Leftists: Damaged individuals who have formed a priesthood to take revenge on society at large

School-bully-001Near the end of his talk about American communists’ long-term plan (now coming to fruition) to flood America with a permanent Democrat majority through Hispanic amnesty, Trevor Loudon tossed in an interesting throwaway.  When someone asked him why Leftists would want to reduce the US to the status of a Latin American banana Republic, he said that, in a conversation with Tammy Bruce (a former hard Leftist herself), she told him “They’re all damaged individuals.”  That is, we have a powerful political movement made up of damaged people out for revenge.

That notion popped into my mind again today when I read on my Facebook stream the newest attack against the Tom Cotton letter.  (You’ll recall that the first attack was to call Cotton and the other signatories “traitors” and “Logan Act violators,” followed by efforts to claim that reserve officers violated various military codes.)  The newest claim that’s come to my attention is that Cotton and Co. are AIPAC’s puppets:

[Read more...]

The Tom Cotton letter usefully highlights Leftist stupidity

1364477366-tom-cottonI side with the people who think that Tom Cotton and the 46 senators who joined with him in an open letter to apprise the Iranians about the way our Constitutional system works did the world a great service.  As I’ll discuss at greater length below, the letter is a simple, beautifully written exposition about the American Constitution and its effects.  In addition, it’s a wonderful honey pot for calling stupid Progressives out of their dark caves and exposing their ignorance to bright sunlight.

The Cotton letter is really nothing more than an elegant primer about the balance of powers and the way in which Congress, which more closely represents the American people than does the president, gets to have a say in foreign policy.  For those of you who haven’t yet read the letter, or for those who would enjoy re-reading it, here’s the text:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

There are a few things you need to notice about the letter to appreciate just how terribly Leftists are beclowning themselves. First, its tone is extremely respectful. It says nothing derogatory about anyone. Second, its content makes no reference whatsoever to the terms of Obama’s negotiations with the Mullahs. The only thing it does is offer information readily available to anyone who bothers to read the United States Constitution. (Reading the Constitution, of course, is as easy as plugging the words “United States Constitution” into Bing.)

This lucid, respectfully-stated summation of publicly available information has started a hysterical firestorm on the Left. The first cries were directed to all 47 Senators — Traitors! Logan Act violators! Both these insults were the products of stupid minds.

With regard to the treason claim, the letter certainly didn’t give aid and comfort to an enemy, which is the definition of treason. We’re not at war with Iran and the Mullahs do not appear to have received either aid or comfort ftom learning that Obama was over-promising. Indeed, they seemed angered and disappointed, which is how we like it when we’re dealing with people who, even though we’re not at war with them, have been at war with us since 1979.

The hysterics do not fare any better with the Logan Act claim. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. An example of the type of conduct contemplated under the Logan Act occurs when a member of the armed forces travels to a foreign capital to engage in peace talks with an enemy that is facing off against our troops in a hot war on the battlefield. That’s a Logan Act violation.

The Logan Act, however, does not apply to United States Senators who send an open letter summarizing the Constitutional balance of powers. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Senators from visiting with, talking to, or trading information with foreign powers. Senators do it all the time, whether to gather useful information or to make nice with dictators. As long as they’re not entering into negotiations for international agreements, it’s all good — and if the Senator in question who does that is a Democrat, it’s still all good.

The Leftists seem to have figured out that, despite getting almost 300,000 signatures on their petition seeking Logan Act charges against the Republican Senators, that petition isn’t going anywhere — except that it will force the White House, when it responds to the petition, to concede that the Republican Senators had the perfect right to act as they did.

Balked in their quest for a collective spill of Republican blood, the Lefties have a new tactic. They’re now pointing to members of the armed forces and accusing them of having violated the military code.

Ground central for loony Leftist lies is the Daily Kos, which is suddenly extremely solicitous about the whole military code of conduct.  (Keep in mind these are the same people who still think John Kerry is a hero for having thrown someone else’s military medals over the White House fence and who include in their Big Tent  the whole cohort of screamers who spent the entire Iraq war calling our troops “baby killers.”)

The Daily Kos’s particular target is Jodi Ernst. I really can’t do justice to its fulminations, so let me quote. (Since I don’t feel like honoring the Daily Kos with a hyperlink, here’s a non-hyperlinked URL if you want to see the original: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/12/1370336/-Lt-Col-Joni-Ernst-should-be-court-martialed-for-signing-the-seditious-letter-to-Iran.)

