I’m only about 2/3 of the way through the book so far, but I already know that I’ll be recommending America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, by Mark Steyn, to anyone who does not yet realize that radical Islam is at war with the West.
I would like to highlight just the episode from the book where Mark Steyn tells how a Christian army in France defeated a Muslim army 200 miles south of Paris in October 732. Another book, The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc, describes how “[t]he last effort [the Mohammedan world] made to destroy Christendom … failed during the last years of the seventeenth century, only just over [three] hundred years ago. Vienna … was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history—September 11, 1683.” Hmmm. “[A] date that ought to be among the most famous in history,” but one that was unremarkable until eight years ago and still has not been given the historical significance that is its due, leastwise not by the West. And yet Hilaire Belloc’s book was first published in 1938.
The Great Heresies reads like a history of Europe on the eve of World War II; America Alone is a characterization of the West on the eve of World War IV. I recommend both of them—and when you’re finished with those, you can read the rest of the books on my bookshelf.
World War IV is coming. Radical Islam’s idea of peace in the Middle East is when Israel has ceased to exist and every Jew has been eliminated from the Islamic world. Meanwhile, radical Islam’s stealth conquest of Western Europe proceeds apace. And does anyone truly believe that the mullahs in Iran will stop thinking of America as the Great Satan if only we are nice enough?
I for one do not intend to convert to Islam or to live like a second-class citizen in an Islamic world.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Patently Stupid, Patently Dangerous
Barack Obama on July 2, 2008 said that he wanted to institute a “civilian national security force” with power equivalent to that of the military. May I just say that I find the idea of a “civilian national security force” with power equivalent to that of the military to be patently stupid?
What would a “civilian national security force” need to do that the military couldn’t do? Or is it that Obama wants the “civilian national security force” to do things that the military wouldn’t do? How could any force with as much power as the military be a “civilian” security force?
And how would a civilian security force in service to Obama be any different than the Nazis’ Sturmabteilung [SA], also known as brownshirts, that helped bring Hitler to power? What would be the purpose of a “civilian national security force” in the United States of America other than to allow Obama to become dictator of the Socialist States of America?
May I also just say that I find the idea of a “civilian national security force” with power equivalent to that of the military to be patently dangerous?
What would a “civilian national security force” need to do that the military couldn’t do? Or is it that Obama wants the “civilian national security force” to do things that the military wouldn’t do? How could any force with as much power as the military be a “civilian” security force?
And how would a civilian security force in service to Obama be any different than the Nazis’ Sturmabteilung [SA], also known as brownshirts, that helped bring Hitler to power? What would be the purpose of a “civilian national security force” in the United States of America other than to allow Obama to become dictator of the Socialist States of America?
May I also just say that I find the idea of a “civilian national security force” with power equivalent to that of the military to be patently dangerous?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Impeach Hillary
Has there ever, in the history of our nation, been another sitting Secretary of State who has accused heir own country of election fraud?
Monday, August 17, 2009
Epic Fail
Let me see if understand this.
Because Medicare and Medicaid, under current conditions, are unsustainable we have to institute universal, government-run medical care?
How can any system of universal, government-run medical care be sustainable without rationing of care?
When the President of the United States has to assemble a faux forum to tell people that he’s not going to “set up death panels to pull the plug on Grandma,” he’s lost control of the message—watch this video, starting at about 4:30.
Epic. Fail.
Because Medicare and Medicaid, under current conditions, are unsustainable we have to institute universal, government-run medical care?
How can any system of universal, government-run medical care be sustainable without rationing of care?
When the President of the United States has to assemble a faux forum to tell people that he’s not going to “set up death panels to pull the plug on Grandma,” he’s lost control of the message—watch this video, starting at about 4:30.
Epic. Fail.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Imagine World Peace
World peace is all well and good, but not at the expense of national sovereignty.
Progressives
You call yourself Progressive, but all you want to do is to follow the same approach that has failed every other time it has been tried, including places where it has been a spectacular failure—Italy, 1922–1943; Germany, 1933–1945; the Soviet Union, 1922–1991.
How, exactly, is trying the same failed approach “progress”? What’s wrong with conserving what’s worked for 221 years?
We rescued the world from tyranny by defeating Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in World War II; we rescued the world from tyranny by defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If the United States were to devolve into socialism, who in the world would rescue us?
