A few weeks ago, I did a post asking if Barack Obama is anti-American. I liked the concept, but wanted to refine on it a bit. Well, that refinement turned into a very long post, which I passed on to American Thinker, and the editors were kind enough to publish it. Take a gander at it and tell me what you think.
Archives for October 2009
Jack Cashill tells a story I never knew (no doubt because I grew up on the MSM). Roots was a fraud, from beginning to end — but what an important fraud, because it managed to remove Muslims from the slave trade.
It’s scary out there!! Have fun tonight!!
Have you ever wondered what happened to all those cute,crazy, good-looking, young hippie chicks who did drugs, smoked weed, got tattooed everywhere and did every guy during the Age of Aquarius back in the 60’s?
(WARNING: Do not go below the fold unless your kids are out of the room. This is a serious warning. Your children may be scarred for life.)
My husband attended a professional multi-day seminar at an Ivy League university. One of the classes he attended touched directly upon the work he does day in and day out. The teacher for this seminar is a professor at the Ivy League institution. As one of the premier “experts” in his field, he is an advisor to President Obama. His advice will ultimately affect all of us.
“He’s really brilliant,” said my husband, “but most of what he said was just BS. That’s not the way things really work.”
When I asked, then, why he was an expert, my husband replied, “Because he really knows his stuff.”
It seemed logical to me, at this point, to note that my husband had just said that the professor didn’t really know his stuff.
“No, you don’t get it,” answered my husband. “He’s done all sorts of studies, and he’s really brilliant. He’s an advisor to President Obama.”
I was confused, and I said so: “I’m confused. You just told me that what he’s saying doesn’t work in the real world.”
My husband got frustrated. “Listen to what I’m saying. He’s an expert. He’s done lots of studies. He’s the premier guy on this at [Ivy League University]. He’s an advisor to the President.”
Again, I’m confused: “But you said he doesn’t make sense when it comes to the practical applications of the subject..”
My husband closed the conversation. “I can’t talk to you when you’re like this.”
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
I don’t often do this, as you know, but I’m going to quote Jennifer Rubin’s post in its entirety here. I think it’s important that people understand precisely what is going on in Washington and how it’s affecting men and women in Afghanistan. Rubin, unsurprisingly, does as good a job as anyone summing up the immoral behavior at home, which creates death abroad. This is even worse than Vietnam, because Obama’s conduct here is more deliberate and, in a twisted way, more informed about the risks of his conduct:
This sobering report comes from the Washington Post:
More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of all those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. The dramatic increase has filled military hospitals with more amputees and other seriously injured service members and comes as October marks the deadliest month for American troops in Afghanistan.
How many were killed or lost a limb, I wonder, while the president dithered and delayed implementing the recommendations of his hand-picked general? It is not an inconsequential question. The president acts as though there were no downside to the lethargic pace of his decision-making. He would have us believe that there is no price to be paid as he micromanages, province-by-province, the number of troops he’ll dispense. He seems content to entertain the recommendations of Gens. Joe Biden and John Kerry – drawing on their years of experience (in assessing nearly every national-security challenge incorrectly) while discarding that of the real experts.
What’s a few more weeks? Or months? Well, we know there is indeed a price to allowing our current approach to languish. There is a very real cost to delaying implementation of the new plan that is the best available to achieve victory as quickly as possible. The enemy is emboldened. More civilians die. The political and security situation in Pakistan worsens. And more brave Americans are asked to sacrifice themselves while Obama considers and reconsiders whether there isn’t any way to shave some money off the tab and reduce the number of troops his commanders say are needed. After all, health care is going to cost an awful lot.
The horrid reality of war is that parents send their children to die or to return in a condition they could not possibly have envisioned. But to sacrifice even a single American who was engaged in a fruitless exercise or an understaffed operation so the president can conduct a seminar and postpone a confrontation with his own party (which no longer can stomach the “good war”) is reprehensible.
