Archive for the ‘Godwin’s Law’ Category

I think we all agree that Nazis are bad. Evil. Their ideology and their “Third Reich” caused untold suffering and destruction, costing millions of lives. It should not be celebrated. It should not be defended. It should not be encouraged or promoted. It should always be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

All that said, I also think that Pres. Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville was right on target, and I’ll tell you why.

Close to 20 years ago now, I lived in beautiful Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Twenty minutes to the north is a sleepy little town called, “Hayden Lake.” Hayden Lake had the unfortunate distinction of having a white supremacist “compound” a few miles outside of town. Richard Butler and his skinhead Aryan Nations “Church” (tax dodge) came to be synonymous with North Idaho, and Hayden Lake became guilty by association (I suspect Charlottesville is currently suffering from something similar).

Now, every year Coeur d’Alene hosts a big 4th of July parade, right down Main Street. It’s quite the big deal. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people come out from all around to watch the floats, the marchers, the bands, enjoy the music and food in the park, stake out a claim for your picnic blanket, and stay all day to watch the fireworks at night. It’s an annual tradition, and we never missed a year.

Except. One year, Mr. Butler and his “family” decided that they wanted to have a “parade” as well. They applied for, and were granted, a permit for the march. The town council and the citizenry were in an uproar! They didn’t want the Aryan Nation wackos in their town! Up went the hue and cry, but to no avail. The town could not legally deny them a permit, and so the march would move forward.

And you know what the town did?

Nothing.

On the day of the parade, just before the appointed hour, businesses all along main-street closed up shop. Locked their doors. “Closed” signs in the window. No one came to line the streets. No bands were playing. There were only a scattering of vocal protestors, and they were kept in check by the police (unlike in Charlottesville). I was very nearly a ghost town.

The Aryan’s wanted to make a splash, cause a ruckus, to assert their “rights.” And they tried.

And we ignored them. We belittled them with our silence. We spurned them and their ideology with our collective absence. We didn’t give them the satisfaction of a response. We turned our backs on their hate.

So they came with their four vehicles, packed with shaven-headed youths in their white t-shirts and suspenders. They “marched” down Main Street to the park, where they had their “rally.” They blathered on for half an hour, attended solely by a scant handful of protestors cordoned off some distance away. And then they left.

And the stores opened back up, the people came back out, and we went on with the day. There were no fights. No smashed windows. And only a few raised voices.

That is how you deal with that kind of hate. Don’t give it an audience. Deny it a forum by denying it a crowd. If you must oppose it, sing. Pray. Dance. Oppose their hate with joy. Not with black face masks and baseball bats. If you really want to “oppose” people like that…LAUGH AT THEM.

Would there have been violence, or death, in Charlottesville if “antifa” and their associates had all stayed home?

I think I can say with some confidence that few in Charlottesville wanted the Nazis there. But did they really want a “counter-protest” group who showed up spoiling for a fight, either?

So, when Pres. Trump suggests that both sides had some measure of blame for the violence that occurred, I think he is spot on. Nazis and Aryans and their ilk are belligerent and violent by nature. They expect hostility, and are prepared to respond in kind.

But these “antifa” are the same folks who show up to riot at UC-Berkeley, all too ready to bring violence to bear to oppose the terrible dangers of having a conservative commentator speak on campus. So, when they showed in Charlottesville, in full regalia, it made confrontation nearly inevitable.

Couple that with the bizarre incompetence or gross malfeasance on the part of local law enforcement in their complete failure to do anything to de-escalate or defuse the situation, and it was a recipe for disaster.

Highlighting the role or burden of liability this other group played in what happened does not mean you defend or diminish the evil that is Nazism, or the abhorrent nature of their professed ideology. It doesn’t mean you have to be sympathetic to either side. It simply means you assign blame where blame is due.

The last few days it’s become clear that there is acceptable violence, and unacceptable violence. The “antifa” marchers who showed up to counter-protest the Nazis and other white nationalists are being portrayed as freedom fighters, some even going so far as to compare them to the soldiers who fought the Nazis in WWII. Except….Easy Company didn’t wear masks.

If we are going to stand against hate and violence, let’s stand against in all its forms, regardless of the source, Left or Right.

It is sad and unfortunate that a group of white supremacists decided to descend on Charlottesville and spew their hate. But, instead of gearing up and heading in for a fight, a much better response would have been to ignore them. Let them have their say, and then watch in stony silence as they drive away.

And then move on with the day.