How, exactly, is trying the same failed approach “progress”? What’s wrong with conserving what’s worked for 221 years?
We rescued the world from tyranny by defeating Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in World War II; we rescued the world from tyranny by defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If the United States were to devolve into socialism, who in the world would rescue us?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Racists
How many people refused to vote for BHO because he has darker skin? How many people refused to vote against BHO because he has darker skin?
Both groups are racists, but I'd be willing to bet a month's pay that there were significantly more in the second group than in the first. I didn't vote against him because he has darker skin. I voted against him because he's a flaming Leftist. His skin color is superficial but his Leftism goes all the way to the marrow.
Both groups are racists, but I'd be willing to bet a month's pay that there were significantly more in the second group than in the first. I didn't vote against him because he has darker skin. I voted against him because he's a flaming Leftist. His skin color is superficial but his Leftism goes all the way to the marrow.
No Taxation Without Representation
Those who disparage the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party movement do themselves and the rest of us a disservice. [There are 10 kinds of people in this world—those who understand the TEA party movement and those who don’t.]
While the stimulus bill may have included a little temporary tax relief (a one-year payroll tax credit of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples, spread throughout 2009 in the form of reduced withholding), higher taxes are surely coming. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, “the National Debt stood at $5.7-trillion”; when Barack H. Obama took office earlier this year, “[t]he National Debt stood at $10.6-trillion”—an increase of just under $4.9 trillion in eight years. Obama’s 2009 budget alone, however, increases the budget another $1.85 trillion. By the end of Obama’s four-year term as president, the deficit will have increased nearly as much as it did under eight years of George W. Bush; by 2019, the deficit under Obama’s plan is projected to be $22.5 trillion.
Obama is the polar opposite of a tax-and-spend liberal only in the sense that he is a spend-and-tax liberal—he’s already doing the spending; the taxing is coming. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding hemself [gender-neutral pronoun—it’s my blog; I can make up words if I want]. The Democrats have a 60-vote supermajority in Congress and yet may not have the votes necessary, under normal rules, to pass Obama’s health-care plan; for that reason, he is threatening to use the reconciliation process—a rule that allows a simple 51-vote majority and is generally used only for budget bills—to force it through. In other words, Obama is willing to circumvent not only Republicans but moderate Democrats, as well, in order to get his health-care plan pushed through Congress.
To me, that smacks of taxation without representation. Forcing through a health-care plan that will obligate us, as a nation, to spend money we don’t have without allowing my representative a voice in the matter is synonymous with forcing through a tax increase, since we will have to increase taxes to pay for the spending. And don’t try to tell me that the health-care plan is revenue-neutral—Medicare is already on the verge of bankruptcy; what makes you think that ObamaCare will be managed any better? Forcing through a tax increase without allowing my representative a voice in the matter is taxation without representation.
The first tea party, in Boston in 1773, was a protest against taxation without representation. This year’s TEA Party protests are likewise protests against taxation without representation.
While the stimulus bill may have included a little temporary tax relief (a one-year payroll tax credit of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples, spread throughout 2009 in the form of reduced withholding), higher taxes are surely coming. When George W. Bush took office in 2001, “the National Debt stood at $5.7-trillion”; when Barack H. Obama took office earlier this year, “[t]he National Debt stood at $10.6-trillion”—an increase of just under $4.9 trillion in eight years. Obama’s 2009 budget alone, however, increases the budget another $1.85 trillion. By the end of Obama’s four-year term as president, the deficit will have increased nearly as much as it did under eight years of George W. Bush; by 2019, the deficit under Obama’s plan is projected to be $22.5 trillion.
Obama is the polar opposite of a tax-and-spend liberal only in the sense that he is a spend-and-tax liberal—he’s already doing the spending; the taxing is coming. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding hemself [gender-neutral pronoun—it’s my blog; I can make up words if I want]. The Democrats have a 60-vote supermajority in Congress and yet may not have the votes necessary, under normal rules, to pass Obama’s health-care plan; for that reason, he is threatening to use the reconciliation process—a rule that allows a simple 51-vote majority and is generally used only for budget bills—to force it through. In other words, Obama is willing to circumvent not only Republicans but moderate Democrats, as well, in order to get his health-care plan pushed through Congress.