At a certain point, you have to fish or cut bait. Either Obama fights a war, in which case he fights both to win and to ensure that our troops are adequately supported in that fight. Or, Obama withdraws from the fight, and takes our troops out of harm’s way entirely. To do what he’s doing, which is not fighting but leaving our troops there is unconscionable.
We’re not talking about the way distant past here, we’re talking about Britain in the 1950s, a place some found stable, safe and charming, and others repressive and stultifying. I’m a stable, safe and charming gal myself, so I developed a real sense of nostalgia reading about a place and time I never knew.
UPDATE: Fixed the caption from “peak” to “peek” — although I guess it was sort of accurate, ’cause Britain seems to have gone way downhill since them. At leaste my typos are spelled correctly….
Last Sunday, a private San Francisco museum unveiled a new painting, billed as the world’s largest portrait mural. The mural contains the following edifying images, all homages to the wacky City I once called home:
The colorful mural by acclaimed artist Guy Colwell features Speaker Nancy Pelosi lancing a Republican elephant; a Terminator-dressed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger patting the back of a grizzly bear; Senator Dianne Feinstein waving the California State flag; Mayor Gavin Newsom performing a same-sex marriage ceremony; former Mayor Willie Brown brandishing a freshly pressed suit; former Board of Supervisors President Angela Alioto donning angel wings outside the Porziuncola Chapel in North Beach (an endeavor Pritikin helped to promote); a singing former Supervisor Tony Hall; former Supervisor Harvey Milk waving a Castro Rainbow flag with former Mayor George Moscone by his side; actress Marilyn Monroe hugging baseball Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio on the back of a giraffe; San Francisco Chronicle scribe Herb Caen; actress Carol Channing; Emperor Norton; Jerry Garcia; topless stripper Carol Doda; Willie Mayes and Mark Twain, as well as the Zodiac killer, Jim Jones and Huey Newton – all set against an iconic San Francisco skyline. (Emphasis mine.)
Color me oh-so-naive about the sophisticated art world, but I think a painting that celebrates a City’s heritage by showing a politician brutally, albeit metaphorically, killing her duly elected opponents in a democratic two-party system, and that highlights a serial killer, a mass murderer, and a murderous thug, just lacks the eternal charm that you’d find in, say, a Da Vinci, Van Eyck, or Rembrandt.
Perhaps, though, the painting is just a part of a greater whole, as the museum boasts these other gems, as well:
The mansion also features a few shockers including an Adolf Hitler gallery containing the Fuhrer’s personal world globe and his Swastika armband acquired by two American soldiers at the end of World War II. The authenticated items “are a chilling reminder of the horrendous crimes committed by the most heinous of history’s despots,” Pritikin remarked. The Hitler gallery appropriately displays a large disclaimer that reads: “May the bastard rot in hell.”
In another room, perhaps the most shocking of all, is a working electric chair, complete with a death-row inmate dummy that sizzles and shakes at the flip of the executioner’s switch.
Considering the art world’s Leftism, it can’t be a coincidence that, despite the worst recession in decades, art agencies just got their highest funding in 16 years. After all, if you were on the Left, wouldn’t you want to fund people like the Chief of the National Endowment for the Arts, who is not only someone whose paycheck has a lot to do with American taxpayers, but who also is a man who thinks Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. (I’m not a sufficiently good parodist to take on that one, although others, fortunately, are.)
Heard the first on the radio and it reminded me of the second. Talk about self-pitying — but for reasons probably related to the teenage part of my brain, I like both of these songs a great deal:
Jack, the ExPreacherman, emailed me a great joke:
During a visit to the mental asylum, I asked the Director “How do you determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized?”
“Well,” said the Director, “we fill up a bathtub. Then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub.”
“Oh, I understand,” I said. “A normal person would use the bucket because it’s bigger than the spoon or the teacup.”
“No.” said the Director, “A normal person would pull the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?”
Jack, a devoutly religious man, sees that anecdote as a step towards thinking about eternal salvation. I, a devoutly political woman, see it as a perfect analogy for the current insanity going on in the health care debate. As I commented in a facebook string under my real name, it baffles me how the Democrats are completely willing to destroy and attempt to remake a a highly functional system when they could first try some more simple experiments, such as allowing greater competition, increasing the types of insurance that can be offered to the public (not everyone needs a gold plated plan), and limiting malpractice. The Dems and their followers are not normal.
