History in Three Hard Lesson -Unlearnt

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” - Edmund Burke


The Young British Soldier By Rudyard Kipling

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

Who will be the poet of the current Afghan war? God save our (and the British and the other remaining Armies) Soldiers who continue to fight there.

The attempt to bring some degree of order in the Modern sense to Afghanistan has been abandoned by the Administration and by opinion makers on both the left and the right. And yet, we maintain a Military presence there that is scheduled to continue until at least 2014. What is the strategic objective? What are the operational goals for the next couple of years? Troops remain to support the fiction of a successful transition to Afghan control.

But, according to an article in the NY Post by Paul Sperry of the Hoover Institution  the people who are closest to the truth know that there is no truth in that:

"A 2011 Army survey found that “on average, US soldiers perceived that 50% of (the) ANA (Afghan National Army) were Islamic radicals” vulnerable to Taliban recruitment. The results were reported in an unclassified study titled, “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility.” It quotes one American soldier as saying, “A reporter attached to my platoon said that during a conversation with ANA soliders, they said that if the Taliban began to win the war, they would switch sides and join the Taliban.” "


They know the truth: The last four years and the next two have only one purpose: to avoid the obvious: Obama surrendered; and any progress that had been made will be lost within months of our eventual departure.

The Afghans know the truth too:

'“The fate of the Americans in Afghanistan will be worse than that of the Russians,” Mohammed Ismail Khan warned in 2009. The same Afghan is now vowing to drive all “foreigners” out of Afghanistan.


"More bluster from a Taliban leader? Hardly. Khan serves as Afghanistan’s energy minister, and is a key member of American ally Hamid Karzai’s cabinet."

This is Groundhog Day for the Afghan war lords.

"Khan has lethal experience launching such attacks. In March 1979, Khan, then a captain in the Afghan army, orchestrated the murder of 50 Soviet military advisers and 300 of their family members in Herat Province. He decapitated many of them and had their heads paraded on spikes through the city. "

So, the Afghan government's cabinet knows what is about to happen, and aren't even hiding their anticipation. What about the rational, Modern leaders of the Free World?

"The US military seems to be in denial about the breadth and scope of theinternal threats it faces in Afghanistan. While on the one hand it warns that the “major problem confronting the Soviets was the unreliability of the Afghan army,” it nonetheless appears Polyannish about its own prospects for partnering with the Afghan army. “U.S. forces can gain keen insights and lessons from the Soviet 10-year occupation of Afghanistan,” the Army handbook asserts. The same document goes on to claim that “in contrast” to the Soviet experience, “the United States and CF (coalition forces) have achieved great success in training and partnering with our ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) counterparts.”"

If it doesn't get printed in a newspaper, it isn't news, right?

Apparently the Washington Post thinks so. The threat to religious freedom isn't news, because, according to the WaPo, there is no threat.

I stumbled across this story, celebrating the election of a Hindu woman and a Buddist woman to Congress. Wonderful. Of course, they are both Democrats, which makes it more wonderful still for the WaPo writers. What the article chiefly celebrates is the decline of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants in government and in America at large. With no real reason why this is worth celebrating except diversity is inherently good.

The author, Charles C. Haynes claims, "in 2012, religious minorities became newly visible and vocal in a society historically dominated by the symbols, values and leaders of the Protestant faith," but fails to mention the protests of the most visible, most vocal religious minority: the Catholic and Christian protests against erosion of religous liberty under ObamaCare and other HHS mandates. Must not be news when bishops, cardinals, universities, orders of religious, hospitals and even the Pope publicly oppose the policies of the current administration.

Nope. "The growing visibility and strength of America’s religious diversity is good news for religious freedom. The First Amendment affords legal protections, but it cannot fully prevent people in the majority from imposing social discrimination and political exclusion on those in the minority." The big news is that a couple of Democrats who are not Episcopalian or Baptist were elected to Congress.

Haynes goes on, "as domination of one faith recedes, freedom for all faiths and beliefs expands – moving us ever-closer to fulfilling the promise of religious liberty under the First Amendment."

Tell that to  the Green family, who own and operate the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores. They are Christian. They run their business according to their Christian principles, which include both providing for their employees and not paying for the intentional destruction of pre-born persons. The HHS Mandate under ObamaCare will force them to violate those principles or face up to 1.3 millions dollars per day in fines; which will no doubt destroy their business and put out of work the employees in more than 500 stores in 41 states.

That seems like a slightly bigger story than a couple of non-Christian Democrats being elected to Congress.

But not to the wisdom of the WaPo editorialists.

A search of the WaPo website on "Hobby Lobby" returned only five AP reports on the topic. Nothing by Post writers. Nothing beyond brief wire reports. It isn't news to the WaPo and its readers because it does not fit into their neat little view of how the world should be. It violates their reality therefore it doesn't exist.

The Deadly Fantasy of Sports Cars

With no apologies to the New York Times

Someone killed 1 person and critically injured 2 more in Conemaugh, PA using a high-performance, racing-style Corvette made by Chevrolet. Ramon Echevarria used the same type of Chevrolet car to crash into an office building in Arlington Heights, IL. The Rancho Cucamonga hit and run driver also used a Corvette in a spree that killed a bicyclist in July.

Corvettes are by no means the only sports cars of choice among mass killers (the Naperville driver used a Porche), but the brand’s repeated presence in murderous incidents reflects Corvette's enormous popularity in the sports car world, the result of a successful marketing campaign aimed at putting NASCAR horsepower and machismo in the hands of civilians. Car owners once talked about the need for personal transportation and sport driving, but out-of-control ad campaigns like Corvette's have replaced minivans and MGs with highly lethal high performance fantasies.

Motor Trend reveals that, "[the ZR1] is so powerful, so capable, so massively endowed that [it's] beyond the realm of what constitutes a usable, reasonable street car."

The cars, some of which come in red and racing yellow, bristle with features useful only to a Gran Prix driver or NHRA competitor. A six-speed manual transmission featuring launch control makes it possible to shoot the quarter-mile in 11.4 seconds. Weapons-grade supercharged V-8, lets drivers exceed 200 MPH easily. Brembo^® Carbon Ceramic Brake rotors allow precise control without fear of warping from brake pads that grow hot after multiple braking maneouvers are applied. But now anyone can own these cars, and thousands are in civilian hands.


“This supercar can hang with the best the world has to offer. It’s a thrill to drive and offers the performance of far more expensive cars. ,” Car and Driver said, speaking of the Corvette ZR1. “Explosive power and massive grip. This Vette has the performance to battle any supercar.”


The company’s webpage and ads show a Corvette speeding along winding roads at break-neck speeds, engine revving. “Corvette can be found in some of the most legendary races around the world ranging from American Le Mans Series based in the United States and Canada, to the Sebring International Raceway and the 24 Heures du Mans in France,” says the advertising copy, over the through-the-windshild view of a Corvette negotiating the ring at Nurburg. “ZR1 is the fastest, most powerful car Chevrolet has ever produced, and rivals the world’s best luxury sports vehicles both on and off the track,” said the Corvette webpage, peddling a high-performance sports car billed as “the only truly American sports car in the competitive class.” (Available to anyone for $125,920.)


