How do I make my repayments Payday loan 400 you need to find from somewhere

Gawd, this is just the perfect follow-up to an earlier post about the manly man pretense

I didn’t intend to have it happen that way today, but I’ve already done two posts on manliness and, as I type, have the perfect third to the trio.

The first post was about Obama’s insistence that a member of the few, the proud, and the umbrella carriers take care of him before he melted.

The second post was about a bumper sticker I saw today, in which a manly, obscene man then insisted that he liked having the government treat him like a baby.  Right.  You can’t be both, dude.

And then, right on schedule, this third thing fell into my lap:

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.

Men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.

Yup.  That pretty much sums it up.  The stronger I’ve gotten (age has tempered my strength), the less interested I am in having the government serve as a Mommy/Daddy proxy.  Some men, however, remain weedy wimps forever.

You go, guy! Greg, at Rhymes with Right, snaps back at the White House

Check it out and enjoy.

Just Because Music: Emeli Sandé – Next To Me

I haven’t figured if she’s singing about her man or her God — the song’s trajectory starts with a man but seems to end with a divinity — but it’s a good song:

Watcher’s Council submissions for May 16, 2013

(A small addendum here:  This may well be the best week of material I’ve ever read in my time on the Watcher’s Council.  I usually suggest you read this stuff.  Today I urge you to read it.  You can only imagine what a hard time I’m having casting my vote here.)

This is the fascinating stuff I’m reading today preparatory to casting my vote.  Please join and enrich your mind, as I improve mine:

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

A Marin bumper sticker

This one just made me laugh. What I couldn’t get as I was scrambling at a red light to take the photograph was that, in the upper left hand corner of this truck’s rear window was a macho bumper sticker that said something along the lines of “You never see a motorcycle in the parking lot of a psychiatrist’s office.”

Then, on the right top bumper, you see the even more manly, macho, take-charge directive to “fuck fear.”  And then, in the bottom right, you get “I like ObamaCare.”

All of which together says “I am a macho man who can handle any situation fearlessly.  Oh, and would you please pay all your money in taxes just to make sure the government takes care of me?”

Macho take care of me bumper sticker

The empowering thing about Leftism is that you never have to make sense. Cognitive dissonance is an accepted way of life.

A study in contrasts: man versus pathetic excuse for a man

I’m too old to get all dreamy about Prince Harry.  I do think, though, that he has matured nicely, from a callow, useless person into a fully functioning human being.  Part of this comes from his deep, abiding commitment to his military service.  Here’s a great video of Harry sort of waffling along about life, until reality intrudes.  He looks incredibly attractive running off, not just because he’s a very fit, young male specimen, but because he’s running off to do meaningful, responsible, traditionally manly work. (The moment I describe occurs within the first 40 seconds of the video.):

And then there’s this totally embarrassing moment showing the unmanly, metrosexual Obama using our military forces to shelter him from a few drops of rain.  I follow that video with one that I think is nicely on point, as well as with some useful pictures that I present in the most petty spirit possible:

Is this what he’s worried about?

And speaking of unmanly, it’s impossible to ignore Obama in his mom jeans on a girly bike, especially when contrasted with George Bush?

Obama and George Bush on their bicycles

And if you can’t throw a baseball (and need to do so in those mom jeans again), man up and confess that you can’t before you make a fool of yourself:

Obama wears mom jeans to pitch baseball

And lastly, I know they all do make-up for TV. It’s just that he looks so happy in the moment:

Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), has makeup applied before the Univision Democratic Candidate forum at the University of Miami in Coral Gables

Nailing the heart of Benghazi

I wrote a lovely post, right here, last night.  Cheerfully hit the “publish” button and went to bed — only to wake up this morning to discover that the post not only didn’t get published, it vanished entirely.  I’m not sure I can replicate it, but I’ll try.

The point I was trying to make was about the morality that can or should undermine political systems.  I’d had a talk with a very mature, thoughtful teen, whose parents raised her to revile capitalism as an evil system that needs to be tempered by big government.  I said that it needed to be tempered by morality.  I pointed out that Adam Smith came up with his “invisible hand” theory at a highly religiously moral time, when it was inconceivable that any government would exist in a moral vacuum.  He knew, of course, that there were hard, cruel people who had no truck with morality, but it was also probably inconceivable to him that there could a paradigm without an overarching moral sense.

Texas booms, I suggested, not just because it’s capitalist, but because it’s in the Bible Belt.  China has slave labor, practically slave labor, and tainted goods (melanin in foods, antibiotics in bees, etc.) because it’s capitalism without a moral paradigm.  The State has no room for morality and when the state is the only thing Left, morality leaves society.

The next day, I read Darren Jonescu’s scathing indictment of the particular brand of evil that Hillary and Obama exemplify.  I’m quoting a lot, but there is a lot more to read, and I urge you to read it all:

In the first months after the Benghazi attack, the most urgent question, and one only rarely asked, was “What were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton doing during the seven and a half hours between the initial emergency communications from Benghazi and the final American deaths?” A negative answer was provided in February by Leon Panetta: they were not engaging with their subordinates; they were not contacting anyone to discuss options; they were giving no orders for action; they remained entirely uninvolved.

We are left to speculate about the positive answer to that question. Were they sleeping? Curled up by the fire with a good manifesto? Playing poker with Huma and the gang? Practicing jokes for a fundraising speech? Your guess is as good as mine.

And none of these guesses really matter in the end, compared to the looming horror that attends any of thepossibilities, namely this: the president and secretary of state of the most powerful nation on Earth are impervious to shame. They can do — they have done — what you hope you could never do, what you pray your children will never be able to do, what psychologists fill academic journals attempting to explain. They were informed that their countrymen — their appointees — were being attacked, were issuing repeated cries for help, and, if nothing were done to intercede, were likely to be killed. Knowing this, and knowing, further, that they had at their disposal the most powerful military in the world, no risk of personal harm, and many subordinates prepared to leap into action at their word, they blithely walked away from the desperate men pleading for their help, and carried on with whatever they happened to be doing that night. They let other men suffer unto death without lifting a finger to help, or even indicating a moment’s regret for their inaction after the fact.

