What? Me blog?

****
I use Yahoo.com mail and My Yahoo as my portal for news, feeds, etc. The other day, I was perusing the headlines and checked into a story and followed up by reading the comments. I hardly ever check the comments at such sites, except for sports stories; I don't expect much from such comments and I'm rarely surprised. Reading the news story comments was a learning experience. Comments are unmoderated and of unusually low quality. Posters are allowed to rate comments (thumbs up or down.) Comments with low ratings are not displayed unless you opt to see them on a case-by-case basis. You would think people who are interested in the news of the day would have a reasonably good grasp on reality. Apparently, such is not the case.

Go to Yahoo.com sometime and look at the numbers of comments that accompany the news articles at the site. You'll find that there are usually far more comments per article than you will find at sites like Townhall.com or PajamasMedia.com. Then, for a truly disheartening experience, read those comments left by the (mostly) drooling imbeciles who congregate in the forums there. For a real treat, post a well-reasoned comment that doesn't toe the mob's PC line. Prepare to be shouted down, or worse, be subjected to the indignity of those same nattering idiots rating your comment so low as to not be seen. Still, they babble on and on, bereft of reason or civility.

These, friends, are the Americans we need to re-educate if we are going to take back America and restore the Republic? Bah. Who wants it?

Find a defensible chunk of real estate and secede from the death cultists? Now we're talking. I just want to know where to sign up.

Labels: Common Sense, errata, politics

Sen. Arlen Spector: ‘To Eliminate Any Doubt, I Am a Republican....errr, Democratic...errr, unemployed."

I don't know why he thought he was going to get any loyalty from the folks he'd been beating in elections for so long, much less from Obama. They got what they wanted from him. He got no less than what he deserved.













So long, it's been good to know ya!

Labels: election, politics

...and also a liar.

Sen. Arlen Spector: ‘To Eliminate Any Doubt, I Am a Republican’

One RINO down; quite a few more to go. Snowe of ME should be shown the door so she can hit it too.

Labels: politics

Jim Babka writing at Positive Liberty -

If you’ve never been to DownsizeDC.org, I encourage you to visit. We provide a free to the user program that we call the Educate the Powerful System. With your basic contact information, you can find out who your Representative and Senators are, and then, send them a personalized message, simultaneously (no need to go to all three sites and input all your information each time). Register once, and you’re done with that too — no need to redo the process when you use the site again. Plus, you’ll get a subscription to the Downsizer-Dispatch. The benefit of using our system is that you’re not alone in sending your messages. 24,900+ people receive the Dispatch each day.

Huzzah!

As a more-or-less orthodox Catholic - that is, a social conservative - I obviously take issue with my more socially liberal brethren at Positive Liberty and other such sites, but this is a great site. The ability to hit all of my congresscritters at the same time is, if not priceless, then wonderfully convenient.

Babka's post on the evil's of HR 875 Really Bad (Without Hysterical Exaggeration) is spot on. It is a farm safety bill that would be a disaster for farmers and the rest of us. You can see information on HR 875, including the whole text of the bill, at govtrack.us. No exaggeration, this bill is a disaster in waiting.

Labels: politics

From American Digest:

TO: White House Staff
FROM: David Axelrod
cc: POTUS, FLOTUS, TOTUS, CNN, MSNBC, JOURNOLIST

RE: Standard O-Pology Policy [For immediate release to loyalists]

The continuing strain on our beloved President Obama of His world-girdling apology tour is beginning to show on our Commander-in-Chief. In addition, even with several hundred more aides in the White House than his predecessors, the effort of crafting new craven and groveling statements is beginning to tax even those resources. In the interest of a more efficient government, our beloved President today signed off on the following document which will be used henceforth for all state occasions.

All Purpose O-pology

I, [SAY YOUR NAME AND TITLE], come to [NAME EVENT / COUNTRY / MEDIA OPPORTUNITY / CHANCE ENCOUNTER] today as the very first penitent, conscience-stricken, regretful and contrite American President. Speaking as the one and only unifying voice for My country, I beg your indulgence to say that all Americans now share the pain our very existence causes you and we deeply regret it. We repent of our lives, our freedom, and our prosperity with every shred of our American soul. Hear now our eternal confession of sin and error.

The rest of the post is equally sad and funny. Sadly funny. I swear Obambi is actively trying to supplant Jimmy Carter as "Worst President Ever." I'm already longing for the good ole days of the Bush presidency - urkh.

