Archive for October, 2010
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 47 Comments
Broccoli-shaped religious figure demonstrates once again why fewer and fewer people care what broccoli-shaped religious figures think about anything at all:
Wrong understanding of religion and God was often the cause of terrorism and religious fanaticism, archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Willaims observed in Thiruvananthapuram today.
There were some who think that God required us all the time defending him and the faith. God need not require us to defend him, the visting head of the Church of England said during an interaction with students of the Kerala United Theological Seminary here.
What is important is to try to understand “the infinity, inexhaustibility and mystery of God”, which will lead to a meaningul understanding of the faith, the supreme leader of the Anglican Communion said.
SIGH!! I’m sure Al-Qaeda will get right on that, my lord archbishop.
Stating that he did not think that universal military action against terrorism would solve the problem, he said trying to understand why some people were driven to “dreadful and evil actions” would help addressing the problem of terrorism.
Spoken like a true academic. We shouldn’t try to defend ourselves against people who want to kill us. We should try to understand why people who want to kill us want to kill us and that will help solve the problem.
Might cost us a few thousand corpses here and there but if you want to make an omelette, as they say.
I can explain things for you right away, Dr. Williams. A bunch of people would like to impose their religion on the entire world and are entirely willing to kill large numbers of innocent people in order to do that.
You’re welcome. Now please stop saying things.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 13 Comments
P. J. O’Rourke on the Democrats:
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.
No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.
This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, October 22nd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 26 Comments
In theory, Rep. Russ Carnahan, D[ouchebag]-Mo. cannot lose in his heavily Democratic district. But he seems to be hitting the panic button. Carnahan’s opponent, Ed Martin, has caught fire in fundraising and now has a larger campaign warchest heading into the final stretch. Carnahan’s being dragged down by the fact that his politically-connected family appears to be getting rich off of stimulus contracts and federal largesse.
Now a former Carnahan campaign worker has launched an outrageous website smearing Carnahan’s Catholic opponent as being part of the pedophilia scandal in the St. Louis diocese. According to a St.Louis television station, “The site’s creator [Michael Corwin] said he was hired to do research for the campaign, but parted ways with Carnahan’s people after disagreeing about whether or not to pursue these allegations.” Uh huh.
What did Martin do? Basically, he worked at the Archdiocesan office.
The thin reed of evidence supporting Corwin’s conspiracy theory is that Martin worked in the human rights office of the Catholic archdiocese of St. Louis. If they’re anything like the offices that other dioceses maintain, they chiefly assist political refugees from foreign countries and help them with their immigration paperwork. Somehow, Corwin finds in this a connection between Martin and the pedophilia scandal.
Corwin finds a lot of things that aren’t there.
Corwin’s conspiracy theory that Martin felt “free to supersede the laws of the United States Constitution when handling pedophile priests, by simply obeying divine law of the Church—something not even the President of the United States could do” is just nonsense on stilts.
Here’s how Ed Martin responded.
Corwin’s approach in service to Russ Carnahan is to imply that I was somehow involved with the criminal conduct of priests within the St. Louis Archdiocese. The proof? I worked there. Many people have served faithfully and to the best of their ability in churches all over St. Louis. Is it now the new standard that Catholics who serve their church are open to being slandered like this?
To speak directly to the implied accusation: I worked for the Catholic Church doing education and advocacy about charity and service to our community. I had zero involvement or authority on the adjudication or disposition of those accused of crimes or wrongdoing. The only scandal I was responding to was that the Human Rights Office was supporting goals and making contributions to organizations that reflected poorly on the Church and her mission.
So if you were a secretary in the St. Louis Archdiocesan office at any time in your life or even visited there, you are, according to Russ Carnahan, part of the pedophilia scandal. Since Russ has basically just insulted every Roman Catholic in the Third District, which would seem like a REALLY stupid thing for any politician to do, how does he climb down?
Own it for a start. Russ might say something along the lines of, “Yes, we did hire this guy but we cut ties with him. We are appalled by the charges made on this web site, we completely disassociate our campaign from them and while we have profound policy disagreements with Ed Martin, we would never dream of making such a vile charge.”
But Russ didn’t. One of his spokestools had this to say.
The Carnahan campaign denied Martin’s detailed allegations that Carnahan campaign manager Angela Barranco was involved in Corwin’s actions. That said, a Carnahan campaign spokeswoman went on to say, “Ed Martin has some questions that he needs to answer” regarding his old job with the Archdiocese.