They demonstrated a cold lack of interest in the suffering of others — not the abstract, theoretical suffering of collective interest groups, such as “the poor” or “gays” or “women,” but the real physical pain and mortal terror-style suffering of individual human beings in mortal crisis.

Walking home one evening, you hear men across the street shouting for help, as they are in the process of being overwhelmed by a gang of thugs. You walk away, unconcerned with their cries or the sounds of bats smacking down on their flesh. You do not call the police or volunteer any assistance. You go to bed and sleep well. The next day, and each subsequent day, you carry on with your life of fun, friends, and self-indulgence, never giving a second thought to the men who died because you did not care to help. If a neighborhood reporter asks you about the crime, you put on your gravest voice and say, “Gosh, that’s so sad; I hope they find the creeps who did it.”

Right.  What he said.  Both Hillary and Obama claim to have been raised religiously.  Hillary showed up for church in her days as First Lady, but doesn’t seem to bother to do so now.  Obama gave up the pretense of religion the moment was elected.  For both, there are only two Gods:  the state and their particular political needs at the moment.  Neither has a sense of right or wrong independent of their particular pragmatic concerns at any given time.

I’ve mentioned before a year 2000 movie called The Contender, about an upstanding Democrat woman whom the evil Republicans falsely accuse of group sex to derail her appointment to fill a vacant Vice Presidency.  The most interest part of the movie comes when the woman, played by Joan Allen, makes her statement to Congress, a bastion of wholesome Democrats and foul Republicans:

And, Mr. Chairman, I stand for the separation of Church and State, and the reason that I stand for that is the same reason that I believe our forefathers did. It is not there to protect religion from the grasp of government but to protect our government from the grasp of religious fanaticism.

[The Founders could not have made it more clear that Freedom of Religion, which is contained in the First Amendment, protects religion from government, not vice versa.  The Amendment's language is unequivocal:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's nothing in there mandating that no religious person can serve in Congress or have a say in America's government.]

Now, I may be an atheist, but that does not mean I do not go to church. I do go to church. The church I go to is the one that emancipated the slaves [that would be the Republican sect of the church], that gave women the right to vote, that gave us every freedom that we hold dear. My church is this very Chapel of Democracy that we sit in together, and I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes. I need my heart, my brain, and this church.  [And there you have it -- President Obama's creed writ large:  "I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes.  I need my heart, my brain, and this (Progressive) church.]

Watcher’s Council winners for May 10, 2013

It was a good day for me last Friday when the Council results came out.  I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t pleased.  Also, in addition to checking out all this excellent reading, you might want to take a minute to check out the Watcher’s Council forum, which addresses whether rape should be a capital crime.

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

When it rains it pours (and that’s bad for the Obamites)

Obama sweating

In the past four years, conservatives have felt disheartened by the Obama deluge.  Since he first took office, conservatives have been playing defense on so many things:  ObamaCare, changes in the military to allow gays to serve openly and women to serve in combat roles, attacks on Israel, a non-declared war in Libya, caving in to Iran, announcing defeat in advance in Afghanistan, attacks on Second Amendment rights, far-Left political appointees, etc., etc.  You know that I’ve frequently blogged about feeling disheartened and overwhelmed.  The only victories that have come down the pike are Obama’s having to retreat from his attacks against Israel (but a little more on that later) and the Democrats’ recent gun control loss.  The first came about, not because of anything conservatives did, but because reality interfered with Obama’s grand plans.  The second seemed to come about because of conservative efforts, but it also happened because it turns out that Obama’s second term is not going to be as shiny as the first.

This time around, Obama is on the receiving end of the “if it rains, it pours” expression.  In the last week, all the straws he thought he’d gathered neatly in his hands have been scattered to the winds.  Here’s my list of the last two week’s worth of scandals and mishaps.

1.  The most recent round of Benghazi hearings revealed that Obama’s hand-picked Secretary of State bungled affairs in Libya so badly that four men, including an American ambassador, died on a teeny plot of U.S. soil, at the hands of terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda.

2.  Those same hearings revealed that a significant part of Hillary’s failure resulted from her need to align with Obama’s officially stated policy position on al Qaeda:  It was decapitated when Barack Obama, practically single-handedly except for a small assist from some expendable Navy SEALS, killed Osama bin Laden.

3. Those same hearings revealed that, while the attack was going on, both the President and the Secretary of State got some much-needed sleep to prepare for the next day’s campaigning.

4.  Those same hearings revealed that Obama absolutely refused to send help, whether because it would have interfered with his political narrative, or because he was afraid of “coming on to strong” in the Muslim world, or because that would have interfered with his beauty rest.  We don’t know the motive; we just know the fact.

5.  Those same hearings revealed that Obama and Hillary (and by using that term I mean the entire chain of command that ends with them at the top of the heap) worked frantically to create a cover-up pinning the attack, not on al Qaeda, but on an obscure, slightly shady Christian film-maker, who languishes in prison even today.

6.  Obama’s Justice Department, headed by Eric “Fast & Furious” Holder, tapped 40 different phone lines at Associated Press, including it’s official line in the House of Representatives.  Associated Press, which has been an untiring water carrier for the administration — touting its agenda, hiding its troubles, attacking its enemies — might just have been mugged by reality.

7.  The families of the 17 SEAL Team 6 members who died on August 6, 2011, when a Taliban rocket took out their insufficiently-armed helicopter (and killed 21 other military personnel) are on the warpath.  They claim that it was Obama’s and Biden’s boasting about SEAL Team 6′s role in the Osama bin Laden killing that paint a target on their sons’ (and brothers’ and husbands’ and fathers’) backs.  To rub salt in the wound of seeing their brave men die, not in the service of their country, but as necessary sacrifices to Obama’s political ambitions, Obama’s Pentagon, when it conducted the official memorial service at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, refused to allow these men’s Judeo-Christian God even to be mentioned, but invited a Muslim Imam whose invocation, of necessity since it was an Islamic prayer, cursed them for being infidels.

