I would be surprised if anyone who saw the countless headlines yesterday about Gov. Mark Sanford being MIA thought to themselves, “eh, so he’s taking a couple of days off.” Let’s face it, governors don’t just disappear for a few days.
So, today it is all out in the open. I’ve traveled the web tonight and made all the usual stops. I have a different take on this than I have seen on other conservative sights so this particular post will be link free.
I am not angry at Mark Sanford. I am sad that he has fallen short of his duty. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and ordained by God. I believe in turn, God blesses a marriage with children. I believe that within a marriage, the husband and wife have a duty to God, to each other, to their children and to themselves. Mark Sanford failed on all counts.
We conservatives hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than our progressive brothers and sisters. We should. We should also recognize that none of us is infallible. This doesn’t mean that when people fail that we should give them a pass. Each of us are accountable for our actions and if our morals and convictions mean anything, we must hold others responsible for their actions.
How Gov. Sanford conducts himself going forward will determine whether he is holding himself accountable and whether he is willing to do the hard work of healing the harm he has done. At this point I am not willing to throw the first stone.
UPDATE Via Instapundit:
JOHN DICKERSON: The disturbing glee at Mark Sanford’s downfall. “What Mark Sanford seemed to be trying to say is that he screwed up, in the biggest possible way, because he lost his bearings. He lost his self-control. He was indulgent. He forgot that there were other humans in the world. Yet in the constant flow of abuse, joke-making, and grand conclusions about his failings, it seemed everyone having a good time pointing at his self-indulgence was also engaging in a form of it.
Exactly. Why are Christians, who have been taught, and who should believe, that "we have all fallen short of the Grace of God" being so mean spirited and so willing to dump the concept of redemption? Is our faith so fragile that we are somehow threatened by human failure?
Mark Sanford should no more resign from his position than any other person who has fallen short of the Grace of God should resign theirs. If there is a chance that this family can find a way to remain intact through forgiveness and redemption, no one should being calling on a wife to "kick him to the curb."
Mark Sanford did not hurt the Republican party. Not every single thing is about us. Will liberals make hay? Yep. Let them, they only abase themselves and I have no giddy schoolgirl desire to aid them.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Huckabee Blasts NRSC Backing of Crist
As reported at Babalu yesterday, former Arkansas govener, Mike Huckabee, has formally endorsed Marco Rubio for the Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez. In an interview with The Hill, Gov. Huckabee had some strong criticism for the NRSC and its endorsement of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the same race:
“I’m disgusted that they would take a position in a hotly contested race when you have a quality candidate like Marco Rubio, who was the youngest Speaker in the Florida House,” Huckabee said. “This is not just some nameless, faceless guy that decided to throw his name in, who had no chance and no credibility.”
He continued: “I thought that their endorsement not only was premature, but was outrageous. And they ought to get behind the guy who would do a whole lot more, in my mind, to unite and fire up Republicans, and that’s Marco Rubio.”
Huckabee declined to comment directly on Crist, who has drawn some heat from conservative Republicans unhappy with his support for President Obama’s stimulus legislation and other centrist positions.
But Huckabee did allude to that support in talking about his endorsement of Rubio.
“The establishment Republicans have made this endorsement for the same reason that they’re in so much trouble,” Huckabee said. “They go out there and support stuff like TARP bills and stimulus packages, pork-barrel spending and huge debt, and they wring their hands and act like, 'This is not good, but we don’t have a choice.' "
Rubio, has also been endorsed by Sen. Jim DeMint, has strong conservative creditials in stark contrast to Crist, who bills himself as a “centrist”. Unlike Crist, he is an advocate of fiscal responsibility and is a critic of the stimulus package that Crist embraced.
“I’m disgusted that they would take a position in a hotly contested race when you have a quality candidate like Marco Rubio, who was the youngest Speaker in the Florida House,” Huckabee said. “This is not just some nameless, faceless guy that decided to throw his name in, who had no chance and no credibility.”
He continued: “I thought that their endorsement not only was premature, but was outrageous. And they ought to get behind the guy who would do a whole lot more, in my mind, to unite and fire up Republicans, and that’s Marco Rubio.”
Huckabee declined to comment directly on Crist, who has drawn some heat from conservative Republicans unhappy with his support for President Obama’s stimulus legislation and other centrist positions.
