#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
I’m not a big fan of politicians, to say the least. And even the best of them are usually capable of turning around and selling out both their principles and their constituencies. But, I have to admit, I kind of like what I’ve seen of this guy. Anyone who can summon up such instinctive and dismissive sarcasm in refusing to suffer journalistic fools will tend to strike a positive chord with me:
| Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone' |
I’m not particularly concerned about presidential Supreme Court nominees since most appointees by both parties have zero respect for the Constitution as written. I find Obama’s present stealth nominee to be more amusing than anything, considering how she wishes to throw out literal centuries of tradition, jurisprudence, and free speech rights in favor of a nonexistent concept:
President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, argued certain forms of speech that promote “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared.” In her few academic papers, Kagan evidences strong beliefs for court intervention in speech, going so far as to posit First Amendment speech should be weighed against “societal costs.”
In her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”
All societies are “marred” by racial and gender inequality because there has never been any equality of any kind in any society. And there never will be. It would be as reasonable, and as meaningful, to write that society is marred by the absence of flying pink unicorns and that the magical appearance of those wonderful creatures would be cause for great elation.
As a bonus, Kagan’s blathering also demolishes the idea that the Left is as vehement in its defense of the First Amendment as the Right is in its defense of the Second.
I was raised to revere the Marine Corps my entire life. I have always harbored the greatest respect for the many Marines I have met through the years. But I have absolutely no doubt that my grandfather, who fought in WWII and Korea and was declared a Marine’s Marine by the Commandant of the Corps himself, would be bewildered by the rejection of the American South by what should apparently be renamed the United States Yankee Corps:
Straight out of high school, one 18-year-old Tennessee man was determined to serve his country as a Marine. His friend said he passed the pre-enlistment tests and physical exams and looked forward with excitement to the day he would ship out to boot camp. But there would be no shouting drill instructors, no rigorous physical training and no action-packed stories for the aspiring Marine to share with his family. Shortly before he was scheduled to leave Nashville for boot camp, the Marine Corps rejected him…. When the young recruit didn’t go to boot camp, Andrews learned of his rejection based on his tattoo of the Confederate battle flag on his shoulder.
It would be educational to see what would happen if Southerners refused to enlist and re-enlist until ludicrous ban on Southern heritage and Southron pride is rescinded. Without the South, the Marine Corps would find itself transformed into a mercenary force largely populated by gangsters looking to acquire combat training and Mexicans seeking citizenship. Of course, if that’s the ultimate objective of the policy, then we can expect that the ban on the Confederate Battle flag will only be the first step and it won’t be long before other patriotic symbols such as the Gadsden Flag and the Betsy Ross Flag are banned as well. Does anyone believe a UN or Mexican flag would be cause for similar rejection?
Speaking of Mexico, it is already on the verge of civil war violent revolt in the north. This makes me wonder, how long will it be until Round Two?
At least with Obama, you know perfectly well that he wants to turn USA into a quasi-socialist third-world hellhole for the benefit of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street:
Dobson pulls Grayson endorsement, backs Paul
Just a week after backing Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Senate race, evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson pulled the endorsement, backed Rand Paul and blamed GOP leaders for providing him misleading information about Paul’s record.
“Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent,” Dobson said. “But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
Now, history demonstrates that the Republican Party leadership will happily choose a Democrat over a principled Republican every single time. And often, when a Party “moderate” like Crist or Specter is beaten in a primary, he will run as an independent in order to keep the conservative out. Intelligent observers of these practices may wish to ask themselves if this behavior is keeping with the idea that the party officials always want the party to win.
Peter Hitchens, a longtime Tory, explains why a victory for David Cameron’s Conservative Party would actually mean a terrible defeat for England:
I beg and plead with you not to fall for the shimmering, greasy, cynical fraud which is the Cameron project. You will hate yourself for it in time if you do…. He is truly what he once said he was – the Heir to Blair.
If he wins, he will – as the first Tory leader to win an Election in 18 years – have the power to crush all his critics in the Tory Party.