8.  News broke that the IRS deliberately audited conservative groups who were seeking tax exempt status because their primary goal was education.  Any groups with giveaway words in their names such as “Tea Party,” or “Patriot” or “Constitution” were swept up in the effort.  In addition to audits, the IRS also asked intrusive questions aimed at eliciting information about donors. Although the IRS tried to claim that the problem was a local office, it quickly became clear that the directive came from Washington and that the IRS has known for years what was going on and denied it.

9.  The dust had scarcely settled on this IRS revelation when it emerged that the IRS had also targeted pro-Israel groups, who advocated policies different from Obama’s “get Israel at all costs” approach to foreign affairs.

10.  And the dust was still floating on the IRS’s attack on pro-Israel groups (and do keep in mind that Israel is America’s ally), when it emerged that the IRS had leaked to a Leftist advocacy group tax information about organizations on Obama’s political enemies’ list.

11.  Obama’s EPA granted almost all waiver requests from friends of Obama and denied almost all waiver requests from Obama’s political opponents.  Coincidence?  I think not.  This isn’t a huge scandal — yet — but it could develop in interesting ways.  I mean, we all understand that the EPA is filled with far-Left political hacks.  That’s why it’s not as shocking as the IRS scandal.  We’ve always assumed that the IRS is an equal opportunity money grabber.

11.5  It’s not really an administration scandal, but the verdict against Kermit Gosnell, which came from a jury that was 3/4 pro-Choice, shows that the Leftist pretenses about late-term abortion, and life-birth baby care (which Obama opposed) is starting to float into the public awareness.

I haven’t looked at the headlines in the past half-hour, but I suspect that more sordid scandals are popping up now that the dam is breaking.  Conservatives find all four corners of these scandals (Benghazi, IRS, Navy SEALS, and AP intimidation) disturbing.  Leftists, predictably, care only about the IRS and the AP intimidation.  Whatever.  As long as the media starts taking corruption in the Obama administration seriously, it’s all good.

Here are some good links for more information about the scandals.  (You’ve probably noticed that I was too lazy to hyperlink any specific facts, because I had opted for this end-of-the post data dump.)

Richard Baehr talks about the President’s silence as his lies are revealed.

Leftists may be right to pretend Benghazi is not a problem, because the public doesn’t care.

Barry Rubin explains why Obama will not be getting any further mileage out of attacking Israel.

The Anchoress has a perfect visual to explain Jay Carney’s role in life right now.

Richard Fernandez asks whether the breaking wave of scandals is just a cosmic coincidence or if we’re witnessing a breaking p0int.  I think it depends on how angry the media is about the AP story, and how fearful they are about a politicized IRS.

Bryan Preston helpfully sums up the four major scandals (no, make that five major scandals) currently plaguing the administration.

Michael Ramirez has the perfect cartoon.

And my friend Wolf Howling has two great posts summing up precisely what’s wrong with the whole Benghazi debacle:  the lack of a military response (which goes straight to Obama) and the reason, contra Obama, that there is a “there there.”

The most transparent administration ever discovers “Droodles.”

Are you old enough to remember Roger Price’s “Droodles”?  They were little squares with almost abstract images that nevertheless represented something.  Here’s an example of a “ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch”:

Ship arrives too late to save a drowning witch

One of my favorite Droodles showed a completely blank square, except for two side-by-side dots. The caption was “polar bear in a snow storm.” Proving its creative vigor, the Obama administration has now come up with a Droodle that could be entitled “polar bear in a black out.” Alternatively, it could also be entitled “totally redacted document that the Obama administration produces in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.“  Most of it pretty much looks like this:

Big black square

MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVER.

Colion Noir challenges those racists who claim he must be an NRA puppet

I know I’ve mentioned before how much I like Colion Noir’s pro-Second Amendment videos.  Let me just say it again:  I really like his videos.

What’s tragic is that Noir is being forced to defend himself against charges that he’s a brainless oaf who is being used by the NRA.  Even thought he has to defend himself against unspeakable racism, Noir manages to be funny and on point.  (And he’s certainly right about one thing:  he’s much better looking than Tyson Beckford.)

Obama and Henry II; Obama and Martin Niemöller; and Obama and Al Capone

Congratulations, folks!  When it comes to the IRS audit scandal, you are about to get three apt historical comparisons in a single post.

The background, of course, is the cascading downpour of news stories revealing that the IRS deliberately audited Tea Party groups, patriot groups, small government groups, and pro-Israel groups.  The auditing started in 2010, but reached a crescendo during Obama’s campaign for re-election.  The result was that several groups hostile to Obama and his policies were completely broken or rendered paralyzed during key moments in the Obama administration.  Obama’s responsibility, and the reaction to this true witch-hunt made me think of three historic parallels.

1.  Obama and Henry II.  I’m willing to bet you never thought of Obama in connection with Henry II (1133-1189).  Henry was the lusty, rowdy, all-conquering (at least initially) 12th century English king who married Eleanor of Aquitaine, the richest, most beautiful woman in Europe; ruled large sections of France; fathered sons who went off on crusades and set put a signature to the first “rights” document ever written; and generally set the stage for England’s prominent role on the world stage for so many centuries.

Obama is the exact opposite — not lusty, not rowdy, terrified of conquest, married to a woman whose primary claim to beauty is her arms, etc.  And yet, there’s a thread that binds them.  I thought of it when I read about the defense Obama-ites are offering when it comes to the really horrible scandal about the IRS targeting conservative groups and Jewish groups, essentially disabling them during Obama’s first term and, especially, in the lead-up to the election.

According to Obama’s defenders, even if one concedes that what the IRS did was a bad thing, Obama shouldn’t be touched by the scandal.  It was not Barack’s fault.  Leave Barack alone!!  The IRS’s version of events is that  “low level” employees committed these tyrannical acts.  The New York Times goes so far as to blame the whole thing on the GOP (and certainly wins the George Orwell “1984″ Reporting Award for doing so).  Message:  this is not Obama’s fault.  Barack Obama himself has gone on record as being surprised and dismayed.