But Huckabee did allude to that support in talking about his endorsement of Rubio.
“The establishment Republicans have made this endorsement for the same reason that they’re in so much trouble,” Huckabee said. “They go out there and support stuff like TARP bills and stimulus packages, pork-barrel spending and huge debt, and they wring their hands and act like, 'This is not good, but we don’t have a choice.' "
Rubio, has also been endorsed by Sen. Jim DeMint, has strong conservative creditials in stark contrast to Crist, who bills himself as a “centrist”. Unlike Crist, he is an advocate of fiscal responsibility and is a critic of the stimulus package that Crist embraced.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama's Falling Poll Numbers
Via Instapundit:
The confounding paragraph of the day was brought to us by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic on President Obama’s falling poll numbers:
I have a slightly different spin on this, which is that it's the spending and the modest success it seems to have brought in stopping the total collapse of the banking and financial system. If the economy felt like it was in the same free fall that it was a few months ago, he'd be doing better because there'd be less questioning of government spending and more calls to pour everything on the fire. But with the respite in the fall comes the freedom to question spending. Or, to put it another way: The firemen saved your house but now you're pissed off about all the water damage in the den.
Well yeah, you’d be pissed at the water damage in the den but you wouldn’t be pissed at the firemen who saved your house. Suggesting that Obama is dropping in the polls because his policies are working is ludicrous on so many levels. First, Ambinder must exist an a far different plane than the rest of us if he hasn’t noticed that Americans don’t believe that the President’s policies are succeeding . In fact, on the stimulus and the bailouts people believe that the President’s policies are making things worse.
Second, the public is worried about the President’s proposed policies. Nationalized health care? According to a recent ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. Newsflash Marc, we aren’t feeling real rosy about Obama’s health care policy. Would you rather talk about Cap and Trade? Probably not. Cash for Clunkers? To quote Michelle Malkin, “snort”.
Obama is dropping in the polls because the public is no longer buying his shtick. There's no other way to spin it.
The confounding paragraph of the day was brought to us by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic on President Obama’s falling poll numbers:
I have a slightly different spin on this, which is that it's the spending and the modest success it seems to have brought in stopping the total collapse of the banking and financial system. If the economy felt like it was in the same free fall that it was a few months ago, he'd be doing better because there'd be less questioning of government spending and more calls to pour everything on the fire. But with the respite in the fall comes the freedom to question spending. Or, to put it another way: The firemen saved your house but now you're pissed off about all the water damage in the den.
Well yeah, you’d be pissed at the water damage in the den but you wouldn’t be pissed at the firemen who saved your house. Suggesting that Obama is dropping in the polls because his policies are working is ludicrous on so many levels. First, Ambinder must exist an a far different plane than the rest of us if he hasn’t noticed that Americans don’t believe that the President’s policies are succeeding . In fact, on the stimulus and the bailouts people believe that the President’s policies are making things worse.
Second, the public is worried about the President’s proposed policies. Nationalized health care? According to a recent ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. Newsflash Marc, we aren’t feeling real rosy about Obama’s health care policy. Would you rather talk about Cap and Trade? Probably not. Cash for Clunkers? To quote Michelle Malkin, “snort”.
Obama is dropping in the polls because the public is no longer buying his shtick. There's no other way to spin it.
Give Leadership A Try
Via Gateway Pundit:
"What's happened in Iran is profound and we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out," Obama said. "It's not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it." He said there is a path for the country to engage with the global community.
While President Obama is “waiting to see how it plays itself out” people are being beaten in the streets and then arrested when they go to the hospital seeking medical treatment. Certainly, Obama used stronger language today in condemning the violence in Iran but today is day eleven. It shouldn’t take the leader of the free world eleven days to forcefully speak out on favor of freedom.
Obama, who seems to care so much about world opinion, is failing miserably as the face and voice of America. Right now we appear weak and disengaged. Whether Obama likes it or not, basking in the glow of his presidency isn’t an option. It is past time to give leadership a try.
"What's happened in Iran is profound and we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out," Obama said. "It's not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it." He said there is a path for the country to engage with the global community.