Advertisements

Listening to the radio on the way to work this morning, I heard something that chilled me to my very core.  I literally got a chill down my spine.  I quite literally spoke out loud, “Oh, shit.”

It was a “top of the hour” news blurb about how the push for Hate Crimes legislation is gaining steam, being pushed through Congress to bring harsher penalties to those who commit crimes motivated by hate.  You know, rather than the much nobler greed, anger, disinterest, or predatory exploitation.  It’s HATE that we have to watch out for, right?  I mean, in addition to all those “love crimes” we’ve got on the books.  But I digress.

What really rocked me back on my heels was one sentence that came across towards the end of the sound bite.  Some mouthpiece promoting the legislation spoke of trying to keep better track of “bias motivated events.”

Bias. Motivated. Events.  Think about that fer just a sec.

In one swift and subtle movement, we knocked the edges off the definition of “hate crime” and squishy-coated it down into “bias motivated events.”

Can you see the inherent, insidious danger here?

If someone mugs a pedestrian, say, man dressed up in women’s clothes, does this constitute a hate crime?  What is the burden of proof to say that the alleged criminal  didn’t target this person because of their “lifestyle”.  What if the crook took the dude’s predilections for frills and lace to suggest he might be an easy target.  Not because the crook hated the tranny, but because he figured he/she might be an easy mark.  Too effeminate to fight back, who knows?

Instead of 6 months, suspended, for attempted robbery, our felon gets 5 years because it’s a “hate crime.”

But wait.  This goes back to prosecuting intent, rather than actions.  If I further dumb this down to say that any “bias-motivated event” can be prosecuted, ANYTHING I DO that is motivated by my personal bias or worldview, can now become prosecutable.

Anything.

Say a church decides that since Sally has decided to become Sam, that maybe we don’t want him/her teaching Sunday School anymore.  Is that my right as a private institution, or is it now a hate crime, because it was motivated by a religious bias against Transgendereds?  Not that we hate them, but just that we don’t want them teaching our sunday school class.  That’s not hate, it’s bias.  Instead of just being unfaaaaaaaair, is it now also a hate crime?

If I choose not to rent to a couple of guys because they look, act, and sound like belligerent gang bangers, can I be prosecuted for my “bias” against thugs who will likely wreck my rental?

If a pastor speaks out against men preying on boys for sexual exploitation, can I be prosecuted for a hate crime because of my BIAS?

This is an incredibly dangerous area, a slippery slope that, in the name of protecting rights, will end up destroying them.  I mean, short of a diary, a blog post, or a text message, etc., how can you prove INTENT behind an individual’s action?  Do gays, or blacks, or hispanics have special protections against crimes that others don’t?  Shouldn’t all be equal under the law?

Robbery, murder, rape, arson.  They are crimes.  They are illegal.  They shouldn’t be MORE illegal because of who the victim is.  WHY I committed the crime might make me an asshole, a reporbate, a truly descpicable human being.  Sadly, or thankfully, there’s no law (yet) against being an asshole.  It is only the CRIME I commit which makes me a criminal, regardless of my motivations for it.

Isn’t that what this trend in hate crimes suggests?  That eventually, what you THINK about a situation will have as much legal weight as what you actually DID about it?

Scary stuff.  Beyond even 1984.  Madness.

Well, on CNN, the Tea Party protests got only one link, but amazingly enough, the article was balanced, fair, and by no means a hit piece.  I encourage you to read it.  It lays out the basics of what the protests are about, and even seems to paint them in if not a positive light, then at least in neutral terms.

Nationwide ‘tea party’ protests blast spending

However.

Let us compare that article to this one from that bastion of journalistic objectivity, MSNBC.

 Anti-tax ‘tea parties’ being held across U.S.
Obama aims to ease dread of deadline day, vowing ‘simpler tax code’

Notice how they manage to toss a puff for Obama into the Headline?

Also notice that the Page Title in the HTML actually says, “Anti-tax ‘tea parties’ vent anger across U.S.”  The anger part becomes important pretty quickly. I’ll just highlight in bold all the fun, inflammatory terms and polarizing language:

Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers, tens of thousands of protesters staged “tea parties” across the nation

Whipped up. As in, into a frenzy.  At least they didn’t downplay the numbers, got to give them that.

Protesters even threw what appeared to be a box of tea bags over the fence onto the White House grounds, causing a brief lockdown at the compound before the package was declared not dangerous.

The assumption being, of course, that something the protestors threw over the fence would be dangerous.  Which, if it “appeared to be tea bags”  would, I propose, be a bit of stretch, wouldn’t you think?  Unless of course it fits your narrative.

