Steyn: Guns and God? Hell, yes

I have to admit to an Unnatural Tendency: I love Mark Steyn.

No no, it's not physical relationship (although in a parallel universe wherein I was a woman I might consider wanting to bear his children if only to proliferate his political genius unto the next generation.)

It's only that I consider Steyn to be one of the most prolific, entertaining, brilliant and accurate writer in the western world today. I rank him right up there with Peggy Noonan, with many of the headline writers from National Review Online (can you say, for example, Jonah Goldberg?) following behind.

On this website I've quoted, cited and invariably encouraged you to Read Steyn fairly often. In fact, an informal survey (in which I just now asked myself "who do you quote most"?), I find that Steyn shares the Honor Spot with Rudyard Kipling.

So it was with gratifying surprise that I received an email from Honorary Geek Scott F., directing my attention to a recent article by Mr. Steyn titled ... well you can see the article title.


In "Guns and God: Hell, Yes", Steyn Responds to Barack Obama's recent statement that (small town conservatives) are (bitter because they are frustrated about their economic situation) and have (cleaved to their guns and their God ... as if this were A Bad Thing.)

Here's the full text of the comment:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

... and in a grab from the MSM:

But that's not the news we're talking about here.

Let's go back to the Steyn article, in some depth.

... I note a global survey on optimism: 61 percent of Americans were optimistic about the future, 29 percent of the French, 15 percent of Germans. Take it from a foreigner: In my experience, Americans are the least "bitter" people in the developed world. Secular, gun-free big-government Europe doesn't seem to have done anything for people's happiness. Consider by way of example the words of Keith Reade. He's not an Obama speechwriter, he's a writer for the London Daily Mirror. And the day after the 2004 presidential election he expressed his frustration in an alarmingly Obamaesque way:

"Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', nonpassport ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'"

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 62,039,073 incontinent rednecks.

... and ...

Obama and far too many Democrats have bought into this delusion, most thoroughly distilled in Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas?", whose argument is that heartland voters are too dumb (i.e., "moronic muppets") to vote for their own best interests.

... and ...

A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent's accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you don't understand that there are times when you'll have to fight for it, you won't enjoy it for long. That's what a lot of Reade's laundry list – "gun-totin'," "military-lovin'" – boils down to. As for "gay-loathin'," it's Oscar van den Boogaard's famously tolerant Amsterdam where gay-bashing is resurgent: The editor of the American gay paper the Washington Blade got beaten up in the streets on his last visit to the Netherlands.

God and guns. Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn't it. And even complacent liberal Democrats ought to be able to look across the ocean and see that. But, then, Obama did give the speech in San Francisco, a city demographically declining at a rate that qualifies it for EU membership. When it comes to parochial simpletons, you don't need to go to Kansas.

The arrogance of the man, to quote the America-haters and turn their words back on them.

The genius of the man, to make obvious the obtuse character of the America-haters, and to hold the light of truth so that their shady character is revealed.

But if you really want to review the opinion of Main Stream America (as opposed to the Main Stream Media, as represented by the failing New York Times), you may consider the Comments section of this article to be an interesting resource. There you will find Americans cheerfully

Just as a 'for-example', some Americans live in 'economically disadvantaged' areas not because they are unable to leave, but because they blatantly like the place where they live. They're not shy in speaking out in favor of their choice, and often they manage to hide their 'embitterment' behind a brave facade of cheerful exuberance:

jlbaker wrote:

One of the most exasperating things to us 'hay seeds' is that we have not asked for help. The formula is simple. If you like your environment, stay. If you must make 100 grand a year, leave for the city. We may be slow, but we figured out that one without Mr. Obama's help. For the political elites to even offer to 'save' us runs so brazenly against simple economics that I want to laugh...but they are being serious. If something works, it survives. If it does not work, it dies (I give you Detroit. Hardly a country bumpkin town. How well has it been doing lately?) Small town America may shrink, but enough people prefer it that I don't worry about it disappearing (unlike say, Jane Smiley, who is crying big liberal tears as we small towns seal our own doom by supporting religion, Republicans, and the 2nd Amendment). Besides, shouldn't the liberals be thrilled that small town America, apparently the haven of such anti-social behavior as being pro gun rights, 'cuts its own throat'?

