Thursday, September 30, 2010

Power of the Purse

The kindest thing you can say about this Democratic congress is that they're incompetent.

From Andrew Taylor and Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press:

A deeply unpopular Congress is bolting for the campaign trail without finishing its most basic job - approving a budget for the government year that begins on Friday. Lawmakers also are postponing a major fight over taxes, two embarrassing ethics cases and other political hot potatoes until angry and frustrated voters render their verdict in the Nov. 2 elections.
 Those of you who think that government should regulate more and more of our lives, take note.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

To My Detractors

"Naive..."

"Ignorant..."

"Unprincipled..."

"RINO..."

I've been called a lot of things over my qualified support for Christine O'Donnell in Delaware -- mostly by fellow "conservatives."  But this morning, at a nationally-known conservative blog, a conservative stalwart, whom I have defended on more than one occasion, flung an epithet my way that really took the cake:

"Myopic Twit."

You see, it would seem that O'Donnell has a LinkedIn profile that is quite inaccurate.  The author's first thought was that O'Donnell is, in fact, a "serial liar."  This was further proof to Ms. Diane Suffern that not only is Christine O'Donnell unelectable, but that she is of morally questionable fiber, and generally unfit for office.  I, along with a few others, pointed out that Diane and others seemed almost eager to be doing opposition research for the Democrats.

Well I have news for you conservative stalwarts all of a sudden worried about "honesty."  It doesn't matter if you want to help Coons win.  That is what you are doing.  The people who think that conservative harping on McCain didn't help Obama in 2008 are worse than  myopic twits; they are insufferably delusional fools.

And I hope I get the apology I have coming to me.  It would seem there are legitimate questions about whether O'Donnell or her campaign even had anything to do with that false LinkedIn profile.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Prognostication of Punditry

The idea that polls, a month-and-a-half out, can allow one to reliably predict the outcome of an election, annoys me to no end. At best, polls give the chattering class something to talk about while giving the political class an idea of how they should change their strategies. At worst, polls can be pushed and manipulated to make news instead of reporting statistics.

There is only one poll that counts: November 2, 2010. We won't be going to Abilene this time, folks.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Suck it Up, Karl

Until now, I've avoided commenting too thickly on the Delaware primary, mainly because I don't live there.  I have more immediate concerns to worry about in November, but all-in-all, I'm pretty pleased with how things turned out in the republic's oldest state.

What bothers me now are the open displays of sour grapes.  Long-time Republican political advisers, so used to taking polls and predicting the outcomes of a certain action thus, are seeing their control slip away.  That is, if they were really in control to begin with.



Suck it up, Karl. A lot can happen between now and November.

John Hawkins and the Ten Questions

Over at Townhall.com, John Hawkins has a great piece on the ten questions you're not supposed to ask about Islam.  It seems as though several of his commenters missed the rhetorical nature of his questions, but follow the link and you can be the judge.  I'm going to address John's question's seriously.
Why do so few moderate Muslims speak out against Islamic extremism? How can we get more moderate Muslims to speak up and amplify their voices?
Why always the assumption that there are numerous moderates out there who aren't speaking up?  Implied in this question is, I believe, the possibility that maybe there is actually a vast majority of Muslims who support violent Jihad.  As a conservative, I tend to look for the simple answers.
Of the "moderate Muslims" who have spoken out in favor of moderation or against terrorism, a number of them have later been tied to terrorist groups or have advocated radical policies. This causes a great deal of difficulty for people who want to ally with Muslim groups because the "moderate" they're talking to today may very well make them look bad by advocating radical policies in a month or two. What's the best way to deal with that?
It's time that dar es al-harb (the non-Muslim "house of death") stop trying to hard to prove its good faith.  The burden should be on dar es islam (the "house of submission," or more to the point, the Islamic world) to prove good faith after all the times it has broken good faith.  True, we in America would not subject any other religion to such scrutiny, but no other religion in America subscribes to such an anti-constitutional political ideology, either.
Because of the concept of Taqiyya, many non-Muslims believe that Muslims have few qualms about lying to non-believers. Is this a legitimate concern? If not, why not?
Mohammed Atta attended strip clubs and drank alcohol in the weeks leading up to 9/11.  Trust in "moderate Islam" is a sentimental exercise for liberal fools.
When it comes to immigration, how does the United States tell the difference between radical Islamists and moderate Muslims? If we can't tell the difference, should that affect our immigration policies?
Only if one believes in the continuing integrity and sovereignty of our republic.  All immigrants, regardless of religious or ethnic status, enter our borders, remain within our borders, and attain our citizenship at our pleasure.  There are no constitutional protections for non-citizens -- ever.
Widely accepted practices in large swathes of the Islamic world -- like shariah law, honor killings, and death for apostates -- are absolutely, unconditionally incompatible with western civilization. Should we be asking Muslims if they oppose those practices before we allow them to enter our country? Granted, they could lie, but the very fact that we would publicly label those customs as barbaric would send a strong signal.
Why not?  As an American citizen, if I lie on an employment application, my employer has the right to terminate my employment years after the fact, if it takes him that long to find out.  That would be a good model for American immigration policy.  You lie, we deport you.
Why does Islam have such "bloody borders?"
Bloody borders are a cultural phenomenon stemming from the conquests of the prophet himself (peace be upon him).  They will not rest until the world is dar es islam, and most Muslims have no moral qualms whatsoever about using violence to achieve that end.  Does that mean they all engage in violence?  Not necessarily.  Most of them don't have to.
Much of the Islamic world has an extremely backward attitude toward women. Is this something that goes along with Islam or is it a cultural issue in the nations where Islam happens to have taken root?
I don't view this as an either-or question.  Islam is what Islamic authorities say it is.  Concern for the "why" more than the "what" sounds like more of a liberal concern to me.  Deepest apologies to John Hawkins.  I know better than to think he's gone sour on us.
Why is there so much rabid anti-Semitism in the Muslim world? Pointing to Israel doesn't seem to be much of an answer, given that what Israel does or doesn't do has no impact whatsoever on the day-to-day lives of 98% of the Muslim world.
It's the same reason President Obama is demonizing "the rich" and numerous corporations (banking and otherwise).  The imams and mullahs keep their hold on power by blaming someone else.  It really doesn't matter who the someone else is, but it's a defining factor of tyranny.  In the Islamic world, it serves as a distraction from kleptomanic plutocrats like the late Yasser Arafat.
Islam, as it's practiced, SEEMS to be an EXTRAORDINARILY intolerant religion. Yet, non-Muslims are constantly being told we have to be tolerant to Islam. Why should non-Muslims be so tolerant of Islam when that tolerance is not being returned?
This question is most definitely rhetorical.  We are a nation of religious freedom, distinct from tolerance.  I have no problem with Muslims desiring to worship in the manner of their choosing, but they are probing us to see just how tolerant we are of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.  The Park51 mosque is just the beginning -- if we let it happen.  Why should we be so tolerant of Islam?  Short answer:  We shouldn't.
While there are certainly individual Muslims who seem to fit in very well in western society, Europe has had a great deal of difficulty assimilating Muslims. So, it seems natural to ask: Is Islam on a widespread scale compatible with the freedom, openness, and traditions of western civilization?
No!  At least in America, everything Islamic is anti-Constitution.   Everything constitutional is anti-Islam.  Peaceful co-existence between dar es islam and dar es al-harb is not just a taqiyya-based deception.  It has laid bare the amazing capacity of liberals for self-delusion.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