Both Jack and I in sync in one way, though, because religion is involved here. Jack seeks salvation from God; the Dems seek salavation from the government. If I were of a religious mind, I’d go in Jack’s direction every time.
In Arizona, an Iraqi immigrant ran over his daughter and tried to kill her because she was becoming “too Westernized.” My first thought was, why do they come to America if they hate our culture so much? And in the question lies the answer: they come here, not to achieve the American dream, but to change our culture to more closely match theirs.
I believe the 1,990 page health care bill might be longer than all the works of Proust put together, so here is a little video tribute to the bill’s length — and to the manifest impossibility of any representative’s mastering its contents before November 11, Pelosi’s proposed vote date:
UPDATE: My friend, John Graham, who specializes in the economics of health care, has taken a first look at the bill and clearly finds its date of issue — near Halloween — timely. It’s a Frankenstein monster of a bill for size alone. Jennifer Rubin explains that this monstrous bill functions by raising over $700 billion in taxes and cutting billions in Medicare (monies you know damn well Congress will reinstate next year to the joy and delight of taxpayers everywhere).
Horrible story of what happens when political correctness and fear of a violent minority group culminate in a school that saw the administration look the other way for fear of offending those violent minority sensibilities.
This, by the way, is how that paralyzing political correctness, a sensiblity that saps courage and morality, begins.
Extreme experiences produce extreme courage, this article, which summarizes the highlights of a book about Capt. Freddy Spencer Chapman, describes a level of courage and commitment that is well nigh unbelievable. Capt. Chapman was a British army officer who, when trapped behind enemy lines in Malaya, launched a massive guerrilla warfare offensive that ultimately saw 4000 Japanese troops pursuing him:
In a new biography, historian Brian Moynahan recounts how the young officer successfully led a tiny resistance war that wrought such havoc on Japanese supply lines that local commanders were convinced they were looking for a 200-strong force of Australian guerillas and dispatched a force of 4,000 to catch them.
Wading through swamps, hacking his way through dense vegetation, struggling to navigate when he could barely see the sun, let alone any landmarks, he became weak as his food supplies dwindled to nothing.
His original intention had been to rendezvous with another pocket of British resistance fighters.
But when he arrived at the prearranged point, he discovered that he had been left behind – assumed lost or dead.
Undeterred, Chapman unleashed his guerilla campaign.
In the ‘mad fortnight’ that followed, as Chapman later referred to it, he crept through the jungle night after night to lay charges on railway bridges and roads, derailing troop and supply trains, and blowing convoys of trucks high into the air before raking them with bullets and grenades.
Chapman estimated that, together with the help of two other British officers, he derailed eight trains, damaged 15 bridges, cut the railway track in 60 places, destroyed 40 trucks or cars and accounted for between 500 and 1,500 casualties.
It was, as Earl Mountbatten would later describe it: ‘more than a whole division of the British Army could have achieved’.
The risks were not Chapman’s alone. The Japanese, like the Germans, enjoyed mass reprisals, so the death of Japanese soldiers would mean the mass slaughter, by bayonet, fire and more, of an entire Chinese village. I think, though, that Chapman made the right decision not to allow this grotesque form of blackmail (for that’s what it is when an occupying army engages in mass reprisals against the local civilians). After all, he must have known from the Rape of Nanking, and from the way in which the Japanese had conducted the war to date, that the Japanese would have done horrible things regardless of the attacks against him. At least with the attacks, Chapman and his team were doing something that would result in the enemy’s ultimate destruction. Chapman paid a price — suffering for years from nightmares the replayed those horrible deaths — but I doubt he ever questioned his own actions.
I’ll be keeping an eye out for that book if it ever hits American shores. What an amazing person he must have been.
