sic semper tyrannis

Pakistan looks to be a very, very bad place to be right now. Many have been killed in rioting; chances are many more will follow. Such is it ever, in places that are primarily tribal yet have a veneer of Western civilization. Pakistan is one such place.

According to this Wall Street Journal story, the basics concerning the elections that had been planned for January 8:

Amid continuing political turmoil, Pakistan’s government appears set to postpone crucial national parliamentary elections originally scheduled for next week — raising fears of a violent reaction from the supporters of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

Officials said Pakistan’s Election Commission Monday recommended putting off the elections by several weeks, saying the situation wasn’t conducive for the polls following widespread violence triggered by the assassination of Ms. Bhutto on Dec. 27.

How dryly understated: “the situation wasn’t conducive for the polls.” You don’t say. A couple of observations.

Firstly, this is, indeed, our problem. Any time a nuclear-armed nation appears to be spinning out of control or is demonstrably a source for terror (both appear to be the case for Pakistan), it is our problem. It’s the world’s problem, but, like it or not, we’re the top cop.

Secondly, it is obvious that we can only affect events in Pakistan at the margins. It is basically beyond our control. Not only did we have no part in making Pakistan what it is today, we have little ability to change events there. We certainly were not responsible for the murder of Benazir Bhutto; we’re not responsible if Pakistan doesn’t have the same level of Jeffersonian democracy as a small town in Vermont.

It will be interesting to see how the alleged realists in the Democratic Party bemoan these facts, and , when Pakistan does (wisely) postpone their elections, it will take all of three nanoseconds before Obama, Hillary, Johnny Big Hair, and whoever else is running, blame the Bush administration for a) the Bhutto assassination, b) any continuing instability in Pakistan, c) postponement of elections there, d) any other thing that goes wrong in the world.

These are pretty much the same people who decry our attempts to do pretty much the same thing in Iraq. That is, guide events, and steer the country into becoming a functioning liberal democracy. In so many words, this is the Bush Doctrine, intended to plant seeds of democracy in thorny soil.

It’s nice to see the administration’s liberal critics becoming all neoconish, just as the Bushies have seemingly abandoned their own doctrine.

A writer in today’s WaPo bemoans the sad state of the made up non-holiday holiday Kwanzaa, which is Swahili for, “you must be truly stupid to celebrate this pap.” In the article entitled “Kwanzaa’s Lilghts Go Dim”, we are told that “just 13 percent of African Americans observe the holiday.”

Unstated is how many moronic guilty whites also might celebrate this, but nevermind. The author is kind enough to share the seven “principles” of Kwanzaa. With two exceptions, they kind of read like any set of do-good, don’t-do-bad instructions. Principles that should be obvious to all but the criminally insane, in other words.

But two of those principles stand out, and we are reminded that the “black nationalist” roots are another way of saying marxist. The two are Ujima (collective work and responsibility) and Ujamaa (cooperative economics). Hmm. Collective work and responsibility; cooperative economics. Sounds like communism to me, fellas.

Kwanzaa is an insult to blacks, giving them a marxist political philosophy gussied up in East African robes. That only 13 percent continue to “celebrate” Kwanzaa may demonstrate that most African Americans know a scam when they see one.

The Durban hate-fest of September 2001 should be well remembered, and at least some have done so. Read Anne Bayefsky’s report on the planning for a followup hate-fest, Durban II.

Durban was an unabashed orgasm of anti-Semitism and anti-Western ranting. It’s what the United Nations specializes in, apparently. Ms. Bayefsky reminds us that we are in, truly, a new holy war, a crusade by another name:

Durban II promises to raise the clash against civilization to new levels of hypocrisy and to inflame racial and religious intolerance the world over. The rallying cry of the U.N. mafioso this time will be “Islamophobia.” At the U.N. Islamophobia is not invoked to mean legitimate objection to discrimination that wrongly targets people of the Islamic faith. It has become a code word for hysterical accusations that Western democracies are engaged in a phony war to end terrorism as a ploy to subjugate Muslims everywhere.Mindful that the best defense is a good offense, Pakistan (on behalf of the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)) made the following announcement on opening day of the first Durban II preparatory meeting held this past August. “The defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims represent the most conspicuous demonstration of contemporary racism and intolerance…It is regrettable that the world media has allowed defamation and blasphemy in this form…”

The Christian West must not just lie there meekly and take the kind of lies that are routinely peddled by the Arab and Muslim world. We must at the very least stop fooling ourselves that Islam is about anything other than completely subduing all other faiths. Islam is about, in short, creating an umma that literally encompasses the entire globe.

And making dhimmis, second class (at best) citizens of Christians and others who will not bow to the false god of Islam.

Some interesting observations about John McCain from the Prince of Darkness, Bob Novak in today’s New York Post. While we should be wary of extrapolations from pre-caucus polling in Iowa, these two are worth noting:

Numbers for both Huckabee and Romney dipped sharply when Iowans were asked their second choice. In contrast, McCain was the leading second-choice candidate for both Huckabee and Romney voters.”I’ll take a 47-year-old [Obama] against a 72-year-old [McCain] any day,” is the private comment of one prominent Democrat who long ago made Sen. Clinton his pick for president. Like many insiders of both parties, he considers McCain – on the rise for the Republican nomination – as the GOP candidate most likely to defeat Clinton.

Mike Huckabee will fade, and quickly, once he has to face a broader spectrum of Republican primary voters. His evangelical shtick will go only so far, and on most other fronts, especially national security, he is as weak as a newborn kitten. As for Mitt Romney, I think that Plastic Man will not wear well with independent-minded voters in the longer haul. He, too, is weak on national security.

