Read Mark Steyn and weep *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Mar 06 2010 at 11:50 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
We’re trembling on the precipice, and Nancy Pelosi, who has balls of steel and no moral compass, will push us over.
UPDATE: Quin Hillyer on the profound disrespect Obama and Co. have for Americans.
Related posts:
- The usual must read Mark Steyn
- If you read only one thing this weekend — read Mark Steyn on Fort Hood and Multiculturalism
- Must read Mark Steyn about the real war on children
Email This Post To A Friend
17 Responses to “Read Mark Steyn and weep *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
People have mentioned civil war before, Obama’s engineered crisis method of gaining absolute power, and other elements of totalitarian or Leftist Utopian ideas.
The cycle of violence is real. It is not just a fabricated world view of the Left. Kill the family member of a clan and that clan will attempt to seek justice through either vengeance or something else. The Left knows it is real. That’s why they intentionally perpetuate it. You don’t have to believe this is true to see the ramifications.
Obama and his allies engineered the economic disaster of Fannie Mae, Union slave gangs, and minority plantations in America. All resulting in economic and human rights issues. Having done so, they have created extremist reactions amongst the population. Not just anti-government or Tea Party sentiment, the American reaction, but real extremist reactions in terms of Islamic attacks at Ft. Hood, Christmas Panty Bomber, and various revolutionary murderer-suicide endeavours.
Criminals, whether you call them sane or insane, are rational. They calculate the risk and rewards and weigh their actions accordingly. They pick their victims and even the Gun Free Zones to conduct their rampages. Nobody is safe, because there are no front lines. There is no military base safe from this, no civilian neighborhood safe, no military unit deployed that is safe from an Islamic or Leftist sleeper agent. Whether Islam uses lawfare or just rolls a grenade into a tent full of sleeping American servicemembers, whether the Left uses lawfare or just cuts the funding out from the US Marines, it doesn’t matter. They will get you one way or another. And that will necessarily produce a backlash, because no human victory is ever absolute. Somebody is always left to resist. It is more true now a days than in the past, but it is still an absolute truth of the underlying reality fabric of this world.
A civil war happens because one faction thinks they can gain through violence better than they can gain through diplomacy or politics. The Left thinks by portraying the resistance movement in America as extremists, that they can paint us as the bad guys, as those willingly to do violence. But the truth is different. The government is almost always the first one to move against the weak. Insurgencies rely upon this fact, by making the government the enemy of the people and the people the allies of the insurgent.
Except, here’s a little reality stitch in the fabric. When Islamic violence happens, how will the authorities, the government, react? Will they seek to eliminate the real threat, Islamic operators, or will they go after ‘extremists’ such as veterans and Tea Party members? As Iran did, you make the willingly to take violence as a recourse greater the more you strip people of non-violent alternatives. The capability of the people to negotiate through diplomacy and politics becomes more and more limited, the more attack dogs and attack helicopters you send after them. Combine this with the Left’s notorious inability to comprehend the ramifications of physical violence, means that the Left will try to bluff with violence and when things go to hell, they will blame it on internal dissidents rather than their own incompetence. Remember Christmas. Remember how the government acted then. Even in a better administration, there would still be issues. The corruption in Bush’s administration was never removed, just hidden until he left.
The prototypical reason the Left perpetuates the cycle of violence is because their Social Utopia needs victims in order to justify the sacrifice of humanity for the benefit of a few, those Born to Rule. If the world’s environment became truly clean, they would lose their political justification. If peace ever came to Israel and Palestine, Arafat would have lost his grip on power. If the economic situation in America really improved, Obama would have lost his mandate soon after the election was over, before he could funnel bribes to his Union thugs.
They need the cycle of violence, because they need victims. As ACORN said, prostitutes are good for non-taxable income. Especially underaged prostitutes with no human rights. So the government’s solution for the public outcry at the crimes of illegal immigrants? Arresting the innocent, those unable to fend for themselves, and thus creating more victims that they can then use to justify their perverse laws and doctrines.