Charles Krauthammer goes on full throttle attack against Barack Obama based on Obama’s endless, weasely whining that everything that’s gone wrong with the first nine months of his presidency is all Bush’s fault. The central focus of this whining, of course, is Afghanistan, which candidate Obama claimed was the necessary war and which candidate Obama complained was the war Bush ignored. Candidate Obama also promised that he would take immediately action on Afghanistan and fix it. But now with his feet in the Oval Office, suddenly it’s not President Obama’s problem any more — because it’s all Bush’s fault:
Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W. Bush for?
The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad — everything but swine flu.
It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to “long years of drift” in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.
This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision.
Given the non-stop whining and blaming, it’s sometimes hard to remember that Obama desperately wanted, and battled hard, to take on Bush’s job. For a year and a half, he promised voters — left, right and center — that, with his transformative, nay, God–like* powers, he would resolve those problems instantly and definitively. Apparently boasting about solving things is not the same as actually solving them. Indeed, even the ability to offer legitimate criticisms is not the same as the ability to solve problems. I’m famous for being able to take things apart, but singularly lack the ability to put them back together again.
The fact is that all candidates make abstract promises and then, if elected, have to deal with concrete realities. All candidates discover that there may be a chasm between those promises and the realities. Only Obama, though, is so childish and narcissistic that he is unable to accept that he’s in charge now, and that the realities are his problem. Placing blame is no longer a job for the President. It’s just one for the history books. (And if it’s any comfort to Obama, with the plethora of Leftist history professors, he’ll come out on top in there.)
*Have you ever noticed that Leftists really want a God? The traditional ones aren’t good enough for them, so they go out and create their own. I have to say that, if I were making up a God, I wouldn’t pick a jug-eared skinny guy who doesn’t like women and tends to engage in trash talk. (And that’s entirely separate from my profound disagreements with his policies and values.)
I don’t normally follow film critics to get my political information, so I missed what Roger Ebert wrote back in August to explain why Obama Care is a good thing. Had I read it then, I would have learned that of course it’s socialized medicine — and that’s a good thing. In a lengthy post responding to critics who whine about how un-American Obama Care is, Ebert offered a careful point-by-point rebuttal, including to the contention that Obama Care is socialized medicine:
¶ It is “socialized medicine.” Yes, it is. The entire society shares the cost. It does not replace private medicine. Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians. But it is the safety net for everyone.
¶ It is “socialism.” Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.
I feel much better now, don’t you? Now I understand that socialism is just charity on broader terms. So what if it’s forced charity? And really, it’s silly to worry about the government using the IRS and its penalties to force this “charity” on everybody. ‘Cause really, life in socialized countries is fine. Just ask the citizens of the former Soviet Union, the former National Socialistic Party Germany (better known as Nazi Germany), the former Czechoslovakia, the former Poland, the former Romania, the former Albania, the current China, the current North Korea, the current Venezuela, the current Cuba . . . and on and on.
But those are extreme examples of a good thing run amok, I can hear Ebert saying. Things are just great in semi-socialized countries. Well, Mr. Ebert, I guess they’re okay if you don’t mind the government conspiring to change a whole nation’s social order, or the complete control of speech and thought (my example is in England, but check out speech codes and prosecutions in every other semi-socialized country in the world), or the fact that European countries have completely ceded their sovereignty to the EU (that is, whatever is left over after the UN has taken its cut). And so on. You get my point.
Socialism is great if your goal is perpetual childhood, free from the responsibility of caring for yourself. If a minimal level of comfort and irresponsibility is your goal, who really cares if you give up your freedom to act, speak or think. At least the government will ensure that there is food on your plate and, provided you’re not to old or sick (see the second video at this link), some type of injection in your arm. But I wonder, Mr. Ebert, just how many Americans, raised on a 233 year history of liberty are ready to walk quite so quietly into that socialist night.
(By the way, what’s really funny about the above is that it resulted from a conversation with a liberal during which I politely asked him to explain to me the support for his contention that health care is a “right.” Once he realized that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gave any authority for this government power grab, he sent me this link with the bald statement that this would address the whole “rights” argument. And I guess it does. In liberal land, we have no rights.)