It’s the second point that might be telling: John McCain being the leading second choice among Iowans. McCain has not invested much in Iowa, betting on New Hampshire and beyond. If Huckabee fades and people start trying to scratch Mitt’s plastic façade only to find a much-too-smooth-to-be-president operator, then John McCain would be their logical candidate.

I am hoping that this is what will happen. Especially since polls have shown him to be the one most likely to prevail in the general election against either Hillary or Obama.

There is one candidate who fully embodies duty, honor, country. That is John McCain, who, by his service and sacrifice, stands head and shoulders above the crowd in the Republican ranks. Which also places him in a totally different political universe than the me-first, triangulating, sleazoid Hillary Clinton.

John McCain: Navy fighter pilot; prisoner of war for five years; family man, with two sons in the service of their country (one son at Annapolis; one an enlisted Marine). The Left, which hates our men in uniform, hates those they’ve labeled “chicken hawks” even more. And in this, there is some element of truth. When you are one of the policy makers, it’s always useful to have served a tour or two in the boots of those you wish to send into the fray. Going to war should not be solely an intellectual, policy wonk matter.

Not that I believe that George W. Bush, with his privileged and safe Vietnam-era service would have made any different decisions had he been a combat veteran. We must not fall into the Jim Webb mindset that only those who have been under fire may send us to war. Had this been the case, we would’ve had slavery for quite a few more years had we elected General George McClellan instead of the civilian lawyer Lincoln in 1864.

John McCain is also a man who has reached across the aisle to work with some Democrats. One can argue with some of his positions, especially his support for restrictions of political speech (McCain-Feingold) and his posture on immigration. But these are far less important than the nature of the man himself.

After all, we should not elect the man who most closely matches our every desire on policy. We should elect the most honorable man (or woman); who can be counted on when things get tough to do the right thing. Not because it is popular, but because it is the right thing to do.

If nothing else, we can count on John McCain to do the right thing. Principally for this reason, but also to honor John McCain’s long years of honorable and heroic service, I am switching my first choice to him from Rudy Giuliani.

Strong words from a man who doesn’t quite view the late Benazir Bhutto as a savior for her country. From Ralph Peters in today’s New York Post:

We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and “hardheaded” journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.

In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.

At this point, the facts are not adequate to support this harsh condemnation. But, even if she was all of the above, could she have been a force for stability in Pakistan? Now, we’ll never know.

As for Pervez Musharraf, he may be a sonofabitch, but, for better or worse, he’s the best hope we’ve got to keep the lid on what could become the first nuclear-armed Islamist nation.

Two things are clear concerning the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The first, and most important is that Islamists, the most likely culprits, will never be deterred by talk or noble intentions about building democracy. One need not be an expert on Pakistan to know this; one need only know that Islam as practiced by the jihadis who infest Pakistan is a religion of intolerance and violence.

The real problem for Pakistan is that these terrorists seem to be in control of two of the four provinces of the country.   They have also long been suspected as having infiltrated at the highest levels of the government and Pakistan’s ISI.

The second is that this is not the time to elect a novice to the presidency. No to Obama; no to the Huck; no to the Man Who Saved the Olympics, Mitt Romney. Obama is an especially egregious case, a poster boy for the triumph of hope over experience. One of his campaign honchos has all but blamed George Bush for the Bhutto assassination. And along the way, he blamed Hillary Clinton as well, since she voted to approve the war.

If things quiet down in Pakistan, and Pervez Musharraf can keep the lid on, then our campaign may resume its previously trivial arc, where candidates extol how much pork (or ethanol, in Iowa) they can bring to the voters. And where the fur starts to fly when they make accusations about who is the better Bringer of the Holy Pork.

But if things remain manifestly unstable in Pakistan, then this can only favor the more serious candidates. Where serious means those who might credibly deal with a nuclear armed failed state, named Pakistan.

A great picture of the President and Vice President. Say what you will about Iraq and other difficulties, these are two serious, mature men.

God bless and keep them both.

Sanford Levinson is a professor at the University of Texas, and, to judge from his books (e.g. Our Undemocratic Constitution and his blog of the same name, he is a dangerous radical.

No; of course he doesn’t attend Communist Party rallies, and (probably) isn’t too high on Islamic terrorism. So, how is he dangerous? He appears to be willing to dump the whole Constitution, and start over with a democratic tilt. Which, given the reality of faculty liberals (now there’s a redundancy), would be a Democratic tilt. As in full tilt boogie.

What got me started on Mr. Levinson is this quotation of his from the Claremont Review of Books (correspondence):

Take a relatively minor example that could, nonetheless, provoke a decidedly major constitutional crisis, given the “right” conditions: should there be a deadlock in the electoral college, the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives on a one-state/one-vote basis, with Vermont’s single representative having the same power as California’s 53 representatives. I have yet to find any defenders of the electoral college who are willing to defend this peculiar feature of the system. (emphasis added)

Levinson, we see, is from the “Sky is Falling” school. When the Constitution cranks up its rusty old machinery, that, somehow, becomes a “crisis.” No, actually, it is not a crisis. It is part of the brilliant system of checks and balances put in place by the Founders.

Note that the feature in question is contained in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, as modified by the Twelfth Amendment. It is, in other words, black-letter law and may not be changed except through constitutional amendment.