Labels: politics

It seems strange that 30 years later we are still having a conversation about a disease that is easily preventable. And yet, due largely to a wholly inadequate response to the problem of AIDS, more people have died and many more have contacted AIDS than is necessary. It seems that sin does indeed make one stupid.

Dale O'Leary has written a provocative paper, provided by the blog Feminine Genius here that brings us up to date with the situation in Africa, and the picture isn't pretty.

In the wake of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Africa and the attendant brouhaha over O'Leary updated a 2005 paper, providing an overview of the various strategies for dealing with AIDS.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic has caused immeasurable suffering, but prevention is possible. The disease does not strike randomly – we have identified the virus that causes AIDS, and we know the pathways the virus can take. The question for the people of Africa is: What is the most effective strategy for preventing transmission?

The protection of public health in the face of deadly epidemics has always required a balance between respecting freedom and saving lives. Governments are given three options from which to build a strategic response: risk elimination, risk avoidance, and risk reduction. Even the most devastating epidemics can be stopped if the government is willing to abridge its citizens' freedom by employing draconian risk elimination strategies such as mandatory testing and quarantine. Such strategies are normally only employed for deadly, fast-moving epidemics. Risk avoidance strategies prevent infection by motivating the public to avoid all possible sources of infection and enforcing public health regulations. Risk reduction strategies allow people to continue to engage in behaviors that could expose them to infection while encouraging a reduction – but not elimination – of the risk of infection.

Early in the epidemic, various nations made different choices with differing results. When Cuban soldiers returned from fighting in Angola, the government realized that some were infected with HIV. The regime responded with mandatory testing and quarantine. The epidemic was blunted.

The U.S. opted for risk reduction. Mandatory testing and quarantine were suggested but ruled unacceptable. Standard public health measures that were used to control sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as syphilis and gonorrhea were also rejected. Instead, prevention focused on educating people on the ways in which they could protect themselves by using condoms. The result: twenty-five years after the threat was identified, over a half million citizens have died of AIDS and three times that many are living with HIV. In 2006 in the U.S. 56,300 people were newly infected – the majority of them being men who have sex with men. The U.S. strategy with some modifications has been exported to other countries as the preferred method for controlling the epidemic.

Africa’s leaders and those who fund AIDS prevention programs in Africa need to consider the full range of options available. The following is a review of what is known about how HIV is transmitted, standard public health strategies, the prevention strategy presented to Africa as the "scientific consensus," the agendas of those who created this consensus, the challenges to that consensus, alternative strategies, and the effect of the choice of prevention strategy on the culture.

Be sure to read the full report.

Labels: AIDS, politics

****
Obama's 100th day celebration: All a$$lickers invited. - submitted by Eviction Notice

breitbart.com — "It's going to have the energy and excitement of an election night so bring your barf bags!"

****
I just can't help myself. It's funny, although I might have said "bootlickers." This is a perfect illustration of why CNN is increasingly becoming irrelevant, third now to FOX and (P)MSNBC.

Labels: politics

****
Not that it should come as any surprise to learn that Repugnicon Olympia Snowe of ME is on board with Demonrat Jay Rockefeller of WV, but the provisions of S. 773:

To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

should be of concern to freedom-minded Americans. It looks to be yet another in an ever growing parade of bi-factional ruling coalition bills aimed at ever more centralization of control. As usual, the powers are loosely defined, delegated to the president, aimed at coordinating the security efforts of the various military and security agencies and placed under the administration of an unelected "czar."

Sound familiar?

The bill as introduced by Snowe, Rockefeller and Sen. Bill Nelson (D) FL can be seen at GovTrack.us. Under

SEC. 17. AUTHENTICATION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES REPORT.

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The President--
(1) within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, shall develop and implement a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy, which shall include--
(A) a long-term vision of the Nation’s cybersecurity future; and
(B) a plan that encompasses all aspects of national security, including the participation of the private sector, including critical infrastructure operators and managers;
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;
(3) shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration under paragraph (2);
(4) shall, through the appropriate department or agency, review equipment that would be needed after a cybersecurity attack and develop a strategy for the acquisition, storage, and periodic replacement of such equipment;
(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;
(7) shall, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, direct an annual review of all Federal cyber technology research and development investments;
(8) may delegate original classification authority to the appropriate Federal official for the purposes of improving the Nation’s cybersecurity posture;
(9) shall, through the appropriate department or agency, promulgate rules for Federal professional responsibilities regarding cybersecurity, and shall provide to the Congress an annual report on Federal agency compliance with those rules;
(10) shall withhold additional compensation, direct corrective action for Federal personnel, or terminate a Federal contract in violation of Federal rules, and shall report any such action to the Congress in an unclassified format within 48 hours after taking any such action; and
(11) shall notify the Congress within 48 hours after providing a cyber-related certification of legality to a United States person.

