Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Kyrie Ellison

Minnesota's Muslim democrat senator Keith Ellison thinks it's unfair to single out a community when discussing the radicalization of Americans who engage in acts of terror against other Americans. The New York Times calls Congressman Peter King's hearings on radicalization "an obsession" and accuses him of "stoking fears" of "supposed radicalization".

I have a few questions for Mr. Ellison and the NYT. Was the Times Square bomber a destitute tea-partying Quaker opposed to health care reform? Did a hymn-singing Southern Baptist men's Sunday School class commandeer four airliners to attack New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11th 2001? Or attend an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan? Did the holiday (Christmas) Tree bomb plotter in Portland Oregan attend confirmation classes at the local Episcopal church? Did a Mennonite sniper kill ten people in the D.C. area in 2002? Was it an observant Jew who shot and killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood Texas?

In fact all the people who perpetrated the crimes discussed above had some connection, if not a singular devotion to the ideas of a particular prophet and religion, not Judeo nor Christian in origin. Perhaps Islam is the single most prominent connection between all these crimes.

Whether these crimes stand alone, or are part of some strategy to implement sharia law, or are the first steps to the establishment of a global caliphate is not relevant. These crimes, inspired by Islam, took place on American soil and the plots were hatched in our neighborhoods. These people walked our streets, shopped in our stores, attended our colleges and flying schools and even served in our military services. In some cases, authorities even knew what was happening and, because of cowardice or political correctness, took no action.

With little or no respect to Kyrie Ellison and the New York Times editorial board, I doubt that Echelon is getting much terror chatter out of Catholic dioceses or Methodist conferences. Holding congressional hearings is the very least someone in the federal government could do.

"Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." President George W. Bush, addressing a joint session of Congress, September 20, 2001. There are those in American society who try to have it both ways....

"Every nation has to be with us or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or finance them are going to pay a price". Senator Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2oo1. There are those in American society who do both....

"If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security." George Orwell, from his 1942 essay, "Pacifism and the War.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, especially when the country is under assault from within by a political and media fifth column who fancy themselves aloof and somehow superior to the struggle....

Sunday, March 6, 2011

The Real Costs of Ethanol?

There's an interesting article in the March 2011 edition of the International Monetary Fund's quarterly publication, Finance & Development. The authors have concluded that consumers should get used to higher food prices.

One of the more interesting statistics cited in the piece is that in 2010, 15% percent of global corn production was consumed by the biofuels industry. According to a report by the OECD from January 2010, the amount of grain required to fill the average car gas tank with ethanol would feed one person for a year. There is also the matter of the amount of water, electricity, and fossil fuels required by the ethanol manufacturing process.

It seems government and industry are faced with a choice between providing affordable food for people and meeting arbitrary quotas for ethanol production. Among people of common sense, this is a no-brainer. Unfortunately common sense seems to be lacking in direct proportion to the amount of foodstuffs and money wasted on ethanol.

In this tight economy, some people have to choose between fuel and food. At this rate, nobody will be able to afford either. Perhaps all these ethanol devotees could consider a hunger strike on behalf of world food production.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - and is a bargain compared to eating and driving in 2011.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Progressives Gone Wild

Earlier this week CNN posted an article by John Blake, in which he described white Americans as "the new face of racial oppression". He uses the liberal media's favorite intellectual straw men, "they" and "some", to discuss purported calls for ethnic programs to promote racial pride, including "whiteness studies". Using a blend of innuendo and pop psychology with a few quotes from supposed white racialist intellectuals, he attempts to paint a picture of a racially fractured America, with white people on the sociological ropes. Seems that CNN has a vested interest in promoting the fiction of an oppressed white race to justify the continuing existence of the race-grievance industry.

Funny thing is I don't feel oppressed. I'm glad they told me about it though. Maybe I should find someone to sue....

Sherrod Brown, democrat, Ohio tried to hitlerize Republican governors who are trying to limit the political influence of public sector unions in their states. Following a trope devised by teachers unions that Hitler went after the labor unions in Germany, Brown embellished the tale with Stalin - a move for which he apologized today. His apology implied that his passion for the middle class apparently got the better of him, causing his "mistake". Uh, Sherrod you were talking about unions, not the middle class. Who knew that statist unionist progressives were such ardent champions of the middle class?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - especially when the media and politicians get it so wrong....