It is a privilege to serve in the US military.  With that privilege comes obligations.  Following military law is one of them. When Lt. Col. Joni Ernst signed the seditious letter to Iran, she broke a serious law.

Lt. Col. Joni Ernst, the junior senator from Iowa, serves as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. As such, she is bound by the Iowa State Code of Military Justice.  Her signing of the seditious letter to Iran is a clear and direct violation of Chapter 29B.85 of the Iowa State Code of Military Justice.

29B.85  CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS.
Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is very serious infraction.  We are a nation governed by civilians.  Our Commander-in-Chief is a civilian.  The government officials that hold ultimate authority over our military are civilians.  This is true at the federal level and the state level.  This has always been the case since George Washington was president.  He resigned his military commission to accept the position of president.   We have never in our history had a military ruler.  Military obedience to civilian authority is critical and essential if we are to maintain the democracy we inherited.   That is why “contempt towards officials” is such a serious matter. Lincoln enforced that discipline during the Civil War. Even with the imposition of martial law, Lincoln remained a civilian commander. Truman enforced the same discipline after WWII when he relieved Gen. MacArthur of his command. Obama enforced the same discipline recently when Gen. McChrystal was relieved of his command. There is nothing anachronistic about this fundamental principle.

Let me say this very slowly because we’re clearly dealing with teeny-weeny brains here:  There. Are. No. Contemptuous. Words. Against. Obama. In. The. Tom. Cotton. Letter.  The letter’s only specific references to President Obama are as follows (emphasis added):

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

The first reference notes with complete factual accuracy, and no disrespect, when Obama’s term of office expires.  The second reference notes with complete factual accuracy, and no disrespect, that without three-fifths of Congress approving any agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei, there is no treaty, there is only an executive agreement.

Now, if the Cotton letter had gone on to add that President Obama, despite his status as a constitutional law teacher, is an ignoramus when it comes to the Constitution; or that Obama is obviously engaged in a serious fraud against Iran and others in the world to the extent they rely on him to deliver a treaty; or that Obama seems to have abandoned the limitations of the U.S. Constitution in favor of the power of a tyrant — well, any one of those statements might be deemed “contemptuous.”

That, of course, is not what our reservist Senators did.  Indeed, one could argue that reciting manifest facts about the Constitution’s language is the most respectful act a military person can perform.  It’s heartening to know that the men and women who put themselves in the front line know what they’re fight for — and it’s not the United Nations, which Obama is now trying to bring into the loop in order to bypass Congress.

Joni Ernst isn’t the only target.  Over at the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart is just thrilled to write that a retired GENERAL also thinks Cotton was disrespectful:

I turned to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton for perspective. He wouldn’t say Cotton and Co. were “traitors,” either. He had a better word.

“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

Somewhere along the line, Major Gen. Eaton (clearly the very model of a modern major general who sounds erudite but actually knows nothing), has lost sight of the fact that Cotton is not an active duty military man but is, instead, an active duty American Senator.  Cotton’s obligations lie with the American people, not with the President — especially when the President is not acting in his role as commander-in-chief but is, instead, acting in his role as sell-out and appeaser-in-chief.

Incidentally, if it wasn’t immediately obvious from Eaton’s remarkably uninformed remarks, he’s also a hard core Lefty.  Considering that Eaton is not only a moron, but also a sufficiently adept political animal to have held a high position during Operation Iraqi Freedom’s lowest ebb , before General Petraeus turned it around, I can only say that I, for one, am profoundly grateful that Eaton retired and is now reduced to making little clucking noises on Leftist media rather than having direct responsibility for American troops.  As a civilian, he’s just one of a herd of similarly-situated Leftist lickspittles.  Were he still in the military, he could do real damage.

Getting a Progressive to “yes” on conservative ideas

Flowers in the desert

Planting seeds in the Progressive desert.

I spent some time talking to an incredibly nice, helpful, genuinely kind hard-Leftist who has dreams of a President Bernie Sanders. The wisdom of years has taught me that one makes no headway with someone like this by saying “Are you out of your cotton-pickin’ mind?” I’d barely have finished my first sentence about the inevitable evils of true socialism before she would have raised her defenses and either tuned me out or attacked me — and really, I would have deserved it if I’d been that disrespectful and superficial.

What I tried to do was to work with her to get her to re-think her favored shibboleths while manifestly respecting her very real intelligence. I always hope that these efforts are like dropping wild flower seeds on an apparently barren desert. It seems like a wasted effort until the first rainfall….

I actually think I made a little progress with this Progressive, because I got her to agree with all of these core principles:

[Read more...]