****
Just in case you've become glassy eyed at the fairly innocuous language of the bill so far, here are the definitions of terms used in the draft:

In this Act:

(2) CYBER- The term ‘cyber’ means--
(A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and
(B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks.

Broad enough brush for you?

The term ‘Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks’ includes Federal Government information systems and networks; and State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks. The term ‘Internet’ has the meaning given that term by section 4(4) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503(4)) and the term ‘network’ has the meaning given that term by section 4(5) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5503(5)).

15 U.S.C. is a wonderful read. Take plenty of No-Doz. You'll find that network is further defined in section 5512.

Labels: politics

****
When discussing "liberty" and "freedom," it seems some clarification of terms is in order. The founders' vision for America was not about unfettered freedom, but, rather, a particular type of ordered liberty. "Freedom" without a strong moral basis is an empty promise. The founders - admittedly an ambiguous term, but for the purpose of this post can be described as the founding generation of the United States, steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition (if they weren't themselves orthodox, ie: trinitarian, Christians) and natural law - understood the problem of liberty quite clearly. The problem, stated simply, was how to keep liberty from degenerating into mere license. The solution, as many of the founders saw it, was to encourage the practice of religion among the American people under the assumption that the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for republican government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens and the connection between the Christian religion and virtue was obvious.

The problem inherent in a free society is that immoral actors take advantage of moral ones. If everyone quite rationally suspects everyone else of immoral behavior, then in order to protect themselves in any given transaction the value of exchange is necessarily undercut by the cost of self-protection. As actors become more immoral in their transactions, it becomes necessary to ease the expense of self-protection by enlisting the aid of government in the form of regulation, thereby undermining the entire libertarian idea. The key to breaking the cycle of immoral action and regulation is to change the nature of the actors. This not a new concept, as would-be social engineers and progressives of every stripe have been attempting this with various degrees of failure to show for their efforts for more than a hundred years. The more virtuous actors in an exchange are, the less opportunistic their behavior, then the more trust all actors can have at the outset of exchange. With trust, the costs of transaction rapidly decline and the need for government regulation and enforcement eases also. Absent trust or government intervention, exchanges are only regulated by the relative strength of the actors, a situation that can be readily observed in criminal activity.

"Because the founders had the wisdom and imaginative power to predict what evil a man might conjure up with unrestrained liberty, they grounded liberty in the context of order. Prudence is generally scorned today, but in the days of the Constitutional Convention it was a highly regarded way of life. Mores and honorable social tradition constituted what it meant to be a liberated man. They held as self evident that when confronted with liberty ungrounded in order, men create a world of chaos with respect to themselves and a world of tyranny with respect to others. In contrast, some think today that unrestrained liberty constitutes what it means to be a liberated man. A deep reverence for the Founders' ideal of a liberated man, exercised through right reason, defines the proper relationship between order and liberty and altogether defines what it means to be a conservative." - Christa J. Byker

Religious social conservatives press for public policies that tend to increase social capital by improving citizens. The difference between what social conservatives and humanistic socialists are after in the transformation of the individual into a good citizen lies in the nature of their different approaches. The Christian sees the development of virtuous behavior as a "bottom up" enterprise, meaning that society is perfected as its individual members are, whereas humanists tend to work from the top down, defining the ideal and coercing the individual to its vision. True liberty lies in the freedom to do as one ought, that "ought" as realized by a properly formed actor.