While President Obama is “waiting to see how it plays itself out” people are being beaten in the streets and then arrested when they go to the hospital seeking medical treatment. Certainly, Obama used stronger language today in condemning the violence in Iran but today is day eleven. It shouldn’t take the leader of the free world eleven days to forcefully speak out on favor of freedom.
Obama, who seems to care so much about world opinion, is failing miserably as the face and voice of America. Right now we appear weak and disengaged. Whether Obama likes it or not, basking in the glow of his presidency isn’t an option. It is past time to give leadership a try.
Tyranny And The Right To Bear Arms
Josh Kraushaar at Politco finds the following tweet by Marco Rubio “curious”: “I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours,” Rubio tweeted on Sunday.
Kraushaar says he’s “Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters…” Um, no, he’s not. It is a simple fact that societies that do not restrict personal gun ownership are also societies that enjoy greater personal freedom. Not surprising, there is a correlation between the ability to protect one’s self from tyranny and not having to protect one’s self from tyranny. So what is it about support for the 2nd amendment that Kraushaar finds curious?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has it right: Rubio was being glib, of course. (Can you be anything else in 140 characters or less?) However, his meaning was pretty clear, and hardly controversial or “curious”. Supporters of the 2nd Amendment offer these reminders whenever oppression makes itself obvious in the world, to help Americans recall the value of the Bill of Rights and the exceptional place it has in human history
Kraushaar says he’s “Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters…” Um, no, he’s not. It is a simple fact that societies that do not restrict personal gun ownership are also societies that enjoy greater personal freedom. Not surprising, there is a correlation between the ability to protect one’s self from tyranny and not having to protect one’s self from tyranny. So what is it about support for the 2nd amendment that Kraushaar finds curious?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has it right: Rubio was being glib, of course. (Can you be anything else in 140 characters or less?) However, his meaning was pretty clear, and hardly controversial or “curious”. Supporters of the 2nd Amendment offer these reminders whenever oppression makes itself obvious in the world, to help Americans recall the value of the Bill of Rights and the exceptional place it has in human history
Monday, June 22, 2009
So It Begins...
Via Instapundit:
AS BLOGS ARE CENSORED, it’s kittens to the rescue! Plus this: “You have to have the sword at home. You don’t want to have to buy a sword at the last minute.”
Kittens are popping up at blogs all over the place. If it will protect me from censorship I’ll play along.
I should be safe now, right? No?
AS BLOGS ARE CENSORED, it’s kittens to the rescue! Plus this: “You have to have the sword at home. You don’t want to have to buy a sword at the last minute.”
Kittens are popping up at blogs all over the place. If it will protect me from censorship I’ll play along.
I should be safe now, right? No?
Women Under Cover
President Sarkozy came out on the right side of women’s rights by saying, "We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told the special session in Versailles. "That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity."The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.
Covering woman is nothing less than an act of overt oppression. This should not be allowed in any free society. What of people who coose to cover themselves in a shroud? Who knows? There is no way to know which women choose the burka and which have it forced upon them. If a society is to err they should err on the side of supporting women’s freedom against a state of subservience.
h/t JammieWearingFool
The Administration's Propaganda Arm
What do you get when the New York Times and CBS intentionally distort a poll in favor of the President’s healthcare plan and ABC turns an entire broadcast day over to the White House to air a healthcare marathon? Indisputable proof that much of the media in this country can no longer be trusted. So far, the Times/CBS hasn’t offered any explanation as how their “sampling” contained Obama supporters by a margin of two to one. ABC on the other hand has promised to be unbiased. I promise to forego my beloved beer for a month. Both promises are equally worthless.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.
What of the public’s right to know? During the previous administration the “public’s right to know” was sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this right has joined “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” as a passé concept.
IBD continues:
Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.
Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.
So, what will the public’s reaction to ABC’s day long infomercial? I hope most Americans will refuse to watch ABC on Wednesday and going forward. The propaganda ploy will only work if people allow themselves to be sucked in. I think Americans are smarter than that.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.
The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.
What of the public’s right to know? During the previous administration the “public’s right to know” was sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this right has joined “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” as a passé concept.
IBD continues:
Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.
Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.
So, what will the public’s reaction to ABC’s day long infomercial? I hope most Americans will refuse to watch ABC on Wednesday and going forward. The propaganda ploy will only work if people allow themselves to be sucked in. I think Americans are smarter than that.