Shouts rang out from Kentucky,

Looks a bit like “shots rang out,” doesn’t it?

“Frankly, I’m mad as hell,” said businessman Doug Burnett at a rally at the Iowa Capitol, where many of the about 1,000 people wore red shirts declaring “revolution is brewing.”

That’s right.  Angry, red-shirted Iowans warning of revolution.  Hey, maybe that DHS report was right!?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up a tea party at Austin City Hall with his stance against the federal government, as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, “Secede!”

Not just revolutionists, but successionist as well!  The way this is worded, does it not give the impression that Texas Gov. Rick Perry might tacitly approve this sentiment, as it is “HIS” flag-waving audience?  Not THE audience, but HIS audience.  A subtle but grammatically significant difference.

Other protesters also took direct aim at Obama. One sign in the crowd in Madison, Wis., compared him to the anti-Christ.

Don’t forget rabid, fundie Christians.   “Taking direct aim” at Obama.  I believe they use to call this sort of thing “yellow journalism.”  Now they just call it, well, MSNBC.

Jim Adams of Selma carried a sign that showed the president with Hitler-style hair and mustache and said, “Sieg Heil Herr Obama.”

Must have changed the name on one of the Code Pink signs, I guess.

To be honest, I can’t tell if the penner of this AP piece was simply trying to present a sense of the moral outrage of the participants, but I doubt it.    The use of such charged terms as “whipped up” and “shouts rang out” do more than convey intensity…the suggest a frenzy, the possibility of violence.  Which is at odds with the vast majority of other reporting on the events out there.

The movement attracted some Republicans considering 2012 presidential bids.

Really?  Like who?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich planned to address a tea party in a New York City park Wednesday night. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal sent an e-mail to his supporters, letting them know about tea parties throughout the state. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford attended two tea parties.

These three have all expressed interest in running in 2012?  Who knew?

To me, giving cherry-picked statements from isolated firebrands equal time with the more common tone of frustrated but motivated political activism in the name of “balance” really isn’t.  It makes it appear that this undercurrent of revolutionary fervor was a common theme, which it is not.

The TEA Parties are really just about getting the government back on track, under control, and accountable to the people again.  Rather than the other way around.

Folks, all you have to do is look at the pictures from the various Tea Party rallies, and then compare and contrast the pictures over at ZombieTime from a series of Lefty proteests, to see what a fallacy it is to be so cautionary against “conservative” activism.  The Radical Left long ago cornered the market on crazy.

There’s a front-page report on the DHS report highlighting the dangers of “right-wing extremists” in today’s Stars & Stripes,  yet strangely I can find nothing about it on their web site.  I wonder if that was an editorial decision to bury the story?  You can’t unprint newspapers, but you can easily delete a link.

There was some speculation that this report was some sort of clever and complex hoax, but Michelle Malkin confirmed it, and the Stars & Stripes has it front page of their print edition, at least here in Germany.

I think this comes under the heading of “boiling the frog slowly.”  They don’t even mention any “credible threat” in the report.  Just a vague sort of “sense” that economic conditions and a black president “might” foment discord by disgruntled right-wingers and disaffected miliatary veterans.

In other words, there are dangerous points of view out there, against which we must be vigilant.   Viewpoints like, illegal immigration is bad, abortion is wrong, or that the President of the United States shouldn’t be running our civilian corporations or determining what content on the Internet is permissible.

What exactly is it that the Left is so afraid of?  So afraid that they have to villify, marginalize, even criminalize conservative viewpoints?  And more importantly, why are we letting them get away with it?

I think I lived in Coeur d’Alene long enough to legitimately claim status as an “Idahoan.”  My oldest son spent the first four years of his life there, and I worked and payed taxes and lived there.  Went to the Fourth of July Parade every year for almost eight years running, even after I moved across the border to Spokane.    But more than residency, that place just got into my blood.  It will always be “home” to me, no matter where else I happen to live at the moment.  I WILL move back there someday, even if it’s only to retire.  But this has led me to now, and forever, when people ask where I’m from, to only give the answer “Idaho!”

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of
the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the state of Idaho hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this serves as notice and demand to the federal gov2
ernment, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states
to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be,
and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.

That’s what we call silk-lined ass-whuppin.  Or, in more genteel terms, “Reminding the Federal Government Just Who Exactly It Is They Work For.”

We The People are not pleased, and will be heard.  Bitches.

