Impeach Obama The Warmonger!

I have it on good authority that Dennis Kucinich (D-Pluto) is made from clown concentrate and processed chicken parts. So it won’t surprise you that he’s now wondering aloud whether Obama should be impeached for his war mongering in Libya. Yeah, that Obama. . . the one who spent the weekend in Brazil cancelling press conferences so he could samba. Does he have a point?

For some background, the French and British decided something needed to be done about Libya, where Michael Jackson’s evil clone (see below) has been killing his own people. They went to the United Nations and somehow got the UN to agree to institute a no fly zone over Libya. Russia, by the way, agreed to the resolution and then promptly turned around and condemned it. Weirdos.

With UN approval in his pocket and the French leading the way. . . Field Marshal Obama fled to Brazil as our navy started launching cruise missiles at Libyan air defense installations to protect coalition forces.

Enter clown boy and his posse of “hard-core liberal House Democrats” (as Politico describes them). This group of hard-core fans includes nine House members including noted intellectual luminaries like Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee, and our friend Dennis.

As a group, they question whether Obama has the constitutional right to launch missiles against Libya (after all, the word "Libya" doesn't appear in the Constitution anywhere). They’re also upset that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack, and they’re upset that this would lead the US into a third war in the Muslim world. Said one Democrat on the conference call:

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress.”

Kucinich goes one further and says this raises the question of impeachment. Kucinich, by the way, is an impeachment hobbyist, having tried to bring impeachment articles against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

So let’s look at a few points.

First, they are wrong about the “requirement” to advise Congress before blasting some foreign country. Only Congress can declare war, but under the 1973 War Powers Act, the President can commit US troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. So their point is garbage. . . and uppity Belgium better watch its back!

Secondly, this pretty much kills any claims the Democratic left flank has to legitimacy on war issues. They claimed they opposed Bush because he acted without genuine UN approval. Obama got that. Yet, they still complain. They claim they opposed Bush because he only wanted Iraq’s oil and Afghanistan’s. . . dirt. They said we should only fight when US interests aren’t at stake, like when an evil dictator is killing his own people and it has nothing to do with us (yes, they said that). Well, that’s exactly what Gaddafi is doing in Libya, and yet they still oppose the use of force. In fact, at the same time these Democrats were holding their conference call of stupidity, anti-war protestors were protesting at the White House gates.

What does this tell us? It tells us the left is lying when they come up with specific reasons for opposing particular military actions. The truth is they simply object to military action of any kind. Hence, we should start treating their objections as irrelevant.

Third, this tells us the left is unhinged and probably will field a candidate against Obama in the primary. Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders says a primary challenge would be a good thing (sounds like Martha Stewart... "it's a good thing"), though he won’t do it himself. Our boy Dennis Kucinich says a primary challenge would make Obama a “stronger nominee,” and seems intent on jumping in where Bernie fears to tread.

But wait, what about Hillary, you ask? Well, for one thing, Hillary no longer has progressive street cred, so she might as well be Son of Bush. For another, Hillary essentially took herself out of the race this week, saying that she will not run for President, will not take another government job and will not serve in Obama’s second term. I suspect this is actually her attempt to bail out before the rats start abandoning the A.S.S. Obama once the writing on the wall gets clearer in 2012 -- which makes it a brilliant move. But whatever her reasons, she out.

So Kucinich is in. And since Kenya Boy proved that you don't need to be a US citizen anymore to become President, I think we need to expand the field of possible contenders for his VP spot. Thus, I give you....

Kucinich/Kaddafi 2012

. . . you heard it here first.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Teeching Enviramentel Litterusy

Many of the States are rushing to add an entire curriculum revolving around "environmental literacy" to their school programs. Some states, including but not limited to California and Wisconsin already have such programs in place. In Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction just reactivated the position of environmental education consultant.

I'm not sure whether that was before or after the citizens elected a governor and legislature to fix the education mess coming out of Madison. I'm guessing before, since it would seem to add another bureaucrat, another salary, another pension and another colossal waste of money. State Superintendent Tony Evers asked the No Child Left Inside Coalition what they would like to see, and environmental literacy education was right at the top. He had them draft the Environmental Literacy Plan, and the fun can begin.

So considering that many of these states were already overpopulated with green weenies and ecofreaks, what was the sudden rush? Well, you should be able to guess. We've already discussed the expensive uselessness of the federal Department of Education on several occasions, most recently this past Thursday. One of the primary goals of the Department is to whip all the states into line by lavishing buckets of money on the state "education" systems to keep students ignorant and union teachers employed. Hmmm, mmmm, mmmm, Barack Hussein Obama.

So almost the moment the Department of Education announced that is considering including environmental literacy as an integral part of the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (formerly No Loser Left Behind), the "gimme the money" enviroweenies went into high gear. First State in line with the right school program at the federal trough gets the biggest share. Feed early, eat as much as you can get.

Which leads me to the big question. Why is environmental literacy even on the radar when the schools as currently run and funded can't even teach literacy literacy?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Qur’an, A Book of Hate

We're told Islam is “the religion of peace.” Muslims and Muslim-apologists constantly tell us that claims to the contrary are lies or intentional misinterpretations. When Bill Maher pointed out that every page of the Koran contains hate, Rep. Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in Congress, threw a hissy fit, calling Maher’s claim “absurd, ridiculous and untrue.” But is it really?

It's easy to take quotes out of context to warp the meaning of a text. The Bible, the Constitution, and every other legal or religious text all have been subjected to this, where people read quotes selectively or interpret the words well beyond their reasonable meanings. We’re not going to do that here. These quotes speak for themselves, like when the Qur’an instructs believers to KILL nonbelievers:

● “Slay the nonbelievers wherever you find them. Drive them out.” (2:190)

● “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’” (8:7)

● “. . . kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. . .” (2:191)

● “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.” (8:12)

● “I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.” (8:12)

● “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” and make a “wide slaughter among them.” (47:4)

● ”Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.” (8:59)

● “. . . fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (9:5)

● “A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. . . Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.” (Ishaw:327)

There’s plenty more where that came from, but it isn’t just killing the infidels that Islam counsels.

Islam also requires infidels to pay a “tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (9:29), and Muslims should fight Jews and Christians until they “pay [this] tribute. . . and are utterly subdued.” (9:27).

Muslims also are instructed that they may not take Jews or Christians as friends. (5:51) (“Seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper” (4:89), “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people.” (3:118)). Of course, this rule doesn’t apply if you need to use infidels for self-defense purposes. (3:28)

Islam doesn’t like women either, despite the claims of various Muslim groups that Islam is not hostile to women. For example, Tabari IX:113 advises us that women should be beaten, but not severely, because they’re like domestic animals whose bodies are here for our enjoyment:

● “Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. . . Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran.” (Tabari IX:113)

But don’t worry, it’s ok because women are stupid:

● “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.” (Tabari I:280)

Of course, so are all infidels:

● “The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing.” (2:172)

There’s a lot more, but this should be more than enough to put the lie to the idea that critics of Islam are taking the Qur’an out of context.

Religion of peace, huh?

What's more, there is something fundamentally rotten about Islam's view of Allah. Indeed, Allah is a pretty shitty sadist. According to the Qur’an, Allah actually makes nonbelievers incapable of knowing “the truth”:

● “Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs.” (6:23–27)

● “Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one and all.” (6:35)

Why would a god intentionally prevent people from becoming believers? The answer can be found in this next quote. Apparently, Allah extends the lives of nonbelievers so that they can commit more sins. Why? So that Allah can inflict greater punishment on them:

● “Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them.” (3:178)

And make no mistake, he revels in punishing nonbelievers and he tells Muslims they should rejoice in the suffering Allah will inflict. (2:162, 2:168, 3:5 (“Allah is mighty and capable of revenge”), 3:195, 5:86, etc.)