There is such a thing as the cycle of violence. And the Left has been perpetuating it across the breadth of human existence for a long time now. Unlike the Jews, however. Unlike the Palestinians. Unlike the feckless Europeans and gutlessly brutal Russians, when Americans wage war, we wage war to the absolute end. That is why America has been so successful in the post war periods of the various centuries: we do not do things by half measures. There is no cycle of violence after an American Total War, because one side is completely obliterated or assimilated. And it doesn’t particularly matter if the factions fighting are funny looking foreigners or American neighbors.
That is the egalitarian nature of Americans. And it is why escalating things to perpetuate a cycle of violence to produce more victims for the grinder isn’t exactly safe. For any other nation or geographic locale, you could involve them in local wars forever, because they can’t figure out a way to defeat the cycle of violence. Nor are they able to amass enough will and focus to carry a war to its ultimate conclusion. They always end up with half measures or ridiculous post war treaties like Versailles.
It takes a lot to get modern day Americans to go to war. You just have to push them with more injustices, more and more atrocities until they have nowhere else to go. Even in cases of extreme injustice, the military forces will not interfere in political matters. So you have to go past extreme injustice and commit mass massacres. The Left are up to the job, I believe. They will show us how bureaucrats fight a war.
I looked up when Churchill lost political power right after the war. I cam across an interesting fact. Within 4 years or so, the socialist labour party had produced the NHS as well as a whole slew of entitlements. But was it Churchill and the Conservatives that allowed it to continue on.
Betting on the opposition party to reverse the change to the national character didn’t work out so well for the Brits, you see.
I think the Nazis would have been proud. The White liberals have found a way to commit genocide on minorities through a long program of eradication. And the victims even voted for it.
Very few nurses I work with or know support Obamacare. We know that this is going to be a disaster.
If and when this monstrosity passes and I hear someone complain about anything related to their health care, I’m going to ask them if they voted for Obama or any Democrat. There will be NO sympathy from me. None.
I know we nurses are supposed to be neutral and helpful – some expect us to be like Mother Theresa – but that is going to come to a stop.
Steyn: “Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm.”
Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. The 20th Century was the century of Progressivism. Wilson, Roosevelt and LBJ massively expanded the meaning, scope, and reach of the national government. Name even one period of time when government actually SHRANK to counterbalance any of the vast increases that we saw.
And for crying out loud, DON’ T give me Reagan. We could cry a river of tears if we think his miniscule shrinkage of the national government counts against any of the vast increases. So, Yes: REPUBLICANS ARE GOOD AT KEEPING THE SEAT WARM. And they haven’t been good for anything else. Not when you step back and look at the big picture.
Here, in the 21st Century, we have Obama, as bad as any of the 20th Century’s Big Three. Or Worse.
But there is hope. America the Great is difficult to bring down, but the steady drain of Bismarckian Progressivism has finally reached the nadir. We are hopelessly crushed under debt. The richest nation that has ever existed !!! ??? !!! – hopelessly crushed under debt ??? !!! ??? – it is hard to fathom, but it is true. If the People cannot quite grasp the heights of the tsunami rushing towards us, they’re to be forgiven: We’ve never been very good at grasping these kinds of numbers. But we the People are finally figuring out the shape of it, if not the terrifying magnitude, and alarm is rising.
So there’s hope. The Tea Party is just the beginning. As the years pass and the picture becomes clearer – and the pounding roar of the tsunami just over the horizon makes it clear what a ruinous hour is headed our way – we’ll be waking up. The Statists will have control of the federal government by then, with the largesse distributed so that they’re guaranteed 50%+ of the vote… but the devastation will have its precursors, and that may shrink their support, even as it has begun to already.