Found Via Four Right Wing Wackos.

Throughout his ascendency to the presumptive nominee for President during the recent campaign, Obama, or perhaps more accurately, Obama’s crack media and PR machine, built a groundswell of enthusiasm which soon bordered on euphoria.  Through deft manipulation of images and soundbites, along with the willing collusion of the media, seasoned liberally with generous dashes of Bush-bashing, Barack Obama was propelled to almost rock-star status in a very short period of time.

He came from essentially nowhere…an ill-recognized first-term Senator with a mediocre voting record and no significant achievements to single him out from the crowd.  Suddenly, he was riding a wave of popularity and fervent adulation so broad, so deep, and so completely unexpected that it left many an observer stunned, bemused, and more than a little suspicious.  The meteoric rise to fame, especially one so completely at odds with anything in his background to justify such fervent devotion, lent more than one conservative commentator to draw parallels to the equally sudden and similarly inconceivable rise to national fame of an unkown corporal in 1930’s Germany.

The detractors on the political Left poo-poo’d such comparisons, invoked Godwin’s law, and surmised that after eight years of Pres. Bush’s “failed policies,” people were just refreshed by a fresh face and fresh ideas.   But’s it’s gone far beyond that now.  Has for quite a while in fact.

In a Jan. 21st CNN article entitled, “Black first family ‘changes everything’,” we see the Obamas painted as a sudden and convincing role model for black families, where before there were none.  Until now, it asserts, black families have been woefully misrepresented, or at best, suffered under their own, self-imposed mediocrity.

America has often viewed the black family through the prism of its pathologies: single-family homes, absentee fathers, out of wedlock children, they say. Or they’ve turned to the black family for comic relief in television shows such as “Good Times” in the ’70s or today’s “House of Payne.”

But a black first family changes that script, some say. A global audience will now be fed images of a highly educated, loving and photogenic black family living in the White House for the next four years — and it can’t go off the air like “The Cosby Show.”

The essence of this sentiment is apparently that, until now, black families have only risen to the level of that portrayed of them in the media. That they’ve suffered under a global stigma of poverty, broken homes, and eubonics.  Now, with this new, “positive” portrayal of a loving, solid, black nuclear family, black families are now free to strive for a greater standard.  Or something.

The relationship between Obama and his wife may help untangle some of that pathology, some black commentators say.

Because only now, now that the Obamas are, can decades of afro-american family dysfunction be truly addressed.

Several black women actually sighed as they talked about how much Obama seems to touch his wife and exchange soulful glances with her in public. They said Obama will show young black men how to treat women — and young black women how they should be treated.

Morgan Freeman couldn’t do it.  Bill Cosby couldn’t do it.  Scores of other black thinkers and philosophers who exhorted their culutral brethren to stay married, to turn away from drugs or gang violence, to build a strong self-identity that didn’t revolve around racial guilt or some nebulous “legacy” of slavery have now all been marginalized in favor of a new, true example for the black demographic to emulate.  Barack and Michelle Obama {{swoon}}.

Brea, the writer for EbonyJet.com, is the daughter of a white mother and a Haitian-American father. She says she felt pressure to claim one race growing up. She never quite felt like a full citizen.

Obama’s biracial background and his “exotic” upbringing relieves her of that pressure. Obama will help other blacks who come from multiracial backgrounds and immigrant communities to be comfortable in their own skin, she says.

Again, we see this strange sentiment at play such that only through the example and influence of Barack Obama can mixed-race Americans truly feel acccepted.  Nothing else has worked until now.  They struggled with their self-image and self-acceptance until BARACK came along.  Now it’s suddently “okay” to be black, or bi-racial, and you don’t have to feel like a second-class citizen anymore.

Again, in this fawning review of “Slumdog Millionaire” by the British Telegraph, every good and noble and refreshing element in the film is somehow tied to the new idealism which has sprung up around Barack Obama.

And in that single word {love} lie the key qualities of Slumdog Millionaire. It does not have an ironic moment. It is utterly devoid of cynicism. Instead, it is bright-eyed, optimistic – idealistic, even. To generations reared on a drip-feed of corrosive cynicism, the elevation of greed for greed’s sake and weary disillusion with our leaders and our institutions it feels almost shocking.

Yet maybe we’re ready for it. We saw these laudable qualities in the hundreds of thousands of people (most of them young) who toiled to elect Obama. Those whose work limits them to poring over the minutiae of life in Washington’s Beltway and the Westminster village have already been murmuring that this idealism looks like naïveté. Yet look where our defensive cynicism has landed us: maybe we do need to look at the world anew.