In case that message was too subtle, the company appealed directly to the male egos of its most likely customers. “Driving is collaboration between man and vehicle, and now with more extensive performance options available, you can construct the perfect ZR1 to complement your driving style,” said one Corvette campaign (left on the Web after the Conemaugh collision), next to a photo of a Corvette. “there is no better example than the C6.R race car and its streetcar counterpart, the ZR1.”

The effect of these marketing campaigns on fragile minds is all too obvious, allowing deadly power in the wrong hands. But given their financial success, sports car makers have apparently decided that the risk of an occasional massacre is part of the cost of doing business.

(BTW, in the original editorial, one of the unacceptable aspects of the Bushmaster rifle was, "Barrel shrouds allow precise control without fear of burns from a muzzle that grows hot after multiple rounds are fired." I've never seen a rifle that required the firer to hold the naked barrel in his bare hand. I've also never seen a firer put his hands in proximity of the muzzle while firing, either. I suspect the editor responsible for this mess has never seen an actual rifle at all.)

Bill O'Reilly blows his own horn and Taps for the Republic

Bill O'Reilly blows his own horn on Townhall in his article, Semper Fi, Unless It's Not Convenient, which describes the case of Marine Vetran Jon Hammar, who was unjustly held in a Mexican prison.

According to Mr. O'Reilly, his threat of leading a tourism boycott of Mexico directly resulted in Mr. Hammar's release.

Perhaps it did. If he influenced the decision to release the Iraq war Veteran, Mr. O'Reilly deserves to blow his horn. He did an honorable thing.

And in so doing he illustrated the lack of honor and lack of influence of our State Department and the sorry lack of responsibility of our President.

O'Reilly says, "When we asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a comment, she refused to say anything about the case. A few of her deputies visited Hammar in prison, but the official line was that State could do nothing more."

Not since Jimmy Carter has the U.S. Government been so completely impotent.

He adds, "In mid-December, the Fox News White House correspondent asked press secretary Jay Carney about the case. President Barack Obama's spokesman looked perplexed and said he did not know anything about it. As unbelievable as that sounds, I believe that Carney was telling the truth."

I cannot recall a time when a U.S. Citizen, in particular a Veteran, was unjustly held in a foreign prison on fallacious charges and the president didn't even care to know about it.

Why I'm not a Capitalist 1

Because Capitalists place Capital ahead of all else in their moral calculations.

Strassel: Big Business Sells Out Small Business

This is no surprise. Whether you call it "Crony-Capitalism," "Statism," or "Fascism" the convergence of big government and big business places all else at the service of capital accumulation.

Don't presume I'm taking a Marxist line, I'm not. I am entirely in favor of free markets. I merely recognize that when Fortune 500 corporations use their political clout and access to collude with the central government to shape policy favorable to their interests, that is not a free market in operation.

The is what a non-sequiter looks like:

"If Catholic clergy feel it is appropriate to preach against federal health legislation that the church believes allows birth control and abortion, then it should also have the courage to preach against 300 million guns that Americans, including many Catholics, currently own."

Legislation is an act of the human will. Therefore, it has a moral character. Guns are inanimate objects. Generally, things have no inhernet moral character.

To over-simplify a bit, it is as if the author said that if the Catholc clergy feel it is appropriate to preach against murder and adultery, then it should also have the courage to preach against hammers.

Then a bit of sophistry: "the church believes allows birth control and abortion"... Actually, it mandates it. Its a feature, not a percieved flaw, according to the Catholic empowered with implementing it. And the Church, if not the National Catholic Fishwrap, recognize the inherently evil nature of abortion and birth control.

So, the author and his publication question the validity of Catholic clergy preaching against human actions that are inherently sinful and the human action that mandates their public support while demanding that the clergy preach against an inanimate object.

Insofar as they are machines built by men, the purpose for which they were built has a moral character. If they have no other purpose, that character, good or evil, may inure to them, I suppose. But even IBCMs are not that easy to classify. Ronald Reagan deployed Pershing missiles to Europe with the intent of forcing the USSR to remove intermediate range nuclear missiles from Eastern Europe, ending the missile race and the Soviet empire with it. He succeeded. Were those immoral ends? Were the means inherently immoral?

The Well and the Shallows II

On my last birthda, my lovely bride gave me the collection of G.K. Chesterton essays published under the title, "The Well and the Shallows." It was published in 1935.

I pulled it from the shelf this morning to provide something to occupy my mind while my mouth and stomach were occupied with a delicious sausage and cheese omlette.

Hiis critique of the Socialists of his era in England rings just as true today, confironted as we still are with all manner of Socialists, Communists, Prohibitionists, and other sentimental tyrants:

"the respectable sort of Socialist who will not call himself a Communist. The study of 'parasitic' Parliamentary Labour is masterly, and my own sympathies would be all with a man like Mr. Maxton as compared with a man like Mr. Thomas. But the sequel is still puzzling; for in the last short note there is no practical programme except a Minimum Wage for all, which is said to obviate the need of expropriation of land and property. I suppose this means that employers would be taxed till they were too poor to employ; and then the State would employ. But what State--and, my God, what statesmen! Why, presumably (if nothing is needed but a new wage raised by a new tax) just the jolly statesmen the world produces at present, the parasitic Parliamentarians turned into omnipotent bureaucrats. I should refuse it, of course; first, because it preserves the wage-system; second because the worst wage-system is one with only one employer, who may be an omnipresent enemy; and third because, in the purely practical statement, there is no provision for any change in the type of tyrant."

Indeed: "Tax employers till they are too poor to employ." Lst the state be the sole employer/provider. Sound familiar?

But, "what State -- and my God, what statesmen!"

What statesmen indeed?

Our country is about evenly divided.. Nearly exactly 1/2 of the country believes the previous president was a war criminal who favored plutocrats and brought the country to economic ruin and that everyone with conservative political beliefs is evil, callous, stupid, crazy etc. (truth be told, there is a measurable percentage of those evik, callous, stupid, crazy conservatives who also think the previous president wrecklessly got the country involved in a foolish war, favored certain plutocrats and participated in the economic ruin of the country).

The other half of the country is convinced on the evidence that the current president is unintelligent, uncurious and meant it when he said he wanted to 'fundamentally transform' our nation. They are certain that he does not hold traditional American values. They concieve that he does not respect or feel bound by the Constitution and that he intends to continue to transform the country into a Socialist one in which everyone is subservient and beholden to the central government. He believes that experts in Washington know better than free people in their communities and that planners can make everyones' life better through their benevolent wisdom, if they are given enough power.

Meanwhile, no more than 20% of the country approves of the work being done by Congress.

So, if everyone has despised at least one of the last 2 presidents, no one trusts Congress and federal bureaucrats rate lower than used car salesmen on the scale of positive regard, WHY DO WE LET THEM SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY AND DICTATE EVERY MINUTIA OF OUR LIVES?

I'd really like to know. We see the ill done by parasitic parliamentarians turned to omnipotent bureaucrats who are fast becoming an omnipresent enemy.

Chesterton's critique of Socialist schemes rings truer today than it did 77 years ago.

We're All Socialists Now

I don't know what else I can call it but Socialism.