Translation: we had nothing to do with it, wink, wink. And let’s just say that the fact that the Carnahan campaign let the guy go carries little weight.
Carnahan’s campaign say it had nothing to do with the site, www.therealedmartin.com, which was created and produced by Michael Corwin, a political opposition researcher and investigator based in New Mexico.
Let’s see. Russ hires an oppo guy from New Mexico but decides not to use his stuff. But the oppo guy from New Mexico is so upset about the pedophilia situation in St. Louis, Missouri that he decides to go ahead and build the web site anyway. When he’s called out on his religious bigotry, Russ falls back on the “Hey, we fired the guy,” but suggests that Martin has some questions to answer.
Gutless little slimebag.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, October 22nd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 6 Comments
Charles Krauthammer on Barack Obama’s scientific pretensions:
In an increasingly desperate attempt to develop a narrative for the coming Democratic collapse, the Democrats have indulged themselves in what for half a century they’ve habitually attributed to the American right — the paranoid style in American politics. The talk is of dark conspiracies — secret money, foreign influence, big corporations, with Karl Rove and, yes, Ed Gillespie lurking ominously behind the scenes. The only thing missing is the Halliburton-Cheney angle.
But after trotting out some of these charges with a noticeable lack of success, President Obama has come up with something new, something less common, something more befitting his stature and intellect. He’s now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can’t think straight. Part of the reason “facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time,” he explained to a Massachusetts audience, “is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.”
Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science — liberal psychology — Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., vote Republican.
But of course. Here Obama has spent two years bestowing upon the peasantry the “New Foundation” of a more regulated, socially engineered and therefore more humane society, and they repay him with recalcitrance and outright opposition. Here he gave them Obamacare, the stimulus, financial regulation and a shot at cap-and-trade — and the electorate remains not just unmoved but ungrateful.
Faced with this truly puzzling conundrum, Dr. Obama diagnoses a heretofore undiscovered psychological derangement: anxiety-induced Obama Underappreciation Syndrome, wherein an entire population is so addled by its economic anxieties as to be neurologically incapable of appreciating the “facts and science” undergirding Obamacare and the other blessings their president has bestowed upon them from on high.
Krauthammer, of course, takes issue with the Doctor’s President’s findings. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, October 22nd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 6 Comments
A fiery horse with a speed of light, a cloud of dust and a hearty, “Hi-Yo, Silver!”…the Lone Senator!!
Throughout his debate with Republican Sharron Angle, Harry Reid’s contempt for her showed in every facial expression he made and in his tone of voice with every word he said. How could he be losing to this idiot?
His frustration manifests itself in new gaffes. And here’s the newest one, from the Ed Show today.”
“But for me, we’d be in a worldwide depression.”
Video at the link.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, October 22nd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 15 Comments
Seems Virginia Democratic congressdouche Jim Moran thinks that if you’re in the military, you’re not serving the public:
Virginia Congressman Jim Moran, D-8th, doesn’t think serving in the military is public service. At the October 6th meeting of the Arlington County Democratic Committee, Moran was videotaped telling fellow party members:
“What [Republicans] do is find candidates, usually stealth candidates, that haven’t been in office, haven’t served or performed in any kind of public service. My opponent is typical, frankly.”
However, Moran’s opponent happens to be Col. Patrick Murray (US Army-Ret.), who served 24 years in uniform, was deployed to four different combat zones, including Baghdad, as part of the 2007 troop surge under Gen. David Petraeus, and was even shot at by foreign combatants. If that isn’t public service, I don’t know what is.
Paper shuffling in Washington, apparently.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, October 22nd, 2010 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments
But, what are we thinking of now? A war has just begun. Didn’t Bernanke and the Fed announce in late August at Jackson Hole (and multiple times since then) that the US was going to enter QE2 and debase its currency setting off a currency war. Bernanke, like Hitler seven decades ago, had been warning everyone who would listen for years. On November 21, 2002 he said that he would debase the US dollar if the American economy looked as though it would go through the same lost decades that the Japanese have recently endured. Now, it is clear that he has been true to his word and the currency war has begun. Although it took Guido Mantega the Finance Minister of Brazil to state the obvious saying that “an international currency war” had broken out, the reaction at the recent IMF meetings and among analysts of all stripes make it clear that this situation is well comprehended by everyone who is paying attention. The US has thrown a rock through the world’s plate glass window. This country will be severely disrupting the current global monetary system because the Federal Reserve – and not necessarily the Obama administration – believes that the status quo is not in the interest of the American people.