Next week, millions of Americans – and no doubt hundreds of thousands of Britons – will cluster around television sets to watch the inauguration of Barack Obama, whose election victory is rooted in the notion that while the world may be troubled, complex, and even ugly, our best instincts can help make it better. Slumdog Millionaire – a truly remarkable film – is rooted in that same idealism.

As Christians, we should be leery of such sentiments.  Putting all our faith in one man, depending on one man for our provision, our faith in the world, or emotional sustenance or our hope for the future is idolatry unless that man is Jesus Christ.  In Proverbs 3:5-6, we are told:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.

The “He” in this passage is clearly God, not Barack Obama.  There is a very real and present danger in putting your faith and hope for your future and well-being in the hands of one man.  Not only does this give one man more power over your life than you should be willing to give up, but you will inevitably be disappointed when that man proves himself to be all too human.

The moment we give the man who is President the power to be our Savior, we elevate him beyong a mere elected official, and make him our spiritual stand-in.  We give him undo power to speak into and control our lives.  We credit his judgement to be superior to our own, his values worthy to supplant our own, his demands sufficient to supercede our desires.

The strange, almost reverent way in which many people seem to describe Barack Obama, the assumption of some implicit goodness and the idealistic fervor with which many seem to follow him suggests an almost cult-like obsession. 

A Cult can be defined as: “…any group of persons devoted to a charismatic leader(s) who changes their outlook and behavior by transmitting his/her values and views and perhaps a kind of “energy,” spiritual or otherwise. ” *  Hmmm.

Before you dismiss the “cult” label out of hand, first examine some of the “warning signs” of cult behavior:

  • Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality (!!!)
  • Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others
  • Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion (Bush evil, Obama gooood)*
  • The spiritual group uses a special set of rules that you must obey or be cast out (Oppose Obama?  RACIST!)*
  • The spiritual group demands that you give up as much of your assests and your yearly income to it as possible. (kinda funny, but not…”spreading the wealth around”)
  • The spiritual group demands that you accept its teachings without reservation, even when those teachings are in direct conflict with your understanding of basic scientific knowledge (global warming, stimulous package).
  • Provide an authority figure that everyone seems to acknowledge as having some special skill or awareness  (!!!)
  • Provide a philosophy that seems logical and appears to answer all or the most important questions in life
  • Promise instant or imminent solutions to deep or long-term problems (!!!)
  • The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt (72 in the White House?  Sure….no prob.  I’ve got the carbon offsets to back it up)

Barack Obama is not the savior of this nation.  He is not the Moses who will lead us to a promised land, or a Savior who will redeem us from our collective national sins.  He is just a man.  One third of the triad making up our separation of powers.  To grant him any more power or authority – legal, spiritual, or otherwise – than that is to set ourselves on a very dangerous path towards the kind of oligarchical centralization of power so many accused George Bush of attempting, and against which our Founding Fathers spoke so stridently.

WorldNetDaily had this new article this morning:

Economic stimulus? Feds want your medical records
Electronic database to include lawsuit, mental health, abortion, sexual details

 A little-discussed provision in President Obama’s economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.

A national coordinator to develop a “nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information.”

Except that…Pres. Obama isn’t the first one to come up with this idea.  As a matter of fact, it was Pres. Bush who laid the groundwork for this when he signed an executive order in August, 2006 mandating the creation of a national healthcare database for Federal Agencies.

It is the purpose of this order to ensure that health care programs administered or sponsored by the Federal Government promote quality and efficient delivery of health care through the use of health information technology, transparency regarding health care quality and price, and better incentives for program beneficiaries, enrollees, and providers.

(c) ‘‘Interoperability’’ means the ability to communicate and exchange data accurately, effectively, securely, and consistently with different information technology systems, software applications, and networks in various settings, and exchange data such that clinical or operational purpose and meaning of the data are preserved and unaltered.

(a) Health Information Technology.
(1) For Federal Agencies. As each agency implements, acquires, or upgrades health information technology systems
used for the direct exchange of health information between agencies and with non-Federal entities, it shall utilize, where available, health information technology systems and products that meet recognized interoperability standards. (emphasis mine)

So, the move towards an interconnected network of systems sharing health care information is nothing new.  This is merely the next step towards a nationalized database of every person’s health care information, openly shared between a broad spectrum of health care agencies and providers.  And it’s clearly a “bi-partisan” effort.

