accordingly, Applebaum effectively places blame with “a U.S. judge” for bothering to keep this old annoyance alive – not with the rapist).

What if the fugitive rapist was not an artistically influential pop-culture icon? What if it was someone on the decidely conservative side of the cultural or political spectrum – Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, Sean Hannity, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, William Buckley, or anyone not revered for his soul-touching artistry and ground-breaking creativity?

Would Applebaum come to his defense, too?

She continues:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment.

Actually, Polanski can be blamed for drugging and raping a child.

The fact that Polanski survived the Krakow ghetto during World War II (while his mother was murdered at Auschwitz) has absolutely nothing to do with his raping of a thirteen year old girl in 1977, and should not, by any moral standard, play a role in whether or not Polanski should pay for his crime. Additionally, the fact that his wife and unborn child were murdered in 1969 by the Charles Manson family, while profoundly tragic, is irrelevant to this case. Indeed, as Applebaum points out, Polanski was a suspect for a short period of time in Sharon Tate’s murder – a factor that coupled with his experience at Krakow, according to Applebaum, contributed to Polanski’s “fear of irrational punishment.” But so what?

What on earth does that have to do with his contemptible treatment of a thirteen year old girl?

And yet, the growing sentiment is: Poor, poor Roman Polanski.

Cries of outrage at Polanski’s arrest are coming in from all corners of the globe.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said, “A man whose talent is recognized around the world, recognized especially in the country that arrested him, that’s not nice. This story, frankly, is a little sinister.”

Talent?

This is now the criterion for whether or not a man should be punished for a detestable crime?

“Not nice?”

Would the French Foreign Minister feel the same if it were his thirteen year old daughter having her senses numbed by alcohol and quaaludes at the hands of a horny 44-year old pervert before being violated? Would Polanski’s “recognized talent” amount to a hill of beans to Kouchner if it was his child who was being penetrated, both vaginally and anally, by a man more than 30 years her senior?

If I may ask him directly … How exactly do you define “sinister,” Mr. Kouchner?

This is the crux of my article today and where much of my distaste rests – that Polanski’s standing as an artist somehow has any bearing on whether or not what he did should be subject to any further punishment.

From the Globe and Mail Online:

Frédéric Mitterrand, the Minister of Culture, went further. He called the rape case “an old story” and said he was stupefied that Mr. Polanski would still be pursued.

“There is an America that we love,” he said. “There is also a certain America that scares us.”

International leftists love America when it is more like Europe, i.e. weak and unwilling to stand up against evil. The fact that America values goodness and liberty more than how many vacation days one has on the books, like the French do, scares them.

Again, note how Mitterrand refers to the Polanski case as “an old story,” not worthy of pursuit all of these years later. Clearly, as alluded to earlier, the crime’s severity seems to be directly proportional to the talent of the criminal and the amount of time that has passed since the crime.

Yet another factor that cannot be overlooked is whether or not the crime was perpetrated on a human.

Leftists seem to save their most bombastic displays of outrage for crimes against animals – or the execution of convicted first-degree murderers.

Vick - quarterback, dog killer

NFL Quarterback Michael Vick will forever be branded a cruel, despicable human being unworthy of forgiveness because of what he did to dogs. Indeed, his actions were deplorable, but when other athletes have actually been involved in the death of humans, outcry has been minimal, at best.

To many, Vick is evil personified.

Roman Polanski, on the other hand, has directed such cinematic classics as Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown. He’s a supremely talented and highly respected movie maker. His crime was committed against a thirteen year old girl over thirty years ago - something he’s certainly sorry for.

It’s time for all of us to get over it and move on.

Besides, the girl who was raped is doing just fine today.

Producer Harvey Weinstein said he would try to mobilize the movie business to support the petition drive so that Mr. Polanski would not be forced to return to court. Mr. Weinstein reportedly owns the international rights to an HBO documentary that was broadcast last year and contends that Mr. Polanski did not get a fair trial in 1978.

And Polanski was in Krakow, and his wife was slaughtered by Manson, blah, blah, blah …

Please understand, I am not diminishing the brutality of the Manson murders. Each of those examples of human debris who participated in those killings should have long ago been executed.

And I am certainly not diminishing the horrors of the Holocaust.

Rather, I chide those who rally around a child rapist who has, for three decades, escaped the justice that he must rightfully face in some form, regardless of his age, the time between the crime and his arrest, and his talent for film making.

Ticks of a clock do not lessen the ruthlessness of what he did to that little girl.

With all of that said, it is necessary that I acknowledge the fact that a legitimate argument can be made that the amount of law enforcement resources it would take to have Polanski extradited, along with what would almost certainly be a long, drawn-out, costly re-trail, is not the wisest or most efficient use of money and energy. A case can certainly be made that Polanski poses absolutely no threat to anyone. I am willing to concede that point as well. Even the young women who was raped by Polanski has said that she forgives him and wishes Polanski would be able to return to the United States.