So, yes, we’re on the edge of the cliff. No exaggeration. It took almost a hundred years to get here. But there is always hope. The internal political sleepwalk within 20th Century America – it was actually very quiet – is not guaranteed to repeat itself in this new Century. The 20th Century may have been the century of world wars. The 21st may be the century of our Inner American War – between the Statists and the rest of us, as we reckon with the effects of 100 years of Bismarckian Statism that has ruined us.
Thanks for the Quin Hillyer link. Re Obama’s disrespect for Americans, see my post He’s Just Not That Into Us:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/9641.html
Ymarsakar and Mike both reminded me of a piece that cropped up during that whole impeachment thing, but has almost as much relevance today. The whole thing is wonderfully written, but here are a couple of nice paragraphs:
Principles are eternal. They stem not from our resolution or lack of it but from elsewhere where, in patient and infinite ranks, they simply wait to be called. They can be read in history. They arise as if of their own accord when in the face of danger natural courage comes into play and honor and defiance are born. Things such as courage and honor are the mortal equivalent of certain laws written throughout the universe. The rules of symmetry and proportion, the laws of physics, the perfection of mathematics, even the principle of uncertainty, are encouragement, entirely independent of the vagaries of human will, that not only natural law but our own best aspirations have a life of their own. They have lasted through far greater abuse than abuses them now. They can be neglected, but they cannot be lost. They can be thrown down, but they cannot be broken.
Each of them is a different expression of a single quality, from which each arises in its hour of need. Some come to the fore as others stay back, and then, with changing circumstance, those that have gone unnoticed rise to the occasion.
The good news is that more and more people are waking up to the impending disaster, and coming closer to being shaken out of their false sense of security. Only when a plurality cognitively understand and emotionally accept that we are in less danger with drastic action (e.g. US Constitution, Article V) than without it will we fix this mess.
Also, because the statists in charge are so incredibly out of touch with the people, and because they have propped themselves up with sham after sham which we have shamefully accepted — lax voter registration security, mountains of pork-laden patronage, legal entrenchment of unwanted unions, taxpayer-funded liberal campaigning, activist judges and their breathtaking decisions, taxpayer-funded indoctrination centers known as K-12 and the universities, liberal-dominated media, liberal-conquered endowment funds which were started by conservatives, etc., etc., etc. — the good news is that the liberal establishment is, in a way, a house of cards. It has a great distance to fall once seriously attacked by those who are focused on something more constitutionally originalist than simply winning the next election by carefully not offending anyone.
“The good news is that the liberal establishment is, in a way, a house of cards. It has a great distance to fall once seriously attacked by those who are focused on something more constitutionally originalist than simply winning the next election by carefully not offending anyone.”
Statismus delenda est.
“The richest nation that has ever existed !!! ??? !!! – hopelessly crushed under debt ??? !!! ??? – it is hard to fathom, but it is true.” – MikeD
That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it. Although we have been wallowing in riches as a nation where even the poor live like the upper middle class of most other countries in the world, it was never enough. Instead of being grateful, all we could do was increase our demand for more, more, more …for nothing. Thus do great nations rot from within.
Deana, physicians are supposed to get a 20% cut in reimbursements for Medicare patients this year. Any insights on how your medical colleagues will react?
I’d like to expand on my ‘Reagan’ comment above. If the stats are right, the government increased under Reagan, but slower than the GDP, so the net effect was – albeit very small – a shrinkage. Even that miniscule shrinkage took enormous political will. I believe that was the only Administration to oversee a shrinkage since FDR.
Im politics there is usually a back-and-forth, a reaction to the reaction. But since Wilson we saw at least three massive increases in national government, and not one corresponding massive decrease. We are so used to it – the unending increase in the national government – that its unending nature seems normal to us. But if you think about it, a hundred years of uninterrupted growth such as that is politically strange. At least to me. Strange that there never was any effective political pushback.
Well, the pushback time may (finally) be approaching.