****

For more on natural law - http://www.acton.org/research/reading/research_reading_natural_law.php

On Virtue - http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/civic-virtue.htm

On ordered liberty - http://www.isi.org/spotlight/essay_contest/order_liberty_05/2.pdf

See also: Samuel Gregg's excellent book "On Ordered Liberty: A Treatise on the Free Society (Religion, Politics, and Society in the New Millennium)" http://www.amazon.com/Ordered-Liberty-Treatise-Religion-Millennium/dp/0739106686/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1239073034&sr=11-1

Labels: law and order, liberty, politics

From Liberty File reports, Friday, February 20, 2009

Indiana State Senator Greg Walker (District 41) is reported to have filed
some form of what has recently come to be referred to as a "Sovereignty
Resolution" whereby a state reasserts its rights under the 10th Amendment
to the U.S. Constition and reminds the Federal Government of its
constitutionally limited powers.

Although details are still pending a posting of the bill it is
believed to be Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 (2009-2010) and that
Senator Dennis Kruse (District 14) and popular Senator Mike Delph (District 29)
might also be working with or supporting Sen. Walker's effort.

As many as twenty states are believed to have had similar resolutions
introduced in 2009 including Arizona, New Hampshire (HCR 6) and Oklahoma.


UPDATE 1:45 PM FEBRUARY 22, 2009: It is now confirmed that State Senators Walker, Kruse and Stutzman have introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 37.


UPDATE 11:20 AM FEBRUARY 26, 2009: Senator Mike Delph (29th District) has been confirmed as the 'second author' on the bill and there are now 14 total authors/co-sponsors.

****
Text of the Resoulution:

First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)

SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION No. _____

---

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ”;
Whereas , The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;
Whereas , Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America 's most valuable contributions to political science;
Whereas , James Madison, “the father of the Constitution, ” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people ”;

Whereas , Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate ” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government ”;
Whereas , Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments. ” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them ”;
Whereas , The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;
Whereas , Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government;
Whereas , Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

---

Whereas , The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas , A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly

of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal g overnment to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
SECTION 3: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.

Labels: liberty, politics

****
No fire and brimstone.

No terrrrist attack.

Just a falling stock market.

So much for Change We Can Believe In.

Bah! Humbug.

Labels: politics

****
As near as I've been able to figure, auto execs flying to Washington, D.C. in private jets doesn't cost me a dime I can't avoid by simply not buying their products. The cost of their private fleets are minuscule in the overall pricing of their products anyway.

The cost of the pinheads running the dog-and-pony-show in D.C. I can't avoid, and the show costs me a heckuva lot more than the flying habits of the CEOs of Chrysler, GM and Ford combined.

And then some.

And then some more.

It's probably a good thing I'm not the CEO of GM. I'd have told Pelosi & Co. to stuff their bailouts up their keisters and gone back to Detroit and filed bankruptcy and let the poseurs on Capitol Hill deal with the fallout, which is what needs to happen anyway. The auto industry can't get better until it reorganizes. Now is the chance.

Labels: bailout, politics

Found in the comments to the Peter Schiff post linked below. Beautifully said:

#5) On November 21, 2008 at 4:59 PM, russiangambit (98.51) wrote:

I remember that when we had perestroika in Soviet Union, all kinds of US and IMF experts would come, look at our misery and say, it is OK, this is necessary pain to work out the excesses and inefficiencies and become a free market society.

Somehow, I find it ironic, that when it comes to the US itself, politicians and experts are doing everything possible to avoid even a bit of pain that is necessary to work out the excesses.

I don't need to tell you that Americans are not that popular in Russia anymore.

And the ultimate irony, of course, that it is impossible to stop the inevitable pain . All bailouts are accomplishing is making sure that the payback is going to be long and painful.

One of my coworkers asked me, so what are you going to do about it, about our gloomy future? And I said, I am making sure my kids are getting the best education they can. This is all I know to do. The capital in your head is something nobody can take away, which cannot be said about worldly posessions.

Labels: economy, politics

Democratics like to take credit for balanced budgets in the '90's while Bill Clinton was president. In fact, this was a campaign meme for the Obamessiah. Of course, few people remember that House Republicans had to drag Slick Willy and the minority Dems kicking and screaming through multiple attempts to pass a budget. Remember when the federal government shut down? Oh glorious day! As I recall, the Republicans took the hit for that one due mainly to a complicit media constantly wailing about poor park rangers and family trips to national monuments put on hold all because of mean Republicans.

Hark back to 2000, when, following a Bush victory, it was magically revealed that the economy was in recession. The Democratics and the lapdog media did their damnedest to pin the poor economy on Bush, never mind that he inherited it from Clinton. Those pesky Arabs managed to make the electorate forget about the economy long enough to allow Bush and Company to get us into two wars, one justifiable. One not so much. And get Bush re-elected. Thanks pesky Arabs!