You know what?  This may be true.  I’m perfectly willing to believe that Obama didn’t personally order these audits.  But I can’t help thinking of Henry II.  Once upon a time, early in his reign, Thomas Becket was Henry II’s closest friend.  The relationship lasted right up until Henry elevated Becket to be Archbishop of Canterbury.  It was then that Becket, who had been a priest for years, finally had his “come to Jesus” moment.  He began opposing Henry vigorously on government policies that affected the Church, so much so that he became a thorn in Henry’s side.

Eventually, goaded beyond bearing, Henry cried out rhetorically “Will no one rid me of this turbulent (or meddling) priest?” (or, perhaps, the wordier “What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?”).  It’s important to note that Henry never ordered Becket’s death.  He just whined about the fact that Becket’s existence interfered with his goals.  Four of Henry’s knights heard these words and decided to help out.  They rode to Canterbury and stabbed Thomas to death inside the Cathedral itself.

Although the facts made it impossible to hold Henry guilty for having ordered Becket’s death, everyone understood that his attitude caused it.  Henry was castigated throughout Europe.  Four years after Becket’s death, he donned a sack-cloth and walked barefoot through Canterbury’s streets as eighty monks flogged him with branches. Henry then spent the night in the martyr’s crypt.  Henry also promised the Papacy that he’d go crusading in Becket’s memory, although never did so.  As it happened, Richard I, Henry’s oldest son, more than made up for his father’s broken promise.

Obama has made it plain in almost every speech he’s given that Republicans must be destroyed.  He has not treated them as partners in governing America.  Through straw men arguments, slanders, and insults, he has painted them as the other and made it clear that the only way for him to achieve full greatness is for his enemy to be wiped out.  Small wonder that party loyalists, whether at the upper level of the IRS or in the Ohio office too him seriously.

Even if Obama is not practically culpable, he is morally culpable, just as Henry was for Becket’s death.

2.  Obama and Martin Niemöller.  The IRS scandal has been brewing for a long time.  Conservative bloggers and pro-Israel groups have been complaining for years about their targeting.  The mainstream media completely ignored these complaints, or, alternatively, contended that they occurred because the GOP politicized everything, so every conservative organization was political.  The media and the White House would have happily continued along this path if Lois Lerner, for reasons that are still unclear, hadn’t blown the story wide-open by admitting that targeting happened.

The Obama administration’s and the media’s responses, reminded me forcefully of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous statement after WWII, when he was strongly regretting his Nazi past:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

3.  Obama and Al Cap0ne The press has been ignoring Benghazi as much as possible.  They’re starting to wake up a little bit to the fact that they were played (or rather, they let themselves be played), but it’s been a slow boil, one that took eight months and enormous pressure from the GOP, conservatives generally, and the families of those who died.  Even the recent hearing haven’t gotten them too excited, as they try to exculpate Hillary and Obama, downplay the credentials of the whistle-blowers, and generally hew to their “nothing to see here; move along” attitude.  Most reasonable thinkers admit that, while embarrassing for Obama, nothing that has yet been revealed about his defalcation and cover-up will justify legal action or impeachment claims against him.

It’s been different with the IRS scandal.  Once it couldn’t deny the story any more, the media has really gone after it.  Even Morning Joe, one of the normally complacent Obama Administration shows on MSNBC, was upset by this tyranny.  We now know what really puts the fear of Gaia into Leftists:  They’re not worried about terrorist attacks; they’re afraid of an IRS audit.  That’s pathetic, of course, but there’s a good side.  If the IRS audit scandal exposes the corruption running deep and wide through the Obama administration, I guess that’s good, with the end (the administration’s downfall) mattering more than the means to achieve it.

All of which made me think of Al Capone.  He was the biggest mob boss in the 1920s.  In addition to the direct hits he ordered, one cannot count the numbers of lives lost to the moral degeneration and violence that flowed throughout American society because of Capone’s rum running and prostitution businesses.  The problem for the Feds was that Capone kept his fingerprints off these grossly illegal and immoral activities.  Everybody knew he was involved, but prosecutors couldn’t prove it.  What they could prove, though, was that Al Capone lied on his tax returns — and that’s how he ended up spending years in federal prison.  Capone emerged from Alcatraz broken, broke, and rotting inside from the syphilis that eventually killed him.

Thinking of Al Capone, there is some irony to the fact that it might be taxes that bring down one of the most corrupt administrations in American history.

(This post has been updated to clear away a totally embarrassing typo that saw me confuse Richard I’s and Richard III’s numerical designator.)

In honor of Hillary Clinton’s Mothers’ Day

(Welcome, Ace of Spades readers! I’m always delighted when you come to visit. If you’d like something a little meatier to read now that you’ve already clicked over to Bookworm Room, may I recommend my post discussing how the IRS scandal makes it possible to compare Obama to Henry II, Pastor Martin Niemoller, and Al Capone?)

image

Just Because Music: One of my favorite Irving Berlin songs

Mother’s Day data dump

'Mother and Child'

For the better part of three days, I have been sitting on a series of articles that I really wanted to share with you.  Every time I thought I had a window of time to write about them, as Marcia Brady would say “Something suddenly came up,” and I had to abandon them.  To heck with that!  By now, everything else can wait, as I go through the list of good things I found and wanted to share.  Incidentally, several are from National Review, which periodically hits a lot of my sweet spots:

Sounding an optimistic note, Kevin Williamson seems to be saying that it will be a good thing if the government goes bankrupt, because it will finally get it out of the marketplace.  I have to read the book to see if I agree with him, but I like that silver lining attitude.

Kyle Smith beautifully takes apart the Leftist double-speak that has them promote censorship in pursuit of freedom of expression.

My favorite Sergeant Major has an homage to his mother.  It made me laugh — and made me wish I had lived in a time and place where a good swift . . . . anyway, where that kind of immediate punishment was available.