Make no mistake: not everything in the original Constitution is inviolable, and, over the centuries, we have certainly changed those things for which the appropriate majorities agreed with. Yes, I know. There’s that creaky, rusty old Dead White Male machinery, requiring ratification of useless barnacles such as the Equal Rights Amendment. The nerve of those men…

I’m not a professor; I’ve not published monographs or books on constitutional law. But, contra the estimable Sanford Levinson, I am a defender of the electoral college, and I also defend the “peculiar” feature that devolves ultimate authority to the States qua states. That is, yes, Virginia, your vote in that deadlocked Electoral College situation is worth just as much as New York’s or California, or even lowly (in population) Wyoming.

Why would I defend such an obviously “undemocratic” provision? Precisely because it serves as a brake on unbridled majoritarianism. We are, and have always been, a Federal republic. Which means that the individual States retain powers not specifically granted to the central government. States have different interests, one from another, which interests need to be and should be protected from the vagaries of what is popular at the moment in the nation at large.

Yes, it is “undemocratic” to elect as president one who has not achieved a majority of all votes cast. Oh, wait. That would include Bill Clinton’s win in 1992, when he got only 43 per cent of the vote. Well, that’s just peachy; he’s one of us, isn’t he? The point is that Clinton gained a large majority in the Electoral College (370 to 168 for G.H.W. Bush). I don’t recall very many liberals whining about the Electoral College back then.

The central point is that the Electoral College, including its State-based method of resolving deadlocks in the House of Representative (one State; one vote), engages the eternal tensions between too much republicanism and too much majoritarianism. But the notion that the national interest trumps each State’s interests is just that: a notion.

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to strike a mortal blow against State’s rights, and, at the same time, at the right of the people of each State to be heard and not be drowned out by the larger States. And, for those who may believe that the Civil War ended States rights, think again. It only demonstrated, through force of arms and not of constitutional argument, that on certain matters such as slavery, the central government was superior to the individual States.

Because the States in secession were morally wrong does not change the fact that States retained rights not specifically given to the central government. The post-Civil War Amendments (13th,14th, 15th) did not change this; they merely granted full rights to those who should have had them from the beginning.

The people in each State are sovereign, and should have the ultimate say in how their respective States decide on their representatives. They are also guaranteed that their States shall not be subsumed into a great amorphous national majority with which they may have profound disagreement.

Ron Paul’s interview on Meet the Press should seal the deal. So let’s call a spade a shovel, at the least. Ron Paul is an extremist, and he is not scrupulous about the company he keeps. The most interesting (for which one may read “is this nutcase serious?!?”) is his claim that the Civil War might have been prevented had the North simply bought the freedom for all of the slaves.

One of Paul’s bete noires is Abraham Lincoln, who, among his other sins, freed the slaves and in so doing, allegedly started the United States down the socialist path. Oh, and of course, trashed the Constitution while so doing. Paul thinks that it would have been much better had not 600,000 Americans had to die. And who’s going to argue against that?

All that being said, Abe Lincoln did what had to be done, given the realities. The Civil War did not start with the specific war aim of freeing the slaves. But it soon devolved to that, although the North was, in general, every bit as racist as the South. To think, as Ron Paul apparently does, that the North could, somehow, have convinced the Southern slaveholders to simply accept some money for their slaves is to be rather ignorant of how things actually got done at the time. And given Northern racism, does he really believe that Northern leaders could have convinced the people that this was a good use for their tax dollars?

Further, given the same realities, there was the continual and pressing issue of whether slavery was to be allowed in the rapidly expanding Union. Each new territory that was to become a state would present a flash point; a decision that had to be made, and which decision had violent partisans on both sides. It takes little imagination to scale up from Bleeding Kansas to a dis-United States in which there is a constant level of fighting, mostly of the sort that today we’d call terrorism.

Could the Union have been preserved (original war aim) while freeing the slaves without such a heinous toll? Most likely, had Lincoln had better generals; had Robert E. Lee chosen his nation above his state; had the North been more invested in the fate of the slaves as human beings. But these would’ve-could’ve-should’ves are more suitable for a late-night bull session. They don’t change what happened and what looks to have been inevitable.

Hindsight is wonderful; it is, or can be, crystal clear. For a Christian, it is obvious in hindsight that if one is to love God, one must love all of his fellow human beings, made as we all are in God’s image. Where hindsight becomes less than crystal clear is where many Christians, in both South and North, did not accept blacks as being fully human. But that does not change the truth: it was necessary to free the slaves. To not do so was to deny their humanity, which has a mirror effect: it also would deny our humanity.

One must wonder if those such as Ron Paul, with his isolationism and apparent hatred of government and all of its works, believe that as a nation of Christians (note: not a “Christian nation,” Gov. Huckabee) we had any choice but to free our brothers and sisters held in bondage.

Well, technically, it was never ours in the first place, as a long list of would-be conquerers have found throughout history. Afghanistan is a place that one could bomb and it would be an improvement. But geopolitics being what it is, there are some politicians around who claim that we should have been fighting the “real” war on terror in Afghanistan, rather than in Iraq.

There is also the persistent claim that we, meaning the United States, and particularly the Reagan administration, created the whole problem of al qaeda and the Taliban by our support for the mujahideen who fought against the Soviet invaders in the 1980s.

As might have been easily guessed, both of those claims are usually made by Democrats who wish to score political points against a Republican administration. Grains of truth? Perhaps.

In the mid-1980s, when I was fresh from a year of National Defense University studies about our Soviet enemy, some of my colleagues had the heretical thought that we may perhaps have been on the wrong side in Afghanistan. That we had more in common with the Russians than with the Afghans, principally because the Russians were rational actors in the world. The Islamic militants could not be counted on to be rational.