Pamela Geller adds another chapter to my ongoing “Party of Poop” series of posts

dog-poopingAlmost since the day I started blogging, I have commented on the Leftist obsession with excrement.  My first post on the subject was in 2004 or 2005, when I was still a blogging neophyte:

Is it just me, or are people who come down on the liberal side of things much more inclined to rely on obscenities and scatalogical references? Whenever I read the comments liberals post at conservative websites, or even when I read the material liberals post on their own websites, I’m just inundated by wave after wave of swear words and potty references. I’m not going to sully my own posting with this kind of language, but you might want tovisit the comments gracing Diplomad’s latest, most-excellent screed about the UN. (I will admit, Diplomad’s title and article use the word “turd,” but it’s carefully introduced as a child’s peculiarly apt slip of the tongue.) Or go to the Daily Kos (which I find difficult to read, since it’s written along the lines of a high schooler’s “U R 2 kool” posting). You might check out this urinary description of Tom DeLay. I’ve always thought dirty language is the last refuge of the those who have little education, poor analytical abilities and, generally, little interesting to say. Any of you have any take on this?

I had cause to revisit that observation in 2006:

[Read more...]

What passes for wit and political analysis as the Left unloads on Scott Walker

I happened to grab a link to a very popular (and growing rapidly) Facebook thread in which Progressives ridicule Scott Walker for saying that, if he had the strength and the stomach to take on Wisconsin’s unions, that indicates that he’ll stay the fight with ISIS too.  I was impressed by two motifs running through the thread:  the viciousness, which frequently descends into a direct call for Walker’s blood; and the stupidity.  Whether or not one agrees with the viewpoint’s expressed, it’s hard to disagree with the fact that these people are morons.

Anyway, for your enjoyment and edification, I present you with a preview of coming attractions should Walker actually throw his hat into the presidential race:

[Read more...]

The Bookworm Beat 2-23-15 — Post-Vegas edition and Open Thread

Woman writingI do like Vegas. I love its manic energy, crazed corporate imagination, over-the-top shows, brilliant colors, and flashing lights. And then, after three days, I’m desperate to get away from the noise and smoke and, often, the desperation floating above the casino floors. In other words, I had a great trip there and then was glad to come home again. This time, coming home also meant going through about 800 backed-up emails (a lot of people got heartfelt apologies from me for delaying so long before responding to them), and finding some awesome things to share with you.

A glowing French eye-view of American troops

When we think of the French, we tend to think of hyper-critical people who look down upon Americans. That stereotype might be true on the Île-de-France, but it turns out to be untrue in the theater of war, at least as to one French soldier who served with American troops (Echo Company) in Afghanistan. If this doesn’t make you want to stand up and salute, I truly don’t know what will:

[Read more...]

Scratch a young Progressive; find an old-time fascist *UPDATED*

Nazi race-education class

Nazi race-education class

One of the things Nazis understood is that, if you get them young enough, you own them. Some of them break away, of course, but they have to want to break away. (And yes, that’s exactly like the joke: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb really has to want to change.)

I thought of that when I found myself in a Facebook debate about whether bakers should be free to refuse customers who seek same-sex wedding cakes. I’ve already told you a little bit about this discussion:

I love it when the younger generation shows wisdom. A young 20-something friend of mine just posted on Facebook something about the rash of traditionally religious bakers who are being persecuted for refusing to make cakes for same-sex weddings. I won’t repeat what my friend said verbatim, but here’s the gist:

I don’t come down strongly on either side of this. I hate discrimination but the bakers own the business and say they reserve the right to serve any customers. The customers may have civil rights that should be protected, but a privately owned business should be able to operate as it wants and not be subject to huge fines. This is just another case of the so-called “business expert” government messing with America’s small businesses. If same-sex couples are offended by the business owner’s views, they don’t have to shop there and can tell their friends not to either. What they shouldn’t do is try to destroy the business.

Aside from cheering my young friend’s understanding of freedom (it probably helps that he’s a Marine), I also suggested that, because the freedom to practice our faith without government oversight shows up at the top of the Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment, if the religious person is asserting anything other than an Aztec human sacrifice, the default position in a battle of rights needs to favor the religious person.

I felt really good after reading that young man’s comments:

Anyway, I’m feeling heartened that there’s a young person out there who is working hard to cast off the stifling Leftism that is part and parcel of a Marin childhood. Even better, while I may be the old lady on his Facebook feed, the vast bulk of his friends are young. Maybe he’ll get some of them to think too.