Found on Ace Of Spades this morning:
> President Barack Obama’s budget will lead to deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, the CBO estimated Friday…
The link to the CBO story itself:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/85237-cbo-estimates-huge-deficits-average-1-trillion-per-year-for-the-next-decade
What’s really startling to me – what I didn’t know – is this paragraph from the story:
The Obama administration estimated its policies would lead to an average annual budget shortfall of $853 billion for the next 10 years. The difference is that Obama’s estimate expects more tax revenue.
So we have planned yearly deficits of $853 billion per year for the next ten years, at the rosiest, estimated by the guys who have every incentive to make the numbers as low as is humanly possible. A trillion dollars per year for ten years estimated by the CBO. The truth would probably be even larger.
I sit here. Open-mouthed. Have you ever looked at something in reality and simply said, “That’s not possible.” You look at it and look at it, and it doesn’t go away. You keep saying those words, but it doesn’t go away. It exists.
I keep thinking I understand the scope of the problem, that my efforts to get my head around the problem have succeeded, and that I now am grounded in reality. Then a story like this comes along and I realize that I am *still* fooling myself. The problem remains worse than my ability to comprehend it. Even I, it seems, can’t handle the full truth, and I keep trying so hard.
Sorry, one more post.
The USA’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) last year was $14.4 trillion.
The national debt is estimated currently at $12.5 trillion.
Over ten years – at the rosiest – we’ll add another $8.5 trillion in debt.
Greece is an economic basket case with their debt currently at 125% of GDP. Most of Europe is not far behind. Great Britain, Spain, Ireland, Portugal stagger already as well.
Crunch our own numbers. But remember that the Obama administration’s economic policies are severely regressive (consider merely cap-and-trade, global warming restrictions and desired trillion dollar payouts to other countries to “help them” combat global warming) and an etc, etc, etc of other policies that degrade economic performance) if you want to assume rosy % increases in our own GDP to alleviate the problem…
More bad news…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/07/awarding-billions-firms-violating-iran-sanctions
Ya know…Reading your comments about the continually increasing cost of government…I was struck with the underlying capitalism of the thing. The reason the government keeps getting bigger – imo – is that the people _in_ it are basically capitalists. They want to increase the size of their operations which they do if they’re successful in doing whatever they’re supposed to be doing, expanding the reach and influence of their function – whatever it is – and increasing their personal income as they go. There’s an innate capitalist approach, as if the government itself were a capitalist business. By getting bigger, they demonstrate how successful they are. Importance of function is demonstrated not by what they accomplish, but how big they get.
So…given that…how do we change the outlook to one of success = reducing the size of their operation? That’s going to look a lot like failure…”my department has been cut in half in the last year!” or “Mr Jones – your department is now half the size it used to be – we can’t justify your salary when you only supervise x number of people instead of 2x. You’ll have to either quit or take a 50% reduction in pay.”
“Deana, physicians are supposed to get a 20% cut in reimbursements for Medicare patients this year. Any insights on how your medical colleagues will react?”
This is like Pol Pot ordering city people to go out into the rural jungle and farm. To the Utopians, their words of command equals reality.
Suek, that’s not so much capitalism as it is monopolistic practices. Not all monopolies are capitalist systems, since communism and fascism are also monopolistic in their goals but don’t utilize capitalism. The Left likes to claim that all the evils of monopolies are in fact originally because of capitalism. Monopolies, however, have existed long before the advent of capitalism or the concept of a free market.
I can’t disagree, Y, but at the same time, there’s something intrinsically capitalistic about monopolies. And facism. It’s just that in capitalism, the citizens do the actual owning of everything, and in fascism, the government does all the owning – in spite of them saying that “the people” own stuff. “The People” may own it all, but they don’t get anything to say about how it’s run unless they’re among the elite. Sort of like capitalism. Different name, same effect, imo. The government is the biggest monopoly and as people have said, capitalism requires persuasion, government monopolies need no persuasion because the government has all the force.
Suek, do you use the word ‘capitalistic’ to mean something that has capital or do you mean it is capitalism related?