At the time, I didn’t buy this thesis. Even in hindsight, it’s far from clear that we should not have vigorously backed the mujahideen. The jury is still out on this question, at least for me.

After the 1983-4 Beirut bombings that we, shamefully, left unanswered, it is now clear in retrospect that Islamic extremists had declared war on us. Our assistance to the Afghans was not from any sense of pushing democracy or nation-building. It was realpolitik by any other name, a classic case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” We weren’t checking references on the Afghans, to put it gently. As long as they killed Russkies.

Did we, by our lack of follow through in Afghanistan, or by our arming the mujahideen, help install the Taliban? At least partially, insofar as we armed Islamic militants without checking their pedigree. Despite the prescience of some military thinkers, at the time I’d have to say we had no choice. As a practical matter, we had to counter the Soviets in that part of the world through proxies; there’s no way we could have had the boots on the ground back in the late 1980s that this might have taken.

By the time Bush Senior took office in January 1989, it had become fairly clear that the Reagan defense buildup had worked – the Sovs were suing for peace. And very few folks had the stomach to propose any new missions involving the military, especially not in far-away Afghanistan.

Peace dividend around the corner, and all of that…

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

– Isaiah 9:6

Merry Christmas

In Dansk, “The Prophet wishes you a Merry Christmas.” Gotta love those pesky Danes. Some of them have not lost that Viking spirit. Cartoon via Gates of Vienna.

God bless my Scandinavian cousins on this dan före jul.

The current tussle for the GOP nomination might be taken as a sign of weakness, or of strength for the party of Lincoln, TR, and Ronald Reagan. For instance, it appears that John McCain, who I’d call Stainless John for his honor and his straight talking ways, is now within the margin of error of the former leader, Mitt Romney, in New Hampshire (Boston Globe/UNH poll).

Consider the current top-tier candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and, with charity, Fred Thompson. What’s not to like? Each has major strengths, each has some weaknesses. But I can see any of them being president, and doing a credible job as our commander-in-chief. Some more credible than the others. Much more. But this does not change the very high quality of the field.

To read the liberal media, especially allegedly centrist outlets like the Washington Post, you might think that the GOP pulled in a few homeless guys and cleaned them up and sent then out on the stump. From today’s paper, with  éminence grise David Broder as co-author, we are presented with a picture of disaster:

Republicans are divided, confused and sometimes demoralized about their choices for president. With less than two weeks left before voting begins, the party’s rank and file are being asked to ratify a new direction for the GOP amid the clash of a chaotic and wide-open campaign.

It is far from clear that we in the Republican Party are “being asked to ratify a new direction for the GOP.” All of the major candidates listed subscribe to elements of what we’ve had since the Reagan years. Without the handicap of being someone named George Bush.

The article goes on to discuss major disasters for the Republican Party, and call them successes: George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole come to mind. Bush Elder should never have been on any ticket; Bob Dole is an honorable man sacrificed to the Clinton machine in 1996. But those who write for politics have a different metric of success than those of us who want to govern. For Broder and his colleagues, success appears to be measured by achieving the nomination.

The essence of the issue, at least as seen from Democrats such as Broder, is expressed by this confused soul from Iowa:

Maybe people haven’t found this perfect candidate,” said Mary Tiffany, the spokeswoman for the Iowa GOP. “Maybe they like how Huckabee incorporates his faith. Maybe they like Romney’s business experience. Maybe they like John McCain and his experience with foreign policy. We don’t have this candidate who really is . . . I don’t know, who is the perfect candidate.”

We know you don’t know, Mary. There is no such thing as a “perfect candidate.” There is the good candidate, and the GOP is blessed with a bunch of them.

Our job as Republicans is to settle on the candidate who may best be able to win. And right now, that looks like either Rudy or Stainless John or Mitt or the Huck or, even, possibly, Fred. Win or lose, this is an exciting time to be a Republican.

In the Church of Global Warming, some heresies are getting pretty damned hard to stamp out. One of those heresies is that, perhaps, the world is not actually getting warmer. But in the all-powerful CoGW, we don’t tolerate such dissent from the official dogma. So we just changed the imminent peril’s name. It’s the new and improved Church of Climate Change (CoCC), with capital letters, my friends.

It’s safe to say that the Earth’s climate has been changing as long as there has been an Earth. There is clearly evidence that our puny little species has contributed something to that change. What is far from clear is that there is a catastrophe, pictures of Arctic icebergs and stranded polar bears notwithstanding.

As for the late and unlamented sky-is-falling Global Warming threat, consider this from David Whitehouse in the New Statesmen:

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

So, what are those whose goal is to eliminate capitalism? Change the name of the alleged threat, and don’t tolerate any deviation from the CoCC dogma. As usual, the best advice is a variant on something my dad taught me about carpentry: measure twice; cut once.

As applied to spending billions on something that may not be real, let alone any kind of threat, Whitehouse offers some sage advice:

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

In so many words, measure twice, determine with some objective certitude what it is we are dealing with, before we commit to impoverishing us all for some left-wing chimera.

It’s not just investigative reporters who are now beginning to question the CoGW’s dogma. From the United States Senate, a report entitled “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.” The conclusion? Climate changes; always has; always will. How much, if anything, mankind has effected such changes remains an open question.

Peter Schramm of the Ashbrook Center, in his recent Ashbrook Update, recently wrote about the Huck phenomenon. That his appeal is not limited to folks who can’t abide Mormons or their faith, and that he is “too evangelical to be elected,” I have to agree.