Paul Kengor writes in the American Spectator, "The numbers show a massive increase in government jobs created over the last five months -- 621,000, to be exact, dwarfing private-sector job growth. Those new government jobs account for a staggering 73% of overall job growth. In all, it means that 20.6 million citizens now work for government, out of 143 million people employed in America -- or one in seven Americans."

Meanwhile, at the Daily Caller, Caroline May reports, "The most recent data on SNAP participation were released Friday, and showed that 47,710,324 people were enrolled in the program in September, an increase of 607,559 from the 47,102,765 enrolled in August.

"The new numbers mean that an estimated one in 6.5 people in America were on food stamps in September."

20.6M Americans work for the government, 47.7M are on food stamps; 68.3M people.

It seems that when Democrats say, "grow the economy," what they mean is growing the size of government and the number of people dependent upon it.

Manifestoes are for losers

Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto

Ted Kaczynski - The Unabomber's Manifesto

Paul Krugman - The Twinkie Manifesto

Some thoughts on the limits of limitlessness

First thought: Tim Geithner is an idiot. This is merely further proof: "Treasury Secretary Geithner: Lift Debt Limit to Infinity"

If Congress simply stopped limiting the amount the U.S. could legally borrow, in the current regime of spending without budgeting, there would be no legal limit on what Congress and the Administration could spend money on. They'd just borrow and spend with no checks or balances, or even authorizations.

The only real limit would be the market's willingness to buy U.S. debt. But that is a real and catastrophic limit. The recognition of that limit is what led Congress to try the debt ceiling gimmick to impose a modicum of self-discipline.

The fact that Congress can neither stop spending money nor refuse to raise the limit makes the whole thing a political charade. The limit doesn't really exist because everyone knows it will be raised when necessary and that spending will not abate.

So, we wait until not even the Chinese will buy our debt, then we become Greece to the 10th power.

Tim Geithner is an idiot, but he isn't the only one.

The list gets longer every day

The list of impeachable or incarceratable offenses by the members of the ruling regime grows day-by-day.

Today's culprit,  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:

Congress demands EPA’s secret email accounts

Jackson is accused of using an alias email account to evade open record laws and to avoid disclosure of the unethical, insidious and potentially illegal actions in which she and her agency are engaged. Judging from the Washington Times article, and an earlier one in the Washington Post, it was nearly official policy to use personal email accounts, like gmail, to hide information from congressional oversight potential legal fights.

I didn't see any articles that indicates Sliver suffered any legal ramifications. He merely lost his job for allegedly advising subordinates to evade open government laws and potential congressional attention by using unsecure personal email accounts.

Meanwhile the layers continue to be pealed back on the rotten onion that is Benghazi.

Meanwhile clear instances of voter fraud in Ohio and Philadelphia and perhaps Florida and elsewhere will never be investigated by the most politicized Justice Department in the history of the Nation.

Meanwhile, the (mal)administration refuses to perform its constitutional duty to defend DOMA

While it refuses to enforce immigration laws, thereby effectively enacting a law never passed by Congress

Meanwhile, Operation Fast and Furious questions remain unanswered regarding when the Attorney General and the White House knew guns were being shipped to Mexican drug cartels by the hundreds if not thousands, and why they didn't do anything to stop it before Border Patrol agents and hundereds of Mexican citizen were killed with those same guns.

And the list could go on, if I had more time.

My BS Meter is off the Scales

Washington Times Headline:  "White House says it didn’t edit Benghazi talking points"

"On Friday, Mr. Petraeus told a congressional committee investigating the Libya attack that the CIA’s references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points."
David Petraeus had to be feeling heat following the Benghazi debacle. CIA contractors killed in an al Qaeda attack is bad enough. The possibility that the unseemly things they were doing would become public is worse. We now know that he was under investigation for something unseemly in his personal life at the time as well. We don't know, yet, if the FBI investigation was used by someone to coerce him to shade his statements to shift attention away from administration malfeasance in Libya.

But by the time he testified last week, it seems his boils had all been popped. His affair was made public, he lost his job, he suffered personal dishonor, and the investigation turned to whether classified information may have been compromised in the course of his affair. About the only thing that could make things worse for him would be to be found in contempt of Congress.

So, he had no reason to lie on Friday.

But that's what the White House expects us to believe.

White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes "told reporters the only change made by the White House to the CIA’s initial reports was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”

“Other than that, we worked off of the [talking] points that were provided by the intelligence community,” Mr. Rhodes told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One with President Obama on a trip to southeast Asia. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made within the intelligence community. If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves within the intelligence community.”

When a propagandist for the regime uses the same phrase FOUR TIMES IN THREE SENTENCES, you can be sure his purpose is to plant an idea in your head, not to convey truthful facts.

The Adventures of Harry Reid Across the 8th Dimension

Alexander Bolton reports in The Hill: "Senate Democrats, feeling confident from their net gain of two seats in last week’s election, say any deficit-reduction package negotiated in the coming weeks must include stimulus measures."

In what alternate reality does borrowing and spending MORE money reduce deficits?

as an aside, Harry Reid does look like a Red Lectroid, doesn't he?

If the GOP thows me under the bus, I won't be on their bus

Eric Ericson at RedState warns the GOP establishment against doing what it will very likely do: throw Social Conservatives under the bus.

And why it is a very stupid thing to do.

"What’s really going on here is that the people who voted Republican, but who disagree with pro-lifers and defenders of marriage, have decided it must be those issues. They can’t see how what happened actually happened unless it happened because the issues on which they disagree with the base played a role."

Yeah. That does make sense. While there are vestiges of the old Republican party still bouncing around in the Establishment, to a very large degree, Neo-Cons have become the GOP Establishment. Neo-Cons, as you may recall, were originally Liberals who disagreed with their fellow Leftists on anti-Communism. They were (are) Liberal on everything but national defense, Capitalism and Israel. And what were Mitt Romney's main talking points? Taxes, Israel, and saving the Defense budget. While the GOP platform is strongly Pro-Life and pro family, the candidates selected by the party tend to soft-pedal and trim on social issues.

"The problem is not social conservatism. The problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine."

This explains something that's bothered me for a few days.
The majority of Americans favor restrictions on abortion and oppose government funding of abortion;
Yet, they elected the most pro-abortion president in the history of the world

The majority of Americans oppose redefinition of marriage;
Yet they elected the president who will most likely force it on the republic.

The majority of Americans do belong to a church;
Yet they elected the first president to intentionally, blatantly and unappologetically shred the concept of Free Exercise of Religion.

Because Mitt Romney let himself be defined as the man who wanted to cut taxes for the rich and was afraid or unwilling to defend Life, Marriage and Religion in the public square.

If the GOP Neo-Con establishment does in fact abandon the social issues, it'll lose me. I'm not willing to support a party that really is the defender of plutocrats and Randians. And I have no desire to be a member of the permanent minority.

It isn't necessary, though. This election offered one of the starkest examples of the two concepts of government at issue in this country. Obama explicitly embodies the idea that government is the core of society. Romney and Ryan made a fair representation of the idea that government is merely a framework which allows society to function fairly and efficiently.