What kind of god creates people who cannot become believers, for the sole purpose of enjoying punishing them in the afterlife? That's the definition of sadism. And that tells you what you need to know about Islam.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Nero Was An Amateur

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Obama golfed while Japan and Libya burned. But Obama was media-savvy enough to have his press secretary provide cover by announcing the President's carefully thought-out position on a matter of worldwide interest--the NCAA rankings. Am I missing something here? Let me know your thoughts. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Foolish Consistency

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." Eric Holder and his racist politicized Department of Justice have struck again. Under the direction of the same Deputy Assistant Attorney General who nixed the judgments in the Black Panther voter intimidation cases, DOJ has just stopped the reform of a miserably unsuccessful South Carolina school district.

Deputy AG Julie Fernandes used the consent decrees resulting from the Voting Rights Act (1965-1968) without any regard either for the Act or the words and intent of the attendant consent decrees. Her boss, Assistant Attorney General Tim Perez, and ultimately Eric Holder himself have distorted the law and the decrees for the sole purpose of advancing their belief that the Voting Rights Act is designed solely to protect black citizens. The "review" required by the Act based its decision not to allow the exception on everything except the express purpose of the Act and the intent of the decrees. The action was taken by the DOJ after it was swamped by demands from the NAACP and the ACLU. Briefs filed by the white citizens of Fairfield County and their black allies were entirely ignored.

In Fairfield County, South Carolina, a district which is 59% black, there is a school board already comprised of six blacks on a seven person board. The schools are among the worst performers in the nation. The citizens of the district decided that two more reform members should be added to the board to bring the district into the modern world, and convinced the South Carolina legislature to agree. The DOJ Civil Rights Division would not allow the change. Even though the white population is only 41%, and the likelihood was that at least one, if not both. of the reform seats would be filled by blacks, the DOJ would not yield.

The DOJ ruling analyzed the change solely on the basis of how the change would affect black residents (the majority). But Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) expressly states that a change in procedures must be approved under the consent decree unless the change negatively impacts the minority in the area. Well, the minority is white, and along with their frustrated black reform allies, claimed that the present board was totally ineffective and harmful to students' futures regardless of race or color. In other words, it was the minority which the VRA was designed to protect, and it was that very same minority which requested the change.

The 1992 United States Supreme Court case of Presley v. Etowah County Commission established clear rules for when the DOJ Civil Rights Division is allowed to strike down a change in local governance. They are required to approve the change so long as: The change does not alter the manner of voting, alter candidacy requirements, alter the composition of the electorate, or create or abolish an elective office. But the additional school board members would be appointed, and of the requirements, that was the only one that even came close to supporting the DOJ action. The addition of two appointed members of a school board therefore violates absolutely no portion of the consent decree.

That didn't stop DOJ from voiding the action anyway. So what did the DOJ base its ruling on? The specious and totally incorrect assumption that the change "reduces the proportion of positions for which minority voters can elect candidates of choice." What they really mean is it increases the number of board members the Democratic machine can't control. In Presley the Supreme Court specifically found that such a change only concerns the distribution of power among officials and has no direct relation to or impact on voting. Well, nobody in his right mind believes that the career lawyers in the AG's office who agree with the Supreme Court decision have any voice in the machinations of the DOJ.

Even if the DOJ were right that this comprised a genuine VRA/consent decree change, it would by its nature be acceptable because it protects the minority whites. But since DOJ believes that the VRA protects blacks only (and I use the term "protects" loosely), it made its racist and illogical decision entirely on the leftist divide-and-conquer fake lawyering by Holder and his gang of political shysters. Another opportunity to improve the education and test scores of black and white students alike bludgeoned by the post-racial Obama administration. The theory apparently is that any act that would benefit black majority students is suspect if it incidentally helps minority white students as well. Better that nobody benefit than that white students should participate in the benefit.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Wow! What A Hunk!

Oh, wait, that wasn't the point of the photo or this article. But since we just finished pointing out that the Secretary of Education can't read the Constitution, why not point out a young man who not only can read it, but can post the Fourth Amendment on his torso after carefully writing it using a mirror? We know he used a mirror, because as carefully as he did it, he got the 4 in "Amendment 4" backwards.

We can also easily discern that he is not a Harvard University student, or he wouldn't know the Constitution exists in the first place. In fact, he is getting his education in flyover country, at the University of Cincinnati. That's located in a state I think is called Ohio, or Oh-why-oh, or something like that. It's obviously insignificant since it isn't New England or the Left Coast.

21 year-old Aaron Tobey had determined in advance that he didn't want to glow in the dark, so he opted for the full pat-down at the airport. He's lucky that wasn't San Francisco International Airport or he would have been delayed indefinitely. But that's another story entirely. He knew he would be required to strip down to his skivvies, so he figured he might as well make a point at the same time. Big mistake. A nice tattoo picturing a bloody heart or the face of Osama bin Laden would not have slowed him down for a second. Tobey unfortunately chose to list a subversive manifesto written by a bunch of racist old white men, so that meant he was dangerous.

Even though Tobey was completely cooperative, and didn't object to the pat-down, words have consequences. Here, the words of the Founding Fathers, written in part by his Virginia ancestors, were more than enough to cause the protectors of all things American to handcuff and detain young Tobey for 90 minutes. You see, a gang of Arabs in native attire and speaking loudly and excitedly to each other in Arabic while brandishing Korans is no cause for detention (except in the mind of liberal Juan Williams who has been diagnosed by NPR as insane). But the English language version of the 4th Amendment on a young patriot's chest--that's clearly dangerously subversive.

The behavior of the rest of the United States is beginning to sound a lot like what is said about San Francisco--"you can't make this stuff up." Even more suspicious than the writing on his torso was Tobey's reason for flying that day. He was on his way to his beloved grandmother's funeral in Wisconsin. Yeah, Aaron, every terrorist has tried to use that one at least once. Off to the third-degree room. He was then interrogated by the "experts" of the TSA, including being asked about "his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations." He was also grilled on whether he had been asked to display the Fourth Amendment by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.

Tobey was charged with violation of a misdemeanor statute with wording that sounds a bit like disturbing the peace, or daring to quote the Constitution, or expressing a favorable opinion of America, or something subversive like that. It took two weeks for the morons at the Henrico County prosecutor's office to drop the charge. He had followed the law to the letter, cooperating completely with the official gropers, but drew the ire of the pervs at TSA by displaying his peaceful and otherwise private objection to the search.

Any young man smart enough to use a magic marker to express his objection to a very intrusive search is smart enough to find his way to a lawyer's office after being purposely humiliated and arrested for no known cause other than exercising his First Amendment right to post on his body the Fourth Amendment. Both Amendments are contained in young Tobey's lawsuit for unlawful detention.

Now for my female readers, I wish to remind you that this article is about the text, not the surface it was written on. I will say, however, that I never looked like that on the best day of my life, but if I had, you'd play hell getting me to put my clothes on. There is one good thing in all of this. Despite the detention and third-degree by the American Gestapo, Tobey still made it in time for his grandma's funeral.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Matrix (1999)

By any measure, The Matrix is easily one of the greatest science fiction films ever made. It’s a thrilling action movie, which brought in half a billion dollars. It has a great story with jaw dropping twists and turns. It's presented with an incredible sense of style and innovative special effects. And, most importantly, it takes several science fiction themes to the next level, creating one of the philosophically deepest films on record.

** heavy spoiler alert **

Directed by Larry and Andy Wachowski (Bound), The Matrix is a mind-trip that takes place in a world where machines have enslaved the human race and the human race doesn’t know it. The film can be enjoyed either as a simple rousing action flick or as an intelligent science fiction film with almost limitless depth.