For the record, I’m a Baptist; part of Mike Huckabee’s natural core constituency. Except for the small problem that I have with anyone who flogs my faith as a reason to vote for him. And that one Baptist distinctive has always been an aversion to mixing faith and politics. Even if quite a few prominent Baptists appear to ignore this potentially fatal mixing.

This said, for a Christian, it should be impossible to ever be too evangelical. All Christians are evangelical, or should be, if they believe in following Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). And if they don’t believe in this simple command, I’d have to question whether they are truly Christian. Not speaking here of how one evangelizes; just in accepting that this is a requirement.

All well and good. But the purpose of preaching to Gospel is not to win worldly goods or elective office. It is to save souls. Mike Huckabee is running for president, not pastor. When he states that he is a Christian man, he is merely stating a fact, and it is good to have someone who isn’t shy about his faith. But when that becomes the virtual entirety of the campaign, as an American I’ve got to stop, and think.

The presidency is a secular office; it is not intended to exclude anyone. To run explicitly as a Christian candidate, as Gov. Huckabee appears to be doing, is to start out by excluding all who do not share his faith.

That is unacceptable, and has nothing to do with his policies on taxes, national security, or any of the other issues that must be dealt with. Would I prefer an atheist or Hindu or Jew or Muslim, or, even, heaven forfend, a Mormon? (darn; where’s that HTML coding for sarcasm?). Depends on their character and their records.

Given the beliefs of some, especially Muslims, I’d have to look long and hard to determine if their professed faith was incompatible with our First Amendment. For some Muslims, and Christians as well, their faith is not compatible: because some in both faiths believe it is their God-given mission to convert all others or die trying.

That, my friends, is simply un-American. So far, I don’t at all believe that Mike Huckabee is un-American. Just not a candidate for those who don’t share his brand of the Christian faith.

The caption on this picture from the New Orleans Time-Picayune (via NOLA.com)  is thus:

Sharon Jasper sits in the living room of her voucher-backed private residence. “I might be poor but I don’t like to live poor. I thank God for a place to live but it’s pitiful what people give you.”

Well, missy, none of us likes to live poor. Some of us got off our keisters and went to work to improve our lot, but, hey, that would entail actually working.  And, yes, I’d have to agree:  some things in life are certainly pitiful.  Including your whining.

This whiner is typical of the forever-on-welfare mentality of far too many welfare recipients. That mentality can be summarized by this simple statement: You owe me; I’m entitled. Where the “you” are all those who pay taxes to support such leeches. This particular whiner lives in a renovated apartment, complete with that huge flat-screen tv in the foreground.

Hey, just cause she’s on welfare is no reason she shouldn’t watch her Judge Judy (or whatever trash she does watch) on a quality set.

Seems that some of the students down at UNC-Chapel Hill don’t know much history. Or economics. Or common sense. Consider this article from the John William Pope Center, titled “Mock constitutional convention at UNC-Chapel Hill produces a document inspired by radical politics.”

The thought of any constitutional convention is somewhat scary. Let’s face it: the people in charge these days don’t have among them many James Madisons, George Masons, or Thomas Jeffersons. To say the least. Our Constitution is brilliant, and has survived many attempts to subvert it. Could it be improved? In theory, anything can be improved. In practice? Doubtful.

But, as a student exercise, the attempt to create a new constitution is both entertaining and frightening. From the article, some samples:

These proclaimed rights formed a litany of liberal causes, including abolition of the death penalty and the promotion of multiculturalism, gay marriage, and environmentalism. Some were quite far out on the fringes of the political spectrum, such as a right to euthanasia: “[E]lderly will have the right to choose life/death.” Others seemed frivolous, even silly, such as the “Right to Leisure” or the “Rights to Sports and Art.”

But embedded throughout the constitution was the belief that the government should pay, and the government should decide. For instance, the students’ constitution grants the right to “affordable housing,” “affordable contraception and abortion,” universal health care insurance, free health care for children, and so on.

Jay Schalin, the Pope Center writer, goes on to show what little regard the UNC students engaged in this exercise have for the free market. Or reality, for that matter. What the students have produced sounds like classic fantasy marxism, and would likely do about as well as that did in the real world.

Which is to say, not at all. Freedom as we know it seems to produce its share of idiots. Idiots who prattle on about “rights” and entitlements, with no thought about actual liberty. And no thought, or knowledge, of what a cock-up most government-run enterprises turn into.

Yet another article from the WaPo, reminding us of the plight of Arabs in the Middle East. This particular one is especially egregious, given the almost uniformly hostile reception that Jews had when they re-founded Israel in 1948. And by “hostile” I mean armed attack.

The headline for this sob story? “For Israel’s Arab Citizens, Isolation and Exclusion.” The story goes on to relate how some Arabs are marginalized and may not enjoy the full benefits of Israeli citizenship. In essence, a story that any left-leaning outlet like the WaPo runs about any and all minority groups.

What is especially egregious? The fact that virtually all Jews were kicked out from all Arab countries, so there isn’t even the possibility of a reverse headline. There not being many Jews, at all, in places such as Syria or Jordan. The basic reason for all this? Except for a pitiful remnant in most Arab countries, with the exception of Israel, the Middle East has become judenfrei.

You never hear of these Jews for the simple reason that Israel, and other nations that took them in, did just that: accepted the Jews who formerly had been living in Arab lands, and made them full citizens. Unlike the Arab nations that border Israel, who kept the Palestinian Arabs hostage in refugee camps, and did not accept them as citizens.

Israel is hardly perfect. Some of its citizens obviously don’t have full rights. But know this: any citizen of Israel has more rights than any citizen of any Arab country.