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Phelps' Precedent

Today, the United States Supreme Court, by an 8-1 decision I've dubbed the Phelps' Precedent, affirmed the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to freely express themselves by picketing military funerals. There will surely be all kinds of learned commentary, both supporting and criticizing this ruling. We are a nation of laws, and I suppose it is appropriate that the Court should uphold the law and rule in favor of freedom of speech.

Today's legal ruling unfortunately highlights an abridgement that is beyond the purview of any court or legislature to correct - the diminution of human decency. In days gone by, Americans knew the difference between right and wrong. Their conscience was their guide. People understood the value of hard work and sacrifice, respected each other, and demonstrated reverential awe for God, and held family and country close in their hearts.

Now, many in American society are drawn to the pornographic. Pornographic can describe any action taken to elicit a quick and intense emotional reaction, not only something salacious or lewd, but shocking or titillating. Larry Flynt wrapped himself in the flag and almost single-handedly won First Amendment protection for pornography. Show gory photos of shattered babies in the aftermath of an abortion to get the antiabortion message across. Burn a cross or a flag or a Koran to show how bad those other people are or how bad you hate them.What passes for entertainment is replete with pornographic moral dysfunction and violence.

What Westboro does is no different. The problem is that they now see themselves as somehow legitimized by today's court ruling. Westboro has been waging a shrill and self-indulgent pogrom against the world since 1991. The Phelps' Precedent makes peddling a pornographic message of hate a constitutionally protected activity. In our free society, the law allows them to vent their spleen in the marketplace of ideas. The best thing we can do for ourselves is turn our backs and walk away.

The law truly is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, because legal and right aren't always the same thing.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

What Did He Mean By "My People"?

What would be the reaction in politics and the media if white people referred to other white people as "my people"?

Suppose that John Ashcroft or Ed Meese or Janet Reno had referred to white people as "my people". Would the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan, the Congressional Black Caucus and Ben Jealous of the NAACP call for their job? Probably not Reno - she served as attorney general under the first black U.S. president - but that's another topic for another time....

Politico (with a nod to Debra Burlingame on Facebook) reports that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder became frustrated during congressional testimony because members of the U.S. Congress kept questioning his decision and motivation regarding the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident during the 2008 election at a Philadelphia polling place. In his remarks, he drew a distinction between those alleged victims of the Black Panthers, and those who struggled to get voting rights for African-Americans in 60's America, a group to whom he referred as "my people".

Mr. Holder said there is no equivalency between voter intimidation in 2008 America and that stuff in the 60's. Mr. Holder stated that any comparison was "inappropriate" and "...a great disservice to those who put their lives on the line for my people" (emphasis added). The writer informs the readers at the end of the fourth paragraph of the Politico piece that United States Attorney General Holder is black, perhaps implying that by "my people", Holder meant people like himself.

In fairness to Mr. Holder, one could assume that he's actually referring to the people, many of whom were eastern liberals much like himself, except for the ones who weren't, who put "their lives on the line" as his people. However, the writer seems to believe that Holder's decision to not prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation is somehow colored by Holder's race. After all, it was Mr. Holder who bravely pointed out that Americans were afraid to have a discussion about race, although he didn't say Americans, whether his "people", or perhaps some other eastern liberal Americans.

The members of congress seemed confused by this. One member even accused Mr. Holder of a holding a double standard on voting rights for those "...other than African-Americans....". First a member of congress and and now this writer for Politico. No wonder Mr. Holder was at pains to explain that "This Department of Justice does not enforce the law on the basis of race".

Whew boy, I'm glad he cleared that up! For a minute there it seemed that United States Attorney General Eric Holder was of the same mind as the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton.

Seems to me that Holder doesn't really have excuse for refusing to at least investigate, if not prosecute, the New Black Panthers. Using a congressional hearing to dismiss similarities between thuggery in 2008 America and the historic desire for social and political equity makes a mockery of that voting rights struggle in the 60's he claims to revere.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, especially when government officials make extralegal and racially biased decisions under the color of law.