I'm willing to fight for that principle of limited government. That principle is sound enough to encompass both Social and Fiscal conservatism. It can be expressed in words the electorate understands and accepts. But if the Establishment GOP is unwilling to do that, and merely continues to argue for lower taxes and less regulations because - well because; while conceding on issues of culture that are vital to the continued health of our society, then I am leaving.

Can the Republican Establishment fight for these principles? I can.


Seven Principles Of The Constitution Party:


■Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

■Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

■Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

■Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

■Constitution And Bill Of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;

■State's Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.

■American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Demographics and "Comprehensive...reform"

I'm slowly weaning myself back into following political news. There was no way I could have stomached the gloating of the MSM and their clown clones like Bill Maher.

Now the trial balloons and foreshadowings are beginning to emanate out of Mordor on the Potomac. Meanwhile, wobbly Weepublicans (David Frum eg) are doing their best to throw Conservatism under the bus.

One of the most popular themes is that Conservative principles are doomed by demographics. Well, yes. When the Leftist policy is to promise targeted goodies to those who are stupid enough to vote for free stuff, the side that doesn't promise goodies to specific voting blocs may not fare well. The David Frums of the world forget that the side that promises a conservative amount of goodies doesn't fare any better.

The demographics predicted to destroy the Conservative movement as a political force in this country will also destroy that which the movement wishes to conserve (cf. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, U.S.).

But the tactical advantages of appealing to narrow interests is apparent. And of course, if you agree with Barrack Obama that "words mean things," then you can use words and phrases in vague ways to lead potential voters to believe things that may or may not be true. "Comprehensive...reform" is tailor-made for the Masters of Sophistry.

Leftist, Conservatives and even people who get their news from Jon Stewart can agree that this country is in dire need of reform: the health care industry, the tax code, regulation, the financial industry, the education establishment and on and on.

But when a Leftist says "comprehensive...reform," s/he means a comprehensive list of favors to client interest groups. When a conservative says it, he means addressing as many of the facets of the problem as possible.

In regard to immigration, when a Leftist, President Obama for instance, says he will work towards "comprehensive immigration reform," he knows his potential donors and votors understand him to mean:

• Free ride amnesty for those who have already violated the immigration rules and sovereignty rights of this country
• Free education for them and their children
• Complete access to the social services provided by the taxes of legal citizens and resident aliens
• Low cost labor for businesses
• Enhanced returns for investors and bankers who invest in those businesses
• A sense of compassionate self-affirmation for 'caring' folk who care enough to force someone else to do something
• New clients for the minions of the bureaucratic state and their lampreys in the special interest industry
• New voters (where Democrats run the elections) for the Leftist candidates

and so on.

What does this Conservative think of when considering Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

• Secure the U.S. border. I'd consider signs every 36" reading: "No tresspassing. Violators will be shot." That may be too extreme for American sensibilities. So, how about: No tresspassing. Violators will be immediately returned to the country from which they crossed the border. Or shot if they attempt to evade or resist.
• Rationalize the legal immigration system and reform the INS bureaucracy. We have a choice as to who we permit to reside in our country. We should make immigration attractive and as painless as possible for healthy, employed or employable, educated, skilled people from all over the world and nearly impossible for others.
• THEN address the existing illegal aliens in this country. All of them have broken US law. None of them should get off Scot free. Criminals are evicted immediately. Return will land them in internment camps in Alaska or West Texas or some other inhospitable place. Free-riders are the next priority. They will be given the opportunity to enjoy the social services of their country of origin. Return will cause them to be treated as criminals. Productive, law-abiding illegal aliens won't be actively pursued until the more immediate threats in their population have been dealt with. Nor will they get any preferences or breaks until the border is secure and the criminals are addressed. They may be given a break, but not a free pass. Certainly no illegal alien should get any preferrence over a legal immigrant. Fines and probation as a pre-condition to giving them an opportunity to normalize their immigration status would be appropriate. Any illegal aliens found after the above steps have been taken will be treated as criminal illegal aliens - evicted or interned.

Of course, after a time, it will become clear that the demographic problem isn't that Hispanics are naturally Leftists but that a large percentage of immigrants have been inclined towards being clients of the welfare state. When a larger proportion of Hispanics are productive self-employed, employees or employers with property and aspirations to save and invest and help their children look forward to a stable, prosperous country they won't be Leftists. The problem isn't the race of the immigrants. The problem is their relationship with the government.

Stay Strong!

I would just like to remind my Congressman and all of the members of the Republican caucus in the House and Senate: When the Democrats say they have a mandate from the American people because they received slightly more than 50% of the popular vote, they are wrong. They do not represent the country and their policies do not have the support of the American public. Only half. You represent fully 1/2 of the country. You have a responsibility to fight for the policies which 1/2 of the country supports: limited government, fiscal responsibility, Religious Liberty, the Right to Life, Free Markets and individual freedom to succeed or fail, to assist others in need without government mandate or coersion, a National Defense scaled to protect national interests and a foreign policy that has a clear vision of what the national interest is, the Rule of Law and the supremacy of the Natural Law endowed upon us by our Creator. Stay strong.

David Ignatius Gets it Half Right and Totally Wrong

I don't read the Washington Post much. If I come across a link  to an article that interests me, I read it. David Ignatius' 19 Oct post, "The foreign policy debate we should be having" piqued my interest.

What debate should we be having other than

• Why the Obama National Security establishment failed to a) deter b) detect c) prepare for d) defeat or e) accurately assess and report the al Queda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of the American ambassador and three other American citizens?
• How the administration so horribly mis-judged the outcome of the "Arab Spring" in Egypt and other countries?
• How the president's "Reset" policy in regards to Russia has empowered Vladimir Putin consolidate his control of that country's government and act in ways contrary to U.S. national interests?
• How the administrations reckless spending, supplication, and mis-judgements have emboldened China to challenge its neighbors, Japan, the Philipines, and Taiwan?
• How dithering while trying to guage the wind of the American presidential race has allowed the crises in Syria, and Iran to boil over?
• How telling an enemy the date you intend to cease hostilities against them and withdraw will not result in any outcome other than defeat.

I could go on.... but you get my point.

Ignatius' first object is to take the focus off of Obama's numerous severe foreign policy failures.

He says the foreign policy debate we should be having is about grand strategy.

He's right. But it should be in addition to, not in lieu of, the aforementioned.

Ignatius discusses an article in The Wilson Quarterly dated 1 Oct. by Michael J. Mazarr, "The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency."

Now, I admit that I have not read Mr. Mazarr's article yet. But I am addressing Mr. Ignatius' article in any case. The abstract for the article reads,

"The post-war U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming insolvent and unsustainable. If Washington continues to cling to its existing role on the premise that the international order depends upon it, the result will be increasing resistance, economic ruin, and strategic failure with consequences harming U.S. credibility, diplomacy, and military operations."

It becomes somewhat apparent why Ignatius chose to direct his readership to this particular article.

"post-war" - post- which war? the one engaged in by some 30,000 Servicemembers in Afghanistan? The one on-going in Lybia, or the one in Syria, or the one between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah? Or the one about to occur between Israel and one or more of its neighbors? Perhaps the conflict simmering between China and one of its neighbors across the the China Sea? Or perhaps the civil war being waged in Mexico between the Mexican government and the drug cartels. Only Progressives and caricature beauty pagent contestants believe that they can achieve World Peace.