Jay Nordlinger captures one of the principal reasons Republicans should hope that Hillary is the Democratic nominee: she’s just so unlikeable. From his Impromptus today:

Consider: The last two elections, the Democrats ran possibly the two most dislikable people in the United States. The first time, they won the popular vote, and the second time, they narrowly lost — a difference of a few tens of thousands of votes in one state (Ohio) would have given them victory.

What if they nominate someone likable — meaning Obama — this time? Huh?

I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call Al Internet Gore and John windsurfer Kerry “the two most dislikable people in the United States.” I can think of a few who are much, much more annoying. Al Sharpton, for one. Rosie O’Donnell also comes to mind, as does Jimmah Worst Ex-President Ever Carter.

But allowing for the literary license, I must agree that had John Kerry been a little more human and a little less married to the ketchup heiress, he’s be the one now arguing for staying the course in Iraq. As for Gore, well, he just went and got even crazier than he’d been before losing to Dubya; best to let sleeping dogs who are rabid lie.

As for Barack Hussein Obama? Yes, he’s likable to some. I don’t particularly like him; he’s a snake-oil salesman as far as I’m concerned. If Obama were white, then he’d be a cinch to beat. He’s a far left ideologue with nothing. His big idea? He’s got audacious hope. Bravo Foxtrot Delta.

And yet, there is that race thing. Obama is black (ok, cafe au lait), and thus no liberal is going to call him out on his vacuity. At least not in public. That might be construed as being racist. And, when, inevitably should he run against someone not a liberal, his opponent does call him to account for his lack of substance, they will be roundly chastised for their alleged racism.

So, Hillary, you go girl!

Sitting here, sipping some Jameson’s, feeling mellow.  Sick unto near-death with politics, so a gentle change of pace.

And you thought Starry Night was just a song by Don McLean. Great, expressive work by Van Gogh; evocative song by McLean.

I was not a SEAL; in fact, I was physically disqualified from Naval Aviation (20/30 uncorrected vision; grr), let alone the SEALS. And, from what I know and have heard about their training, it’s far from clear I’d have made it through.

Stated differently, those who get through without ringing that bell have my utmost respect. It is tough. And there is one aspect of the SEAL teams that has always stuck in my mind: their code of leaving no man behind. No matter what it may cost, SEALs honor their fallen comrades by never, ever, leaving them behind. Dead, or alive.

Why the fuss, especially over a dead sailor? If you have to ask, then perhaps you need a refresher course in civilization. Many nations, and armed bandits or terrorists, can project force. What marks a civilized nation from the rest is the respect that is shown to the honored dead. Never leaving a man behind is one hallmark of a civilized nation.

Simply stated, a man’s dignity does not die with him. We honor his memory by treating his earthly remains with respect and love. Not all in our culture adhere to this code, but it is still the norm in some quarters. Most especially among Navy SEALs and the Marines.  Men most likely to be on the red end of our force projection.

This is the true honor culture, and it does our nation proud to have such men as these fighting for us.

The Federal Real ID Act will now cause Virginia drivers to provide proof of citizenship or legal residence prior to renewing their licenses. According to this article in the WaPo, my state of Virginia is actually ahead of most, insofar as it has allocated funds to make the necessary changes.

The Real ID Act, and the very real prospect for flushing out some illegal immigrants, has engendered some idiotarians to come scurrying out of the woodwork with tales of the coming apocalypse. From the WaPo story, two such:

“Real ID is, in fact, a real nightmare,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It was a bad idea from the very beginning. . . . It bowed to the wishes of a few powerful members of Congress.”

U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) called the Real ID Act “an insane federal law” and “a nutty piece of legislation that needs to be rewritten. All this is going to do is make life miserable for American citizens…[the lines to get licenses] are going to be several blocks long, 24 hours a day.”

Will this inconvenience native-born Americans like me when we renew our license? Sure; this past year I renewed my Virginia driver’s license with a few easy clicks online. Next time, I’ll have to go and wait in a line “several blocks long.” Or will I? From the WaPo:

State officials said they probably will not require everyone who has a license to come in at the same time for the new license. Instead, drivers will go in when they are scheduled to renew, or every five years. Still, this could lead to longer-than-usual waits because many people renew by mail, Internet or phone. Of about 888,000 renewals a year, 232,000 people do not go to DMV offices.

Assuming zero changes in procedures at my local DMV, I would probably be wise to plan on some extra time. After all, the workload will be increased by some 26 percent. Somehow, I kind of doubt we’ll see those “24 hours a day” lines.

And, who, exactly, are idiots like Moran and Steinhardt pimping for? Terrorists? Illegal immigrants? Yes to both, I’d wager. I can accept that the so-called American Civil Liberties Union (only one word is accurate: “union”) is in favor of not inconveniencing terrorists and illegals. But Moran swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Perhaps he had his fingers crossed?

Our Democratic governor gets it. Again, from the WaPo:

“The vast majority of 9/11 terrorists used Virginia licenses,” Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) said. “I think that’s why you haven’t seen as much of a push back.”

So, let’s see. I’ll have to wait a little longer in a line; in return I’ll get assurance that only those with verifiable documentation, that is, who are in Virginia legally, will get the single most important document in the domestic ID pantheon: a driver’s license. Which gets you on planes, among things. As we’ve learned to our sadness, when some Arab immigrants obtained their licenses under false pretenses and used them to commit murder and mayhem.