I am not usually a fan of Peggy Noonan, whom I find a mushy thinker.  Sometimes, though, she totally nails it, as she did in this column about the White House’s response to the Benghazi attack:

The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

[snip]

If what happened in Benghazi was not a planned and prolonged terrorist assault, if it was merely a street demonstration gone bad, the administration could not take military action to protect Americans there. You take military action in response to a planned and coordinated attack by armed combatants. You don’t if it’s an essentially meaningless street demonstration that came and went.

It doesn’t relieve the administration of moral culpability; it just explains the immoral thought process.

Jonah Goldberg explains to Hillary (and everyone else) precisely why what happened in Benghazi and in the days after matters.

And while we’re taking about great NRO writing regarding the profound moral lapses that drove the whole Benghazi saga, we have to include Mark Steyn’s take on things, Deroy Murdock’s take on a monstrous cover-up, and Daniel Foster’s take — I think all three of these NRO writers did a stellar job tackling the subject.

Michael Barone points out that, economically speaking, a lot of degrees just aren’t worth the money people spend or the debt they acquire.  Heather MacDonald shows in depressing detail where that money is being spent — and, believe me, it’s not on education.

I adore Irving Berlin, and I love Lee Habeeb’s and Mike Leven’s writing, so I have to promote their article about Irving Berlin’s improbable — yet all-American — rise to preeminence in the Great American Songbook.

Benghazi might be the one that broke the media damn protecting the Obama administration.  I mean, it’s got to be significant when even The New Yorker admits that the administration did something very bad.

As my friend said to me, don’t you just hate it when you find yourself agreeing with the ACLU?  Or, when the ACLU stops thinking Leftist and starts thinking about true civil liberties, it’s actually capable of fighting good fights.

I haven’t written here about the IRS’s attack on Tea Party and Jewish organizations.  Kevin Williamson did, however, and he says what I would say.  (He doesn’t mention the Jewish groups, because I don’t think that story had broken yet, but the principle is the same.)

And finally, I’ll give Mona Charen the final word . . . about Stephen Hawking — a man who gets physics but has abandoned human decency.

Consider this an open thread if you have anything else you’d like to add.

Oh, and Happy Mother’s Day to all the mothers out there!

No wonder Britain lost her Empire and is now busy losing her nation

About a week ago, I told you that I was going to see a play called Black Watch, which purports to be an “even-handed” homage to Scotland’s famous Black Watch regiment.  The Black Watch was much in the news (in the UK) during the Iraq war, because one unit suffered some painful losses when they manned an outpost at America’s request.  In addition, the Black Watch was absorbed into a larger military bureaucratic entity, which ended it’s long run (starting in about 1729) as a stand-alone fighting unit.

Since the Black Watch opened in 2007 in Scotland, reviewers have raved about the play.  Here are some sample reviews that the National Theater of Scotland assembled from a variety of British and American publications after the play’s original 2007 run:

This is not only an urgently topical piece about the sort of conflict soldiers have faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the changing nature of warfare and about the morality of fighting; it is also a superb, multi-faceted political and social drama. It explores the male psyche with sympathy and wit. And in John Tiffany’s outstanding production for the National Theatre of Scotland, it becomes a blistering piece of physical theatre – by turns comical, visceral and, surprisingly, lyrical.

[snip]

What a relief, at last, to have a play about the Iraq war that doesn’t lecture us, with the ghastly smugness of hindsight, on what we all know already: that this war was muddled and ill planned, and that its political leaders were culpably naive, if not downright dishonest.

[snip]

. . . this soldier’s viewpoint is a blast of fresh air. And not once in two hours do you remember you’re watching actors. You think you’re watching Scottish squaddies, square-bashing, on ops, “on the pish” – the energy and conviction of the ensemble is astonishing.

[snip]

Put simply, it’s essential that you see Black Watch . . . it’s among the most compelling theater pieces you could wish to see. And weep for, in a sense. The production from Scotland’s National Theater is a magnificent one, and its awesome reality and humaneness will overwhelm you.

[snip]

[Black Watch] arrives like a blazing redeemer . . .  a necessary reminder of the transporting power that is unique to theater. Other narrative forms . . . could tell the story that is told here. But none could summon and deploy the array of artistic tools that is used with such mastery and immediacy. Every moment in Black Watch seems to bleed from the previous one in an uninterrupted river of sensations.

You get the idea.  Fabulous writing, acting, and admirable objectivity (the last of which, entirely coincidentally, of course, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the war in Iraq was irredeemably evil).  My concern was that, even if the play was even-handed, I would get hacked off at poncy actors prancing around pretending to be soldiers.

Having seen the play, I can say that my fears were realized and that all the other reviews were wrong.  It seems that being a Leftist means that you have very low standards.  Before I say what was wrong with the play (and there’s a lot to say), let me say what was right:  The actors were really Scotsman, so they weren’t faking the accents.  Also, it was indeed a very physical play (to the point of mawkish, foolish, stupidity), but the actors hit their marks every time.  They were very professional as they ran, pranced, frolic, and danced around the stage.  The actor who played the sergeant did an incredibly good imitation of Basil Fawlty, only with a Scots accent.  I don’t know if that was his intention, but he sounded exactly like this, when it came to pitch and cadence:

That’s enough about the Black Watch’s merits. Let’s get to the bad stuff. Contrary to the slavishly loving reviewers, I found the plot thin and predictable, the characters uninteresting, and I must have missed any real humor or serious emotion.  The play’s writers were able to skimp on all these features (which tend to appear in good plays), because they wrote the play in shorthand.  It was, in essence, a dog whistle play.  At varying times, the characters made derogatory remarks about the war and Americans, and Leftists were expected to respond appropriately, understanding which lines were meant to inspire laughter and which to inspire tears.

I was not alone in feeling that the play lacked a certain something (such as wit, insight, or character development). The physical layout of the play has the audience sitting in bleachers on either side of the theater, watching the play on the stage below as if watching a basketball game. This means that, when you get too bored or simply weary from watching the actors run about, you can lift your eyes and observe the people opposite you as they watch the play. It didn’t take one of those FBI specialists trained in reading faces to realize that many in the audience were bored. At the end, the actors, despite the sweat they poured into the play (and they did work hard and knew their lines) got just one round of applause. Then the hard-Left San Francisco audience bolted. The plot was that bad.