To me, that smacks of taxation without representation. Forcing through a health-care plan that will obligate us, as a nation, to spend money we don’t have without allowing my representative a voice in the matter is synonymous with forcing through a tax increase, since we will have to increase taxes to pay for the spending. And don’t try to tell me that the health-care plan is revenue-neutral—Medicare is already on the verge of bankruptcy; what makes you think that ObamaCare will be managed any better? Forcing through a tax increase without allowing my representative a voice in the matter is taxation without representation.
The first tea party, in Boston in 1773, was a protest against taxation without representation. This year’s TEA Party protests are likewise protests against taxation without representation.
Backwards
Harry Reid has it exactly backwards. Americans exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly are not “trying to sabotage the democratic process.” Americans exercising their First Amendment rights exemplify the democratic process.
Passing bills without discussing them, let alone without reading them, is sabotage of the democratic process. Our elected officials are representatives of the people. One cannot claim to represent people while at the same time refusing to listen to them.
As Senate Majority Leader, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid represents more than just the residents of Nevada; in a sense, Harry Reid represents every American. If Harry Reid no longer wishes to represent the people—all the people, not just those with whom he agrees—then he should step down.
(I had promised the White House that I would write about all three members of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate; I wouldn’t want Harry Reid to feel left out.)
Passing bills without discussing them, let alone without reading them, is sabotage of the democratic process. Our elected officials are representatives of the people. One cannot claim to represent people while at the same time refusing to listen to them.
As Senate Majority Leader, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid represents more than just the residents of Nevada; in a sense, Harry Reid represents every American. If Harry Reid no longer wishes to represent the people—all the people, not just those with whom he agrees—then he should step down.
(I had promised the White House that I would write about all three members of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate; I wouldn’t want Harry Reid to feel left out.)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Just asking.
Note to the White House, union thugs, and internet trolls everywhere:
Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Clueless
Note to the clueless Nancy Pelosi:
This is not a swastika—this is an anti-swastika, as in “We don’t want any of your stinkin’ fascism.” (Never mind that the slash goes the wrong way, it's still an anti-swastika.) Image credit to this HuffPo article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/anti-obama-protester-comp_n_252815.html
This is not a swastika—this is an anti-swastika, as in “We don’t want any of your stinkin’ fascism.” (Never mind that the slash goes the wrong way, it's still an anti-swastika.) Image credit to this HuffPo article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/anti-obama-protester-comp_n_252815.html
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Silent No More
On April 15, 2009, I attended a Tax Day TEA Party rally in our small, Midwestern city of 20,000 people. My personal estimate is that there were roughly 100 people in attendance—not bad for a Wednesday evening. Unfortunately, I did not take any photos—I’m still new at this whole protest “thing”.
In fact, this was my first protest. And I resent strongly any implication that the TEA Party movement is anything other than a grass-roots movement.
My whole life, I have been part of the “silent majority”. Well, I will be silent no more.
I am afraid that the time is fast approaching when we will all need to choose a side. As for myself, I choose liberty and freedom over the soft tyranny of false choices.
In fact, this was my first protest. And I resent strongly any implication that the TEA Party movement is anything other than a grass-roots movement.
My whole life, I have been part of the “silent majority”. Well, I will be silent no more.
I am afraid that the time is fast approaching when we will all need to choose a side. As for myself, I choose liberty and freedom over the soft tyranny of false choices.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Monopoly
I heard an audio clip late last week of Pelosi calling the insurance companies a monopoly—unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find any references to it anywhere, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.
In any case, to remedy the insurance companies’ monopoly on medical care, she wants to eliminate all of them and consolidate everything into a single-payer government system.
If a single-payer government system isn’t a monopoly then nothing is. Rather than replace the insurance companies with a single-payer government healthcare system, we should lower barriers to entry for new insurance companies, remove regulations that force insurance companies to provide plans that include coverage for esoteric procedures, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, allow small businesses to buy insurance at group rates, etc.; any of these would be more effective in making healthcare more accessible and more affordable than Obamacare.
In any case, to remedy the insurance companies’ monopoly on medical care, she wants to eliminate all of them and consolidate everything into a single-payer government system.
If a single-payer government system isn’t a monopoly then nothing is. Rather than replace the insurance companies with a single-payer government healthcare system, we should lower barriers to entry for new insurance companies, remove regulations that force insurance companies to provide plans that include coverage for esoteric procedures, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, allow small businesses to buy insurance at group rates, etc.; any of these would be more effective in making healthcare more accessible and more affordable than Obamacare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