Now, it is 2008 and Bush has decided that handing off a recognizably crappy economy to the new Panderer-in-Chief is fair play. Unfortunately, the lapdog press is going to allow Obama to leave this pile on the porch where it really does belong while the Obamessiah proceeds to throw borrowed money down an ever-increasing black hole of bad debt in an effort to reinflate our flat economy. It won't work. FDR tried it in the '30's. Every damned Keynesian for the past 40 years has tried it and it doesn't work. Trouble is,the media and the Obamessiah's spin machine are going to maximize positive coverage of Obama's economic "solution" while ignoring inconvenient bad news. This isn't really new; I lived through stagflation and malaise and the worst economy in 100 years and all the spin I could stand. There's lots more where that came from, and from what I've been seeing for the past year, our leaders in DC are failing to learn anything from past failure and are desperately looking for a balloon to blow up.

The "solution" to our ailing economy isn't an increase in taxes. It isn't an increase in spending for public works. Giving our money - actually our great-grandchildren's money - to bankers makes bankers happy, but - just like in the Great Depression and the Great Malaise - the bankers parked on it once they got it. Credit is still tight. Bailing out failing business isn't the answer.

So what is the answer?

Stop it! Ummm, no, wait! Just stop it! *

"So for the same reasons that Washington should not bail out General Motors, the world should not bailout America. Like GM, our economy is in desperate need of a restructuring. Spending must be replaced with savings, and consumption with production. The service sector must shrink and manufacturing must expand to fill the void. The dollar must fall, wages in America must be brought down to a competitive level, and hopefully government spending and burdensome regulation
can be reduced.

This transformation will not be fun, but it is necessary. Our standard of living must decline to reflect years of reckless consumption and the disintegration of our industrial base. Only by swallowing this tough medicine now will our sick economy ever recover. By accepting a lower standard of living today, we will eventually be rewarded with a higher one tomorrow." (Peter Schiff)

****
This morning on Fox News, I heard Stephane Dion, the opposition Liberal Party leader from Canuckistan, make an extraordinary statement to the effect that a major reason his new opposition coalition was planning on usurping power from Prime Minister Stephen Harper - an unprecedented move - was because Harper's budget included next to no stimulus for the flagging Canadian economy. "Dion said the coalition would announce a robust economic stimulus plan that would include money for housing, infrastructure and the auto and forestry sectors." Well do tell. If true, then a politician has done precisely the right thing for the Canadian economy. Which is to say, nothing. This was undoubtedly an accident. Harper is after all a politician, and a Canadian politician at that. Of course, Harper caved; apparently the potential loss of power was stimulating enough to pump a little stimulus into the economy. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.


*Not only is the Newhart sketch hilarious, our "leaders" in Washington should apply its lesson to the economy. Those three little words, "just stop it," could go a long way to making the world a better place.

Labels: bailout, humor, politics

In many respects, I understand Ron Paul's insistence that blowback vis American foreign policy is at least to some extent the reason for attacks on US and Western interests here and abroad by everyone from Russians to wild-eyed whackjobs in caves in Pakistan. Insofar as our foreign policy really does have consequences, Paul is exactly correct. As Samuel Huntington has noted, though, the borders of Islam are bloody.*

Rob Taylor at Red Alerts:

...the one religion on earth that can claim credit for more murders than Nazism and Communism combined** is the “Religion of Peace.” While the smoke had yet to clear on 9/11, when the train platforms still smoldered in Spain, while the British pulled bodies out of the twisted wreckage of double deckers, miseducated windbags from a thousand liberal Arts colleges were wagging their fingers at the rest of us for daring to think the inspiration for the holy war Muslims are waging comes from their “holy” book and the religion which spawned it.

And even now while the streets of Mumbai are awash in innocent blood there are those who cling to the delusion of peaceful coexistence with a religion designed to make peaceful coexistence impossible. Islam is not a “Religion of Peace” and Islam in fact means something closer to “submission” than peace. It is submission to Islam from the non-Muslim world that Muslims seek; to me this seems far from a peaceful goal. The West must decide if it will abandon thousands of years of social progress and embrace the depravity of Militant Islam or stand up and fight a foe more determined than any we have faced in the last 200 years. It is a delusion to think otherwise.