The Matrix As An Action Flick

The Matrix is the story of Thomas Anderson, aka Neo (Keanu Reeves), a computer hacker who feels that something is wrong with the world, something he can’t put his finger on. Through a series of seemingly impossible events, Neo is contacted by a shadowy man named Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), who offers him a choice: go back to his life or see the real world. Neo chooses reality, and discovers that he’s been living his entire life in a computer simulation. He learns that in the real world, humans fought a war against an artificial intelligence they created, and lost. Now the remaining free humans hide in a city called Zion near the earth’s core, from which they continue to fight against the machines. The rest of humanity, the vast majority, live unaware in the virtual world created by the machines, as their bodies act as batteries for the machines. According to Morpheus, Neo is prophesized as “the One” who will end the war and free humanity.

The Matrix excels as an action flick. It’s stylishly shot with a strong techno soundtrack and totally hip costuming. The fight scenes are incredibly well choreographed, taking wire fighting to new highs, and it introduces “bullet time” effects, where the scene appears to freeze as the camera rotates around live action. The acting is solid, the dialog is almost-noir but packed with meaning, and there is significant character growth throughout the movie, but never at the expense of the pacing. And the story is clever and exciting. All of this combines in The Matrix to create some truly unique and iconic images, moments and characters. Thus, like most great films (like Star Wars and Close Encounters), The Matrix has inspired much (see, e.g. Inception), but it’s essentially been impossible to copy.

Based on this alone, The Matrix is well worth seeing. But this isn’t all it offers.

The Matrix As Ultra-Intelligent Science Fiction

Beyond the action, The Matrix becomes an extremely intelligent science fiction film. Most science fiction films address only one theme, and usually, the whole film revolves around revealing that theme, like a twist. The Matrix forswears that formula and instead mixes multiple themes, which it then approaches from new perspectives.

The main theme of the The Matrix is an old philosophical/religious question: free will versus predetermination. Free will is shown through Neo, who makes many choices. He must choose to see reality instead of the false reality he lives. He must choose to accept the role of savior. He must choose to stand and fight. And he must choose to believe reality will bend to his will. Even after he has made these choices, he still only has the power to free people if they choose to believe him, i.e. they have free will too. Indeed, the film ends with him telling the machines that he’s going to give humanity a choice.

But is free will an illusion? On the side of predetermination, the movie presents the Oracle and Morpheus (references to Ancient Greece), who see Neo as a prophesized “the One” who will end the war and free man from the machines. Neo objects to the idea of predetermined fates, but every move he makes seems foretold. Thus, it would seem The Matrix believes in predetermination. But wait, the Oracle herself casts doubt on this when she points out that he could be causing his own destiny simply by knowing it: “Would you really have knocked over that vase if I hadn’t mentioned it first?” Moreover, she manipulates Neo by lying to him to get him to act in predetermined ways. . . but then, he does act in predetermined ways.

While this battle rages, the film explores another common science fiction theme: man versus machine, but it does so in much greater depth than this issue normally gets. Science fiction often deals with machines turning on their creators, everything from intelligent computers, like Skynet and HAL, to killer robots in I, Robot. But beyond the shock of the machines rising up, there isn’t usually much more to these stories. The Matrix, by comparison, takes this as a mere starting point and then adds layers of depth from there. Thus, for example, in The Matrix, mankind doesn’t even know its been conquered, which is a rare take on this theme. Also, the machines are not as unified as they seem, as rogue programs like the Oracle help Neo and as the machines begin to lose control over Agent Smith, as he develops a blinding hate for humanity. Moreover, we’re told the machines aren’t all bad because they recognize they are dependent on humans, and they actually tried to make the matrix into a paradise. . . only, the humans wouldn’t accept the programming -- raising questions both of the nature of the human psych and whether a gilded cage is still a cage? These are all aspects that are rarely, if ever, seen in stories dealing with this theme.

What’s more, the man versus machine theme gets brought into the film’s other big theme: perception versus reality. This again is a common theme in science fiction and usually is enough to occupy an entire movie. Indeed, when this theme is used, typically the entire plot will center around the discovery near the end of the film that reality isn’t want it used to be. The Matrix goes deeper. It lets Neo in on the secret early in the film. Then it sets about asking questions that have almost never, if ever, been asked: (1) would you want to know about the real world if you were happy with your perceived world, (2) could you live happily knowing the world you perceive is fake, (3) at what point does perception become reality (if everyone thinks this is how chicken tastes, does that make it so), and (4) if our perceived reality is merely implanted in our minds, can we manipulate it?

The Matrix weaves these themes and questions together into one story, in which Neo must decide to break with the reality he knows so he can fulfill a prophecy and thereby set mankind free from a prison they don’t even know exists.

Adding even more depth and flavor to the exploration of these themes, The Matrix calls upon a treatise in philosophy and religion to inform its characters. For example, a large portion of The Matrix is a Christian allegory, complete with dozens of Biblical references, with Neo playing the role of Christ, as the savior of humanity if only mankind truly believes in him. At the same time, the film tosses in elements of a half dozen other religions like the Buddhist child bending the nonexistent spoon, plus philosophical concepts like Rene Descartes’ evil genius (a faulty argument for why God must exist), and more recognizable references to things like “Alice in Wonderland.” Indeed, this movie is exquisitely made with no single object, name, word or image appearing in the film by chance.

Finally, let me say a word on the ending. Roger Ebert (and others) criticized the movie because he viewed it as a “letdown” that a movie about “redefining the nature of reality” would end in a shootout. But he’s missing the point. The shootout is not the ending. The ending comes when Neo finally realizes that he need not obey the physical laws of reality. Thus, he need not dodge bullets, he can will them to stop. It is his triumph over perception that gives him his victory, not fancy shooting on his part. And thereby, Neo proves man’s superiority to the machines, as our minds can do something the machines cannot -- they cannot imagine outside the bounds of reality -- and he fulfills his destiny through the exercise of free will.

This is why The Matrix is a great film. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Fukushima Fifty

In modern parlance, the word “hero” is meaningless. Whiny idiots use that word to describe everything from sticking to their diets to overcoming minor hurdles to not killing themselves when faced with the slightest moment of self-pity. But there are real heroes in the world, and when we find them, we should take a moment to recognize them. We see this spirit in the Fukushima Fifty.

“The Fukushima Fifty” is the name given by the media to a group of between 50 and 200 Japanese workers who willingly continued working in the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant amidst the world’s second worst nuclear disaster in a desperate attempt to prevent a total meltdown. They are called "Fifty" because they are rotating in shifts of fifty to try to minimize their exposure to the radiation. We don’t know yet who these people are, but they appear to be a mix of regular workers, volunteers from other plants, and retirees. The facility itself has been rocked by fires, explosions and releases of radiation. Right now it’s in the middle of a meltdown, which many experts are calling both “inevitable” and “the worst case scenario.” Nevertheless, these workers continue working despite the high probability that they will die. In fact, many experts are calling it a "suicide mission." And they are doing this to save people they don’t even know. That is true heroism, and it has a long and inspiring history.

In 480 BC, 300 Spartans sacrificed themselves to save the Western World from Xerxes and his army of 100,000 Persians. They knew they would die, but they felt it was worth their lives to protect the things they believed in. In every war since, soldiers have willingly, knowingly sacrificed themselves to save their comrades or protect their countrymen, be it rushing into enemy fire to retrieve a fallen comrade or fighting desperately to hold off the enemy just long enough to allow their comrades and countrymen to escape.

The same is true of disasters. Indeed, it is at times of disaster that we see the best of the human spirit come shining through. Firemen rush into burning buildings and police put themselves into the line of fire to protect the innocent. Adults dive into rivers to save children from being washed away. When the Titanic sank, the male passengers and crew backed up their gallant words by sacrificing themselves so the women and children could escape in the lifeboats -- the band even played on until the very end. During 9/11, firemen and police ran into the Twin Towers, knowing they would likely die so they could save people they’d never met.

During Chernobyl, most of the first responders knew they would die. Not all, but most. Yet, they stayed at their stations trying to save the situation. They died -- many horribly, 19 died when their skin fell off. The helicopter pilots who dropped sand on the burning Chernobyl reactor were told they would die, but they went nevertheless. They all died as well.