And was it even-handed? Well, in a way. It did not present the soldiers as baby-killers. Instead, it presented them as babies getting killed because of evil politics involving Westminster and America. That was the simplistic reduction of the Iraq War.

But the worst thing of all was Leftist approach to portraying soldiers sympathetically.  The play claims that the dialogue is based upon interviews with Black Watch soldiers returned from the war. If that’s the case, the mighty British Empire and the mighty military that once supported it have truly hit the point of no return.

The eight or ten soldiers who appear as characters in the play have lines that show them to be utterly ignorant, gullible, shallow, obscene men one step away from mental retardation. Maybe that’s the truth about the modern British military.  Indeed, the play makes it seem as if that was always the case.  I have my doubts.  My favorite WWI book, The Great War and Modern Memory, comments frequently on the fact that, while obscenities (which flow freely in the play) were an integral part of troop talk, WWI was an extraordinary literary war. The lowest private could quote the Bible, Bunyan, Shakespeare, and even Shaw with fluidity and comfort.  These guys were too dumb to quote Playboy jokes.

But again, maybe that’s what the British military has been reduced to, given the overall state of education in Britain.  Or it could be a libel.  In America, for example, we know that, John Kerry to the contrary, America’s troops are better educated, on average, than ordinary Americans. They may have the shallowness of youth, but they are not stupid to the point of cretinism.

The Duke of Wellington famously said of his military that, compared to the French conscription system, which “brings together a fair sample of all classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth — the mere scum of the earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of them afterwards.” Watching Black Watch, I wondered whether modern Britain’s military has managed to sink below the level of being the scum of the earth, to the point at which the troops are irredeemable.

Having voiced that terrible libel against the British troops, let me hasten to add that I know from reading about the Iraq war during the war, that our troops felt a fair measure of respect for their British colleagues. Either our troops were being polite, or the Black Watch grossly maligns Britain’s military class. I suspect that our troops were being honest and the play libelous, but (sadly) Britain has changed so much in the last thirty years that anything is possible.

Something to make you happy as you head for Saturday night

One of the regular shticks on Jay Leno’s show is for a comedian “take over” one of those gas pump news outlets that have popped up all over, and to surprise people who are peacefully pumping gas.  When Will and Monifa Sims pulled up, however, the shtick went from lame (which it invariably is) to just wonderful.  Watch and enjoy:

And Part II (where you get to meet them):

Military brass invited a Muslim cleric to pray at Navy SEALs’ service — and he proceeded to damn them (in Arabic)

Portraits of Navy SEALs killed in helicopter crash

This one really got my goat.  I wrote it for Mr. Conservative, but I want it to be here too.  It’s not enough that Obama’s careless boasts got the SEALs (and 21 others) killed.  It’s that, when all honors should have been paid to them, the gutless, PC, Obama Pentagon (I’m mad at the brass, not at the troops) decided to invite a Muslim cleric to give an invocation.  They probably didn’t even bother to find out what he would say or what he did say.  I’m really steamed about this lack of respect:

On May 2, 2011, United States SEALS raided Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound in Pakistan and killed the man who masterminded the 9/11 terror attacks that left 2,996 people, mostly Americans, dead. The moment the mission concluded, President Obama was boasting about the details – including identifying SEAL Team 6 as the team responsible for the raid.

President Obama’s loose lips left the Special Forces community in shock because an important part of their operating procedure is anonymity. Three months later, on August 6, 2011, the Taliban shot down the helicopter in which 17 members of SEAL Team 6 and twenty-one other American and Afghani troops were traveling, killing all of them.

For Obama, the bin Laden raid was a personal triumph, and he boasted loudly about his role in it, in order to boost his political credentials. For the SEAL Team 6 members, the raid’s political aftermath was an entirely unnecessary death sentence. These men willingly and cheerfully served their country, but none of them intended to die as a political sacrifice to Obama’s ambitions.

Aside from an October 2011 report on the men’s death, Washington has forgotten about these men who not only died in America’s service, but were sacrificed on Obama’s political altar. Their families and friends haven’t forgotten though, and convened a press conference in Washington on Thursday, during which they revealed a truly shocking fact.

The gathered families played a video showing the official funeral that the military held in Kabul for the victims of the attack on the helicopter. Although there were generic references in English to “God”, the military barred any mention of Jesus Christ. The military did, however, invite a Muslim cleric to speak at the funeral. The Muslim cleric recited a long prayer, in Arabic. Later, the families had that prayer translated and were outraged to learn that the cleric damned the fallen troops as infidels – at their own funeral! The translation you see in the video and below is a certified translation:

Amen. I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones.
In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver.
The companions of the “fire”
(The sinners and infidels who are fodder for hell fire)
ARE NOT EQUAL WITH the companions of heaven.
The companions of heaven (Muslims) are the winners.
Had we sent this Koran to a mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah.
(Mocking the God of Moses)
Such examples are what we present to the people, so that they would think.
(repent and convert to Islam)
Blessings are to your God (Allah) the God of glory and what they describe.
And peace be upon the messengers (prophets) and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes (mankind and Jinn).

You can view the full three hour video here.

In addition, the gathered families reiterated what those not in thrall to Obama had already realized: this funeral need never have happened. Their sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers died because the White House, by identifying SEAL Team 6 as the team responsible for bin Laden’s death effectively ensured their death. “In releasing their [the SEAL Team 6 members’] identity, they put a target on their backs,” said Doug Hamburger, whose son, Army Staff Sgt. Patrick Hamburger, was a crew member on the helicopter.

The Team 6 members knew that they were targets. According to Bill Vaughn, his son, Petty Officer 1st Class Aaron Vaughn called his parents after the White House released information about the Team’s identity. Vaughn remembers that “He said, ‘Mom, there’s chatter. My life is in danger. Your life is in danger. Get everything off your social media. Our families are in danger.’”