Right now the world is in the ‘phoney war’ period as the US has only just begun the process of flooding the world with excess dollars. The recent IMF meetings had and the coming G-20 meeting will see lots of venting and some skirmishes but no real attacks. Countries are complaining loudly because Bernanke’s excess dollars are being sold and their own currencies are being purchased, rising as the dollar declines. As most are trying to slow that rise by buying the dollars as reserves, reserves are climbing, their money supplies are ballooning, and inflation will surely follow. With inflation and strong currencies, these countries will see their trade positions destroyed. The real war will begin as countries place restrictions on capital flows. Mantega seems as though he will make a good economic general as Brazil is one of the first to move, taxing bond inflows. Interestingly the Brazilian leaders will miss the G-20 meeting in Seoul, avoiding any direct discussion of their actions. Capital controls are likely to spring up in Asia and in other attractive economies during the next few months, but the really destructive war begins when tariffs appear. This should happen next year – maybe in May, mirroring 1940 – because by then the next recession should be in full force in both the US and in Europe, forcing many millions more out of work. The political pressure for raising tariffs in the US is intensifying and the new Tea Party supported Congressman will help tip the political scales in that direction. This war will not be fought for territory, but for markets and wealth, and when tariff walls are raised the destruction of livelihoods and property will be almost as dramatic as in the old fashioned shooting wars. With the loss of economic value, the global debt structure must collapse and entitlement promises will not survive.
Then there’s this. The US must prepare for “savage austerity.” Enjoy your weekends.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, October 21st, 2010 | Uncategorized | 7 Comments
How do you know when you have a bad national health care plan? When you have to bribe people to like it:
President Obama’s Health and Human Services Department on Tuesday announced nearly $30 million in grants to “help consumers see the benefits” of the Democrats’ new health care law.
Those “benefits” include helping consumers file appeals and grievances against their existing health insurance plans.
According to HHS’ HealthCare.gov Web site, the consumer services division of the Arkansas Insurance Department is getting $296,659 to help consumers in various ways, including the option to “[p]repare and file claims, grievances, or appeals” against their existing insurance plans.
Likewise, Nevada is getting $240,000, part of which will provide consumers “with information and clarification of benefits and assist consumers in filing grievances, complaints, billing disputes and appeals.”
Maryland’s Consumer Protection Division is getting almost $600,000 to, among other things, hire additional personnel to assist in “preparing appeals and grievances, especially in cases involving medical necessity.”
The Texas Department of Insurance is getting almost $2.8 million to reach out to uninsured residents “using multi-lingual materials.” It also will “provide individual assistance with the filing of complaints, appeals, and grievances.”
Puerto Rico’s Office of the Patient’s Advocate is getting a total of $396,744, part of which will pay for seven new “grievance officers” to “resolve complaints.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, October 21st, 2010 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments
Broccoli-shaped religious figure doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going:
The mutual life of the Anglican Communion is “quite strong and perhaps getting stronger” according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.
In an interview with The Hindu newspaper, Dr Williams indicated that the state of the Communion was not as black as some have painted it. He called it “a very mixed picture.”
You don’t say.
“I think that after the Lambeth Conference of 2008 many people felt that we found ways of talking to one another, and perhaps exercising some restraint and tact towards one another,” he said,
Dr. Williams is absolutely right about that. After all, the Americans only consecrated one lesbian bishop. They could have consecrated five or six.
“and it was very significant that at the next meeting of the Anglican primates, which was in the early part of 2009, all major Churches of the Communion were represented.
And did nothing much of anything at all.
At the moment I’m not certain how we will approach the next primates’ meeting, but regrettably some of the progress that I believe we had made has not remained steady.
So the Communion’s progress has been set back. That must mean that it’s weaker than it was.
“Alongside that, and I think this is important, while the institutions of the Communion struggle, in many ways the mutual life of the Communion, the life of exchange and co-operation between different parts of our Anglican family, is quite strong and perhaps getting stronger. It’s a paradox.