Obama's Detachment Towards Iran
It seems that President Obama has dealt with the events in Iran (using the word “dealt” in the loosest means possible) with an air of detachment. What could well be the biggest grassroots uprising of our time simply doesn’t interest the President. It is baffling and frustrating that Obama appears more annoyed at this ‘distraction’ than excited that there hundreds of thousands of people risking their lives on the streets of Tehran in pursuit of freedom. To be clear, Obama simply doesn’t hold democracy in particular, or freedom in general, in high regard.
Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy explains:
The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).
Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.
Obama considers himself to be of the Ruling Class. Democracy is inconsistent with Obama’s world view of who should lead and who should follow and what the relationship between leaders and followers should be. This attitude doesn’t bode well for freedom in the world and is particularly troubling for the future of freedom in the United States.
Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy explains:
The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).
Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.
Obama considers himself to be of the Ruling Class. Democracy is inconsistent with Obama’s world view of who should lead and who should follow and what the relationship between leaders and followers should be. This attitude doesn’t bode well for freedom in the world and is particularly troubling for the future of freedom in the United States.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Healthcare Hyperbole
Via Memeorandum
Anytime a writer feels the need to claim that he is not engaging in hyperbole it is a pretty good guess that he is. Consider this from Glenn W. Smith at FireDogLake:
The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.
Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.
Not only is Smith’s post grossly over-wrought, he also conveniently leaves out any fact that would lower the emotional tone of his piece. He doesn’t mention that twenty to twenty-five million of the 50 (?) million uninsured are illegal aliens. He doesn’t mention that another 8-10 million uninsured are people who earn over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance. He certainly doesn’t mention that the plan the administration has put forward would cost 1.6 TRILLION dollars and would leave 30 million people still uninsured. And he certainly doesn’t mention that the majority of that 30 million currently have insurance but would lose it under the President’s plan.
Instead of dealing with facts, Smith appeals to white guilt over slavery. That is nothing short of pathetic. I would also like to know how Smith defines “the economic privileged”. Is health insurance yet another class warfare issue?
You would think that if healthcare is so important to Smith that he would deal with it in a straight forward and honest manner
Anytime a writer feels the need to claim that he is not engaging in hyperbole it is a pretty good guess that he is. Consider this from Glenn W. Smith at FireDogLake:
The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole, though the truth of it is often lost in abstract talk of insurance company profits, treatment costs, and other cold, inhuman analyses.
Today's health system condemns 50 million Americans to ill health and death while guaranteeing health care to the economic privileged. It cannot stand.
Not only is Smith’s post grossly over-wrought, he also conveniently leaves out any fact that would lower the emotional tone of his piece. He doesn’t mention that twenty to twenty-five million of the 50 (?) million uninsured are illegal aliens. He doesn’t mention that another 8-10 million uninsured are people who earn over $75,000 a year but choose not to purchase insurance. He certainly doesn’t mention that the plan the administration has put forward would cost 1.6 TRILLION dollars and would leave 30 million people still uninsured. And he certainly doesn’t mention that the majority of that 30 million currently have insurance but would lose it under the President’s plan.
Instead of dealing with facts, Smith appeals to white guilt over slavery. That is nothing short of pathetic. I would also like to know how Smith defines “the economic privileged”. Is health insurance yet another class warfare issue?
You would think that if healthcare is so important to Smith that he would deal with it in a straight forward and honest manner
Today's Ugly Lapdog Award Goes To...
NY TIMES + Ginned Up Poll Data =
The President's healthcare plan has been treading water of late so Obama's faithful lapdog, The New York Times, leapt into action! The result was a poll that showed that 72% of Americans love the President's health and can't wait to pay for. Pretty impressive. Except...
The Times basically faked the poll. They chose respondents who by an aoverwhelming majority voted for Obama. In fact, they chose Obama supporters almost two to one.
As they said over at Maggie's Farm, “The New York Times, otherwise known as the Grey Lady, might more appropriately be known as Obama’s Shady Lady. Believe its poll and get a Times Square disease."
Here are the numbers as reported by NewsBusters:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.
What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.
It's a shame really. The Times makes one scroungy lapdog.