It seems that I was a little too optimistic. One of his young friends did chime in, but not to support individual liberty.  Instead, he went into full Progressive mode, throwing around words such as privilege (everyone but him and his fellow travelers) and victimization (only him and his fellow travelers).  When I kept countering his ideas, eventually forcing him into a corner, his true agenda emerged:  full fascist mode.

[Read more...]

Two things that are deserving of your attention

ScalesIt is, of course, only my opinion that these two things are deserving of your attention but, since it’s my blog, I guess I get to have the final say on that point.

The first thing is an article I wrote of American Thinker:  Obama, Jon Stewart and Progressivism’s Bodyguard of Lies

The traditional courtroom oath used to require the witness to state “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” To emphasize God’s role in this oath, the witness would place his hand on the Bible.

When a witness took that oath, even if he was only a moderately religious person, he could not escape the knowledge that he had put his soul on the line. If he got creative in his testimony, he wasn’t just lying to the court, he was lying to his Maker. That’s serious stuff.

For the past many years, though, the oath has been abbreviated in American courtrooms. Now, witnesses about to testify keep their hands in their laps and state only “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” The end.

Can’t you just hear the nefarious, knowing snicker a less-than-honest witness inaudibly tacks on to the end of that oath? “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me . . . whatever . . . giggle, giggle.”

Sure, a really peeved prosecutor might come after the witness for perjury, but having spent almost 30 years in the legal field, I’ve only known that to happen once. While God’s eye may be on the smallest sparrow, our legal system really doesn’t care.

What many non-religious people forget is that original oath lies, not in the courtroom, but in the Bible. Lying is anathema to God, who made “Do not bear false witness” the ninth of his Ten Commandments. Dennis Prager neatly sums up why God’s mandate about how men must speak to each other is such an essential part of a functioning society:

[Read more...]

[VIDEO] Why are Jews still voting for Democrats?

Kippah for ObamaProbably the question asked of me most frequently, both on my blog and by conservatives here in the Bay Area, is “Why do Jews keep voting for Democrats, when Democrats are increasingly hostile to Jews and Israel?” There are two answers. The first is the one grounded in history, the one that saw naive Jews thinking that the uniting workers of the world would stand side-by-side with Jews against the slights and pogroms and poverty. For far too many Jews, voting Left (and, in America, that means Democrat) is simply an unthinking historic tradition.

The second answer is that Jews in America have supplanted the Torah with the Democrat Party platform.  It’s this second answer that Ben Shapiro expands upon in this excellent video:

[Read more...]

Hey! Whatever happened to the reality-based community?

The liberal mind is unicorns, free stuff and responsible governmentDo you remember how Progressives once identified themselves as “reality-based community”?  The phrase “reality-based community” actually originated from George W. Bush’s team in 2004, but the Left swiftly co-opted it.  For example, in that same election cycle, Al Gore, while campaigning for John Kerry, praised Kerry for being “a proud member of the ‘reality-based’ community.”  Progressives even made buttons to show that, when it came to reality, nobody does it better than a Progressive.

That “reality-based community” label seems sadly tattered and faded, though, doesn’t it?  It’s not just that their ideas, when finally put into effect, proved to be disastrous, with everything from economic ideas, to Obamacare, to national security failing to live up to the hype.  It’s that the proud members of the reality-based community prove to be living in a series of outright lies.

[Read more...]

Sunday Open Thread

Thought-Bubble-White-Board_8296556

Hey, guys and gals!  We had a lovely storm come through Marin Friday night, which was quite enjoyable.  It was less enjoyable to wake up Saturday morning and discover that it had inflicted no small amount of damage on my property.

I spent yesterday dealing with the storm’s fallout, which precluded computer time.  Fortunately, we got the help we needed yesterday, and the insurance company will help pay in the coming weeks.  All is good.  And frankly, given where we live, our weather exposure, and the rip-roaring storms that occasionally come through, it was certainly our turn for a little weather-inflicted fun.

(Speaking of weather, I hope you enjoyed learning that government and academic science institutions have systematically gamed the numbers from weather stations all over the world, showing temperatures as being higher than they really are.  I thought of posting the Telegraph article on my real-me Facebook page along with the following comment:  “Since the climate change science is settled, does it really matter that scientific agencies inflated temperature data?”  I decided against it when I realized that my Progressive would only humiliate themselves forever in my eyes by answering “no” to my question.)

Today, I have a brief legal brief (double words intentional) to write, and then I can get back to blogging.  In the meantime, please considering this your forum.