Vox Popoli

Hillary drops the Rodham… for now:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has dropped the use of her maiden name “Rodham” in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton identifies herself as “Hillary Clinton” in her campaign press releases and on her campaign website. The lone mention of her maiden name is in a campaign biography that says “Hillary’s father, Hugh Rodham, was the son of a factory worker from Scranton.”

She continues to use “Hillary Rodham Clinton” in her New York-focused press releases and in the Senate.

And as soon as she’s elected, the Lizard Queen will bring back the Rodham and drop the Clinton. And then she’ll celebrate by eating 13 live kittens and shedding her skin.

Now I’m just waiting for her to shock the media establishment by taking a firm position against comprehensive immigration reform and endorsing immigration restrictions.

It’s not astonishing that feminists are idiots. What’s astonishing is that they are surprised by the absolutely predictable consequences of the idiotic things they advocate:

There is a distinctly troubling issue that faces the more than 160,000 female soldiers who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. It has been called the “double whammy”: sexual abuse and trauma, combined with exposure to combat. Its effects are devastating.

Tragically, it is not a rare combination. Equally tragically, our military women receive this treatment not from our enemies; instead, it comes at the hands of some male officers and enlisted men of the very United States military in which these women bravely serve and fight.

A 2003 report, financed by the Department of Defense and cited in the article, found that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking Veterans Administration health care “said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service.” Of this sampling of female military veterans, “37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped.”

There’s three options here. Which one makes the most sense?

1. Offer more anti-harassment education. Maybe having a few more women wag fingers in their faces and say “rape is wrong” will make a substantial difference to the very same men who have been trained to lower their natural inhibitions to doing things that are generally considered morally and socially unacceptable, like shooting people in the head.

“Shooting women, good. Dropping bomb on house full of women and children, good. Putting penis where it isn’t wanted, bad.”

2. Kick all the over-aggressive, rape-prone men out of the military. Who knows what we’ll do with them, maybe we can have them all teach PE in the public schools. After all, it seems that little kids can be expected to defend themselves about as well as these brave female warriors. I’m sure the Rangers and Marines will be just as effective if they were comprised entirely of sensitive men who would never dream of laying a hand on a woman without written permission.

3. Kick all the women out and leave the military alone to focus on killing people, breaking things and to rape and to pillage, as all armies have done since the dawn of time.

Of course, America doesn’t fight to win wars any more, so what difference does it make if we have a military capable of winning one or not anyway? I’d go with option 1 myself, you know, because education is the answer to everything.

You may wish to note that I twice brought up the possibility of a little unlooked-for regime change before Friday’s ominous media statement.

From ProFootballTalk:

A league source tells us that Randy Moss has passed his physical and the trade of Randy Moss to the Patriots is done.

Raiders get New England’s fourth-round pick.

Considering that the Vikes had two fourth-rounders, I would have been delighted to get Randy back in the Metrodome. Maybe he is finished, but I think it’s more likely that the debacle that is the Raidess put him in quit mode.

Regardless, who would have ever thought that Randy Moss would be traded for nothing but a 4th round draft pick. It looks like New England is loading for bear this year, if anyone can keep him in line and get him back on track, it’s going to be the Hooded One.

He did a pretty good job with a malcontent named Dillon a few years ago, after all.

Upon further reflection, it seems not all Republicans are determined to continue collaborating with the invasion of the US:

Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback said yesterday he no longer supports the immigration overhaul bill that he helped pass in the Senate. “I would not vote for the same bill,” Mr. Brownback told reporters yesterday morning, saying that after the bill passed the Senate he had a chance to study its effects and decided it led to too much immigration.

It’s a major reversal for a man who is listed as one of seven original sponsors of the bill, along with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who spearheaded the bill.

I don’t believe Brownback for a second, of course. What’s changed his mind is the realization that the vast majority of Republicans absolutely hate the president’s immigration collaboration bill, wish to see immigration severely reduced and all illegals sent back to their homelands. Even so, his turnabout is a positive sign.

As I’ve said for quite some time now, all Hillary has to do in order to win is to embrace immigration restrictions. She’ll be lying, of course, but when has that ever troubled her?

Happy Birthday to you.
Happy Birthday to you.
While we’d love to see you,
The marshals would too.

Have a great day today, Dad. All the best, as always.

I’m not a draftnik, never have been, so I don’t spend much time obsessing over these things, especially since I don’t watch a lot of NCAA football anymore. Also, it’s not as if paying close attention to the drafts was going to do you any good when Denny Green was doing the selecting… the only predictable pick he’s ever made was in Arizona when he picked up his long-time St. Paul homeboy Fitzgerald.

But since a lot of you are down with Mel and company, feel free to have at it here.

And if you have any doubts, you’d better check them out. I rather admire the calm way the young guy is handling the news that he’s not actually a father. There’s no need to stone adulterous wives, much better to leave them to sink into poverty and misery.

I’m on the phone with Owen Williams (not his real name), who just found out yesterday that the tired child I hear crying in the background, the child he’s been rocking to sleep every night, the child who carries his name, belongs to some other man. For a person who’s just had his life turned upside down, he seems surprisingly calm.

Williams is a level-headed guy. He’s 24 years old and working toward a degree in network engineering. He has clear professional goals. He knows what he wants out of life. And this definitely isn’t it.