But he is correct, the U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming unsustainable; because the country is rapidly becoming insolvent. I do want to read Mr. Mazarr's article to see if he addresses what happens if Washington DOES NOT continue to maintain its realization that the international order DOES depend upon the United States? I doubt that he does. I'd say we've had 4 or 5 years of pre-view. And it isn't pretty.

But I'll bet he doesn't talk about that alternative. No, and that is the second point of Ignatius' article. No. Here are the take-aways that make this a donation in kind:

"When you watch the debate Monday night, ask yourself whether the candidates are thinking strategically. Are they repeating rhetorical tropes about the United States as the “indispensable power” that can resolve any crisis? Or are they weighing commitments carefully to make sure that they can deliver what they promise?"

"Romney espouses the traditional, 21-gun-salute version, with its vision of a “shining city on a hill” and a unique calling to global leadership. And he talks about increasing the military budget as if that’s axiomatically a good thing. But he doesn’t explain how we’ll pay for this five-course meal of power, or how the country will digest it."

"My guess is that Obama, deep down, favors a more restrained version of American power, but he rarely says so in public."

So, beginning with the false alternative; if you are for a diminishment of U.S. power, prestige and influence you are "thinking strategically." If not, then you are "repeating rhetorical tropes" and will bring the nation to wrack and ruin if you are elected president.

And, in case any WaPo readers didn't already know it, it is axiomatic that Romney isn't thinking strategically because he sees the necessity for a militarily and diplomatically strong United States. Obama will be able to deliver what he promises, because he promises so much less - even when he promises no less than Romney.

Michael Kinsley, no blood and guts chickenhawk neo-Con he, wrote a few months back that when looking at budgets and revenues, you bought the national security you needed and bought the domestic programs you could afford. I would recommend that article to Mssrs. Ignatius and Mazaar.

So, now that we are down here however many inches from the top of this post, where does Ignatius get it right? He is right that the U.S. cannot resolve every crisis. Policy makers must weigh commitments carefully.

Ignatius compares the U.S. to Britain when its attempt to manage its global empire exceeded its ability to do so. Through the long lens of History, one wonders why Britain fought a war in Afghanistan. One may wonder why we are still fighting one there.

Ancient Rome fought a border war with the Parthians (Mesopotamia) for over 250 years during the declining years of the Empire.

The more some things change, the more they stay the same...

It's interesting that Ignatius calls Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon "cold-blooded" at the same time he cold-bloodly recommends that the U.S. pull out of the world and forfeit the capabilities to engage for strategic or humanitarian reasons. He peremptorily abandons future Lebanons to their fate. And future Americans to less freedom, less prosperity and less security.

The entire government must live within its means. Historically, federal tax revenues average no more than 20% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Our federal expenditures should normally be less than 20% of GDP. That is the only sustainable fiscal policy.

Expenditures for Defense have historically averaged around 4-5% of GDP, rising during periods of war. Russia plans to increase its defense spending to 3.7% of GDP over the next 2-3 years. Who really knows what China's is. But even spending 6% of GDP on Defense would still leave 14% of a $15T GDP to spend on domestic priorities. That should work. Then we look at the world realistically.

The nature of American's is to help those who need help. We can't change our nature. But we have to recognize that our strength does have limitations, that it is illegitimate for the government to act contrary to the country's security, that we will have to make choices based upon our values AND our interests. For one example, Joseph Kony is doing horrible things in Uganda. Uganda is a friendly country in Africa. Our values lead us to help. Our relationship with Uganda makes it in our interest to help. Kony poses no near-term threat to U.S. interests in the region. There is some chance that U.S. assistance could defeat Kony, improve ties with an important nation on an important continent and in the longer term, delay the spread of militant Islam. I would be willing but reluctant to risk American lives or very much treasure there - if we had the treasure to risk. On the other hand, China is doing horrible things in Tibet. Our values lead us to want to help. The geographic location of Tibet and the super power status of China makes military action impossible. Don't even pretend. A rigorous application of classical Just War Theory can clarify the considerations and help to avoid bad decisions. But there is no mathematical formula that will spit out the right decisions.

Every decision that must find the best possible balance between American values, American interests, and America's capabilities is a difficult one. Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be not up to the task. Contrary to what David Ignatius would like you to believe, Mitt Romney is better suited to make those difficult decisions.

Free expression fil ana, la fil thou

Feds Arrest Producer Of Controversial Anti-Islam Film On Probation Violation Charge

Yes, no argument that he violated his probation, as far as the publicly available facts indicate. But is there any question that he would not be in jail without parole today if his YouTube video had been about kittens chasing ceiling fans?

Oh, and his pastor is described as a "radical Coptic cleric".   So, do "America's Values" and First Amendment Freedoms demand that 'radical' Coptic Christians are imprisioned in America for making a YouTube video while radical Muslims are released from Guantanamo for killing Americans?   During his speech at the UN, the president said, "I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that."   Shall we parse this for a moment?  "this particular understanding" is codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But the 1st Amendment isn't a reflection of a 'particular understanding' which others may or may not share. It is a recognition of an inalienable right that exists outside of, precedes and supercedes 'particular understandings.' It is part and parcel of those inalienable rights which are endowed upon all Men by their Creator whether radical Islamists; Communist, Socialist or Fascist dictators; or witlings posing as intellectual elites 'share this particular understanding' or not. So, what we recognize, which appears to be somewhat different from what the president prefers to recognize is that those countries that do not have a proper understanding of the Natual Law and who do not recognize their citizen's right to freedom of speech or religion are wrong and very likely illegitimate. They certainly hold no moral equivalency with a nation that does recognize the natural rights of its citizens. Their MIS-understanding of the particular right to free speech is not simply another particular understanding but a grave error of understanding.   Obama does not recognize that. He has always seemed to have trouble with objective reality, objective truth, transcendant Natural Law and other things that really and truly are "above his pay grade."

Purile Prattle - late entry

Saving what little they have to celebrate in the Obama presidency, the MSM commentariat has taken the opportunity of the Republican National Convention to roll out what they consider their best 'arguments' againt the Republican nominees.

Here are a few of the ones I've come across while surfing the net:

E.J.Dionne: "The GOP is marketing the concept that a great many Americans need to suffer before they can prosper. The government needs the equivalent of a P90X regimen -- and never mind checking first whether it will actually be good for the country."

Have to give him credit for being succinct while being wrong. Unless the 'great many Americans' who he worries will suffer are all government employees, his point is a giant non sequiter. And the proposition that ending bloated, voracious, lumbering government will be good for the country is very nearly an indisputable fact - like gravity (speaking of impending fiscal cliffs). He goes on:

"Christie and Ryan talk a lot about "courage." It's an excellent virtue. But where is the courage in giving the wealthy people who are financing your campaigns all they want while accusing those who might vote against you of wishing to spend life in a hammock? "

I hope he asks that question next week of an administration that has failed to indict a single contributor - I mean Wall Street fat cat while telling entrepreneurs and business owners that maybe they've made enough and ought to be willing to 'spread the wealth around a little.'