Andrew Emotes
Today my, “Gee, I wish I’d said that” moment was provided by The Riehl World View:
If Andrew Sullivan wants to jump into the emoting bin at Wal-Mart to pick-out a cheap canned syrupy concoction on Iran to serve up to his readers, he's allowed; but it shouldn't be confused with the insight, or wisdom he colors it up to look to be. And it does matter for reasons that are critically important to America and her security.
Ouch.
I try to read Andrew Sullivan occasionally but must confess I never make it too far. He just seems so easily excitable, and not in a good way. There is something rabid Pomeranian about him that always leaves me queasy. Anyway, the entire post can be read here.
UPDATED: American Power also weighs in on Andrew:
Ayatollah Khomeini did not come to power with the promise of freedom. The revolution of '79 installed a Islamo-fascist dictatorship. Spencer Ackerman sees the Bush administration as a bigger threat to the Iranian regime than the mullahs in Tehran. And Andrew Sullivan, in citing him, is blogging too fast to realize how stupid he makes himself out to be. Once you deconstruct what Sullivan is saying, we see it's all about him and his Man-Crush Dream-Boy Obama.
Well, I guess a man has a right to his dreams no matter how ookey they might be. But to base one’s ideology on the hope that the object of your affection will cast an approving smile your way seems a bit over the top. Of course, we are talking about Andrew.
If Andrew Sullivan wants to jump into the emoting bin at Wal-Mart to pick-out a cheap canned syrupy concoction on Iran to serve up to his readers, he's allowed; but it shouldn't be confused with the insight, or wisdom he colors it up to look to be. And it does matter for reasons that are critically important to America and her security.
Ouch.
I try to read Andrew Sullivan occasionally but must confess I never make it too far. He just seems so easily excitable, and not in a good way. There is something rabid Pomeranian about him that always leaves me queasy. Anyway, the entire post can be read here.
UPDATED: American Power also weighs in on Andrew:
Ayatollah Khomeini did not come to power with the promise of freedom. The revolution of '79 installed a Islamo-fascist dictatorship. Spencer Ackerman sees the Bush administration as a bigger threat to the Iranian regime than the mullahs in Tehran. And Andrew Sullivan, in citing him, is blogging too fast to realize how stupid he makes himself out to be. Once you deconstruct what Sullivan is saying, we see it's all about him and his Man-Crush Dream-Boy Obama.
Well, I guess a man has a right to his dreams no matter how ookey they might be. But to base one’s ideology on the hope that the object of your affection will cast an approving smile your way seems a bit over the top. Of course, we are talking about Andrew.
Protesters In Tehran Stand Up To The Basij
The video is from a post at Gateway Pundit and the words below it are John Howard’s via Instapundit.
If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
Mr. Howard recognized the need to confront evil head on. He knew the difference between being a leader and a figure head. Mr. Howard's brand of leadership is sorely absent these days.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
What kind of democratic leader deliberately chooses to ignore and then downplay a grassroots, democratic movement against tyrants in order to preserve some hope of negotiating with the tyrants for a less-hostile relationship with them? Apparently, only one, and he’s ours.
If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
Mr. Howard recognized the need to confront evil head on. He knew the difference between being a leader and a figure head. Mr. Howard's brand of leadership is sorely absent these days.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
What kind of democratic leader deliberately chooses to ignore and then downplay a grassroots, democratic movement against tyrants in order to preserve some hope of negotiating with the tyrants for a less-hostile relationship with them? Apparently, only one, and he’s ours.
Who Immediately Comes To Mind?
Every once and awhile you come across something that is just too good to pass up on. I found the following at IMAO:
Is The Glow Dimming?
Via Instapundit:
There seems to be a disconnect in the polls between the public’s support for the President personally and public support for the President’s policies. The President remains popular while his policies do not. For some reason many people still view Obama as some mystical being floating gently above us emanating goodness and wisdom. It brings to mind a Lucky Charms commercial.