Mind if I go with “hallucination” there? Just seems to work better, that’s all. Right about here is the part where you go read Drudge or InstaPundit or something. Because there’s just no point in arguing with any of that.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, October 21st, 2010 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments
You could be working in the Proctor & Gamble sales or public relations departments:
Flipping through the New York Post today, I came across a full page ad from Procter & Gamble. It invites readers to “Experience P&G brandSAVER LIVE” which is, apparently, “An exciting store event where you can try samples, watch demos, and consult experts.” (Also, don’t you love the mixture of caps and lowercase in “brandSAVER”? Very iPhone-esque. Good on ya, P&G! Who says Cincinnati isn’t on top of international trends?)
At this “exciting store event,” what can you excitedly try samples of, watch demos of or consult experts about? Well, these are some of the products Proctor & Gamble makes.
Charmin, Head & Shoulders, Tampax, Secret, Crest, Bounce
“Yeah, Charlie, listen, you drew the short straw so you’ll be working the Charmin booth. Just be sure to eat a really hearty breakfast.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, October 21st, 2010 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments
Here’s your first test. Defund NPR:
NPR’s chief executive is defending the firing of news analyst Juan Williams after his comments on the Fox News Channel about Muslims and says Williams veered from journalistic ethics several times before.
Williams told Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly he gets nervous when he sees people in Muslim garb on an airplane. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller said Thursday at the Atlanta Press Club that controversial opinions should not come from NPR reporters or news analysts.
Schiller also said whatever feelings Williams has about Muslims should be between him and “his psychiatrist or his publicist.”
Later Wednesday, NPR issued a statement saying Williams’ remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments
Is it possible that women bishops aren’t such a done deal in the Church of England after all? Could be:
Following the Election of the new General Synod of the Church of England, Evangelical and Catholic Groups on Synod have now swapped lists of candidates.
The results show that 66 Clergy (32.10%) and 77 laity (35.46%) will vote against the current Women Bishop legislation unless it is amended to give those who for conscious/scriptural reasons, cannot accept WBs.
Only 34% is needed to block this when it returns from the dioceses. For the first time, it can and will be blocked by both fully ELECTED houses. In the clergy only a further 1.81% is needed, and that’s just ONE person. There are 21 new evangelicals on this new synod, and one out of a possible 58 undecided is a given!
In other words, give us an “ordinariate” of our own or you can’t have female bishops. Is this a bluff? It sure doesn’t look like one. What happens if the liberals don’t budge and the trads drop the hammer?
Lots of pious outrage, I suppose, followed by phone calls to New York. So that means that a certain broccoli-shaped religious figure is going to have to use all his leadership abilities to avert what could turn out to be a…who am I kidding? I crack me up.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 27 Comments
Broccoli-shaped religious figure thinks he’s still relevant:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that Anglican leaders should be involved in the planning for ordinariates that are established to accommodate the pastoral needs of Anglicans entering the Catholic Church.
Dr. Rowan Williams, who is traveling in India, told an interviewer for The Hindu that he was “very taken aback” when Pope Benedict moved to establish the ordinariates “without any real consultation” with the Anglican leadership. Now that the move has been made, he said, “we are trying to make sure that there is a joint group which will keep an eye on how it’s going to happen.”
The worldwide leader of the Anglican communion did not provide any rationale for expecting a voice in planning for the care of people who are, after all, leaving his faith community. But he did offer a practical reason for expecting that Catholic bishops might accede to his wishes. “In England, relations between the Church of England and Roman Catholic bishops are very warm and very close,” he said. “I think we are able to work together on this and not find it a difficulty.”
I can’t see it happening. Relations between British Catholic and Anglican bishops may be perfectly cordial. But I think the reason Dr. Williams and other Anglicans were not originally consulted was that the Pope is knowledgeable enough about Anglicans to realize that bringing in Anglicans means that the process will grind to a complete halt.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 32 Comments
Broccoli-shaped religious figure comments on recent European fashion laws.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.
“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams, the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.
France’s constitutional court on Oct. 7 approved a law banning full-face veils in public, which would prevent women wearing garments such as the burqa.
In March, Belgian lawmakers voted on a similar measure to ban the wearing of clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified. The newly formed government of the Netherlands also has announced it plans to introduce measures to ban face-covering veils.
“I believe that the state ought not to be addressing issues like these. Instead, it should leave such concerns to the religious communities,” stated Williams at the Oct. 14 meeting in Nagpur. He described the French ban as “a sign of being overanxious.”