From smut to smash-hit

Back when I first started travelling by air, there was a section in the far rear of the book rack in the airport news stands that was obscured by white or brown paper. Succumbing to the purient curiosity of a young man, I peeked at the novels of Anaïs Nin and "The Story of O."

Fast forward 25 or so years and the number one hit best seller that everyone is talking about is, Fifty Shades of Gray. It is out front, on prominent display, in airports.

It is a dirty book like the ones once segregated to an obscured section at the back of the newstand. But the sensibilities are gone. Your right to not be offended is secondary to, well, everything it seems, when it comes to exploiting the purient curiosity of an emotionally immature populace for profit.

I don't think that's a good thing.

The Well and the Shallows

I must apologize to GK Chesterton for appropriating the title of his book, The Well and the Shallows.

My prose does him no justice by association. Nor does my topic, I suppose. But as I am in the middle of the book at the moment, the title came to mind as I considered two comments on Progressive Rock. And I'd like to think through whether prog rock occupies the well or the shallows before I sell all of my record albums.

7 Songs That Sound Deep... But Really Aren't is posted to the blog, Man in the Woods, a blog "dedicated to culture from a Catholic perspective." The author, Chapmaniac, is a Theology teacher and author. He lists a number of prog rock anthems among the seven songs that give the impression of being deep, but which lyrics, upon consideration are sometimes less than shallow. Sometimes they are gibberish. His list includes, Dust in the Wind by Kansas (I have that album), The Horse With No Name by America (I have that one too), Stairway to Heaven (I think so..), Iron Butterfly (got it), Yes (got it) and Blue Oyster Cult.

Being familiar, as I am, with the songs listed; and having enjoyed them in my youth, I chuckled in agreement.

But I also recalled reading another perspective on the genre from a usually reliable source, National Review. A quick websearch retrieved the article, which I also enjoyed: A Different Kind of Progressive, the subtitle of which is, "Prog rock preserves Western traditions." The author, Prof. Bradley J. Birzer occupies the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies, and is a professor of history, at Hillsdale College. And judging from his article, he knows far more about prog rock than I do. He is also a Catholic.

He considers prog rock lyrics to be deep. Deep enough, it seems, to preserve Western traditions.

In college, I did an English paper on the Beatle's White Album. Some reviewers praised the album for its ground-breaking originality, creativity, and deep meaning behind recordings like Revolution #9 and Yer Blues. Others suggested that the blank white album cover was for non-attribution or that the Beatles wanted to prove that people would buy any sort of rubbish they might produce. My favorite observation was that the 2-album set was one album too long. I think that's right. But I confess, I spent a fair amount of time trying to discern the meaning of Revolution #9 before I found out that it really was gibberish.


Is it just so with progressive rock?

The two men seem to be seeing the same things, but disagreeing about what it is that they see.

Both, for instance, recognize the influence or confluence or something of J.R.R Tolkien on prog rock. Prof Birzer imagines Arwen listening to her father, Elrond's Led Zep album, "While J. R. R. Tolkien probably never listened to progressive rock (though Arthur C. Clarke did), it’s hard to believe his elves in Rivendell or Lothlorien did not."

Meanwhile, Chapmaniac suspects Elrond wouldn't let his daughter listen to such silly nonsense, "Known to incorporate Lord of the Rings references into their songs, this band has a whole catalogue of lyrics that sound like they could be the soundtrack of Dungeons and Dragons. With Robert Plant's fixation on Tolkien, and Jimmy Paige's penchant for dabbling into the occult, Zeppelin was able to capture some of the mystery of Lord of the Rings without any of the content."

Chapmaniac has strict criteria for his list: "a song must have every appearance of saying something profound (meaning that the song must be well constructed and the artist must be under the impression that he is saying something sublime), while simultaneously managing to say very little at all."

That criteria excludes Lady Gaga, Bjork and, well, an awful lot, actually.


Dr. Birzer says, "As such, progressive rock is to rock music what Imagism (e.g., T. E. Hulme and T. S. Eliot) is to poetry. It takes a modern form, and it fills and animates it with a well-ordered soul, an essence commensurate with its form."

And perhaps that's it. Perhaps the best of prog rock is akin to modern poetry. At first hearing, it sounds deep. Upon closer inspection, the words look like pretentious gibberish. But if you take the energy to engage your mind, there is some depth.

Can you tell the poem from the lyric?

"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow


Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,

You cannot say, or guess, for you know only

A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,

And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,

And the dry stone no sound of water. Only

There is shadow under this red rock,

(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),

And I will show you something different from either

Your shadow at morning striding behind you

Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;

I will show you fear in a handful of dust."




"I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone


All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind

All they are is dust in the wind

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

Oh, ho, ho

Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

Dust in the wind"


Yeah, I'll keep the albums.

When the HuffPo turns on you...

When the Leftist Huffington Post turns on a Leftist politician, you'd think he'd lost his last friend in the world.

But for Eric Holder, he still, apparently, has one friend left: the President of the United States.

SPLC is a Hate Group

And I don't think they're very bright either.

My first question when the SPLC says something stupid in order to get into the news is usually, "What does the Southern Poverty Law Center have to do with XXXXXX totally unrelated subject (ie: Family Research Council, homosexuality or same-sex 'marriage' or what have you)?"

Well, it looks from their web site that they really aren't all that into providing legal assistance to poor southerners.

They usually make news by adding someone to their list of 'Hate Groups'. In the most recent case, the "hate group" in question is the FRC. The evidence of the FRC being filled with hate-filled bigots is that a hate-filled bigot - er, homosexual activist - tried to shoot up FRC headquarters in Washingon DC.

Now, when SPLC libels (oops, I mean labels) a group or individual as a hate-filled bigot, I usually yawn. The hate-filled bigots at SPLC are too dim to know their right from their left.

In an article entitled, "30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right," number 25 is Malik Zulu Shabazz. Only in the fever-addled brains of the Souther Poverty Law Center is the New Black Panther Party a part of the 'radical right.'

"Civil" Debate or Civil War?

Stephen Prothero commented on the CNN Belief Blog about the existence of Catholic politicians on both of the major party's presidential ticket: "A century and a half ago, Americans engaged in a collective conversation about the Bible and slavery that was both civil and informed. Is it too much to hope that an intelligent debate about Christianity and the economy is now in the offing? If so, we will likely have Ryan (and Romney) to thank."

A century and a half ago, "Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith begins an invasion of Kentucky as part of a Confederate plan to draw the Yankee army of General Don Carlos Buell away from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to raise support for the Southern cause in Kentucky."
The unspoken corollary to this is of course, that the Democrats who made the conversation uncivil in 1862 in order to defend their power over living souls will once again turn the debate uncivil in 2012 in order to defend their power over living souls.

The Stupidest Man in the World

Is not Joe Biden

High Dudgeon

I'm confused. A group of women tresspass in a Russian Orthodox cathedral, disrupt whatever might have been going on at the time and are arrested.

Or a group of political activists tresspass in a Russian Orthodox cathedral, disrupt whatever might have been going on at the time sing (I suppose) disparaging things about Vladimir Putin and are arrested.