We have enemies. We also have millions of illegal immigrants, with more arriving every day. They are not our enemies, but they are breaking our laws. It’s time to say, “enough!” Real ID not only necessary, but long overdue.

Yes, that’s Nurse Ratched, played brilliantly by Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Peggy Noonan’s essay today at the Wall Street Journal reminds us of one essential thing about Hillary: she is the personification of Nurse Ratched in the primary campaign.

The topic is the Bill and Hill Show; the cosmic two-fer that a Clinton Restoration is likely to bring us. Lots of us cranky, curmudgeonly old conservatives actually like Bill. He’s a rascal, but he’s just such a lovable rascal. On a serious note, Bill is a flawed human being. Just as you and I are. We’re not president, of course, and we should never has elected such a crooked man. But it’s too late for that.

Peggy Noonan writes

Maybe they’d love to have him [Bill] back in the White House. Maybe they just don’t want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo’s Nest and they’d love having Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don’t miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?

Yep. Sorry; if we elect Hillary, we’ve got to take her. Buyer’s remorse should start early with this one: right now, in fact.

Amy Chua, despite teaching at Yale, applies some common sense in a WaPo article to what used to be obvious to Americans: e pluribus unum, from many, one. We are, or at least used to be, at least culturally, an Anglo-Saxon and Protestant nation. Not that we had any state religion, of course — which is one of the distinctives of truly Protestant versions of the faith.

Let me explain. Two elements make up this distinctive. The first is that Protestants should consider themselves to bow only to God, not to an earthly hierarchy. The second is the worldly power sought by the church prior to the Reformation. Prior to the free-church movement of John Knox in Scotland, and the rise of Calvinists in Europe and the Puritans in England, church and state were inexorably intertwined. Stated differently: Henry VIII was not a Protestant. He just refused to have his national church be under Roman authority. And, while Martin Luther may have started the ball rolling, the churches carrying his name quickly became national churches, complete with a hierarchy that wielded secular power.

The Reformation, fully formed, and the Scottish Enlightenment, with its emphasis on individual liberty, although seemingly in conflict, gave us the philosophical and cultural background for what became the United States of America. Through the 230 and more years since our founding, not everyone who became an American was Protestant, or of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Of course; but the ideals of the Protestant Reformation, as leavened by the Enlightenment, teach us that all are created equal by God; all have equal dignity that is inherent in the human person.

The two-word reason? Imageo Deo. Which kind of says it all. Now, getting back to Ms. Chua, she rightly recognizes that we shall either stand together, or fall separately. That the Balkanization of our culture into ethnic and lingual ghettos may please some, but is, frankly, un-American. Her prescriptions are obvious, but often hard to see in print in today’s media. From her article, the principal points:

• Overhaul admission priorities
• Make English the official national language
• Immigrants must embrace the nation’s civic virtues
• Enforce the law
• Make the United States an equal-opportunity immigration magnet.

Read her article; it’s well worth the time. And let’s all try to remember why our forbears came to this country in the first place: it surely was not to bring the wretched old country, complete with its sectarian and ethnic miseries, with us.

Byron York, writes at the Corner today about Mitt Romney and the Mormon’s latter-day revelation that blacks really were fully human beings. Since this happened only in 1978 as the result of a revelation to the president of the Latter Day Saints, it raises some questions.

The obvious one is raised by Byron: will Romney admit that the Mormons were in error prior to this 1978 revelation? Was God somehow wrong, either before or after this revelation? Byron writes:

That’s a built-in dilemma of the system; if a church says it is led by revelation, and then says it was wrong, it’s kind of like saying God was wrong.I get the impression that that has put Romney in a very tight box, and is why he is disinclined to say that the church was wrong before 1978. Other churches, and all sorts of other institutions, have admitted being wrong about things in the past and have changed their policies. The general public understands that. But refusing to admit it sometimes rubs people the wrong way.

I’ll say it’s a dilemma. And one that will quickly be exploited by the victimologists who dominate the Democratic Party. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, there’s no good way to answer prior to him being nominated.

In the Republican ranks, this latter-day revelation reminds us of the cultic nature of the Mormons: hey, here’s a man, LDS President Spencer W. Kimball, living in modern-day Salt Lake City, who claimed a politically advantageous “revelation.” What else might a future LDS president reveal as God’s latter-day truth, which would then be binding on a faithful Mormon who happened to be president?

As for the 1978 “revelation,” this might have had more force had it been made less than 110 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that all citizens have equality. In fact, a prophet surely would have been able to receive God’s message that chattel slavery was an insult to the dignity inherent in each human person. Before the Civil War and Amendment XIV, surely?

Mitt Romney gave a wonderful speech about religion and national service the other day. He just didn’t happen to cover much about how the Mormons operate their latter-day, man-made faith.

Spengler has a fascinating essay on why Islam is more akin to paganism. The essential difference? Free will. Which Jews and Christians both believe has been given them by our creator. Free will, along with an ordered universe created by God, requires us to reason; requires rationality.

This is a stark contrast with Islam, where the reigning philosophy is “Whatever Allah wills,” as expressed with the typical “Insha’Allah.” Since Allah as conceived in Islam is a totally transcendent being, and since he is directly running everything all of the time, why strain ourselves with an attempt at rational thought?

From Spengler, more on the essential distinctions between God and Allah:

The Judeo-Christian God loves his creatures and as an act of love makes them free. Humankind only can be free if nature is rational, that is, if God places self-appointed limits on his own sphere of action. In a world ordered by natural law, humankind through its faculty of reason can learn these laws and act freely. In the alternative case, the absolute freedom of Allah crowds out all human freedom of action, leaving nothing but the tyranny of caprice and fate.