The Fukushima Fifty face the same thing. No one knows yet what will happen to them. We don’t know if the radiation will kill them or make them ill or perhaps do nothing. But whatever ultimately happens to them, they have taken a stand. They have walked into this danger, knowing there is a high probability they would die, and they did it for people they don’t even know. That’s heroism at its finest. And make no mistake, they know the risk. Indeed, several have told their families they expect to die.

So remember this the next time some nihilist suggests that humanity is selfish or evil, or lacks redeeming qualities. There is beauty and nobility within the human spirit. It’s just sad that it often takes moments like this for it to come out.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Education Secretary Can't Read Constitution

At a hearing last week, Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan was asked a direct question. Like certain other Harvard graduates we know of, Duncan seems blissfully unaware of either the Constitution or the limitations on his own power. He seemed particularly flummoxed, undoubtedly because he graduated magna cum laude. There seems to be an inverse relationship between Harvard achievement and dealing with reality in the Obama administration.

The question was simple: "Where specifically does the Constitution authorize the federal government to be involved in primary and secondary education?" The simple answer, of course, is "nowhere." But one would at least expect a half-hearted attempt from a Harvard grad to explain to us illiterates that it is an "implied power." That trope has been used for decades to expand the intrusive role and stranglehold on curriculum that the federal government has perpetrated on the American people and the States.

Apparently, he didn't even learn that specious argument at Harvard. But if there's one thing that Harvard grads are very adept at--it's dodging questions and changing the subject. Duncan begged the question by responding: "We are obviously a small percent of the overall funding, you know, about 10%." Well, there's a non-sequitur for you. Not only did he fail to explain where the federal government derives its power to interfere in education, but then he tried to minimize the Department's role in our expanding debt by claiming that its unconstitutional use of public money is minimal. Isn't that like being a little pregnant? It's OK to extort funds from the taxpayers with no constitutional authority so long as you stay under a certain percentage of the budget?

When the question was repeated, Duncan went into full spin cycle. In his senior year at Harvard, Duncan clearly took to heart what he learned in "For the Children 101." He begged the question once again by saying: "The vast majority of funding comes at the local level--state and local level. But we have a responsibility to support children who have historically not had those kinds of opportunities--disadvantaged children, poor children, homeless students, children who are English language learners (read: "illegal immigrants") and, more recently we've seen a tremendous amount of reform in the Department." Oh, such as killing the voucher and charter school initiatives in Washington DC?

"But what about your constitutional authorization to use federal funds for education?" Well, third time's the charm. "We have to dramatically improve the quality of education we are providing this country and we can help to continue to reward excellence and encourage it at the local level."

"Yes, but what about the authorization?" Oh, never mind. Getting a Harvard grad to answer a direct question about the Constitution is like asking Bugs Bunny to explain quantum physics. Neither knows anything about the subject, but both feel free to explain it anyway. I often think that if you ask a Harvard grad what time it is, he'll tell you how to make a clock, and he'll get the instructions wrong. But be of good cheer. The Department "only" spent about $107 billion dollars last year on dumbing America down.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Hollywood Doesn't Care About American Consumers

In a recent film discussion, a question was asked how it could be true both that Hollywood is highly consumer oriented (as they are) yet also pays no attention to the opinions of Middle America (which they don’t). The answer is simple: Hollywood doesn’t view Middle America as its consumer market. I’ve been saying this for a while, and now The Economist offers proof.

Most Americans assume Hollywood should strive to please Middle America, because they believe the American public is where Hollywood earns its money. But that’s not true. Starting around 2001, Hollywood began making more money overseas than it made in the US. Last year, foreign box office receipts more than doubled US receipts -- $10 billion in US ticket sales versus $22 billion in ticket sales overseas. Moreover, while the US market hasn’t grown since 2005, the foreign market doubled between 2003 and 2010, and shows no signs of slowing. Indeed, consider that, Hollywood made $1.5 billion in China last year even though China currently allows only 20 US films to be shown each year.

As a result of this, according to The Economist, “the studios are careful to seed films with actors, locations and, occasionally, languages that are well-known in target countries.” In other words, Hollywood is learning what works in target countries and is changing its films accordingly. For example, the Chinese want “films that reflect China’s central place in the world.” Thus, films like Kung Fu Panda play well because they show China’s influence over the West. Japanese audiences love Japanese locations and characters. And most of the world prefers European villains.

More insidiously, these markets don’t like films that contain pro-American messages or American cultural elements. Thus, these are now being removed from films. For example, “G.I. Joe” was changed from a team of American special forces to an international team with an international cast. Captain America is being renamed “The First Avenger” overseas and his American-flag costume has been largely de-Americanized. Also, says the director, the character will downplay American patriotism because “this is not about America so much as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing.”

The studios are quite open about this. Says Rob Moore of Paramount Pictures: “We need to make movies that have the ability to break out internationally. That's the only way to make the economic puzzle of film production work today.” Disney studios execs say the same thing: "I can tell you that no studio head is going to make a big expensive movie that cost $150 million or $200 million unless it has worldwide appeal. You can't pay back that production cost on the domestic model alone."

This means Hollywood is letting its marketing concerns make its artistic decisions. And those marketing concerns say (1) include foreign characters and locations from target areas, (2) remove traces of American culture, (3) dumb dialog and plots down to make them easier to translate, and (4) add plenty of special effects filler. It also influences the types of films that will be made. Don’t expect many films based on American history, events or persons. And don’t expect may new comedies. Says Brad Grey, the head of Paramount Pictures, “You won’t see us doing a lot of comedies, because comedy doesn’t travel well.”

This is why Hollywood can be both consumer oriented and still ignore the American consumer, because it doesn’t see American consumers as important anymore. And that’s why you’re seeing such a change in films lately. I would also say, it’s no coincidence that Hollywood’s current low quality period began right around the time foreign markets first surpassed American markets in value.

Welcome to the future.

*******

And if that doesn't give you something to think about, then let me ask you this. . . is it possible that Star Wars was a rip off of The Wizard of Oz?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Herman Cain

Herman Cain is an interesting candidate. He’s a successful businessman with an impressive record of turning around distressed companies. He’s also an economic and religious conservative, with some creative ideas, and some ideas that will turn off moderates, and one or two ideas that are a little troubling. Is he electable?

The big knock on Cain is that he’s never held elective office. He has an excellent response:

Most of the people in Washington have political experience. How’s that working out for us? Not too well. What I bring to the table is more important than political experience, and it’s leadership experience and problem-solving experience.

But that kind of experience may not help when he has to deal with a political Congress and an entrenched bureaucracy which has more power than anything he’s dealt with in the private sector. Also, should the Presidency be a person’s first political job?

1. His “record”: He has impressive credentials. He has a bachelor’s in Mathematics and a master’s degree in computer science. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury and rose to vice president. Pillsbury later assigned him to run 450 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area. This was BK’s least profitable region, and Cain turned it into BK’s most profitable. Pillsbury then appointed him the CEO of failing Godfather’s Pizza, which he returned to profitability. In 1992, he joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and became its chairman in 1995-1996. Cain ran for Senate in Georgia in 2004 and lost in the primary. Today he hosts a radio show and writes a syndicated column. He has written several business books without the assistance of Bill Ayers.

2. Economics: On economics, Cain is solidly conservative with hints of libertarianism:

● Taxes: He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He wants to reduce the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, reduce the capital gains tax to zero, and end the tax on repatriating profits from overseas. “Liberals say, ‘You just want to reward the rich. No, I want to employ the poor. . . . this is how you can get a job.” He also wants to abolish the IRS and replace the tax code with the FAIR tax.

● Spending: He wants to cut the budget across-the-board immediately, and then go through each agency making more cuts, “looking for whole programs to eliminate.” He also says he will veto any bill containing earmarks.

● Entitlements: He wants to turn Medicare and Medicaid into block grants to the states and let them establish their own rules. He “totally supports” Paul Ryan’s plan for allowing personal retirement accounts. And he wants to repeal ObamaCare.