And the entire Leftist world erupts in protest and defense of the hooligans.

But are quiet about the suppression of just about every other protest or suppression taking place elsewhere in Russia, China, the Dar Al-Salaam etc.

Are they posturing in defense of political speech from a dictatorial thug or are they supporting the desecration of a Christian holy place?

I suspect the latter.

No escaping the MiniTru

The piling-on of the media on Paul Ryan has spread further than I expected.

An on-line news site serving the US Military, DoD Buzz has gone all CNN, using biased sources in a 'news' article that reads like an Obama campaign talking point paper:

The lede almost seems relatively innocuous: "The military is so far off the radar for this presidential election that Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his vice presidential pick, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, didn’t mention Afghanistan once during their 60 Minutes interview Sunday night."

Of course, the subtle impression the article plants is that Romney and Ryan are hiding their views on the war against Islamist terror organizations. What are they hiding, we are led to wonder. Also, the two aren't thinking about National Security, the readiness of our Armed Forces or the welfare of our veterans.

Although there is nothing in the article - or in anything I've ever heard either of them say - that would support those sorts of inferences.

The most likely reason they didn't address Afghanistan?

"CBS Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer never even asked the Republican running mates a direct question about their thoughts on Afghanistan."

Oh. That might be it...

And the Democrat talking points continue, unquestioned and without nuance:

"Pundits have leaped over their desks talking about Ryan’s plans to cut Medicare and what it means to independent elderly voters."

Pundits have lept over their desks, screaming in unison the lyrics handed to them about the Obama's campaign false allegation that Ryan plans to cut Medicare and hurt independent elderly voters (read retired military).

So, what do Veterans groups think of Mr. Ryan? the reporter tells us:

"What veteran groups have noticed is a noticeable lack of the word “veteran” throughout Paul’s lengthy document."

Which Veterans groups?

" Jon Soltz, head of VoteVets​.org was not impressed with Romney’s selection, according to a Politico report.

“In his first presidential-level decision, Mitt Romney picks a guy who would slash veterans care by tens of billions and whose budget didn’t even use the word ‘veteran?’ Paul Ryan sees veterans as numbers, not as people,” Soltz told Politico."

Well, DoD Buzz went to a secondary source for their selected Veterans group. That's investigative journalism!

So, you ask, which one is it? VFW, American Legion? VVA? Nah, too obvious. Maybe they're just passing on Politico's biased sources, but the way they wrote the story leads to the conclusion that 'Veterans groups" including those major ones, have problems with Ryan.

And they have the quote to prove it!

So, is VoteVets and Jon Soltz a good representation of Military personnel and Veterans?

No. And it isn't any secret to the readers of DoD Buzz, judging from the comment thread:

"DoDBuzz should commit an act of journalism here instead of serving as a conduit for Jon Solz's White-House issued talking points and rehashing the old Ryan-Dempsey joust (which I'd chalk up to Ryan, incidentally). VFW Exec Director Bob Wallace's quote provides the requisite fig leaf for balance. Veteran voters can see right through this cheap "Chickenhawk" smear job. "

"Equating VoteVets with the VFW is a canard. Vote Vets is a liberal hack job. 90% of their board of advisors are left leaning registered democrats. Rep Gary Peters MI-D called VoteVets, "The largest progressive group of veterans in America, VoteVets.org PAC, with over 220,000 supporters" http://votevets.org/news/releases?id=0501 The VFW is apolitical and has 2.1 MILLION members. Why even mention VoteVets? "

And they said it better than I ever could.

And they are right. Here is a bit from Jon Solz' wiki page: Soltz volunteered for the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. ...He has been a frequent contributor to numerous shows, including Countdown with Keith Olbermann[1] and the Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC. He has been interviewed by the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, Newsweek.[1] He has appeared on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, ABC News, Nightline, Air America Radio, The Ed Schultz Show, and The Bill Press Show.[1]


And here are the top recipients of votevets PAC money according to OpenSecrets.org:
•VoteVets.org to Chris Carney (D) in 2010


•VoteVets.org to John A. Boccieri (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Joseph A. Sestak, Jr (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Patrick J. Murphy (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Timothy J. Walz (D) in 2010

Open Secrets' profile of VoteVet is only surprising, apparently, to DoD Buzz:
"VoteVets.org is a liberal-leaning PAC which contains several affiliated VoteVet.org organzations. The group has raised money primarily in support of Democratic candidates and against Republican candidates."

Maureen Dowd: Co-Dependent

Maureen Dowd writhes[sic] in the NYT: "Obama smashed through all the barriers and dysfunction in his life to become a self-made, self-narrating president."

Well, I'll grant the 'dysfunction in his life.' 'Self-made'? not likely. 'self-narrating'? How is that a positive attribute?

Dowd notes, "Stories abound of big donors who stopped giving as much or working as hard because Obama never reached out, either with a Clinton-esque warm bath of attention or Romney-esque weekend love fests and Israeli-style jaunts; of celebrities who gave concerts for his campaigns and never received thank-you notes or even his full attention during the performance; of public servants upset because they knocked themselves out at the president’s request and never got a pat on the back; of V.I.P.’s disappointed to get pictures of themselves with the president with the customary signature withheld; of politicians disaffected by the president’s penchant for not letting members of Congress or local pols stand on stage with him when he’s speaking in their state (they often watch from the audience and sometimes have to lobby just to get a shout-out); of power brokers, local and national, who felt that the president insulted them by never seeking their advice or asking them to come to the White House or ride along in the limo for a schmooze."

Dowd surmises, "Obama wants to be a policy maker, not a glad-handing pol."

Or it could be that he's just a stuck-up A-hole.

Voter ID Duplicity Part 2

The Financial Times weighs in on the validity of US elections:

Voter ID laws could sway US elections

"Millions of US voters could be turned away at the ballot box in this November’s presidential election as new rules impose tough requirements for identification that observers say could lead to minorities and young people – traditionally more likely to vote Democrat – being excluded."

Of course, on the other hand, millions of ineligible voters - traditionally more likely to vote Democrat - may vote in this November's presidential election as new rules designed to ensure the integrity of US elections are challenged in court and overturned or stayed by political judges.

How many? Millions? How does Anna Fifield know its millions?

She was told - just like Harry Reid was told that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years - by a reliable source.

"“There is certainly the potential for very serious outcomes,” said Keesha Gaskins of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, which estimates as many as 5m voters across the country might be affected by the rules. "

Hans A. von Spakovsky comments in National Review Online regarding a related article for Politico:
"Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
"Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”

"Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.


"As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006."

"Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties."


Here's one of my favorites from the FT article: "Pennsylvania’s new rules are being challenged by three elderly women – including one who first voted for Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1940s – who say they will not be able to vote in November under the changes."
1. How are these poor old ladies going to get into the court building for their own hearing - without picture ID?
2. It seems they are elderly enough to draw Social Security - which at least one of them voted for, back in the day - they had to show ID, I'm guessing, to sign up for benefits and to open the checking account into which their benefits are deposited.



Photo: USAID/Julie Fossler
An elections worker checks a voter's ID card during Afghanistan's 2009 presidential and provincial council elections.