"Religion" is Not the Problem

I had a stimulating exchange with a Facebook friend of mine who had been having a twitter debate with the king of skeptics himself, Penn Jilette.  While I have great sympathy for Penn's small-l libertarian leanings, I think he is too smart-by-half in his indictment of "religion" as the problem that brings on most of the world's suffering.

Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and virtually every other mass-murderer of the the twentieth century was an avowed atheist.  Penn probably wouldn't disagree out-of-hand, but I do believe that government has been at least as dangerous, if not more, in terms of sheer numbers killed, than "religion" as a whole.

Is it true that the 9/11 hijackers were inspired by religion?  Not really.  They believed in a certain religion with certain rules and precepts.  Set aside the question of whether they were "true Muslims;" the important thing to remember is that they were professing Muslims.

And lastly, it bears mentioning that if all "religion" is the problem, then any religion is the problem.  That is why I am starting a crusade to stamp out the last vestiges of Pastafarianism.  I am making a link available through Amazon.com for you, fair reader, to purchase copies of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which we may all subsequently burn on November 3rd, 2010 in celebration of our forthcoming electoral victory.

Pastafarianism is of the Devil!

Monday, September 6, 2010

Sanity, or Lack Thereof?

I had some thoughts today on the planned book burning by a Christian church to commemorate 9/11.  Suffice it to say, I think it's a mistake.  God knows I'm not about appeasing Muslims; anyone who has graced the pages of this blog for any length of time can probably figure that much out.

As usual, Glenn Beck encapsulates my own thoughts quite nicely over at his new website, The Blaze.

The money quote comes from the last paragraph:

The only thing this act would prove is that you CAN burn a Koran.   I didn’t know America was in doubt on that fact.
I don't know if this act by the Dove World Outreach center will be detrimental; General Petraeus sure seems to think so.  Regardless,  I don't believe any good will come of this.  And so, we return to Gryph's first rule of moral and ethical decision making:

When uncertain moral or ethical issues arise, don't act on a doubt.

Follow the Money

John Byrne has a fascinating piece this morning at rawstory.com about money shifting in modern politics:

Major political action committees and employees of the nation's largest business empires have dramatically shifted their money to the right. A detailed analysis of 2010 campaign cycle contributions by the Houston Chronicle shows that Republicans are catching up with Senate Democrats in campaign fundraising. Donations to the Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)-led Senate Democratic Campaign Committee (DSCC) have dropped 25 percent this year alone.
I've always maintained that the political make-up of a company's board of directors is a far better indication of the company's political leanings than where they donate money too.  Even though donations tend to be rather lopsided one way or the other, the vast majority of American corporations, in fact virtually all of them, do play both sides of the aisle.

The problem of corruption in politics doesn't stem from money.  Corruption in politics comes from a series of laws passed since 1913 that turned government into a protection racket.  Under President Barack Hussein Soetoro-Obama, it's only going to get worse.

You don't break up protection rackets by confiscating the victims' money.  You break up protection rackets by charging, trying, and convicting the racketeers.  Are you listening, America?