● Unemployment: He advocates diminishing unemployment benefits over time to encourage people to work, which is what Tommy Thompson did successfully in Wisconsin in the 1990s.

● Gold: He believes in the gold standard, which is troubling.

3. Unions/Wisconsin Cain supports Scott Walker and says we need to reverse the trend of giving public sector workers more and more.

4. Global Warming: He does not believe in global warming, saying the science has been manipulated and has become “garbage in, garbage out.”

5. Energy Independence: He favors biofuels as a means of gaining energy independence, so we “stop sending billions of dollars to oil countries that do not like us.” However, he does not believe in using corn: “you don’t use food, you use waste.” He also, apparently does not favor subsidies.

6. Defense/Foreign Policy: Cain’s position on defense is interestingly, but unclear. First, he says we need to start paying attention to our own interests: “The United States has got to stop being Uncle Sucker. We put things on the line, we lose lives, and what do we get in return?” And he wants to be more careful about putting our soldiers in harm’s way.

Thus, on Afghanistan, he says he would ask the military if we can actually win: “I don’t know the answer to that. If the answer is no, then give me an exit strategy. . . . If they say we can win in Afghanistan, I want to hear what the strategy is going to be, and then as president, I’m going to make the decision whether I want to execute that strategy.” So he’s not blindly gung-ho. That’s good.

But then his position on Iran seems strangely bellicose: “We’re not going to talk Iran into not developing nuclear missiles, so we should stop wasting our breath. . . I would park those nuclear submarines over there, with detection capabilities on those ships, and I would do the same thing for Kim Jong Il, that other sick little potentate in North Korea. The only thing they understand is the threat of force and retaliation. I wouldn’t make the first move. I would just make sure our warriors are in place.”

7. Social issues: Cain is a religious conservative, but it’s not clear what this would translate into. Indeed, he seems to be taking the position that these issues would not be his priority. For example, when asked about gay marriage, he said:

I will not sign any legislation that is going to weaken traditional marriage, but I am not going to make getting a constitutional amendment on traditional marriage the centerpiece or the leading issue of my administration. We have a few issues relative to national security, the economy, spending, immigration and education that I think we ought to focus on first. . . leadership is saying very clearly what our priorities are and what we are going to focus our energies on. There are some things that should not distract us from our most pressing priorities.

Here are his views:

● Abortion: He believes life begins at conception and opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He also has accused Planned Parenthood of being “formed to systematically lower the black population. . . because they don’t want to deal with the problems of illiteracy and poverty.”

● Gays: He opposes gay marriage on the basis of his belief in the Bible, and opposes gay adoption: “How messed up are those kids going to be?”

● Separation of Church and State: His statements in this area sound clear, but are strangely ambiguous:

“The First Amendment says the government can’t establish a religion. It doesn’t say that people can’t have religion in government. If you elect people who share the founding spirituality of this country, you will be able to depend on them to make the right decisions.”

What this means in terms of policy, I do not know? At the same time, he says he will allow Muslims “to practice their religion all they want,” but will not let them “force their beliefs, their Sharia law, on the rest of us.” Again, what does this mean in terms of policy?

● Immigration: He supported Arizona’s action, and he says the idea of comprehensive immigration reform is a sham designed to do nothing. He says the US must (1) secure the border, (2) enforce the current laws, and (3) streamline the process for becoming a U.S. citizen. What the third part means is unclear.

● Affirmative Action: Cain says he opposes quotas, though he’s expressed the idea that in some instances it’s acceptable to consider race.

● Guns: He “believes strongly in the 2nd Amendment.”

Cain is one of those guys about whom all conservatives will find something to like. But they will also find something to dislike. And his appeal to non-conservatives is probably very limited. Would he make a good President? Absolutely. Can he win the job? Maybe.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama: Gutless Waffler?

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" -- Barack Obama

Last week, Democrats accused President Obama of lacking leadership. This week, The Economist questions his guts: Obama hasn’t “demonstrated much political courage.” Well knock me over with a syrup bottle! How bad do things need to get before the MSM accuses a Democrat of cowardice?

Check out this quote from the reliably liberal Economist:

Has [Obama], at any point in his presidency so far, demonstrated much political courage? It's quite hard to think of an unambiguous example. It's much easier to think of examples where he appears not to have had the courage of his convictions. . . . It is surprising after all this time how hard it is to point to any particular action or episode.

Wow! And then they list his waffles:

● His “erring on the side of caution as the drama unfolds” in Libya.

● “Guantanamo is still open, despite his promise to close it.”

● “He reinforced the troops in Afghanistan, but set a date to start withdrawing, a careful bit of bet-hedging.”

● “He pushed for peace in Palestine, but seems to have retreated at the first sign of gun smoke from Capitol Hill.”

● “He established a bipartisan commission on the deficit, but failed to run with its recommendations.”

● “He said he would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the rich, but backed down after the mid-term elections.”

● “His support for gay rights has been a study in caution, as has his position on gun control.”

They do point out that Obama “went to the wire” on ObamaCare, but they dismiss this because “it would have been even riskier for him to accept defeat than to press forward.” And let’s not forget that Obama’s party had overwhelming numbers in Congress, so he faced no actual opposition.

Clearly, if he were a superhero, he'd be "The Waffler." And The Economist isn’t the only liberal outfit expressing a loss of faith this week. Consider these examples:

Union Wafflery:

In 2007, Obama told a union audience, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, and I’ll walk on that picket line with you.”

Comfy shoes? Yeah, that’s not a strange thing for a dude to say, oh no.

Anyhoo.... so far Obama refuses to get involved in Wisconsin. He won’t even send Joey Biden or his labor secretary. Heck, he hasn’t even sent a single death threat, unlike the rest of his union thug friends. This isn’t sitting well with the thugs. Says Rose DeMoro, the executive director of a nurses union: Obama has been “largely a bystander” and they “feel a sense of betrayal from him and are not liking it much” (does that mean they like it a little? Hmm, confusing). Other union thug-leaders made similar complaints. Obama has responded by adding insult to idiocy, when his press monkey stated that the walking shoes promise wasn’t meant to be taken literally. . . just like when he said “I won’t raise your taxes”. . . not to be taken literal.

Guns and Waffles:

Before Obama became President, he called it a “scandal” that Bush let the federal assault weapons ban expire. With the Giffords shooting and the new tone of unbridled death threats that inspired on the left, gun-control nuts thought Obama would finally follow through with prior promises to ban “assault weapons” yada yada yada. Obama even wrote an editorial, which contained the strongest words on gun control in over a decade, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (Against Criminals). They had high expectations.

But now Obama refuses even to offer a timeline for taking any action, and he’s steering clear of the issue entirely. In fact, he won’t even confirm that he still supports various gun control proposals. Thus, the Brady Bunch has given him an “F” for his first two years.

Gay Waffles:

As Clinton was our first black President, Obama is our first gay president, at least he sounded that way on the campaign trail. But then he got elected and suddenly started defending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense Against Marriage Act and refusing to take a stand on gay marriage and refusing to extend most federal benefits to the partners of gay federal employees. Hollywood gays called him out on that this week.

Eco-Waffles:

And don’t forget Obama’s incredible backflips whenever it comes to the environment. He started cap and trade and quit when someone objected. He went to Copenhagen promising to save the world and came back with an agreement to agree to ignore the conference. Windfarms. . . yeah, but they spoil the view. No coal gave way to clean coal gave way to whatever coal. Etc. Then he was going to open off-shore drilling, and he did. . . except he won’t issue permits (Bill "Groper" Clinton criticized him for that this weekend).

I could go on all day, but that would be pointless, just like Obama. At least liberals are starting to get the point.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

At Least They're Not Blocking The Polls

Since there are no elections to interrupt and therefore no voters to intimidate, the New Black Panther Party has found another cause to promote. To wit: gang rape. Following in the tradition of Old Black Panther Party leader Eldridge Cleaver who called his serial raping of white women "an insurrectionary act," the New Black Panther Party has also expanded on the theme.

In the spirit of "one rapist is good, a whole gang is better," the Party has now called the arrest of eighteen black men and boys in Cleveland, Texas for the rape of an eleven year old girl "racism." They were a little premature, however, since another ten are yet to be arrested, bringing the total to twenty-eight or more. The activities of the Party are even more reprehensible than those of Al Sharpton in 1989 when he led a mob of "protesters" calling the white victim of a gang rape in Central Park "whore" and "drug addict."

You see, according to the Panthers, this eleven year old girl dressed provocatively, enticed eighteen to twenty-eight black men and boys into having sex with her, and deserved what she got. And besides, it's OK, since she's Hispanic. One local reporter who read the affidavit in support of the arrest warrants called the details too horrific to repeat. First she was gang-raped in one house in several different rooms, and then to let more rapists in on the fun, they dragged her to an abandoned trailer where the rest of the gang got their opportunity. Lest the "consensual sex" be lost to memory, several of the gang members filmed the brutal rape for posterity.

Enter Quanell X (slave name, Quanell Ralph Evans). The leader of the regional New Black Panther Party rushed to Cleveland to denounce the arrests, scream racism, and blame the victim. Said Mr. X: I did not come here this evening to jump on an eleven year old (an extremely unfortunate choice of words), but I want to know why she didn't report the attack to authorities herself." Anybody who knows anything about the mental state of an adult woman who has suffered a single rape knows the answer to that question. In fact, rapists often count on the victim not to report the rape.

Here's a small background on Mr. X. After a rival gang killed his brother in Houston, he decided to point the finger elsewhere. "I say to Jewish America: Get ready … knuckle up, put your boots on, because we're ready and the war is going down. The real deal is this: Black youth do not want a relationship with the Jewish community or the mainstream white community or the foot shuffling, head-bowing, knee bobbing black community. All you Jews can go straight to hell." That was too violent even for the Nation of Islam, which kicked him out about the same time it banished its other prophet, the dearly departed Khalid Abdul Muhammad.

He then joined another black radical paramilitary group called the MFOI (Mental Freedom Obtains Independence). I guess he was a little too mental for them. He was expelled from that group as well after publicly exhorting the black youth of Houston with: "If you feel that you just got to mug somebody because of your hurt and your pain, go to River Oaks and mug you some good white folks. If you’re angry that our brother is put to death, don’t burn down your own community, give these white folks hell from the womb to the tomb."

Back to the present. At a rally in support of the rapists, the crowd shouted that the girl had only herself to blame for the way she dressed, and that she must have lied about her age. Mr. X led the cheering and jeering mob. This wasn't an eighteen year old pretending to be twenty-one. It was an eleven year old girl, for God's sake. The New York Times briefly described the arrests and the charges, then proceeded to repeat the Panther accusations as if they had any validity whatsoever. The Houston Chronicle did likewise, including the full statement of the defense attorney for several of the rapists who said that the girl was seeking attention and wants to be a porn star. An eleven year old!

Mr. X cannot bring himself to exhibit even an ounce of fake sympathy for the victim. Instead, he talked about her "otherness." He told the press that "she lives in another community." Well, that justifies it. He then whipped up the crowd with the following: "You mean to tell me the only men that had sex with that girl (at least he didn't say 'woman') were black men, locked up in that jail?" Well, no, that's what the evidence is telling you and everybody else. And then raising the specter of a Black Holocaust, he went on to say: "We do not want someone with a malicious racist motive to rid your community of an entire generation of black men." Well again, no. Just the rapists.

Follow the logic of the Panther leader: An eleven year old girl with a vicious racist motive voluntarily submitted to her own rape and kidnapping by somewhere between eighteen and twenty-eight adults and teenagers in order to advance her carefully thought-out plan to have black men sent to prison. Right.

The local feminist groups initially condemned the rape and the perpetrators--until Mr. X showed up. Suddenly, they were struck dumb as they found out the perpetrators are black. Nothing like political-correctness and race-baiting to put leftists on shutdown. The same groups had no problem condemning the white police and civilians who raped and humiliated Tawana Brawley, even after it turned out the whole thing was a total fabrication blown up to epic proportions by the Rev. Al. They bought into the racist reverend's argument that "it wasn't true, but it could have been." White rapists of black girls are lurking everywhere, the danger is palpable, so what's wrong with a total lie if it stops the white rapists? But when it comes to clearly-provable allegations of a black gang rape of an eleven year old Hispanic child, well, that must be racism.

The rape was so violent that there is blood evidence everywhere. This little girl is never going to be the same either mentally or physically. Mr. X doesn't give a damn. In the face of horrific details of the rape, he can still claim that she provoked it, wanted it, and deserved it. Remind me what century this is. For that matter, remind me what country this is. I'm too horrified to believe that any of the excuses and manufactured defenses, including racism, will stand up in any court of law. But still, there's Eric Holder and his Department of Racial Justice waiting to appeal any of the convictions as a violation of the rapists' civil rights.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

First You Say You Do, And Then You Don't

Then you say you will, and then you won't. You're undecided now, so what are you gonna do? So asked the Ames Brothers, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald in song. None of them had met Waffler-in-Chief Barack Obama. Obama promised hope and change, and what we got was dopes with the mange. This is not only the weakest administration since Carter's, but it is also the least decisive.

Among the many barbarities of the Bush administration that the Obamassiah saw and promised to change was the horror of detaining enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. We should be coddling mass murderers at home, in our civilian social welfare courts, not holding them indefinitely outside the mainland United States, he said. One of his prime planks was that as soon as he finished the first three days of his administration stopping the polar ice caps from melting and giving everyone free medical care, he would close the Guantanamo facility forthwith.

Well, here we are, over three years later and Guantanamo remains open. First Obama's genius attorney general decided he would start bringing the terrorists into civilian courts in our major cities, starting with New York and mass murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. That didn't go over well with New Yorkers. So the next tack was to buy off a few legislators in Illinois and a couple of other states where the terrorists could be moved so they would at least have HBO while suffering their false imprisonment. That was not a notable success, either.

After releasing a few dozen detainees who had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude to have specifically murdered specific civilians and US military on specific battlefields in specific locations, Obama decided to "go with what we know." Guantanamo remains open, and we'll soon be seeing the released terrorists back there since the vast majority are re-offending. It's almost possible to give Mr. Harvard Law Review credit for recognizing reality and practical necessity. But I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and I suspect every single thing Waffles does. There's always a hidden agenda or blind ignorance built into everything he does--often both.

Using his stooge, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama announced that detention would continue as in the past, but (and this is a big one) "out of a sense of legal obligation (to whom?), the United States will adhere to the set of norms in Article 75 of Protocol I in international armed conflicts." Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? Well, don't bet the farm on it. This is another unilateral surrender of American sovereignty and rule of law, by executive fiat, to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

You see, Protocol I has been brought before the Senate (it's part of a treaty, after all) twice, and soundly rejected by both Republicans and Democrats. Presidents from Reagan through Bush II, including Bill Clinton, have rejected the concept of implementing Protocol I. Obama has used the cover of reinstating military tribunals at Guantanamo (a popular favorite) to hide his gutting of the process with executive concessions to the enemy.

What is Protocol I? I'm glad you asked. Article 75 of Protocol I is a 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions. Unlike its predecessors, this Protocol does not directly address humane treatment of prisoners of war, but rather goes off on flights of fancy and typical UN new age blather about "human dignity" and other vague and ambiguous philosophizing. Its feel-good wording forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Getting caught murdering civilians and shooting American service men and women while in civilian garb (a violation of the Geneva Conventions in itself) is pretty humiliating all right. Being jailed for it at Guantanamo is not exactly an ego boost either. That's going to make prosecution by military tribunal a form of humiliation for these gentle followers of the religion of peace, and could pull the ground right out from under the prosecutors. Which, I suspect, is exactly what Obama wants.