That's my absolute favorite. While one arm of the Leviathan - the (in)Justice Department - claims it is an unreasonable burden for Americans to show ID to vote, another arm (or should I say tentacle) brags on its web site that citizens of that advanced democracy, Afghanistan, are required to show picture ID in order to vote.

Detroit, apparently, is less able to provide for verification of its citzens than Kandahar...

Voter ID Duplicity

Drudge bounced me to an article in the American Prospect entitled: You Can't Beat Voter ID with Facts

Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."

He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.

He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"

It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.

UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.

He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable.   He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely."   Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.   Here's the crux of his argument (such that it is): "Simply put, voter-ID laws limit the number of voters who are able to vote.  Unless you have loose laws for identification, there will be some people who won’t have the paperwork or resources to prove their identity at the ballot box (registration is no longer adequate).  If you see voting as an important act of citizenship, then this is unacceptable; we should be more concerned with maximizing the franchise, not restricting it.     "Even more so when you consider that many Americans struggled and died to expand and protect voting rights."

Your tax dollars at work

Somehow, I have come to be on the National Academies Press mailing list. Every once in a long while, I come across a topic interesting enough to download the report, and sometimes even to read bits of it.

But usually, I am merely entertained by the topics of research for which our tax dollars pay.

And here is one worth remarking upon:

Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary

The authors are Rapporteurs; Forum on Global Violence Prevention; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine

Why is it globalists are so enamoured of French terms? Why does the U.S. Government Institute of Medicine have a Board of Global Health?
But wait a minute! the IOM web site says that it is "an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public."

Sure. Well, sorta. But not really. The IOM is part of the National Academies, whose 2011 Annual Report to Congress reported $ 280,156,384 in grants and contracts from U.S. Government agencies and $ 49,692,077 from non-federal sources. 85% of the NAS total revenues came from the Federal government.

So, now that you know where a small sliver of your tax (and federal debt) dollars go, that is to Rapporteurs; Forum on Global Violence Prevention; Board on Global Health, what have they discovered?

I admit, I haven't read the article. But the synopsis on the web page gives a clue:

"On December 8-9, 2011, the IOM's Forum on Global Violence Prevention held a workshop to explore the intersection of violence prevention and information and communications technology. The workshop - called "mPreventViolence" - provided an opportunity for practitioners to engage in new and innovative thinking concerning these two fields with the goal of bridging gaps in language, processes, and mechanisms. The workshop focused on exploring the potential applications of technology to violence prevention, drawing on experience in development, health, and the social sector as well as from industry and the private sector."

I suppose I should read more deeply to discover what sort of violence they are intent on preventing with technology. I have a sinking feeling they intend to stop genocide with Twitter.

However, the use of technology to prevent violence isn't really a new subject. It has been extensively studied and there are some proven technologies available to address the full spectrum of threats:



Colt M-1911 A1 .45 cal

The semi-automatic handgun technology has been preventing violence against persons for over 100 years.




Many rungs up the ladder, the U.S. Marines continue to prevent violence against U.S. National interests, allies and the powerless for over 200 years.


USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

 "Peace Through Strength" is the motto of the USS Ronald Reagan. A carrier strike group parked off your shore is a strong influence in favor of peaceful conflict resolution.


The U.S. Army's Warrior Ethos is more than skin deep. It goes all the way to the core, and has deterred violence or brought an end to perpetrators of violence on every continent.



LGM-118A "Peacekeeper" ICBM

Kept the USSR and PRC among other relatively peaceful for 50 years.

What the AP thinks you should think

AP sources: Administration mulls pared health law

An entire article of *no news* is news only because its main purpose seems to be guiding readers what to think when finally there is news on the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

"Even if the requirement that nearly every U.S. resident have health insurance is declared unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law would have far-reaching impact, putting coverage within reach of millions of uninsured people, laying new obligations on insurers and employers, and improving Medicare benefits even as payments to many service providers get scaled back."

How terrible it would be for the Supreme Court think Health is unconstitutional! But our guardian would go ahead and put coverage within reach of millions, make nasty corporations fulfill their obligations to us the 99% and it would simutaneously improve Medicare benefits and scale back payments to 'service providers' (aka the doctors, nurses and hospitals that actually provide us with medical care and services - but who are inordinately among the *not 99%)*.

"Because the law's main coverage expansion does not begin until 2014, there would be time to try to fix serious problems that losing the individual coverage requirement may cause for the health insurance industry."

In case you forgot, it is the nasty Republicans and their partisan allies on the court that threaten to cause 'serious problems' to the insurance industry - NOT the Obama administration, Democrat lawmakers or their allies who will profit from the law - so who ya' gonna vote for?

"Surviving parts of the law would "absolutely" move ahead, said the congressional official. A Congress mired in partisan trench warfare would be unable to repeal or amend what's left of the law, allowing the administration to advance. Much of the money for covering the uninsured was already provided in the law itself.




"Legislatively we can't do a thing, and we are going to move full speed ahead (with implementation)," the official said."

Why do I hear a "Bwwaaaa-Haaaa-haaa-HAAA" in that statement?

"Skeptical questioning by the court's conservative justices during oral arguments this spring has fueled speculation that the court may invalidate the so-called individual mandate."

Umm. Sonia Sotomayor is not usually counted among the 'court's conservative justices.' And yet, she appeared skeptical too.
But the AP does give both sides of the issue - sorta.

"Opponents say the requirement that individuals have coverage is unconstitutional, that the federal government can't tell people to obtain particular goods or services."

vice:

"Supporters say the mandate is a necessary component of a broader scheme to regulate health insurance, which is well within the powers of Congress. By requiring people to carry health insurance or pay a fine, the law seeks to broaden the pool of people with coverage, helping to keep premiums affordable.


If the mandate is struck down, that would still leave in place a major expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state safety net program for low-income people.

The Medicaid expansion was originally estimated to account for about half the more than 30 million people slated to get coverage under the law. Without a mandate, the number would be smaller but still significant.

Federal tax credits to help middle-class people buy private health coverage would also survive, as would new state-based insurance markets.

Such subsidies have never previously been available, and millions are expected to take advantage of them, whether or not insurance is required by law. Still, it could be tricky to salvage the law's full blueprint for helping middle-class uninsured people.

Overturning the mandate would have harmful consequences for the private insurance market. Under the law, insurers would still have to accept all applicants regardless of health problems, and they would be limited in what they can charge older, sicker customers.

As a result, premiums for people who directly buy their own coverage would jump by 15 percent to 20 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Older, sicker people would flock to get health insurance but younger, healthier ones would hold back.

To forestall such a problem, the administration asked the court - if it declares the mandate unconstitutional - to also strike down certain consumer protections, including the requirement on insurers to cover people with pre-existing health problems. That would mitigate a damaging spike in premiums.

Whether or not the court goes along with that request, more work would be needed to find alternatives to a federal mandate. That could provide an opening for state officials, as well as major insurance companies, to join in finding workable substitutes for the mandate. Congressional approval would likely be needed.

Without the individual requirement, some 14 million people would still get coverage, budget office estimates suggest. Supporters of the law point out that's still a lot of people."

Yeah. That's balance.