Muslims riot and burn churches and we do nothing. Muslims raised money for the Mumbai attacks in British mosques and Britain will do nothing. American Muslims are celebrating the attacks and we will do nothing. There is an “epidemic” of Muslim taxi drivers in England raping women fares, and England attacked the mother of a young girl who wanted to ensure her daughter’s safety rather than stop the rapes. Europe is allowing Islamic polygamy all in the vain hope that such wild accommodation will calm the excitable Muslim street and then we can finally get on with living together in harmony with our friends in the “Religion of Peace.”

As much as we've earned the approbation of the Muslim street for having taken on the terrrrists and supported Israel, we seem to get no points for coming to the aid of Muslims in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere. I don't think that even were we to - properly - withdraw our forces to our own borders and cease to be the world's police force that we would get much "peace" from the religion of peace. Muslims do not coexist with other religions. They convert or conquer. Ask the Christians in Iraq, or "Palestine" or the many conflict zones in Africa. Ask the Hindus in India - not that they are above a little persecution of their own - about the "religion of peace" and you'll begin to get an idea of the extent of the problem with Islam.

I suspect that in the end, it will be them or us.

And most of "us" don't even know we're in a fight.
****
Update: Up way too late cruising the net and I find -

Mark Steyn at NRO says, "It's the ideology, Stupid!" - "This isn’t law enforcement but an ideological assault — and we’re fighting the symptoms not the cause. Islamic imperialists want an Islamic society, not just in Palestine and Kashmir but in the Netherlands and Britain, too. Their chances of getting it will be determined by the ideology’s advance among the general Muslim population, and the general Muslim population’s demographic advance among everybody else."

*"While groups from all religions have engaged in various forms of violence and terrorism, the figures make it clear that in the past decade Muslims have been involved in far more of these activities than people of other religions. One of the things that attracted a lot of attention in The Clash of Civilizations was my use of the phrase "the bloody borders of Islam." But if you look around the Muslim world you see that in the 1990s Muslims were fighting non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, and other places. Muslims have been fighting one another also. The International Institute for Strategic Studies surveyed the armed conflicts going on in the world in 2000, and its figures show that twenty-three of the thirty-two conflicts under way involved Muslims. Why is this?" - Huntington

**Given socialism's body count, I find this tough to believe.

Labels: Islam, politics, religion, Ron Paul

Finally got a response to the e-mail I sent to Mr. Donnelly (D - 2nd District) - nearly two months later!

November 26, 2008

Dear Mr. hoosiertoo,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the ongoing financial crisis. I value your views, and your input helps me to better represent the people of Indiana's Second District in Congress.

As your congressman, I believe it is my duty to do whatever I can to protect jobs, retirement savings, and economic growth in our communities. The financial crisis threatens them all. I am angry that Main Street was asked to step up and fix a mess that was caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street. The FBI is already investigating many firms for possible wrong doing, and I hope anyone who acted illegally lands in jail. However, I believe that the cost of inaction would have been much greater than the cost of the rescue package, and I could not stand idly by as your representative and do nothing as the crisis worsened. On October 3, I joined colleagues from both parties in the House of Representatives in passing H.R. 1424, The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by a vote of 263 to 171. The bill was signed into law that same day.

One of the primary causes of these problems is that mortgage companies and lenders began several years ago to significantly expand the number of home loans they provided to Americans with questionable credit histories. Homeownership soared as
the number of "subprime" home loans increased. Many banks, investment firms, and other financial institutions got in on the housing boom by offering and trading incredibly complex "mortgage-backed securities" and other products whose values were, in theory, based on the value of the mortgages held by lenders. These were bought, repackaged and traded by an increasing number of financial companies, leaving many banks and firms exposed to huge unknown risks in their pursuit of bigger profits.

When the housing market crashed, so did the value of these complicated assets, and the result has been the worst economic crisis America has seen in several decades. In mid-September, lending activity began to freeze up. Reacting to the failures of major investment firms and fears that others were on the brink, banks slowed, or, in some cases, even stopped, their lending. These banks either did not have enough capital on hand to continue their standard lending practices or decided they were unwilling to assume the risk of possibly not being paid back.