He will be able to say that political correctness, green zealotry, a pro-EU position and a willingness to spend as much as Labour on the NHS have won the day.
He will claim (falsely) that ‘Right-wing’ policies lost the last three Elections.
Those Tory MPs who agree with you and me will be cowed and silenced for good. The power will lie with the A-list smart set, modish, rich metropolitan liberals hungry for office at all costs who would have been (and who in the case of one of the older ones actually was) in New Labour 13 years ago.
And then where will you have to turn for help as the PC, pro-EU bulldozer trundles across our landscape destroying what is good and familiar and replacing it with a country whose inhabitants increasingly cannot recognise it as their own?
The Liberal Democrats? They agree with David. The Labour Party under exciting, new, Blairite Mr Miliband, heir to a Marxist dynasty?
He agrees with David, too. You will look from bench to bench in the House of Commons and see nothing but the people whose ideas have wrecked a great country in half a century, and who still won’t admit they’re wrong.
Britain is going to end up having to turn to UKIP anyhow, unless the EU collapses under the weight of its economic malfeasance before Cameron imports another 15 million Polistanis and forces Britain into the Euro. So, you might as well vote for them now.
If the breaking National Enquirer story about Obama’s purported 2004 affair with Vera Baker, a story now being echoed by the Globe, turns out to be true, it may render the whole state candidate qualification issue irrelevant:
In a story that the National Enquirer has been working on since 2008, the tabloid announced on its website that President Barack Obama spent the night with former aide/fundraiser, Vera Baker in a DC hotel. The Enquirer has been trying to obtain confirmation of the details of the story it started looking into since 2008. Those details have apparently been confirmed.
Coming as it does on the heels of the non-coverage of the John Edwards scandal and the multitudinous affairs of Tiger Woods, it will be very difficult for the mainstream media to keep this one under their hat no matter how desperately they want to protect the Magic Negro. Especially since the international press is already paying attention. Obama’s approval ratings have been on a long death march downward, so in combination with the November Congressional elections, this would likely put his administration into a death spiral. After all, it’s a little difficult to play the sex addiction card and go into rehab for six months when you’re supposed to be in the White House.
Regardless, it is interesting to think about how the Republicans would go about attempting to blow what should be a conclusive electoral advantage. I think nominating Michael Steele, defending Goldman Sachs, launching another pointless invasion, and running hard against Arizona-style immigration restrictions might be effective.
Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” remark demonstrates the contempt of the modern transnationalist politician for the very people who keep him in power:
There is intense anger among large parts of the electorate at what is happening to this country, and in Mrs Duffy that discontent found its voice. In her encounter with Gordon Brown, she raised the two issues – the deficit and immigration – that have until now hardly featured in the campaign, even though they are of overwhelming concern to millions of voters. Rarely has the gulf between the political elite at Westminster and the people they are supposed to represent been more graphically illustrated.
Such encounters used to be the stuff of election campaigns and, in truth, Mr Brown handled the exchanges perfectly well. It was his extraordinary private remarks to an aide afterwards, picked up by an open microphone, that did the damage. His own insecurity was exposed when he described the encounter with Mrs Duffy as a “disaster”. It was not; he was courteous and they parted on good terms. Mr Brown’s curious over-reaction seems to confirm the view, widespread in Whitehall, that he regards a contrary point of view as a personal affront.
But it was his characterisation of this Labour-voting pensioner as “just a sort of bigoted woman” that is genuinely shocking. What message does it send when the Prime Minister (who once talked of “British jobs for British workers”) brands as “bigoted” anyone who dares raise the issue of immigration in a conversation with him? Such arrogance plays straight into the hands of the British National Party.
It is ironic, of course, that aside from the BNP and UKIP, the British political parties, Conservative, Labour, and Liberal-Democrat, are all hell-bent on destroying Great Britain and rendering it nothing more than a non-sovereign county in the great trans-European nation at the very same time that the fundamental economic idiosyncrasies are threatening to tear apart its bureaucrat-imposed political structure. I can’t imagine the Greek/Portugese/Spanish debt crisis is doing wonders for the pro-Euro stance of the major parties either.