For those not aware, Polanski actually served 42 days at Chino State Prison in California where he underwent a psychiatric observation period. Initially convinced that he would ultimately only get parole for what he did, Polanski fled the United States when prison and deportment became a very real possibility.

He remained a fugitive until Saturday. He was taken into custody while on his way to the Zurich Film Festival, which is actually holding a tribute to him this year.

Actress Deborah Winger epitomized the raging amorality – and sick irony – that is rampant among Hollywood elites when she reacted to Polanski’s arrest, saying, “The festival has been unfairly exploited.”

The festival.

Still, the questions loom … Is justice to be set aside because of how long ago the crime took place? Or because of the financial burden of bringing him back to the United States to face charges? Or because he has (in the eyes of some) already “paid” for his crimes in ways more tangible than mere jail time?

And as the morally weak of the world continue to come to the defense of Polanski, one of my favorite mottos is given more credence: “Whatever world opinion is on any given subject, go with the opposite.”

Kudos to the Swiss, incidentally.

-

TWO-TIERED DISCIPLINE

From the folks who brought you such timeless classics as, “Race Doesn’t Matter” and “Let Us Judge By The Content Of One’s Character Rather Than The Color Of One’s Skin” comes the latest barrier-breaking, bigotry-busting, everyone-is-equal initiative – this time from the Tucson Arizona Unified School District. Taken directly out of the “Poor Baby, He’s Black And Cannot Read” file – which rests along side the “Poor Baby, He’s Spanish; No Wonder He’s In A Gang” file – is the latest and greatest guideline for student discipline to come along since the paddle.

In short, if one is either black (a racial designation) or Hispanic (a cultural designation), then his or her measure of discipline is likely going to be different from their Caucasian school mates. It is – to quote supporters – a restorative system.

The bottom line is … there will be one set of standards for blacks and Hispanics, and one for “everyone else.”

Drew Zahn of World Net daily writes:

Arizona Republic columnist Doug MacEachern drew attention to a decision made by the Tucson Unified School District’s board over the summer to adopt a “Post-Unitary Status Plan,” which includes the goal of reducing suspensions and expulsions of minority students to reflect “no ethnic/racial disparities.”

“TUSD principals and disciplinarians (assuming such creatures still exist) are being asked to set two standards of behavior for their students,” MacEachern commented. “Some behavior will be met with strict penalties; some will not. It all depends on the color of the student’s skin.”

MacEachern’s column quoted a section of the board’s 52-page plan titled “Restorative School Culture and Climate,” subhead, “Discipline”:

“School data that show disparities in suspension/expulsion rates will be examined in detail for root causes,” the new policy states. “Special attention will be dedicated to data regarding African-American and Hispanic students.”

The board also created an “Equity Team” to ensure “a commitment to social justice for all students.”

“The happy-face edu-speak notwithstanding, what the Tucson Unified School District board of governors has approved this summer is a race-based system of discipline,” MacEachern concluded. “Offenses by students will be judged, and penalties meted out, depending on the student’s hue.”

School officials, however, have both refuted MacEachern’s description of the policy as “two-tiered” and argued that the new guidelines will only help correct racial inequalities that already exist in the system.

An “Equity Team?”

Lord, help me.

If you are not shaking your head, check with your physician. Your hinge may be rusted.

What kind of socially destructive, race-obsessed, dangerous poppycock is this? Where on earth do these overpaid, hyper-sensitive, university-educated social relics with no real answers to real problems come up with these asinine ideas? How is it that people who are supposed to be serious adults, charged with the task of educating and molding our children into functioning members of a civil society, come up with such counterproductive, preposterous notions of how to deal with the so-called “inequities” that exist among students of different cultures and races? How in the world can anyone anywhere think this actually makes any kind of sense?

Above all, what message does this send to non-whites?

Try, “We’re not good enough to meet the standards of Caucasions, so it’s up to guilty whites with power to treat us extra special.”

Try, “I can get away with more because I do not meet – and can never exceed – the standards of people who are paler than I.”

The board’s report includes statistics that while American Indian students make up only 4 percent of the student body, they account for 20 percent of the suspensions across the district. And while black students only make up 7 percent of the student body, they account for 16.3 percent of out-of-school suspensions.
.

(TUSD Governing Board member Adelita) Grijalva also told the Star that administrators have had too much discretion over the years to give some kids a pass while throwing the book at others; and since the majority of teachers are white, they might not understand cultural differences.

“This will allow us to look at the situation with a bigger lens,” she said, “and I am 100 percent supportive of it.”

Think of the logic here …

If, for example, the majority of holdups in New York Cityare perpetrated by blacks, and if the definition of a holdup is changed to include only those heists that involve $200 or more, there will be – by definition – a sudden a drop in the number of black thieves. To leftists, the problem is thus solved. Everything is cool. The negative stigma has been removed. The heartless, compassionless, racially insensitive standard has been relaxed.

Keep in mind that the value set of the criminal that led to the thievery is never scrutinized. That would be judgemental.

Second, this gobbledygook about “cultural differences” is about as tiresome and idiotic as a Joe Biden lecture. What the hell does that really mean? Where exactly do these students come from? How is it that their cultural value sets are so different as to be so misunderstood by teachers who live in the same country as they? Are the vast majority of these students – whether they be black, Spanish, American-Indian, whatever – new to the United States? Or Western Civilization? Have they just been dropped off in America from Planet Zaytox without any sense of what is right and wrong?

Do liberals even bother to listen to the things they say?

Either theft is wrong or it is not. Either hitting another student when it is not in self-defense is wrong or it is not. Cheating is either acceptible or it is not.

Are these values unique only to White Americans? Is the effectiveness of punishment somehow synonymous with melanin levels in the skin? Or by one’s identification to his or her Spanish heritage?

Absolute mindless liberal crap.

As Michelle Malkin wrote on her blog:

I am sure Eric Holder and his racial preference-mongers (not to mention the “social justice” purveyors at Obama’s Department of Education) approve.

 Is there anything less progressive than being progressive?

- 

A DINNER TIME THOUGHT ON TAXES AND SELFISHNESS

Why is it that those who accuse conservatives of being selfish for wanting to hold on to more of their own money by keeping taxes low aren’t, too, called selfish?

By voting for others to foot the tax bills, isn’t that, by definition, selfish?

Discuss.

A tip of the hat to talk show host Dennis Prager for once again keeping the old synapses firing.

-

A BROKEN PROMISE

The word he used was “sensitivity.”

According to Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, the man who blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 killing 270 showed “no sensitivity” to the families of those he murdered in celebrating his release from a Scottish prison last week.

According to MacAskill, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was being insensitive. (In the mind of a leftist, is there anything more dastardly, more shocking, more contemptible than being insensitive?)

Al-Megrahi broke his promise. He said he wouldn’t do anything to upset the families of those he killed, but he did anyway.

Such a fibber! Such a cad! Such insensitivity!

And the Libyan government – led by the ever-upstanding, incorruptible, honorable Muammar Gaddafi – who pledged the whole affair would be handled in a respectable, low-key fashion – well, they fibbed, too.

They’re all gosh-darn fibbers!

Who would have guessed?

Those images of the terrorist, al-Megrahi, being greeted in Libya by an orgasmic hero’s welcome were reminiscent of the Beatles landing at JFK in 1964, or Charles Lindberg touching down in Paris in 1927. While al-Megrahi is reported to be rapping at death’s door, about to succumb to prostate cancer, what a thrill it must have been for him to descend from the plane and be greeted with such fanfare, such adulation. Such a moment could not have been possible without the massacre of all those innocent people – most of whom were American (a bonus for any self-respecting jihadist). One could imagine that this is what it must be like to get to heaven and have all those virgins waiting for you.

While the “insensitivity” of whooping it up is certainly worth touching upon, I would ask MacAskill about the original “insensitivity” of killing 270 innocents. Does the passage of time somehow make the crime more palatable?

If, for instance, al-Megrahi were convicted of the bombing within a year or so of the event, and diagnosed with prostate cancer, say, a year after that – or even five years – would his release on “humanitarian” grounds still have been considered? Does time somehow have the effect of deteriorating life’s worth?

How “humanitarian” is it to devalue human life by sending the message that the penalty for murdering the innocent means nothing when the comfort of the killer takes precedence?

Next to the killing of the passengers, crew and the innocents on the ground, the ultimate insensitivity was in releasing him so that he might enjoy some peace in his final days outside of his cold, unwelcoming prison cell.

Justice anyone?

The continued submission of the nations of Europe to the ongoing spread of civilization-eroding leftism is a frightening thing to behold. So-called compassion for evil-doers, in the name of humanity, accomplishes nothing more than demeaning the value of life itself.

How is it that a terrorist thug like al-Megrahi – who should have been put to death upon his conviction – deserves such accomodation when the 270 innocent people he ripped from this Earth were robbed of their lives?

How does this example of human debris deserve any comfort and joy when the 270 innocents he wiped from the planet were deprived of the right to live?

Al-Megrahi should have been left in his cell to die -  a death far less disturbing and less frightning than the one that befell his victims on Pan Am 103.

-