The firing of IG Gerald Walpin, who had the audacity to question $850,000 in taxpayer dollars being spent to wash Kevin Johnson’s car, and the bullying of IG Neil Barofsky, who is overseeing the bailout, Obama appears, dare I say it, political. John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune sums it up:
The Washington Beltway media pack, exhausted after the cynicism of the Bush years, was eager for change. Many fired up their Hopium pipes and waited, glassy eyed, for the rapture, all but chanting "Yes We Can." Now they're coming down hard.So here's my question:What's the big surprise? What strange, exotic land do they think Obama comes from?Do they think Obama learned his politics in Narnia, while cavorting with gentle forest creatures, some of which have hooves and serve tea and cakes to journalists and well-mannered English schoolgirls on snowy winter afternoons?Did Obama learn politics in Camelot, the magical kingdom where federal czars sit at a great round table, all for the good of the simple peasants? Or did he learn politics along that famous highway, you know, the one that's always paved with good intentions?No. Obama learned his politics in Chicago.And now all of Washington can learn it, too.
Welcome to Obamaland-the official state of Comfortably Numb.
UPDATE: The Other McCain quotes from Michael Barone in the Examiner:
His first political ambition was to be mayor of Chicago, the boss of all he surveyed; he has had to settle for the broader but less complete hegemony of the presidency. . . .Chicago-style, he has kept the Republicans out of serious policy negotiations . . . Basking in the adulation of nearly the entire press corps, he whines about his coverage on Fox News. Those who stand in the way, like the Chrysler secured creditors, are told that their reputations will be destroyed; those who expose wrongdoing by political allies, like the AmeriCorps inspector general, are fired.
There seems to be a disconnect in the polls between the public’s support for the President personally and public support for the President’s policies. The President remains popular while his policies do not. For some reason many people still view Obama as some mystical being floating gently above us emanating goodness and wisdom. It brings to mind a Lucky Charms commercial.The firing of IG Gerald Walpin, who had the audacity to question $850,000 in taxpayer dollars being spent to wash Kevin Johnson’s car, and the bullying of IG Neil Barofsky, who is overseeing the bailout, Obama appears, dare I say it, political. John Kass, writing in the Chicago Tribune sums it up:
The Washington Beltway media pack, exhausted after the cynicism of the Bush years, was eager for change. Many fired up their Hopium pipes and waited, glassy eyed, for the rapture, all but chanting "Yes We Can." Now they're coming down hard.So here's my question:What's the big surprise? What strange, exotic land do they think Obama comes from?Do they think Obama learned his politics in Narnia, while cavorting with gentle forest creatures, some of which have hooves and serve tea and cakes to journalists and well-mannered English schoolgirls on snowy winter afternoons?Did Obama learn politics in Camelot, the magical kingdom where federal czars sit at a great round table, all for the good of the simple peasants? Or did he learn politics along that famous highway, you know, the one that's always paved with good intentions?No. Obama learned his politics in Chicago.And now all of Washington can learn it, too.
Welcome to Obamaland-the official state of Comfortably Numb.
UPDATE: The Other McCain quotes from Michael Barone in the Examiner:
His first political ambition was to be mayor of Chicago, the boss of all he surveyed; he has had to settle for the broader but less complete hegemony of the presidency. . . .Chicago-style, he has kept the Republicans out of serious policy negotiations . . . Basking in the adulation of nearly the entire press corps, he whines about his coverage on Fox News. Those who stand in the way, like the Chrysler secured creditors, are told that their reputations will be destroyed; those who expose wrongdoing by political allies, like the AmeriCorps inspector general, are fired.
I checked my site meter this morning and saw that I was getting unusually high activity. Cool. I looked to see where the traffic was coming from and lo and behold it was being sent to me from The Other McCain. Very cool. The problem is Smitty linked a piece I did on Mark Steyn last Saturday. I am most happy to re-post it.
I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…
The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Steyn writes:
The all-pervasive micro-regulatory state “enervates,” but nicely, gradually, so after a while you don’t even notice. And in exchange for liberty it offers security: the “right” to health care; the “right” to housing; the “right” to a job—although who needs that once you’ve got all the others?
A lot has been said lately of the crushing debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. Far worse is what we won’t pass on to the next generation if we allow our country to become a socialist republic. Once the government becomes our parent and our citizens become the children, freedom and individuality will be sacrificed to care and (minimal) comfort. Dependency breeds lethargy.