Given the fact that France has a large and unassimilable Muslim population that riots at the slightest provocation and has made parts of some cities into no-go areas, I’d say that the French have a great deal to be anxious about. But since my gracious lord of Canterbury thinks that British law will eventually incorporate aspects of Islamic law, his views on the burqa are not surprising.
In a piece in National Review last August, Claire Berlinski made short work of Dr. Williams’ brain-dead multiculturalism. For a start, says Berlinski, a ban would be discriminatory.
Let’s be perfectly frank. These bans are outrages against religious freedom and freedom of expression. They stigmatize Muslims. No modern state should be in the business of dictating what women should wear. The security arguments are spurious; there are a million ways to hide a bomb, and one hardly need wear a burqa to do so. It is not necessarily the case that the burqa is imposed upon women against their will; when it is the case, there are already laws on the books against physical coercion.
The argument that the garment is not a religious obligation under Islam is well-founded but irrelevant; millions of Muslims the world around believe that it is, and the state is not qualified to be in the business of Koranic exegesis. The choice to cover one’s face is for many women a genuine expression of the most private kind of religious sentiment. To prevent them from doing so is discriminatory, persecutory, and incompatible with the Enlightenment traditions of the West. It is, moreover, cruel to demand of a woman that she reveal parts of her body that her sense of modesty compels her to cover; to such a woman, the demand is as tyrannical, humiliating, and arbitrary as the passage of a law dictating that women bare their breasts.
But the burqa should be banned anyway.
All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.
Berlinski faces some facts Dr. Williams would rather avoid. Namely, that Western values and Islamic values are not only different, they are mutually exclusive.
The debate in Europe now concerns primarily the burqa, not less restrictive forms of veiling, such as the headscarf. The sheer outrageousness of the burqa makes it an easy target, as does the political viability of justifying such a ban on security grounds, particularly in the era of suicide bombings, even if such a justification does not entirely stand up to scrutiny. But the burqa is simply the extreme point on the continuum of veiling, and all forced veiling is not only an abomination, but contagious: Unless it is stopped, the natural tendency of this practice is to spread, for veiling is a political symbol as well as a religious one, and that symbol is of a dynamic, totalitarian ideology that has set its sights on Europe and will not be content until every woman on the planet is humbled, submissive, silent, and enslaved.
Any culture which truly values women cannot permit the burqa. Ever.
Veiling cannot be disambiguated from the problem of Islam’s conception of women, and this conception is directly tied to gender apartheid and the subjugation and abuse of women throughout the Islamic world, the greatest human-rights problem on the planet, bar none. Nor can the practice of veiling be divorced from the concept of namus — an ethical category that is often translated as “honor,” and if your first association with this word is “honor killing,” it is for a reason: That is the correct association. The path from veiling to the practice of killing unveiled women is not nearly so meandering as you might think.
Western values are better than Islamic values. So the West must defend those values even if it has to step on a few Islamic toes in order to do it.
Headscarves cannot at this point be banned. It is politically impossible, and it is also too late: The practice is too widespread. But the decision to wear them should be viewed much as the decision to wear Klan robes or Nazi regalia would be in the United States. Yes, you are free to do so, but no, you cannot wear that and expect to be hired by the government to teach schoolchildren, and no, we are not going to pretend collectively that this choice is devoid of a deeply sinister political and cultural meaning. Such a stance would serve the cause of liberty more than it would harm it.
Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape. Our culture’s position on these questions is morally superior. We have every right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that our more enlightened conception of women and their proper role in society prevails in any cultural conflict, particularly one on Western soil.
As Berlinski observes, religious liberty is not and has never been absolute. You can worship any god you want any way you want but you cannot impose your religious views on me and I cannot impose mine on you.
I can claim to have reinstituted the old Aztec religion but I cannot start cutting people’s hearts out of their bodies as part of my worship. You can worship Molech but sacrifice a child and you’re going to jail.
Up until fairly recently, most people, when circumstances forced them to migrate to a new country, adopted the culture of the country. They learned the language and if they didn’t adopt the majority religion, they at least familiarized themselves with the ways of thinking of their new home and adopted its values.
Now, countries all over Europe find themselves with large, immigrant minorities who not only refuse to reconile themselves to Western thinking but are actively hostile to it. Not only that but they expect their values to be respected.