It is long past time that people like Mrs. Duffy learn to stop voting for people who despise them and are working to their detriment.
A letter to the New York Times:
To the Editor:
Of course Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, signed the state’s anti-immigrant bill (front page, April 24). Why? The majority of Arizona residents wanted her to. Immigrants, undocumented and legal, are blamed for crime, unemployment, crowded emergency rooms, pet overpopulation and every other social ill that comes to mind.
It reminds me of Germany in the 1930s and how Jews were held culpable for Europe’s problems. Arizona’s Legislature shamelessly panders to the radical fringe in our state and snickers at those of us who seek common ground.
For the first time since moving here from New York City in 1997, I am ashamed to call myself an Arizonan.
Debra J. White
Tempe, Ariz., April 24, 2010
This is exhibit A why Arizonans should be restricting immigration. And not just from south of the border.
JM explains why he is dubious with regards to the Tea Party’s ability to achieve anything:
In the past, every president has shown great concern with how they will look, and what is said about them, this one has no concern at all, apparently, on those issues, but only regarding his intended goals. His party has remained true to its fundamental principles, it has handily tossed off the handicap of being expected to behave within the constraints of “republicanism”, because people have ceased to relate that notion to the Nation as a whole, and have allowed themselves to confine the term to the party, forgetting that our unique status as a Nation is entirely dependent on the principles of “republicanism”, as most who vote these days were never taught that in school, and won’t learn it by accident.
Add to this picture, the least responsible previous president as the head of a Nation in serious fiscal problems preceding him, and we have in essence, “the perfect storm”, a situation where the fact that playing offense in politics meshes perfectly, and makes for that much more effective gains….
The “tea party movement” has more citizens activated than any other movement in my life, and should, by rights, be sufficient to offset this advantage the social democrats have, however, there is far less real power in simply massing than appears and most protests in the past have made the most impact through the fear of those facing it, than any other factor. It would appear the social democrats and this administration were prepared for mass protests, and while they perhaps didn’t expect the numbers, they are not showing any fear.
I’ve watched riots close up from the crashing of the DNC in Chicago, in 68, and ever since, and from where I stood, each and every time, the entire issue was decided by the reaction of the administrators, not the crowd. If the administration and the party standing behind it do not flinch, the tea party movement will cease to have any influence unless the whole issue devolves into outright uprising and a physical outbreak of war against the illegal government is commenced.
Seeing the way in which Obama is confounding the Tea Party movement tends to remind me of the classic alternative history short story in which the Germans conquer British India and instead of facing imperial British troops, Gandhi finds himself confronting soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Needless to say, satyagraha is rather less effective in the face of a ruthless enemy that is indifferent to bloodshed.
Obama is entirely focused on his goals, not the polls. He is as indifferent to the political pressure from his left as he is to the Tea Party-led pressure from his right, in part because he has largely delegated his legislative priorities to the Congressional Democrats. And being a ruthless pragmatist who has never hesitated to discard others once they cease to prove useful to him, it is extremely unlikely that he is in any way concerned with the Democratic Party’s probable loss of the House in the fall. Obama will simply keep pursuing his progressive goals while relying upon Republicans to do what they do best, namely, crumble under media pressure.
It would seem there are more gay Republicans than genuine conservative republicans in the Senate:
“US Senator Lindsey Graham is gay and while many people in South Carolina and Washington DC know that, the general public and Graham’s constituents do not,” Gheen said in the statement. Though Gheen claimed, both in the statement and at the Tea Party rally, that he does “not care about Graham’s private life,” he again said that Graham must declare his supposed homsexuality “so the public can rest assured he is not being manipulated with his secret.”
I am convinced that, with very few exceptions, there is something intrinsically and fundamentally wrong with the psyche of anyone who genuinely wants to be a national politician. I have no idea what is or is not true about Lindsay Graham, but what sort of lunatic would decide that what the good conservative people of South Carolina really need to represent their political interests is a closet dweller?
What you do is only your concern if you’re a private citizen, but not if you’re a politician positioned as a family values conservative. People have the right to know for whom they are voting.