Our children need and deserve to be raised in a “can do” not a “make do” society. We became a world leader not because we wrapped our citizens in a safety net but precisely because we didn’t. We have achieved because we have risked both success and failure. If success is a mighty motivator, the risk of failure is even more so, and societal “tough love” has produced far more individual, and societal, success than the nanny state ever will.
I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…
The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Steyn writes:
The all-pervasive micro-regulatory state “enervates,” but nicely, gradually, so after a while you don’t even notice. And in exchange for liberty it offers security: the “right” to health care; the “right” to housing; the “right” to a job—although who needs that once you’ve got all the others?
A lot has been said lately of the crushing debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. Far worse is what we won’t pass on to the next generation if we allow our country to become a socialist republic. Once the government becomes our parent and our citizens become the children, freedom and individuality will be sacrificed to care and (minimal) comfort. Dependency breeds lethargy.
Our children need and deserve to be raised in a “can do” not a “make do” society. We became a world leader not because we wrapped our citizens in a safety net but precisely because we didn’t. We have achieved because we have risked both success and failure. If success is a mighty motivator, the risk of failure is even more so, and societal “tough love” has produced far more individual, and societal, success than the nanny state ever will.
Blessed Are The Children Who Were Raised By Men Like My Dad
My Dad and I have reached that stage where every day we have is a gift.
I have been totally blessed to have raised by a father who gave me the sun and the moon and then told me that whatever I did with my life was my responsibility. He provided the tools, taught me how to use them and then let me go. No matter the choice I made, Dad has been there, approving or disapproving as the case called for. But always constant.
Dad and I had a laugh today. I was telling him that I saw an elderly neighbor struggling down the street in the hot Florida sun, leaning heavily on his walker and obviously in distress. Long story short, he and his wife had locked themselves out of their house. I broke in to the house for them and the laugh came in as I was describing to my Dad what a sight my over ample backside must have been as I squeezed through their kitchen window.
I tell the story only because at the end my Dad said, “I’m proud of you.” I’ve heard those words before, a couple of times under far more noble circumstances, but each time my heart tightens. I’m proud of him, too.
Happy Father's Day.
I have been totally blessed to have raised by a father who gave me the sun and the moon and then told me that whatever I did with my life was my responsibility. He provided the tools, taught me how to use them and then let me go. No matter the choice I made, Dad has been there, approving or disapproving as the case called for. But always constant.
Dad and I had a laugh today. I was telling him that I saw an elderly neighbor struggling down the street in the hot Florida sun, leaning heavily on his walker and obviously in distress. Long story short, he and his wife had locked themselves out of their house. I broke in to the house for them and the laugh came in as I was describing to my Dad what a sight my over ample backside must have been as I squeezed through their kitchen window.
I tell the story only because at the end my Dad said, “I’m proud of you.” I’ve heard those words before, a couple of times under far more noble circumstances, but each time my heart tightens. I’m proud of him, too.
Happy Father's Day.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
PETA Supports The Brutal Murder Of People Not Flies
I came across the picture of Che Guevara's 24 year-old granddaughter, Lydia, yesterday at Track-A-'Crat. Today I stumbled across Kill Cubans Not Flies at Babalu's.
"Human beings often don't think before they act," laments PETA while explaining their reaction to President Obama's unthinking fly "execution." "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
Apparently the blockheads at PETA learned everything they need to know about Che Guevara from Benicio Del Toro. A much more honest depiction of Guevara was written by Dr. Douglas Young:
The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.Che was a purist political fanatic who saw everything in stark black and white. Therefore he vociferously opposed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest, or any other rights not completely consistent with his North Korean-style communism. How many rock music-loving teens sporting Guevara t-shirts today know their hero supported Cuba’s 1960s’ repression of the genre? How many homosexual fans know he had gays jailed?
Did PETA think through the symbolism of using Che Guevara, and his granddaughter, in their campaign? If the answer is “yes” it speaks volumes to the PETA mentality.
Mike Huckabee Discuss Abortion With Jon Stewart
From TownHall via NTC News:
Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show discussing abortion and I must say Jon Stewart was decent. That isn’t how I would typically describe Stewart so in this case “decent” equals high praise.
Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show discussing abortion and I must say Jon Stewart was decent. That isn’t how I would typically describe Stewart so in this case “decent” equals high praise.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)