Faced with this situation, you have two choices. Denial, what Dr. Williams manifests here. After all, those cultured Muslims with whom he meets on a regular basis are such wonderful, spiritual people.
Or you can fight back as France and Beligium are doing. “Nobody’s religious rights are being violated,” they say. “But we have certain national values that we cannot and will not compromise for anyone. If you’re unhappy with that, there’s the door.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 21 Comments
Rush Limbaugh agrees with me. If the midterm elections turn out the way we all hope they do, the Republican Party needs to hear what Tom Hanks told Matt Damon at the end of Saving Private Ryan. “Earn this.”
All right now, look, folks, I understand your frustration. I understand totally your anger. What I don’t understand is why anybody is surprised by this. I warned you people about this. I think it was the week before last, yeah, when I described for you the conversation I had with the ranking Republican. Well, now it’s official. The elites in the GOP want to compromise with the Democrats, and they think that’s what you want. It’s all over the news today, and there’s a bunch of lessons here. Here’s how to blow the greatest election opportunity you’ve ever had since 1894, here’s how to blow it two weeks out, and at the same time here is how you form a third party, how you create the circumstances a third party would form.
This is the problem. The elites inside Washington, I don’t care what party, Republican, Democrat, cocktail, doesn’t matter what party, it’s the elites, we need to break the back of the elites out there. They have nothing to do with this grassroots movement that’s the Tea Party, nothing whatsoever. They have nothing to do with any victories in this election. This is going to be very key. All of these big time wins that are on tap two weeks from today, the elites will have had nothing to do with it. The elites have, in fact, stood in the way. The elites have decried and pummeled all of the Tea Party people and the candidates that have arisen from this effervescent grassroots movement. It’s the elites in both parties who paved the way for Obama. It’s the elites in both parties who gave us Senator McCain. The elites in both parties spent like liberals; they paved the way for McCain, they paved the way for Pelosi, for Harry Reid, and Obama. And now they’re sitting in Washington hoping to benefit from the results of an election that is in part in response to their malfeasance. So they’re sitting there — (interruption) what do you mean, Snerdley, people don’t know what I’m talking about? You don’t think they know what I’m talking about? Well, I’ll get to it in just a second.
Here’s the headline from Politico: “Poll Finds DC Elites Tepid to Tea Party.” That’s one headline. There is another story here about how the Republican House leaders seek to avoid the mistakes of 1994, claiming that people are going to have to realize that Republicans may have to compromise with Democrats in tackling broader problems. So these are two stories that are out there today, the top of my stack. “Poll Finds DC Elites Tepid to Tea Party,” yet they’re going to sit there and try to benefit from the victories the Tea Party is gonna produce. And here is Wall Street Journal: “GOP House Leaders Seek to Avoid Past Mistakes” of 1994. Don’t want to shut down the government; don’t want to have the same thing happen that happened in 1995 with the budget battle and Bill Clinton and so forth.
This is how third parties are born. These morons have no clue how short their lease on life is, these elites, they really don’t. They have no clue how short their lease on political life is. They seem to think that the Tea Party is gonna end on November 2nd. They think the Tea Party’s over, and once the election has taken place, then the elites, the Republican Party as well, are gonna now take over and start to manage the victories that have been secured by virtue of the Tea Party. What will happen is the Specters and the Charlie Crists and so forth will go ahead and will officially become Democrats, the worthwhile Republicans will go to the Tea Party, and the remaining of these insider people, the David Frum, the David Brooks, the inside-the-Beltway, so-called conservative intelligentsia, the “let’s make a deal” types who believe that crossing the aisle and compromise and moderates, that’s what the American people want, and they think that’s what this election will say. They’re going to be all that remains of the Republicans. They’ll go to the Hamptons or wherever, but they’re going to be all that remains of the Republicans. The Republicans could end up being a 10% party if they’re not careful here. They could end up being the third party, and they could be the 10%.
If things do turn out well in two weeks, do the Republicans have to win every battle with Obama and the Democrats? Not necessarily; the GOP might not have enough of a congressional majority to override a presidential veto. But they had better look like they’re trying.
What does that mean? What it means is that Rush is quite right. The Republicans need to act like an opposition party. They need to oppose the Administration whenever possible, whatever the media has to say about it and however it turns out.
Because they’re not going to get another chance.