The language of the Protocol seems to echo fundamental American constitutional law as well, but don't be fooled there either. The Bush administration conducted military tribunals which allowed for testimony of witnesses under oath being taped or live-fed to the court at Guantanamo. The Protocol is much more like a civilian stricture favoring criminals in non-war trials. The wording is so vague and ambiguous as to allow for it to mean that "confrontation of witnesses" requires physical presence, thus unnecessarily taking military personnel and foreign civilian witnesses away from active battlefields to attend a trial thousands of miles away. The logistics of such a thing are a nightmare. And God forbid that we should attempt to try a terrorist who has been subjected to the ultra-humiliating ordeal of enhanced interrogation.

None of these restraints have ever been required by the Constitution, precedent or a decision of the United States Supreme Court in matters of trials of prisoners of war. Such restraints have been consistently rejected by the executive branch, and have never even come close to acceptance when presented to the United States Senate for treaty ratification. Since detention is by its very definition "humiliating," indefinite detention and/or trial by military tribunal must be doubly or triply humiliating.

The Waffler-in-Chief doesn't have the courage or the honesty to bring this matter before the Senate for ratification. Its defeat is a foregone conclusion. What's a poor boy from Chicago to do when confronted with such odds? Simple. Ignore the political and legal realities and do an end-run around the Constitution requiring Senate ratification of treaties and treaty amendments. Rather than face an overwhelmingly hostile Senate on the issue of national security, Obama has simply ordered that the authorities "voluntarily abide by it." Isn't that cute?

In the event that a terrorist detainee has been humiliated by the sight of an American soldier walking past his cell eating a ham sandwich, the ACLU, CAIR, and the heavenly hosts of "civil rights" lawyers will go into high gear. They will invoke Protocol I, and the Obama administration will order the convening authority to "voluntarily" comply and drop the prosecution.

When Protocol I was originally added to the Geneva Conventions, it was designed to protect native independence rebels from murderous oppression by colonial powers. It was not designed to protect international terrorists caught out of uniform on a field of battle carrying AK-47s and a few RPGs. But that's just a detail, isn't it? The Obama administration doesn't like details that interfere with its international social justice agenda. If implementation of the Protocol interferes with the conduct of a war, gets American military personnel and innocent civilians killed while releasing the murderers via very technical technicalities, well, that's just too damned bad.

The rules of war and their codification in the Geneva Conventions have always posited that those who do not honor the rules of warfare are not entitled to the protection of the Conventions. Protocol I interferes with that position, which is why all former Presidents and Senates have rejected it out-of-hand. But now that we have elected a President for whom the skies have opened and who has walked on water, everything is about to change. Good-bye common sense. Good-bye rules of war. Good-bye centuries of precedent. Good-bye American exceptionalism. Good-bye Constitutional restraints on executive power. Hello, Barack Hussein Obama.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The MSM Smears Michele Bachmann

Oh my God!! Do you know how stupid Michele Bachmann is? She actually thought the revolutionary war started in Concord, New Hampshire, when it really started in Concord, Massachusetts. Like, wow! This is not someone who should be elected to anything. What’s next? Is she going to think there are 57 states? No, only a retard would think that. . .

In case you missed the three dozen stories this weekend and the headlines at every media outlet, Michele Bachmann made a mistake in her speech in New Hampshire. She wrongly attributed “the shot heard around the world” to Concord, New Hampshire. It actually happened 50 miles away in Massachusetts. Thus, the AP headlines screamed “Bachman flubs Revolutionary War Geography!”

Of course, all politicians misspeak. So what’s the big deal? It’s the ones with a pattern of being wrong who should concern us. Politicians like Biden, whose stupidity would require a teraybyte of memory to detail. Or Obama whose knowledge of US history and geography is worse than that of your average high school student. . . from Kenya. Or Pelosi, whose stupidity is so bizarre as to border on insanity rather than simple ignorance. So why pick on Bachmann for a single flub?

You know the answer to that. They’re picking on Bachmann because she’s a conservative and she’s a threat to them. If she had been a Democrat, they would have ignored her flub and savaged her critics for raising it. But she’s not a Democrat, thus the MSM smears her. . . just as they’ve done with every other Republican. Outfits like Politico are even trying to turn this into a big deal by claiming this is part of a pattern; note their headline: “For Michele Bachmann, a pattern of getting facts wrong.” Pattern? Really? Actually, it's only three facts and they aren't really "fact" facts.

For example, she said “the very founders that wrote [the Constitution and Declaration of Independence] worked tirelessly until slavery was no more.” What's the problem you ask? Well, according to Politico, while many of them (like the ones she names) did in fact become ardent anti-slavery leaders, not all of them did, and they ALL died before slavery was abolished. Hence, they did not work tirelessly "until slavery was no more" as Bachmann says. Clearly, she is a fool, right? Well, no. This is a smear. Bachmann never said what Politico claims: she never said they ended slavery, she said they worked to end it, and she never said "all the founders." Politico has intentionally misinterpreted what she said so they could attack her. That's bogus "journalism." And let me point out, using their logic, FDR wasn’t opposed to Nazi Germany, because he died before the Nazis were defeated. Hmmm, who knew FDR was a Nazi sympathizer?

She also said she wanted to hear from Gen. Petraeus before we take action in Libya. BUT, Libya isn’t under his chain of command. O-M-G!! What was she thinking?! How can someone on the House Intelligence Committee not know that Libya isn’t part of Petraeus’s command, smugged Politico. Of course, this too is a smear. She never said he was in charge of Libya, she said she wanted to hear from him on the issue. Why hear from Petraeus? Perhaps because he's the most trusted American military man since Ike.

Again, Politico has taken Bachmann’s words, given them an unreasonable interpretation, and then analyzed and spun that interpretation until they could declare her wrong. This is the equivalent of my reinterpreting your statement that you like your mom, as meaning that you don’t like your dad, because you didn’t mention him. And since you don’t like your dad, you must dislike all dads. And since Santa must be a dad (Santa did not immediately return our request for comment), you must have lied when you said you like Santa. Apparently, that passes for "journalism" in the MSM these days.

But then. . . she did get the Concord thing wrong.

This is all they offered to "prove" that she has a problem with "facts." So, do you see the pattern? There actually is one here. It's the way the MSM jumps on every issue (real or imagined) they can possibly use to smear conservatives as stupid. Yet, somehow, they give a total pass to every single instance of Democratic stupidity, like. . .

● Obama saying there are 57 states
● Obama seeing the nation’s “fallen heroes. . . in the audience here today”
● Obama’s plan to bring “greater. . . inefficiencies to our health care system”
● Obama’s claim that “Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s”
● Obama not knowing that Austrians speak German
● Obama’s claim about the deaths of 12 people in Kansas: “in case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas, 10,000 people died”
● Biden’s famous three letter word J-O-B-S
● any Bidenism
● Pelosi’s claim that “500 million Americans lose their jobs every month in this country,” a country of 300 million people
● Pelosi’s “we have to pass the health care bill . . . so we can see what’s in it”
● Pelosi’s claim that unemployment benefits “create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name”
● Pelosi’s “this bill can be bipartisan, even though the votes might not be bipartisan”
● Pelosi making up Bible quotes
● Pelosi’s scientific claim: “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels”. . . (for any liberals in the audience, natural gas is a fossil fuel)
● Pelosi calling “family planning services” economic stimulus because “they reduce cost.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg ignored by the MSM. Where there are Democrats, there is rampant stupidity and an MSM journalist ready to ignore it or excuse it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A List - Fact v. Distortions

For many years I have noticed that the Liberals are very adept at muddling and blending seemingly separate issues into one overreaching argument (for or against) that if they keep repeating often enough, it will somehow become the whole "truth".

Case in point - During the early 1990's, a debate was raging about National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and who should and shouldn't receive grants and whether we needed an NEA at all. The debate centered around a $15,000 grant awarded to controversial artist Andres Serrano. With that grant, he produced the now infamous "Pissed Christ". Serrano was also known for using other bodily fluids on the American Flag, but that's a whole other issue. Certain more conservative Members of Congress like Henry Hyde took umbrage that the federal government was funding someone pissing in a jar, sticking a crucifix in that jar, and calling it "art" worth $15,000 of tax-payer money. So what ensued was the universal and unanswerable question of "What is Art" and more importantly, what "art" should the government be funding.

At the same time the NEA funding debate was making the rounds in the artistic community, an exhibit of the late Robert Mapplethorpe's controversial photographs was making the rounds too. As you may or may not remember, in 1990, the director of the Cincinnati Arts Center was arrested, and subsequently acquitted, on obscenity charges for defying a city ordinance that banned the public display of "art" that the city deemed "pornographic" and, more specifically six of the Mapplethorpe photos. Moreover, the city banned any public display of these six photographs anywhere in the city included privately funded art galleries. This was a clear case of censorship and the City of Cincinnati denying an artist the right to have his work publicly displayed.

Okay, I know, you thinking, get to the point!

Well, here is where the issues gets a little murky. Somewhere along the line, the two issues got muddled and blended as it wound its way through the various liberal arts community. So, instead of being able to see a very bright line that separated the NEA/Serrano funding issue and the obvious Mapplethorpe censorship issue, the argument became blended together and distorted into one overreaching and wildly inaccurate argument that the Government was now CENSORING artists and BANNING certain kinds of art by DENYING NEA FUNDING to all those who deem themselves artists.

As hard as I tried to convince my friends otherwise, the fix was in. From that point on, if any artist was denied a grant from any city, state, or federal government body, then it was understood that the State was actively censoring that artist by denying that artist the Constitutional right to "freedom of expression" and attacking our most basic freedoms as American Citizens! Yipes! We must stop Henry Hyde and his ilk at all costs. Quick, everyone strip naked for the sake of artists everywhere! Apparently, stripping naked is the Art World's cure for all of ills and injustices in the world.

If this distortion tactic sounds vaguely familiar, you don't have to look very far to see other issues where this blending and distorting is being played out. Just off the top of my head, there are three blindingly obvious ones right now - our "Immigration v. Illegal Immigration" debate, the "Illegal Immigration Laws as Racism" debate, and the "Public Employee Union v. Private Industry Union" debate. This is not a simple Conservative/Liberal disagreement on the issues. This is a conscious effort to muddle the issues to the point of distorting the facts.

So, my learned Commentarama-ians, let put our collective* heads together and make a list:

Can you find any other areas where the Left or Right** are trying to "blend" two separate issues into one giant distortion?


*as long as we aren't bargaining, I guess we can do this collectively!
**Let's be fair. Conservatives do it too.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bullet Train Turns Out To Be Shooting Blanks

Is California coming to its senses? Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it does appear it is having flashes of sanity. One of the federal government's pet projects, supported by the Democratic legislature in California, is a high-speed train running from San Francisco to Los Angeles. OK, no cracks about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

In 2008, the voters of California were still on their "unlimited resources, unlimited spending, unlimited taxes, green weenie" trajectory. They approved a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure to create and fund a High-Speed Rail Authority. Meanwhile the Democrats in Washington DC are pushing their initiatives to throw good money after bad on green highway schemes, plug-in cars, and high-speed transit to get people out of their cars and into the cattle cars. California legislators are so adept at spending other people's money, that when a number of states recently rejected federal highway funds, the solons stood outside the hallowed halls of Congress and the White House and begged that those rejected funds be funneled to California for their lithesome Lionel.

A combination of the realization that the rail project is already exceeding the original estimates by more than double (for a reduced project), the market and housing crash, and the unseemliness of begging Washington for mo' money, mo' money has resulted in a backlash against Euro-style transit schemes. The voters are coming back to consciousness and are saying that they don't care if France, China, Germany or Timbuktu have high-speed rail--we're going to cling to our guns, our Bibles, and our automobiles. The home of the freeway is no longer willing to be the home of the giveaway.

In response to a public outcry (with words like "we can't afford this goddam thing, and we don't want it anyway"), Republican Assemblywoman Diane Harkey horrified the green weenies and feeders-at-the-public-trough Democrats by giving a major speech regarding the bullet train. "We're de facto bankrupt. We're trying to issue bonds for public works in the billion-dollar range and having problems getting any takers, and our rates are sky-high for municipal debt. Is issuing more debt (including taking matching funds from the feds) for high-speed rail a priority when competing for scarce resources for education, water, and local transportation?" Harkey is no amateur politician making a political point. She spent thirty years as a successful executive in corporate financing and banking before being elected to the Assembly.

Stanford Business School, the Rail Authority, and Silicon Valley members of a study group all reached the same conclusion: the plan as originally laid out would now cost $66 billion, or about $52 billion if drastically cut back to a point where only Los Angeles and San Francisco would have train stations. A nearly-identical result was attained by an independent group called Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD).

Silicon Valley executive William H. Warren adds ridership to the stew. "The real problem is, how will the legislature know they have a ridership estimate they can believe in--there is no track record of such estimates being correct. The idea of doing a small project and seeing if they can validate a smaller forecast before moving on to the full project is not an idea they (the Democrats and bullet-train enthusiasts) seem to be able to understand." Warren is being charitable. Cal-Train and Amtrak have regularly overestimated ridership and income by factors of three to four times. Investors back off when it becomes apparent that every single ride is sooner or later going to have to be subsidized by government money since the projects will never even come close to showing a profit.

To add to the Authority's woes, many former supporters are now opponents of the whole damn mess. Environmental Impact Reports were jury-rigged to show that the impact of such a high-speed system would be minimal. In fact, they will require huge disruptions to the roadway environment, along with considerable movement of residences, residents, and businesses to accommodate a system that is quite a bit more damaging than a traditional rail system. Even relatively low-speed trains such as those on the Cal-Train routes have an abysmal safety record resulting in a death or injury on their right-of-way two or three times a month. Now imagine that train barreling at you at 200 mph.

With major Bay Area and suburban Los Angeles communities objecting to nearly every facet of the project now, the Authority has switched its emphasis to the financially hard-hit Central Valley (hard-hit because of other government green weenie schemes) for early development. Important San Francisco peninsula cities such as Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto (where Stanford University is located) have sued the authority on environmental grounds. Figuring that they've already ruined the environment in the Central Valley with their "fish, not agriculture" programs, they might as well get started on major portions of the roadway between Bakersfield and Fresno so that when the ship hits the sand, they can say that "all that work and job-creation would be wasted if we stop now." One critic calls that "the rail to nowhere ploy."

Madera County Supervisor David Rogers was very blunt in his criticism at the Assembly hearing. "I regret to tell you that despite all our hard work and good will, the High-Speed Rail Authority has disregarded all our offers and ideas, given us lip service to placate our reasonable demands, and blatantly and arrogantly ignored us (Note: Madera County is one of the Central Valley areas that the Authority wants to start building in)." To an Assembly that included several Democrats nodding in agreement, he went on to say: "The Authority is a master manipulator pitting Central Valley city against city, county against county, farmer against farmer, by dangling promises of maintenance jobs and temporary construction jobs in front of our impoverished region."

It remains to be seen how this power-grab and forced compliance will ultimately shake out. There is considerable opposition to the project, but it tends to be less organized and more fragmented than the spendthrift green weenie public transportation crowd. Maybe what is really needed is not a bullet, but a wooden stake and a gravedigger's shovel.

Note to our readers: Today is my next-to-youngest granddaughter's birthday party, and she wanted to have it at a family Pizza place. Hmph. But that means we'll be trekking down to the bright lights of Bakersfield, and won't be back 'til afternoon Pacific Time. Please feel free to comment, and I promise I'll respond as soon as I get home.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...