As with anything that could tarnish Obama’s reputation, the mainstream media will most assuredly ignore this press conference. It’s up to us, therefore, to ensure that these stories live on. Please use social media, or just old-fashioned socializing, to let your friends know about this press conference. The seventeen SEAL Team 6 members and the twenty-one men who died with them on August 6, 2011, deserve at least that much.

God’s Chosen People

Michaelangelo hands of God and Adam

There’s a guy where I exercise who’s nice, but I’ve never really warmed up to him.  He’s not part of the ownership or the management team, so it’s never really mattered to me what I think of him.  Last week, though, I discovered that my subconscious might have been sending me messages when I couldn’t make myself like him.  After a tirade against capitalism, for ObamaCare, and in favor of restrictions on all things that could affect Global Warming (yes, let’s get rid of the sun!), he said, “And another thing….”  He then started to inform me how pernicious the message is that the Jews are “God’s chosen people.”

My exercise place is wonderful, so I wasn’t about to upset the nice dynamic there by getting into a debate with a hard-core Leftist.  Those debates usually end badly:  the Leftist doesn’t change his mind, while any people in the vicinity who aren’t hard-core but are still Left (this is Marin after all), get very upset and start thinking with their navels, not their brains.  The best way for me to handle situations like this is to leave, think my arguments through, and then have those arguments ready for the inevitable round two.  This blog is where I think my arguments through. . . .

Apropos his anger that Jews think they’re special (along the lines of “Who are they to claim they’re God’s chosen people?”), it occurred to me that both the Left and antisemites are ferociously ignorant about their Old Testament.  Here is what the Bible tells (and all of you, who are more Bible literate than I, please correct me when I’m wrong):

Before he formed the covenant with the Jewish God, Abraham was polytheistic.  Ur, his original homeland, was certainly polytheistic.  God did not originally appear as a monotheistic God.  Instead, he just appeared as a divine being who selected Abraham (or, as he was initially, Abram).  If Abraham joined in a covenant with God, aligning his family with God, and circumcising all males as a sign of that covenant, God would treat Abraham and his descendents well.  Provided that all of them, through the centuries, abided by the covenant (and circumcision is a harsh demand) they would have land and good fortune.

The Bible acknowledges more than once that there are other gods swirling around in the ancient world.  For example, when Jacob and Rachel flee her father, Laban, Rachel takes her father’s “Household Gods.”  Significantly, in the Ten Commandments, God himself acknowledges other Gods.  It’s just that, as to the Jews, if they wish to keep the covenant, he must be the only God they claim and worship:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Those words make sense only if there was competition. Otherwise, God would have said, “There are no other Gods, but for me.”

While God promised much to the children of Abraham, he also placed heavy burdens upon them in addition to circumcision.  In a time when people were comforted by a panoply of gods, all of whom were physically present and whose favors could be bought with human or animal sacrifices, the Jews had just one abstract God in whom they had to believe, regardless of his invisible nature.

During the Greek occupation in Palestine, the Jews could not partake of the physical libertinism that characterized the Greeks.  Jews could not hold on to slaves for more than seven years, and had to treat their slaves humanely, which placed them at an economic disadvantage compared to others in the ancient world.  They were prohibited from eating all kinds of foods, which may have conferred some health benefits on them (e.g., no trichinosis), but which also limited their ability to thrive.

And so it goes, rule after rule that gave the Jews a spiritual advantage, but that limited their options in the ancient world.  In exchange, absent periodic miracles, such as the exodus from Egypt, being God’s chosen people wasn’t so great:  they were isolated and often at war with the world around them, their lives were constrained by God’s stringent rules, and God was big on punishing individuals or whole groups for any failure properly to abide by His rules.

The end result was that, in the ancient world, Jews were considered everything from fellow imperialists, to slaves, to an occupied people.  The one thing that they weren’t considered to be, though, was arrogant and special.  Indeed, in the ancient world, they were considered foolish for hewing to one invisible God rather than taking advantage of the panoply of gods then benefiting everyone else.

What changed was Christianity, which looked at the Jewish God and the whole notion of monotheism and concluded that it was a good idea.  The early Christians were Jews and, when they split from Jews who didn’t recognize Christ’s divinity, they still considered themselves God’s Chosen People — only they were even more chosen because they had taken Christ as their savior.  Suddenly, the Jews’ claim to be God’s Chosen People seemed (a) wrong and (b) arrogant, considering that both Jews and Christians were claiming the same God as their own.

All of which is to say that the Leftist at the dojo was wrong when he sought to insult Jews because they somehow think they’re “special.”  That’s not the issue at all.  Jews have simply chosen, for thousands of years, to abide by a very challenging covenant that Abraham made with a God who came to Abraham and said, “If you pick me, and you play by my rules, we’ll be a team forever.”  In the beginning, everybody thought Abraham made a bad deal by letting himself and his descendents get tagged by this jealous God.  It was only with the passing of time that others began to think that they’d like to be tagged too.

Certainly now, Jews do not display religious arrogance.  They do not demand, either with words or swords, that others worship their God; and they do not enslave or tax or otherwise discriminate against those who don’t.  Yes, amongst themselves they think they’re doing the right thing, but so does every group, whether religious or otherwise.  Why bother to be a group if you don’t have special bonds that distinguish you from others?  But there’s a profound difference between thinking “Yup, I’m engaging in correct religious behavior,” and thinking “You all are evil and doomed.  You deserve to die and then go to Hell.  And while you’re on this earth, I have the right to make it a Hell on earth for you.”  Now that’s arrogant.

Great video showing the fundamental flaw in the Left’s claim that it knowns how many rounds your gun needs

Thanks to Earl for sending me this great video:

Are the Marines approaching recruitment in the right way?

Marines

For at least 60 years, advertisers have pitched young people by saying, “If you buy our product. you will be cool.”  They haven’t said, “You are cool; therefore you should buy our product.”  The promise is that the product will fulfill your desires, desires that go far beyond a particular pair of jeans, a specific soft drink, or a certain brand of after shave.  You don’t desire “Nike.”  You desire the promise of Nike:  performance, sophistication, beautiful body.  The fact that you will wear your expensive Nike shirt stretched over your cuddly beer belly as you lounge on the couch watching Honey Boo-Boo is irrelevant.  You’re wearing Nike, so you know you’re awesome.