Remember the totally different conceptions of God the next time some apologist for Islam tells you that “Allah is only the Arabic word for ‘God.’” True in the literal sense. But Islam has a far different concept of God; a concept that is in grave error and which explains much about the Islamic world’s intellectual stagnation.

You’ll have to excuse my lack of sympathy for those who live in the Gaza strip. This morning, the ever-sensitive WaPo has a front page story describing the woes of those poor, wretched victims of Israel. Why, those dastardly Jews have gone so far that they have”limited daily diesel deliveries to Gaza to about 50,000 gallons, some of which is used by the Hamas government and security forces.” Interesting concept, blaming one nation for not fully providing the infrastructure and energy needs of its sworn enemy.

But wait, you ask: isn’t it the sworn policy, and practice, of the Hamas terrorists to destroy Israel? Yep. And didn’t Hamas win election in Gaza, by a wide majority? Again, yep. So, the curious observer asks: so the Gazans have brought this on themselves, and yet the liberal Western press still expects Israel to take care of them? Third and last time, the answer is a big ol’ yep.

We must all have sympathy for innocents who live in Gaza, and who are still subject to live under a terrorist organization that brings nothing but death and destruction. To the Jews in Israel, and, indirectly, to the Arabs in Gaza. It takes a certain kind of arrogance to blame Israel for any of this. Unless and until Arabs decide, in the immortal words of Golda Meir, that they love their children more than they hate the Jews, Gaza will live in misery.

Misery that is totally self-inflicted, and which would evaporate like an ice cube in the desert sun if Hamas would renounce terror, accept that there is a Jewish state called Israel, and, most importantly, stop all attacks on Israel. Given that Hamas is driven by Islam, and that Islam accepts no other faith, we shouldn’t hold our breath.

The one word that would best describe Gazans? Not printable in a family blog, but it relates to a circular opening in the buttocks.

Saint Obama has been pilloried; accused, at least indirectly, of being a coke-snorting drug dealer in his youth. Said youth not exactly having passed, but that’s another matter.

It’s an obvious campaign dirty trick, rendered by, hope you’re sitting down for this, a friend of the Clintons. From the Manchester Union Leader, the basics:

A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said yesterday that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama’s admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.Obama’s campaign said the Clinton people were getting desperate. Clinton’s campaign tried to distance itself from the remarks.

Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman of Clinton’s front-runner campaign and husband to former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, raised the issue during an interview with The Washington Post, posted on washingtonpost.com.

Fascinating; “Clinton’s campaign tried to distance itself from the remarks.” Remarks made by a national co-chairman of Hillary’s campaign. Well, that’s what the Clintons do, better than just about anybody else: distasteful, sneaky things, and then “distance” themselves to keep their skirts clean. Except for the occasional stain on a young intern’s dress, of course…

Getting back to Saint Obama, his past drug use is only important if he lies about it. Now, if he was dealing coke, that’s more important than just using, but again, only if he doesn’t come clean about it. If it was in the past, and it won’t happen again, and he is straight with us, then we can judge him against those running against him.

Saint Obama’s use of coke is a negative, but not a fatal flaw — it’s the other things that could be. I wouldn’t vote for Obama because he is vacuous and simply isn’t a credible commander-in-chief. Let’s just say that Hillary has more sand than Barack does. That he, by his own admission, used coke, doesn’t matter to me.

As for what, exactly, was inferred, we turn again to the Union Leader article:

“It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” said Shaheen, whose wife is running for U.S. Senate next year.

“There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome,” Shaheen said.

There’s the nub of it: “so many openings for Republican dirty tricks.” That Obama might be a cokehead or dealer is not important to the Clintonistas. Just that it might be, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, be an opening for a dirty trick by one of us sustaining members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Nonsense. The obvious intent was to cast doubts on Obama’s candidacy, with unsubtle hints that he’s at the least a cokehead, and very possibly a coke dealer. If he was a dealer, even at the lowest level of the druggie food chain, then Obama is truly finished as a national candidate — in the primaries or the national election.

Shaheen sounds like he could be an honorary Clinton. In contrast with the Hillary Sleaze machine, Obama looks almost, well, saintly.

The Romanesque bread and circuses gala shown in the picture is the Fourth of July celebration at First Baptist Church of Fort Lauderdale. One wishes two things: first, that a church of our Lord was not used to celebrate a worldly power, the United States. Second, that if it were done, it wasn’t done in a sanctuary meant for worship. But, that’s just my take on this.

Seems this form of idolatry isn’t limited to the Fourth of July at this particular church. Consider this snippy snippet from today’s WaPo:

The $1.3 million Christmas pageant at the First Baptist Church of Fort Lauderdale is featuring professional pyrotechnics, 105 automated lights and 250 conventional lights, a cast of 600, women dressed as angels who “fly” to herald Jesus’s birth, simulated snow and a kick line of dancers.It’s about “the true meaning of Christmas,” says Senior Pastor Larry Thompson.

Hmm. The “true meaning of Christmas” is spending over a million dollars on a spectacle? This is doubly offensive. First, Advent should be a time of quiet anticipation and of soul-searching and cleansing; waiting for our Savior’s birth, knowing that he’s due to arrive, not in a gaudy light show with angels who fly, but to die on our behalf.

Second, could not those monies have been used for mission work? Of course they could, and should. We should always remember this about Christmas: the wood of His cross may be found in His cradle. Celebrate the Babe on His birth; do so as the three wise men did, bearing gifts with humility and grace. Not in a gaudy pageant.