(Note that Jane Smiley is a Pulitzer Prize writer, but she is famous chiefly for writing a 'bitter' polemic in response to George W. Bush's win against John Kerry (who was a decorated hero of the Vietnam War and will soon release his military records for public review, as he has promised to do since 2006 -- real soon now, watch this space) immediately after the results of the 2004 presidential election ... which required a month to "move on" from the Democratic legal challenges because the Dems couldn't believe that their candidate was even more lame than the Conservative candidate ... were confirmed. Ha ha ha, I laugh at your political discomfort, Jane Smiley. Does this make me a "Moronic Muppet"? Please say yes, I am honored by your disrespect.)
...

It's obvious (or should be, I think) why I so admire this Canadian/New Hampshire writer who has such a clear insight of the basic anger evinced by the European Culture which rages in frustration about the 'cowboy community' of America, and at the same time admit to their own effete voluntary disempowerment: "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Doesn't this single short sentence perfectly encapsulate the true Euro-Arrogance?

...

Today, at the USPSA match in Dundee, The Hobo Brasser interrupted the pre-match competitors' meeting with an announcement:

"Everyone who is bitter about their economic situation, and cleave to their guns and their God, please raise your hands."

I raised my hand. So did every one of the 51 competitors at the match.


Then we all laughed, and got down to the serious business of organizing ourselves for the serious business as Red State (actually, Oregon is a Blue State) Conservatives of punching holes in cardboard, and knocking down steel plates, in a day "... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Mark Steyn on Gun Control?

Mark Steyn on National Review Online

"... on CNN the other night Anderson Cooper was worrying about the homicide rate in Philadelphia.

The city of brotherly love is the murder capital of the nation, and CNN had dispatched a reporter to interview the grieving mother of a young black boy killed while riding his bicycle in the street. Apparently, a couple of cars had got backed up behind him, and an impatient passenger in one of them pulled out a gun and shot the kid.

Anderson Cooper then went to commercials and, when he returned, introduced a report on how easy it is to buy guns in Philadelphia and how local politicians are reluctant to do anything about it. This is, again, an argument only the expert class could make.

In the 1990s, the number of guns in America went up by 40 million but the murder rate fell dramatically. If firearms availability were the determining factor, Vermont and Switzerland would have high murder rates. Yet in Montpelier or Geneva the solution to a boy carelessly bicycling in front of you down a city street when you’re in a hurry is not to grab your gun and blow him away.

It’s the culture, not the technology."

I've been trying to make that point for years, but without notable success.

Who can compete with the genius of Mark Steyn?

(Go read the whole thing)

Joe Biden: "The Distinguished Windbag from Connecticut!

I realize it's probably  ... low-brow to blog oneself, but this 2006 commentary on Joe Biden (The then-Distinguished Senior Senator from Connecticut" and today "Vice President of the United States of America did then, and remains today, the pro-typical and recalcitrant vision of our Fearless (almost) Leader (almost).

I'm reminded of this because, as of today, this is the most popular blog entry in my entire umpteen (okay, almost 9) years of blogging.  I prefer to consider that statistic to be an exemplar of the few, the very few blog articles which have reverberated in America's heart ...

okay, and maybe I feel a little vindicated in the sense that perhaps I'm not the only man in America who considers Joe Biden to be a bloviating Windbag!

Read and believe.  Or not.
It's an opinion article from a lustrum of prescience about the ineffectuality of Joe Biden in any governmental office whatever .. and that our new (a while back) President chose him for his Vice President speaks volumes about his own ineffectualiyt.

Cogito Ergo Geek: Yin and Yang: Peggy Noonan: Yesterday I called Mark Steyn "one of my all-time favorite political commentators". That hasn't changed, but now I see it's time to introduce another: Peggy Noonan. Ms Noonan often writes for the Wall Street Journal (see the link on the sidebar, under WSJ Opinion Journal), and if Steyn's style is to go for the gonads (in the nicest possible way), Noonan's style is to go to the heart (in the deadliest possible way). Steyn and Noonan are the Yin and Yang of political commentary. I love this lady. She has style, she has verve, and she has the sharpest knife in the drawer. She can slice and dice you in 600 words, and you wouldn't feel a thing as she cuts out your heart. Today her target was Joe Biden. For twenty years, I have referred to him as "The Distinguished Windbag from Delaware". Imagine how rewarding it is to read the following paragraph from today's column, as Ms Noonan typifies the congressional interrogation of Judge Samuel Alito by Senator Joe Biden. In part:

Go, and read the whole thing.

Or not.

Global Warming Deniers

(Note: Non-IPSC content.)

Have you been following the Global Warming controversy? Are you in the "Ho-Hum" stage yet? If so, you might be a Global Warming Denier.

Okay, I'm one of 'Them'.

I'm not sure whether I'm of the "there is no Global Warming" school of thought, or "Global Warming is merely a natural cyclic event" school, or the "Global Warming may or may not be a fact, but it has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect as affected by Human Actions" school.

All I can say is, when this became a matter of ideology, when science was overwhelmed by Politically Correct speech, when the Main Stream Media decided that there was no controversy here, and most important when the Weather Channel announced that weather persons on TV who failed to enthusiastically embrace Right Thinking should lose their accreditation ... I opted out.

Well, I didn't completely opt out. I decided that if these useful idiots embraced the concept of Global Warming Is Real, And It's All Your Fault!, then I rejected it.

I've resisted writing about this for several weeks, but I read a lot of articles about it and (sneaky bastard that I am) I saved the links.

Heh heh heh.

The single event that caused me to decide that the Global Warming Freaks (hereafter GWF) wer just wrong, wrong, wrong was when I read Michael Crichten's 2004 novel "State Of Fear". While I don't necessarily consider Crichten a Climatologist, an atmospheric physicist or a scientists of any kind, his citatations were credible and his reasoning persuasive.

Besides, it was a good read, even though Crighten is not without his detractors.

That set me up for Mark Steyn's article in Jewish World Review: "Don't ruin economy over tiny temp rise", which featured Steyn's typical charm and wit. It convinced me that it was time to unleash the power of all the articles I've saved.

Have you read the Steyn article yet? Go ahead, read it. We'll wait for you to catch up.

Done? Okay, let us continue.

Going back to 2 feb, 2007, the United Nations "International Panel on Climate Change" released its "Climate Change 2007" report. Summary: we're in deep doo-doo, and it's all your fault.

The Center for Science and Public Policy replied: "The Panic Is Officially Over". Which is a nice, British-style way of saying "you people are SO full of it, your eyes are brown".

Fortunately, the Contra Costa (California) Times had already weighed into the discussion by announcing that "Global warming is nothing but a paper tiger".

Oregon's Governor, The Egregioius Ted, fires an OSU professor from the purely symbolic title of "climatoligist" because his scientific opinion doesn't meet Ted's preconceptions about climatology.

Why fire him?

"His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies."

Whoa! Guess what? It's no longer a matter of scientific theory, it's Politics!

And in my home (red) state. Who could have predicted THIS?

In the meantime, Al Gore (failed politician, failed climatologist, failed progenitor of The Internet, failed anything-he-has-ever-tried) accused President Bush of paying money to scientists in an effort to encourage them to become Global Warming Deniers.

Finally, and most interesting, the Czech president Vaclav Klaus on February 9, 2007, explained his views on the IPCC panel.

This was high-lighted on The Drudge Report (the link is transitory) . Read the entire interview here.

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say..

Yin and Yang: Peggy Noonan

Yesterday I called Mark Steyn "one of my all-time favorite political commentators".

That hasn't changed, but now I see it's time to introduce another: Peggy Noonan.

Ms Noonan often writes for the Wall Street Journal (see the link on the sidebar, under WSJ Opinion Journal), and if Steyn's style is to go for the gonads (in the nicest possible way), Noonan's style is to go to the heart (in the deadliest possible way).

Steyn and Noonan are the Yin and Yang of political commentary.

I love this lady. She has style, she has verve, and she has the sharpest knife in the drawer. She can slice and dice you in 600 words, and you wouldn't feel a thing as she cuts out your heart.

Today her target was Joe Biden.

For twenty years, I have referred to him as "The Distinguished Windbag from Delaware".

Imagine how rewarding it is to read the following paragraph from today's column, as Ms Noonan typifies the congressional interrogation of Judge Samuel Alito by Senator Joe Biden. In part:

Must he sit there bland-faced and unmoving as they say what they say? Yes, of course. Judge Alito and the White House know they have to let these men talk. They don't want the senators to feel resentful or frustrated. They know each senator feels he has to play to his base. They know the senators are, by nature, like Conair 2000 hairdryers: They just love to blow, and hard. Fwwaaaaahhhhhhhhh. And they know it is good, it is helpful, to let each senator reveal himself through his own words. I think senators feel that their words, when strung together, become little bridges. I think the White House feels that their words, when strung together, become little nooses.

"Little Nooses".

I just love that, don't you?

They (the Judiciary Subcommittee) abused Alito to distraction; and then, when Lindsey Graham spoke nicely to Sam Alito, the poignancy of the moment drove Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, to tears. From that moment on, if it hadn't already happened, Alito became a shoo-in.

Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Alito, was overcome with emotion as Sen. Lindsey Graham called her husband "a decent, honorable man." (Watch wife brought to tears -- 1:57)

In the words of Robert Culp (or was it Bill Cosby, in "I Spy":

I just love it when a plan comes together.

Lindsey Graham for President?

U.S. shouldn't have to do tap dance over bugging

U.S. shouldn't have to do tap dance over bugging

Mark Steyn remains one of my all-time favorite political commentators. The New Hampshire British-sounding guy has the gift of finding the nugget in the nuggies and polishing it into an eminently readable argument for survival of Western Civilization.

Here he takes on the DemocRats who would impeach President Bush for taking needful steps to ferret out terrorist snakes before they can strike.

Citing, just for example, the resounding intelligence success which stopped a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge (why didn't they just buy it?), he makes the case for unfettering the hands of the man who we re-elected to protect us from another 9/11.

You do remember 9/11, don't you? I sure do. My clock radio woke me at 7am Pacific Time with continuous news about planes striking the Twin Towers in New York, the skyscrapers in flames, people trapped on the 83rd floor and jumping to their death from fear of being burned alive, the inevitable word that the towers had collapsed into rubble heaps . . . two . . . one . . . zero towers.

I didn't go to work that day. I sat at home alone, listening in horror to the newscasts on the radio. My Darling Daughter called me from San Diego around mid-day, and we talked in hushed voices about the calamity and what it might mean for our country. We had no idea how bad it could be.

Later, we all found out how bad it could be.

We were lucky, if you can call it that. About 3000 people lost their lives, including the people in the three buildings and the passengers in the four airplanes, plus all of the rescue workers caught in the collapse. It could have been worse. Initial estimates were that as many as 50,000 people could have been in the World Trade Center buildings. But it was too early in the day, about 9am Eastern Time, and the shopping crowds hadn't yet gathered in the ground-level malls.

Lucky. Yeah.

The following days gave us a glimpse of national solidarity, as Congress gathered on the Capital Steps to sing "America" and every one said "Never Forget!"

But some of us did forget.

There was a lot of talk about the failure of the intelligence services, and how they SHOULD have known about this threat, but they were forbidden to work together to process and share the information that was, as we now know, readily available.

We changed that. Changed the laws that enforced only the concept that International Terrorism was only a civil or criminal matter. We knew now that we were in a war, a knife-fight for national survival. Never forget.

But some of us did forget.

"Now we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

It has nearly come down to that, as politicians play the game for political advantage . . . the Outs furious that they are no longer the Ins, and forgetting that it was their casual, Politically Correct vision of National Security brought us to this National Tragedy.

They no longer foam at the mouth in a vindictive desire to find the people who "did this to us", and to take any necessary measures to prevent a similar recurrence. Instead, they snap at the heels of the Big Dog whose job it is to, as the Constitution requires, insure that we can

. . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .

That's how I feel about it.

Here's how Mark Steyn says it:

It's very hard to fight a terrorist war without intelligence. By definition, you can only win battles against terrorists pre-emptively -- that's to say, you find out what they're planning to do next Thursday and you stop it cold on Wednesday. Capturing them on Friday while you're still pulling your dead from the rubble is poor consolation. For example, in 1988, a British SAS unit shot dead three IRA members on the streets of Gibraltar. The United Kingdom's Joint Intelligence Committee were acting on information that the cell was planning to blow up the changing-of-the-guard ceremony on the Rock. The two men and a woman were subsequently found to be ''unarmed,'' and as a result various civil liberties groups protested and critical TV documentaries were made. But there was no dispute that they were IRA members and that they had bomb-making materials in their car. If the state cannot take action until its sworn enemy uses those materials, it had better be prepared to lose the war.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious. But, unmoored from reality, wafting happily into fantasy land safe in the hermetically sealed Democrat-media bubble, Sen. Barbara Boxer and her colleagues are apparently considering impeaching the president for eavesdropping on al Qaida calls made to U.S. phone numbers. Surely, even Karl Rove can't get that lucky.

By the way, I'd love to see the witness list for that trial: Muhammad al-Jihad testifying that a week before he blows up a Bali nightclub he always makes a perfectly innocent call to his cousin in Milwaukee to ask how the kids are; Abu Musad al-Zarqawi testifying that he only called Howard Dean to issue a formal complaint about congressional Democrats stealing his rationalizations. Etc.

The Democrats and the media want to upgrade every terrorist into O.J. Simpson, insulated by legalisms and entitled to his own dream team. (Their figleaf, the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which previously denied not a single request, has turned down hundreds in the years since 9/11.) The practical effect of the Dems' approach is to extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to any dodgy character anywhere on the planet who has a U.S. telephone number in his Rolodex. Indeed, given that perfectly ordinary cell phones can be used almost anywhere -- this week, I spoke to an American in London by dialing his Washington cell number -- if the Democrats have their way, all terrorist cells in Europe or Pakistan would have to do to put themselves beyond the reach of U.S. intelligence is get a New Jersey-based associate to place a bulk order for Verizon cell phones.

There's more, much more, and you really must read the entire article to appreciate the concise flavor of his proposition that, essentially, desperate times require desperate measures.

And this is, indeed, a desperate time.

There WAS a time when my greatest fear was that my son would be called upon to serve his country by taking up arms in its defense. I did it, in 1968-1970, and I would not wish that on anyone who was not whole-heartedly determined that this was The Right Thing To Do.

I did it, even though I was not "whole-heartedly determined". My family was frightened for my sake during the entire time, perhaps even more frightened than I was. Hard to imagine.

Now I'm even more worried. Even though my son, and my daughter's good husband, will probably NOT be conscripted to fight a war, we have all been so conscripted in a way that is even more fearful.

We don't have a country to fight. We don't even have an open enemy.

Instead we have a nest of vipers who lurk in the shadows, hide amongst honest folk, and only strike at the most vulnerable of us. They have no fear of death, and deprecate us because we love life.

We cannot raise an army, train and arm them, transport them on troop ships to their home country to defeat them in detail. They don't have a home country, they only have malice.

How do we find these pockets of enmity?

You have to know where to look.

How do you know where to look?

Aye, there's the rub. And the very few, the pitifully few weapons we have at our disposal are being taken from us by serpents at our breast. The people whom we chose to protects us in mass have chosen to protect their own vested interests by attacking our leaders.

Oh, go read Mark Steyn. He's much less melodramatic than I am. More convincing as well


x

My Fellow Americans ....

We get letters.

Being a blog, we get letters from special interest groups asking us to please use our private forum to espouse their private interests. Sometimes I reply, usually I ignore them.

In fact, one of the reasons why I have been shamefully reticent about blogging for so long is that my "Irish" is up, not the least because of the 9/11 anniversary which I dreaded because I feared

Recently (shortly before the 9/11 tenth anniversary), one special interest group has been particularly adamant for me to post their plea for support of the cause of Islamic Acceptance. Finally, I declined, with reason.

Here is the original email, asking me to "sponsor" (by presenting their message) a group which wishes to portray Islamic Americans as just more "Americans". I like the idea, but not the manner in which their video proposes their message.

My Fellow American is a film project in the United States devoted to recognizing that Muslims are our neighbors. I am reaching out to you because you addressed the recent events in Oslo, Norway, on Cogito Ergo Geek and I am hoping you will share this message of tolerance with your readers. We’ve put together a 2 minute film that I believe you will be interested in sharing, watching, and discussing:

http://myfellowamerican.us

I would love it if you could post or tweet about this and share the video. If you can, please let me know. I am here if you have any questions. Thank you so much.

Incidentally, I do not ascribe to the philosophy of many radio talk-show host, especially Micheal Savage (who was extensively quoted in the video), because their format tends to demonize groups rather than the actions of individuals. On the other hand, some groups tend to have too many members who are just as fanatic as (for example) Savage ... except sometimes members of these groups use physical violence to further their aims. I don't like Savage, but I fear Jihadists who believe that the world should become a Caliphate, even by the Sword. To put it in simplistic terms: Savage is a nut; islamicists are a danger to innocents.

And I am reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt's speech regarding "HyphenatedAmericans" ... which includes Islamic Americans:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

I will discuss the subject of "Islamic-Americans" later in this post. Briefly, I think that's the crux of the problem. And no, the term "Islamic-Americans" is not mentioned in the video.

Just so it's clear, I think that our allegiance should be to our country, rather than to the unique religious choices we make. On the other hand, I realize that many people of every religion would disagree with me. For many people, their religion-of-choice is their primary guideline, and that's fine ... as long as they abide by the existing laws of their espoused country. For me, the deciding factor is whether our political or religious beliefs allow the slaughter of innocents.

The slaughter of innocents. That's a powerful term. And either our political or religious beliefs may take precedence, depending on our national culture. Still, we should not support any belief system which encourages us to murder our fellow man because he doesn't believe the same things as we do .... as long as his beliefs are similarly accepting of the right to exist.

In the U.S., we went through a terrible period of "Racism", where 'innocence' was often defined by race. We've pretty much got through that, even though we're still struggling with residual hatred. But it is not a national policy, and it is not supported by federal law (more on that later). We're making progress, even if it's slow.

Getting back to the video, it shows friendly, cheerful and productive Islamic American citizens who are free to practice their religion in public. If you are not an Islamic , you cannot practice your religion in ... for example .. Saudi Arabia. Do you know that you cannot bring a bible into Saudi Arabia? And they are a friendly country to the United States. How multi-cultural is that? Are they working to get past that? No, they are not; it is national policy, and national law.

Here's how "Multi-Culturalism" is working out in Europe:

(From "Mark Steyn Online: The Department of Sharia /September 20, 2011 and also published in National Review Online)

And in Egypt, also a Friendly State to America and generally considered one of the most 'liberal' of Islamic States (actually, not generally considered an "Islamic State", even though they are becoming more Islamic daily), if an Egyptian citizen held up a sign stating "Christianity Will Dominate The World: Islamic Statism Can Go To Hell" --- that person would be lucky to be arrested before the mobs murdered him (as was Egyptian Presidant Anwar Sadat after he had ratified a peace with Israel in 1981) ... or sexually assaulted her.

No, I do NOT believe that every Islamic is a terrorist. However, in the past ten years, every Terrorist has been an Islamic.

And before you say it, I am quite aware that this particular catch-phrase has been used so often that it has become associated with anti-islamic hysteria for the past ten years. As in; since September 11, 2011.

Name me one terroristic act in the past ten years which has NOT been perpetrated by an Islamic?

It use to be that we could point our fingers at the Irish. Sinn Fein seems dormant. The IRA hasn't made a lot of headlines lately, although it still active ... 22 terrorist acts in 2009, 39 in 2010.

But that is small change, and generally restricted to Ireland and GB. Islamist terrorism is ... may we say it? ... worldwide, and almost indiscriminate.

So why not accept Islamic terrorism with the same seeming equanimity as Irish Terrorism?

The difference is, many Irish are outraged by Irish Terrorism. We heard a lot of that in the Bad Old Days, but now the terrorist acts are so few and so relatively minor (when's the last time the Irish attacked America, or blew up skyscrapers, or tried to blow up airplanes filled with anonymous innocents?) that they pale to insignificance when compared to Islamic terrorists.

But I'm still not a supporter of the brand of terrorism that a few Irish support, even though they didn't demolish buildings and innocents on a grand scale ten years ago. Or ... ever.

And ... getting back to that video that we linked to earlier, with the smiling Islamics in America? Where in that video did anyone refer to, let alone OBJECT to, the terrorist acts repeatedly committed by their coreligionists?

No where.

Another reference to Mark Steyn, who recently (September 18, 2011) posted an essay called "MOLLIFYING MUSLIMS, AND MUSLIFYING MOLLIES", where he mentioned, in part:

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn't burn any buildings or women and children. He didn't even burn a book. He hadn't actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church's website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama's famous "teaching moments"? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where's the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones' First Amendment rights?

The President of the United States publically denounced this irrelevant clergyman for speaking his mind

And that, friends in INSTITUTIONAL terrorism, committed by our own Federal Government. It is a matter of national policy that nothing which can remotely be described as detrimental or insulting to Islam will be tolerated in The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave.

Why is that so?

It happens because our national leadership has decided to meddle in the 'national conscience', to determine what is and is not acceptable for us to think about religion, tolerance and acceptance in America. The Constitution of the United States be damned; Obama didn't like it, and so he sent the attack-dog lackeys of the American Press to vilify this private individual.

(Yes, the parson is a jerk. The First Amendment of the Constitution was codified to protect the rights of Free Speech for unpopular opinions. If we liked what he had to say, we wouldn't need a First Amendment.)

It's not enough that the president has infringed on the First Amendment Rights of a private American citizen, but our current culture has gone totally ape-shit in its surge to back the president .... in an attack on a private citizen who had broken no laws. And it is, the press at the same time supported an attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. So much for the white coat-tails of the Fifth Estate.

---

So, when I get emails asking me to "sponsor" a video which presents Islamics in America as totally joyful and non-aggressive, I have to ask: "Where's the beef?"

What happened to showing both faces of the culture which is not assimilating itself into the American culture? Instead of becoming more American, and speaking out against terrorism ... adherents of this religion expect us to accept it without acknowledging that many of its members have as its basic priority that we should be forced to abandon our culture in favor if its religious fanaticism?

I don't think so.

When I see that the News Of The Day features Americans (who just happen to be Islamics) speaking out against terrorism, I will consider supporting that concept.

But that won't happen until Islamics (who just happen to be Americans), have made it a priority that they don't want to change the American culture.

Today, Islam is not just Another Pretty Face. If they want to be accepted, Islamics must conform to American culture; not we to theirs.

More Election Results: Nobel Peace Prize

Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth".

"I am Al Gore, I use to be the next president of the United States of America ..."

(The movie also received two Oscars, along with 20 other wins and four nominations.)

As Abraham Lincoln was famously quoted:

You can fool all of the people some of the time,
And you can fool some of the people all of the time,
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

There's something about this situation which is covered in the Lincoln statement.

If you love your planet...
If you love your children ...
You have to see this film!

The United Kingdom (The Brits ... "there you go again!") recently attempted to establish a mandatory showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" to students (as often as four times!) all through the commonwealth. Well, what's left of it. (In fact, this mandatory showing has also been imposed on some American Students.)

Unfortunately, some of the colonies aren't buying this.

IT WILL SHAKE YOU TO YOUR CORE!

"It's Clobbering Time!"

"This is really not a political issue, so much as a moral issue"

That attempt has been clobbered by a recent report from New Zealand, presenting 11 'inconvenient' actual untruths (see the link for details) which "strongly suggest" that the so-called documentary is politically biased, not evidence which can be supported by science. Specifically:

"... a High Court ruling in Britain has just found that the film is unfit for schools."

"The scientific consensus is that we are causing Global Warming."

For Gore, the timing (the report was released October 7, 2007 ... probably after the final voting was completed) sucks was very close to interfering with his award.

There are rumors that the director of the NZ "think tank" has asked that Gore's Academy Award be rescinded. This probably isn't going to happen, nor is his Nobel Prize likely to be rescinded.

NOTHING IS SCARRIER!

A list of all Nobel Peace Prize recipients also strongly suggests that this award, in recent years, has had little or nothing to do with the original intent of the prize, which was to be awarded to:
"the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I'm not sure what a fraudulent documentary has to do with these criteria.

Are you?

BY FAR, THE MOST TERRIFYING FILM YOU WILL EVER SEE!

UPDATE: Monday, October 15, 2007
I'm not the only one who wonders "What has Al Gore done for World Peace?"

The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?
...
But there is a more fundamental objection to awarding Gore the peace prize that goes beyond issues of character. Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed.

There's more, much more. Whatever you do, read the comments!

But as Whitefish likes to say: "That's nothing!"

You can't miss the take of the inimitable Mark Steyn on "Doom if Saint Al Loses Carbs"

January General

Vote For Your 2005 Today's Toons Favorites (Preliminary Round)
h/t: Techno Gypsy

Here's an idea .... Read Mark Steyn!

If you don't read him daily, there's no better time than NOW to start.

His latest (as of right NOW!) is "It's The Demography, Stupid!"
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.

The Smallest Minority links to Lileks for more .....

If this doesn't run chillls up and down your spine, you must be a Flaming Liberal (who thinks this future is "just fine")

H/T: WorldNet Daily

Mr. Completely has a great idea for demonstrating the idiocy of anti-hunters.

BOOMERSHOOT!


(H/T ... Mr. Completely)
I have participated in two BoomerShoots to date, and it was always worth the drive.

Joe Huffman plans once again to demonstrate the indefatigable drive of the Western Male to go to exotic places and blow things up.

Expect rainy weather, expect 2pm winds from the west which will drive your bullets far from the target, and expect to have a great time while experiencing wind, rain, awkward positions and highly reactive targets.

I still have the t-shirt I got at the 2001 "Big Bang", and I still haven't worn it. For a while, I thought to donate it to Kim DuTuit in recognition of his splendid blogging. But it pissed me off when he closed down his KDT blog in favor of the "Nation of Riflemen" forum, so I'm keepin' it. (Hey, it's my blog, it's my shirt, and I can be pissed of for illogical reasons if I want to!)

Maybe I'll snap a picture of the shirt next week. Or not. Depends on my mood, which is mercurial. Besides, the shirt is still clean and has the creases from theoriginal folds. (Also, it's already too darn small for me to wear.)

In preparation for the first (1999) BoomerShoot I attended, I sent an email to Joe describing the conditions I expected to encounter. It's still up on his website, under the heading "How to prepare for your Boomershoot experience (Sixteen Helpful Hints for the Boomershoot)".

Joe, and my friend Bumstead, are determined to never let me forget that a list of 16 items should be expected to include sixteen points. Nonsense. I was just leaving Bumstead room for a response.