Which gets me to a Marine recruitment effort:

The Marine Corps on Wednesday began an advertising campaign targeted toward encouraging enlistment by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, two groups that make up only a tiny percentage of the Corps.

The campaign, entitled “A Warrior’s Education,” features videos on the Marines’ Facebook page in which 1st Lt. David Pham and 1st Lt. David Oliver David extol the virtues and challenges of being a Marine officer, and link Marine discipline to the values they learned from their families.

Pham, 25, who spent some of his youth in Westminster, attended Georgia Tech and is now a combat veteran of Afghanistan, talks of his mother, a refugee from Vietnam.

“Growing up, I’d say my role model was my mother,” he says. “You always respect your mother, you do the right thing. When you get to the Marine Corps, it’s more a pride you wear.”

From focus groups, Marine leadership learned that family honor and the concept of self-betterment through education are key values among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, according to Lt. Col. Raphael Hernandez, assistant chief of staff, advertising, for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command.

“They’re strivers, they seek opportunity,” Hernandez said of the two groups being targeted. “We want the influencers to know — the mothers and fathers — that their daughter or son can find success in the Marine Corps.”

On the one hand, I really don’t like the idea of the military targeting specific racial or nationalist subcultures within America.  That seems to me to buy into the multiculturalist PC stuff that’s turning our Pentagon into a haven for every Leftist idea, and that’s driving out the fighting ethos that is, technically, it’s actually purpose in this world.

Having said that, to the extent that the Marines are targeting Asians and Pacific Islanders by saying that being in the Marines is about having something to be proud of and having accomplishments under your belt — well, I think that’s a great way to sell a product.  Nike also thinks it’s a great way to sell a product.  We’re not running after you — but you should be running after us.  Except….  Except that when your ad campaign targets a specific minority group, that’s precisely what you’re doing — you’re running after them, which kind of kills the message about how you’re supposed to be the prize they pay for, and not vice versa.

In other words, the Marines have the right idea (“we’re special and you can be special by association”) but have fallen into political correctness and are sending a meta message that undercuts the spoken message.  (“Please, join us, please, please.  Our quotas are unbalanced without you.”)

I didn’t enjoy the movie Field of Dreams (Kevin Costner just doesn’t work for me as an actor and I just don’t “get” baseball), but I’ve always liked the movie’s famous tag line:  “If you build it, he will come.”  The Marines take pride in being the best. In this day and age, they need to advertise, but the ads should be spread far and wide, to all people, and shouldn’t be a form of quota hunting.  That just cheapens the message.

Incidentally, one of my favorite books to come out of the war in Iraq is Marco Martinez’s Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero.  When being a gang member sickened his soul, he was drawn to the Marines because they didn’t want someone like him.  They wanted someone better than he was and he too wanted to be that better guy.

Some institutions just shouldn’t pander.

Watcher’s Council submissions for May 9, 2013

This week from the Watcher’s Council:

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Found it on Facebook — what came out of the Benghazi hearings today

One of my Facebook friends who is, like me, a refugee from the Left, put together a perfect summary of what came out of today’s testimony.  If you’re on Facebook, please share this article or just block and copy this summary and send it around:

What the Obama administration did to America's ambassador

What the Obama administration did to America’s ambassador

What have we learned so far the from Benghazi hearing:

1. Security support was denied before and during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US Benghazi Consulate by the State department.

2. Ambassador Stevens’ last words “Greg, we are under attack!” [To Greg Hicks - his second in command in Tripoli]

3. It was clear to everyone in Libya that this was a coordinated attack – NOT a demonstration over an obscure YouTube anti Islam video.

4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked to Mr. Hicks – then the top diplomat in Libya – during and after the attack. She knew exactly what was going on.

5. During the attack, President Obama did not speak once with the Pentagon, and most likely went to bed while a US embassy was under attack.

6. Five days later UN ambassador Susan Rice in a media campaign orchestrated by State tells the world repeatedly that this was a demonstration over the anti Islam video – no one consulted Gerg Hicks – now the top diplomat in Libya over the talking points.

7. The obscure movie maker is jailed (and is still in jail in California)

8. Greg Hicks – the top diplomat in Libya – is shocked and embarrassed by Susan Rice’s appearances. When he raises the issue with his superiors at State they turn hostile.

9. When a congressional investigation team comes to Libya, Greg Hicks – still the top diplomat in Libya – is ordered by State Department lawyers for the first time in his 22 year long career not to talk to a Congressional committee. A State Department lawyer is sent along with the committee to make sure Hicks is kept away.

10. When he does talk to the committee, a furious Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, calls Hicks and demands an explanation and a report.

11. Gregory Hicks – a diplomat with a stellar record – has been harassed by the State Department and has not had an appointment since the Benghazi affair.

To which I will add what I’ve said before, this is Watergate (crime and cover-up), Iran-Contra (probable arms running), and a possible new one — an American president and Commander in Chief who deserves to be court-martialed for gross dereliction of duty.

Zombie has come up with a great neologism: “progracist”

You don’t really have to work hard to know what a “Progracist” is.  Indeed, it’s surprising, once you think about it, that nobody invented this neologism before.  I mean, it would have applied as perfectly to Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger as it does to today’s Progressives.  Please check out Zombie’s post and add the word to your vocabulary.

A response to Stephen Hawkings’ decision to join the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement against Israel

I’ve heard that Stephen Hawkings is a great thinker.  I can’t chime in on that, because the thoughts he thinks are outside my realm of knowledge.  Nevertheless, I’ll readily accept his physics genius as true.  What I learned today, though, is that he is a petty human being with a broken moral compass.  He has elected to join with Palestinians to support the BDS movement.  I have too much on my plate to explain the many ways this is wrong, wrong, and more wrong.  I’ll just give you an infographic to think about.

PalestinianTerror