Our economy depends on the availability of credit, and action was necessary to get the credit market to thaw. H.R. 1424 authorized the Treasury to use up to $700 billion to purchase shares of banks or buy existing mortgage-backed and other troubled securities over the next two years in an effort to ease the flow of credit and restore confidence in our financial system. The government would hold these assets temporarily, selling them back in a few years and earning most of the value back. The bill includes strong oversight mechanisms, prohibits any executive of a participating company from getting a golden parachute, and temporarily raises from $100,000 to $250,000 the amount per depositor the federal government will insure.

Much work remains to shore up our economy, protect retirement savings, and ensure that hard-working Americans can feel secure in their ability to provide for their families' needs and plan for the future. I promise to do everything within my power to ensure that smart regulation and oversight of our financial system is restored so that this kind of disaster never happens again, and as Congress considers future action to help the economy, I will always put the interests of Hoosiers first.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to write, call or email me again if I can ever be of assistance. Also, if you would like to receive regular updates on my actions on your behalf in Congress, sign up for my e-newsletter, The Donnelly Dispatch, at http://donnelly.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Joe Donnelly
Member of Congress

Labels: bailout, politics

****
Found in inbox and unattributed. Nicely done parody.

Labels: politics

****
Noting that DHL now wants a bailout...

Most everyone making more than me are getting bailouts.

Most everyone making less than me are - have been! - getting bailouts.

I'm putting Uncle Obama on notice - I WANT MY BAILOUT TOO! I'm thinking $100 grand ought to cover it, a bargain compared to these other clowns.

Labels: did I say morons?, morons, politics

****
While I can say emphatically that I'm not at all happy with an Obama win, I note that the country has survived socialists and eugenicists for the past 100 years. Hopefully the Repugnicons will now go about the business of purging the libtards and becoming a true opposition party. Not likely, but one can dream.

I don't have complete results yet, but it appears all my candidates - with the obvious exception of Baldwin - won. Obama's coat tails weren't very long in my area, I guess. All those suckers buying the Obamessiah's change message seemed to lose focus farther down the ticket. I'd like to say I'm surprised at Obama carrying Indiana, but given the demographics and McCain's lack of appeal, I'm not. One thing that strikes me - there really isn't a big ideological divide in Indiana. Mitch Daniels is a Bush Republican who seemed to run away from the McCain campaign.

The Libertarians made a sad showing in an election that was tailor-made for them - a weak Repugnicon candidate should have allowed them to garner more than a paltry 1.24% of the vote in the most "conservative" district in Indiana, although Horning got twice that in the gubernatorial race, which had a strong Repugnicon candidate. Way to go guys!

It's going to be a long four years...

Labels: politics

****
A couple of days ago I posted my picks for POTUS, Indiana Governor, and 4th District Representative. Today, I reveal my choices for state and local offices. You may unbate your breath now.

State Attorney General - Greg Zoeller (R)
Superintendent of Puplic Instruction - Tony Bennett (R)
State Rep - Dist 38 - Jacque Clements (R) Held my nose on this one. Her opponent was an absolute cipher. During a Q & A session with the local fishwrap, I don't think he gave an answer longer than a sentence, and agreed with Clements on virtually every issue. I went with experience, even though I wish there would have been a stronger candidate.

Local Offices:

County Prosecutor - Justin Hunter (R) Mainly because I don't like his opponent.
County Commissioner D1 - Michael Beard (R) His opponent is the ex-County Coroner, a Democrat who gave up his seat to run for Commissioner. The coroner's position will be filled by a Republican who is running unopposed. Go figure.

The only Democrat in the County Council At-Large race, when asked what he hoped to accomplish if elected replied, according to the Frankfort Times:

"First of all, try and learn the job," he said, "and not lose touch with them (constituents)."
Phipps has no specific plans for the months leading up to the election, but intends to connect with as many residents as possible.
"Just to let everyone know I'm doing it, and see how it goes," he said. "I'll be campaigning at the gas station when I'm pumping gas."

(In case anyone wonders why I didn't vote for any Democrats, that's a big reason why.)

Of the justices up for retention, the only one I voted "NO" on was Theodore R Boehm.

In every case, my vote went to the more pro-life candidate, or if there was no real data to ascertain who the pro-life candidate was, I went with the candidate most likely to be for smaller government and fiscal restraint.

I was disappointed that there were so many unopposed races. I think I may toss my hat in the ring next time around. Maybe even as a Demonrat. Think the party is ready for a pro-life Catholic libertarian?

Labels: politics