The child’s mother comes home from work in another 6 1/2 hours. She doesn’t realize that Williams knows the truth, and he has no plans to tell her. As soon as he finds a new place to live, within a day or two, he hopes, he’s going to leave, and that’s it. “In fact, when I move out, I’m not saying anything, because there’s nothing to be said. For over 15 months, over a year, she deceived me. Every doctor visit I’ve been to, every cookout I’ve been to, every reunion I’ve been to—with her, on her account—I’ve been deceived.”

Yesterday’s discovery changed things for Williams. “Knowing that I’m not his father is the part that I’m having trouble with,” he explains. “He has nothing to do with what happened between me and her. So I treat him just like any other kid.”

Most women don’t give a damn about the connection between fathers and their real children whenever it stands in the way of a woman’s “happiness” and pursuit of a divorce, so the argument that men shouldn’t be allowed to abandon children that aren’t theirs because “love transcends blood” or whatever is not only spurious, it’s downright disingenuous.

Not only should they be allowed to, but the women committing such fraud should be forced to reimburse the man for all child-rearing expenses, just as those who commit any other financial fraud must.

While I very much respect those men who are willing to stand by their not-children and believe that would be my choice, no one has the right to make such a decision for another man one way or the other. But it’s also worth noting that even if a man chooses to stand by his not-children initially, there’s not a chance in Hell that his lack of paternity won’t be used against him if the marriage falls apart later.

UPDATE: 94 pages of comments are here, and some of the differnt perspectives are quite interesting. This, however, was probably the funniest remark: OMG I am so embarrassed to be a bearer of the XX chromosome at this moment. The women justifying this and defending it are the examples of why so many women are single and on anti-depressants- is it any wonder so many viable men of marrying age want to have nothing to do with us.

Notice how Joe Rogan deals with a feminist trying to attack him. He goes directly after her passive-aggressive assertion, destroys it and doesn’t let up until she’s been ripped to shreds.

She’s using the primary weapon in the feminist arsenal, attacking his manhood, in this case by disingenously stating something that even she can’t possibly believe. Femininists, underneath all the rhetorical jargon, understand that at the end of the day a woman’s only real power is sexual, which is why they constantly introduce the subject into areas where it isn’t involved and doesn’t belong. I’m only surprised that the woman didn’t threaten not to have sex with him.

I mean, the guy was talking about guys not liking penguin movies, for Darwin’s sake. What in the name of the Galapagos Islands does that have to do with his ability or inability to find a girlfriend?

Women cannot handle direct assaults, which is why they always try to attack from oblique angles and attempt to defuse the situation as soon as they meet resistance. Don’t let them get away with it. Whether you’re a man or a woman, if a woman attacks you with the usual passive-aggressive comment, respond directly to the attack and don’t let her off by claiming that she was only joking or whatever.

And if a guy wants to turn the whole thing into a joke that’s actually funny, follow Joe’s example and publicly rebuke her vagina like a movie priest waving a cross at a vampire. “Your pussy has no power over me!”

Better yet, pretend you’re the priest from the Godfather, throw your drink on her crotch and start talking to one of the other guys there as if he’s Michael Corleone.

“Do you renounce her pussy?”

“I do renounce it?”

“And all its works?”

“I do renounce them.”

Sure, she’ll hate you forever, but everyone will be cracking up so it will totally be worth it. And do you really want attack-prone passive-aggressive bitches infesting your life anyhow?

VDH simply won’t accept the reality:

A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.

It isn’t. Give the Arab Muslims democracy and they’ll vote in the jihad. Dependably. This is easily verified fact. The utter stupidity of the neocons and their idiotic World Democratic Revolution is likely going to be revealed this summer, when the Turkish military stages its fourth post-Ataturk military coup in order to prevent Turkish democracy from bringing the Islamist government chosen by the will of the people to power.

For once, the Democrats in Congress are correct. The war in Iraq is over, done, kaput. The secular jihad for democracy is a failure, as it was always bound to be.

And it should be clear to even those who still support the war that it does not have the support of most of the American people, so it can’t be fought successfully even if it was a good idea. I don’t see it as a complete disaster, though, at least the concept of democracy has taken a pretty serious credibility hit around the globe, and pragmatist Republicans have all but self-eviscerated themselves by demonstrating how inherently self-destructive it is for conservatives to follow their lead.

Finally, the war has also given strong winds to the anti-immigration movement, which Romney admitted yesterday is the most powerful issue in politics today, despite the media doing its best to sweep it under a rug of bipartisan accord.

Now, Bane and the gung ho brigade are correct in one sense, there will very likely be a serious, trans-global war with the jihad one day; this present conflict will be accounted a mere skirmish leading up to it. But the time to fight it is not now, as it would have been far better to get the immigration issue sorted out and wait for events in Europe to create the environment for the sort of alliance between the secularists and Christendom that is capable of winning such a war.

We haven’t seen anything yet, on either side. I fully expect big bombs in big cities, ethnic and religious cleansing on a much larger scale than in Bosnia and significantly more excitement than anyone intelligent would like to see. By jumping the gun in the hopes of establishing a secular beachhead in the Middle East, the Commander-in-Chief has put us in a worse position than we would have been had he instead begun more circumspect preparations for the coming global conflict.

UPDATE: An interesting perspective. I don’t think the goals of the neocons were achievable in any event, but it’s an interesting read nonetheless:

Iraq is America’s Valmy. America’s generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers.