Blogs For Victory

Absolutely horrific news:

The Somali Muslim extremist group Al Shabaab, which is linked to Al Qaeda, has decapitated seven people accused of being Christians and “spies” in the city of Baidoa, Somalia.

According to the AGI news agency, the extremists said they were applying Sharia law in murdering the seven people. Baidoa had been a stronghold for the transitional government that re-gained control of Somalia in 2006 with the help of Ethiopian troops.

Now the government is losing increasingly greater swaths of territory to fundamentalist groups that are beginning to appear in the country. Al Shabaab, which means “youth” in Arabic, had already decapitated three other people in the region last month.

I ask God to take up the souls of those poor, martyred people; to forgive the wicked fools who killed them; to strengthen our resolve that we shall fight this evil wherever it exists for as long as it takes to destroy it utterly. And I pray that I shall not let my anger get the better of me – that I will continue to believe that Moslems can live in peace and equity with non-Moslems.

But it is getting harder, all the time.

So, Obama and his Democrats want to fix everything up for our own good?

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority. – Frederic Bastiat

Who elected Obama organizer – in Chicago and now as Organizer in Chief? Whence comes this claim to superior ability?

According to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, yes … provided your “Catholics” include people who don’t practice the faith or, indeed, do anything Catholic. Do a poll of all Jews and you’ll probably find a large percentage who like a ham sandwich…but, if you actually look at Jews who take their faith seriously, you’ll come up with a markedly different result. Mrs. Townsend it doing the typical foolish thing for dissenting Catholics – using polls of unfaithful people to “prove” that the faithful want to become unfaithful. Its a great way to never lose an argument – stacking the deck, and all that, ya know?

Mrs. Townsend does claim that 54% of Catholics believe that homosexual relations are morally acceptable – and, as usual, she neglects to mention that (a) only 44% of devout Catholics believe thus and (b) the poll by Gallup is a strange one combining data over a three year period and apparently cobbled together in the run up to Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame…in other words, not a convincing poll, by any stretch of the imagination (of course, the number of Catholics who believe that homosexual relations are morally acceptable should be 0, which shows we have a lot of catechizing to do…on the other hand, it might just be a misunderstanding between “tolerate” and “morally acceptable” – which might be a Catholic respondent misunderstanding, or Gallup putting together “apples and oranges” data sets).

This is the sort of thing we have to put up with from our dissident brothers and sisters – and it is tiresome. But it is also to be endured with good cheer – because our business isn’t in excommunication (that is only a rare and very sad necessity) but in unity. But please, non-Catholics, don’t believe everything our more foolish sisters say, ok?

If there was one wish I could have in politics, it would be a wish that liberal rank-and-filers would understand that “tax the rich” doesn’t mean “tax the rich” but, actually, “tax the high income earners while leaving the fabulously wealthy alone”…try as I might, I can never get this concept through a liberal skull (I had considered using a drill to force it through, but I didn’t want to damage the drill):

A Democrat of my acquaintance, who makes something, but not a huge something, over $200,000 a year while living in Manhattan, was recently grousing to me about the surtax. “My taxes on a marginal dollar are going to go up almost 1000 basis points!” said he.

This is true, I agreed. And just what, I wondered, had he thought was going to happen if he elected Obama? Not clear. Our subject had listened to Obama talk about taxing people who made more than $250,000, which seemed entirely reasonable; he hadn’t realized that being single, his tax hikes would start much lower than that–that he, too, was “the rich”. Mentally speaking, the rich don’t live in eight hundred moderately roach-infested square feet in an unfashionable neighborhood of New York.

If you want to tax the rich, you’re going to have to tax, say, people who’s homes are more than 4,000 sq feet; people who have vacation homes; people who own boats longer than 25 feet; people who have cars valued at more than $50,000…in other words, you’re going to have to tax the wealth of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros…and Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller. Trouble is, all of those guys are on the side of “taxing the rich”; which means they’ll fight tooth and nail against having their wealth taxed because “tax the rich” is really just a dodge for increasing taxes on the upper middle class in order to pay for welfare programs to buy the votes of the lower class. Ever wonder why the very poorest and the very richest vote Democrat? Because it works best for them – freebies for the former, low or no taxation for the latter.

People vs powerful – I’m really serious that this is what the battle is about…the Powerful are determined to keep their wealth and keep ruling us and they are going to steal our money and use it to bribe the lower classes in order to do it. And the really sad thing here is that middle class liberals just don’t get it – bet dollars to donuts the fool talked of in the link will vote to re-elect Obama in 2012 and every other Democrat who comes knocking.

Not at all surprising:

According to this letter obtained by TPM, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is threatening television stations broadcasting this anti-card check advertisement produced by the Employee Freedom Action Committee. In the letter (viewable here), SEIU lawyer Dora V. Chen tells stations in Arkansas and Nebraska that they should “immediately cease airing this false and deceitful advertisement.” Says Ms. Chen, “political organizations do not have a ‘right to command the use of broadcast facilities'”—i.e., airing third party political advertisements television stations are not bound by the First Amendment—reminding station executives that they are under “no legal obligation to air the advertisement” but it they do the affiliate “bears responsibility for its content.” If the Chavista implications of these threats are still unclear, the SEIU puts it in sharper relief, obliquely threatening the station’s broadcast licenses:

As a broadcast licensee, you ‘must assume responsibility for all material which is broadcast through [your] facilities’ and therefore have a duty to ‘protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.’ Failure to prevent the airing of ‘false and misleading advertising’ may be ‘probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.’

In other words, “pull the ad, or we’ll use our political muscle with the Democrat-controlled government to take away your broadcast license”. The reason SEIU is writing such a letter – the same sort of letter Obama’s people wrote to a broadcaster during the 2008 campaign – is because they are a fascist group which does not want to trouble with dissent and battling it out in the realm of ideas.

So it is with all liberals – fascists actual or prospective; liberals don’t like free speech…heck, they don’t like freedom (except, of course, the freedom to get laid and have an abortion…two acts which, if freely engaged in, enslave a person and make them that much more amenable to liberal-fascist control). Liberalism, being built on the lie that Man can be perfected by Man, simply cannot long endure free debate – because it will lose the debate, truth always winning out in the long run; and so, the resort to fascism of various types.

And yes, I know there are liberals who will claim to be staunch defenders of free speech – but if you press them hard enough, you’ll find there are modes of speech which they will oppose…such as, for instance, teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, or one of a hundred other issues liberals suddenly find they can’t allow dissent on (once again, because they know they’ll lose the debate, and so would rather not have it).

They will not quit – no matter how many times we turn over the rocks to reveal the creatures scurrying around underneath, the liberals will just keep coming right at us, determined at all costs to make us unfree, so then can then remake us as they wish. Only the complete and utter defeat of liberalism in politics will ensure liberty – so, into the fight, my friends, into the fight.

I don’t think so, personally….first off, I’ve seen lots better and that one wouldn’t have made me turn my head.

What I do find rather amusing is the way the American MSM is trying so hard to defend Obama on this – as if it really matters. But they are determined to protect their man – even from the rather common male act of being distracted by an attractive female form. Now, as for me, I routinely assure my wife when we’re walking through a casino that the “stacked” waitress in the skimpy outfit did not distract my full attention from my devotion to my wife…for which statement I’m likely going to have to spend some time in Purgatory.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: When Obama’s not staring at a minor’s rear, he’s bashing and apologizing for the United States again…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Ass-Gate gets the Zapruder treatment.

ROFL from Iowahawk…

“If it wasn’t for California, I wouldn’t be where I am today,” said Arizona of Westside 3, the popular sunbelt trio who recently benefited from the late state’s generous gift of fleeing taxpayers and businesses. As a tribute to their mentor, Arizona vowed the group would start spending money “like crack-addled hip hop stars.”

“California’s financial and musical legacy will never die,” said band mates Nevada and Oregon…

You’d figure after they got burned in California, they’d have learned their lesson about court challenges to laws enacted with popular support – but, no, they haven’t:

The federal complaint in Commonwealth v. HHS was filed yesterday by Massachusetts, which is asking for federal recognition of its same-sex marriages, not for the invalidation of all state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Massachusetts makes two federalism-based constitutional claims against Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law…

…Massachusetts also appears to rely on a case called New York v. United States to argue that Congress is “commandeering” it to administer a discriminatory federal program. But there’s nothing unusual about Congress’s decision to set up a federal benefits program and then define the limits of eligibility. A state might want the retirement age to be 55, but Congress can make it 62 or 65 or 105. A state might want to make the middle class eligible for assistance in obtaining health benefits, but Congress can limit federal eligibility to poor people — as it defines “poor.” All of these things might increase a state’s administrative costs, discourage experimentation, and be terribly unfair to people left out. But that doesn’t make them unconstitutional…

…In that respect, Massachusetts’ lawsuit is a cousin to the existing DOMA challenges. Success for Massachusetts would likely help advance a result it expressly disclaims: the invalidation of all laws excluding gay couples from marriage. The upshot, then, is that a lawsuit to protect state power against a one-size-fits-all federal definition of marriage would hasten a one-size-fits-all federal definition of marriage.

In the linked article there is a great discussion of the grounds for the suit, as a thing, and the various plus and minus things about it – I do recommend reading the whole thing. But I wish to discuss the politics of this.

To step back in time for a moment – when gay marriage was first brought into the larger public square, I went over the argument in favor and while I believed it was a wrong thing to do, I didn’t see how defenders of traditional marriage had a chance. With the gay-rights people enjoying entirely positive Old Media coverage and the ability of gay-rights people to call upon the best propagandists in America, I figured we were going to get rolled and in State after State, there would be close fought elections which would, in the end, turn on the propaganda story of sweet, long-suffering gay couple vs narrow-minded, fundamentalist bigot…and thus gay marriage would become law.

Man, was I wrong about that…

My first clue that I was wrong was a discussion I had on the subject with a woman of decidedly liberal views who was just viscerally opposed to the very concept of gay marriage. Call it what you will, it turned out that my liberal friend was legion – people don’t want gay marriage. Period. End of argument. In vote after vote, the proponents of gay marriage – benefiting from practically unlimited funding and enthusiastic support from the elite power structure – have failed to win the day…while some votes were narrow, most were 10 point or more wipe outs at the polls. And while proponents of gay marriage keep trying to talk themselves into believing that as the younger generation rises, gay marriage becomes a certainty, the fact that half a generation of young people have grown up since gay marriage became an issue with no alteration in the electoral reality shows that this is a pipe dream.

Clearly, if there ever is to be gay marriage in America – under whatever form – it will have to be a slow, incremental change carefully in tune with popular desires…naturally, gay marriage proponents look at what has happened and come to the conclusion that if they can’t immediately get it by votes, they’ll ram it through by judicial fiat. This is the definition of “stuck on stupid”. Its not time to file new law suits, guys, but to work out programs to provide ease for gay couples in joining up their lives…legislation to make it easier to combine incomes, property, etc; that is where your efforts should be. You know, providing practical assistance to those gay couples who are in long term relationships. But, no – off to the courts we’ll go – and just in time for it to wend its way through the courts to become an issue for the 2010 mid terms. Are you liberals out there entirely sure the Massachusetts AG isn’t a secret, GOP mole? She’s handing us House seats on a platter.

Ah, well, we’ll gladly take the seats, and thanks very much. Perhaps after you’re burned the 20th or so time in 2010, you’ll learn your lesson. Then again, you’re liberals – you still think that Bismarck’s 19th idea of social security it a good idea. “Stuck on stupid” is not a new thing for you.

That is the per-capita ratio of Spendulus funds between Obama counties and McCain counties:

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election.

That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration’s massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation…

…The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

“Little room” doesn’t, of course, mean “no room” – and that leaves out the fact of pre-manipulation done over the years to ensure that government funds go heavily to liberal, Democrat areas of the country because that, dear friends, is how liberals get and retain power – by using our tax dollars to buy votes.

Be that as it may, the fact that the funds are going to Obama areas indicates the raw, disgusting truth of the matter…Democrats have diligently created a large class of people dependent upon government and this ensures them, right out the gate, 40% or so of the votes in national elections. These people voted Obama not so much for “hope and change” (that worked with the independents who were just amazingly turned off by McCain) but for “welfare State as usual”. A large portion of Americans have been turned in to government dependents and they simply will not bite the hand which feeds them – and the key to understanding Obama’s massive expansion of government is that he hopes to get 50% or more of the voters permanently dependent upon government for their economic well-being…do that, and liberalism has a permanent majority, and thus the time to sculpt our nation into what liberals wish it were…a duplicate of France, or Canada (as an aside, liberals, when you keep harping on how much of GDP is coming out of blue areas and thus how you are supporting us rednecks…a very large portion of your GDP is government spending…cut you off from that, and you dry up and blow away…unless, that is, you sip a few less lattes and start making, mining and growing things).

Its going to be hard and its going to be a near run thing, if we can even pull it off – by working hard and putting ourselves on the line, we have to accrue enough power to our side to first stop Obamunism in its tracks before it subverts a majority, and then roll it back and return to the values of hard work and self sacrifice which made this nation great.

Seeing as we are in the Second Afghan War:

Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherent in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword – the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism. The love of plunder, always a characteristic of hill tribes, is fostered by a spectacle of opulence and luxury which, to their eyes, the cities and plains of the south display. A code of honor not less punctilious than that of old Spain, is supported by vendettas as implacable as those of Corsica. – Winston Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, 1897

I don’t think its changed too much in the last 112 years.