Say good-bye to your medical privacy…what little you still have left.

Well, how goes the Inaugural afterglow?  Has your Obamagasm left you feeling spent, a little weak in the knees?  Me, I’m feeling that sort of bitter, dirty regret you feel when you wake up after a big kegger and realize that you probably cheated on your girlfriend last night with some ugly, fat chick, but you’re not really sure, because it all gets a little hazy after the third Jeager-and-Red-Bull shot. It’s probably a good bet, though, considering that she’s still lying in your bed, snoring heavily, and is wearing your underwear.

Yeah, it’s kind of like that.  I’ve even changed the theme of my blog to reflect that I’m officially in mourning.  The death of innocence, or some such.

As a tribute to the departing President Bush, I’d like to briefly recap some of his more significant failures.  These are things that a fairly significant portion of the American populace expected of him, on which he completely failed to step up or follow through:

  • The Constitution wasn’t suspended, scheduled elections weren’t postponed, and he didn’t declare himself Emperor For Life.
  • A theocracy wasn’t established, Christianity did not become the official state religion, and prayer wasn’t made mandatory in schools.  Atheism wasn’t outlawed, and Michael Newdow wasn’t assassinated by a CIA hit team. Damnit.  No wiccans were burned at the stake in the public square.
  • Large swaths of the GLBT crowd weren’t rounded up and sent to re-education camps to cure them of Teh Gey.  Homosexuality was not outlawed, there was no fatwah or Kristalnacht smashing out the windows of hair salons and designer boutiques.
  • He didn’t force the Supreme Court didn’t overturn Roe v. Wade, thus condemning women to endure another reproductive Dark Age.
  • Liberal bloggers were not rounded up and imprisoned for daring to question the ruling junta.  Although, I might mention that several conservative commentators were threatened with fines or jail for alleged “hate speech.”

On a more serious note, despite the vitriolic lambasting by the Progs and the Gay caballeros, George W. Bush has probably done more for AIDS research, global AIDS awareness, and funding for AIDS prevention in Africa than any other President.  But you don’t hear about that much.  You hear about the 4,000+ plus that died in Iraq, but there are no stats on the number of lives he may have saved through his efforts to combat AIDS in underpriviledged countries.

There are a great many things on which I might disagree with Pres. Bush, things I didn’t like, such as his stand (or lack thereof) on immigration, and his just flat stupid approach to economic “recovery,” but the fact remains that he has persevered through eight hard years, dealt with a number of severe crisis in a more than adequate fashion, and, whether you agree with the specific methods or not, prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil for the entire tenure of his presidency.  Through his efforts, numerous attacks have been prevented in OTHER countries as well.

It will be interesting to see if Pres. Obama will be able to claim the same thing at the end of his tour.

It will be interesting to watch as the months and years progress, how long the dopey school-girl crush between the media and Prog pundits and O-Ba-MA! lasts?  I wonder how long it will be before the feral, demanding special interest groups begin to savage B.O. for his “failures” to live up to all the hype and promises.  Until they start using words like ‘betrayal” and “sell-out” if he doesn’t bring sweeping special rights and privileges to gays and other minorities, or if he fails to trim the military down to the size of the Coast Guard in four years.

I, for one, am going to do my best not to become a victim of ODS and scream bloody murder every time He does something liberalish.  Besides, as a government service employee and a member of the Reserves, I’ve got to keep my bile in check since he’s actually the Commander in Chief now, and not just some marxist looney running for office.  That doesn’t mean that I won’t be checking the list of Presidential Executive Orders almost daily to see what kind of wacky shit he’s trying to slide in under the radar.

All that said, blogging will be light to non-existent over the next couple of weeks as I try to get out from under a couple of big projects.   So, all 12 of you can spend your time doing other, more important things, like scraping your Bush/Cheney ’04 bumperstickers off, and replacing them with O! stickers.  I know I have.

Update:  I’m not the only one who thinks this.

Resistance is futile?

Coming from the demographic that has historically been the most vein-in-the-forehead, screechingly, spittle-fleckingly opposed to a draft for the military, one has to wonder why the new standard bearer for the Progressive Utopian VisionTM is now marketing the idea of compulsory service as a core patriotic duty?

Hitler Jugend

Hitler Jugend

And just why do you suppose that it’s targeted at our high school and college age youth?  Via Wikipedia:

The HJ was organized into corps under adult leaders, and the general membership comprised boys aged fourteen to eighteen. From 1936, membership of the HJ was compulsory for all young German men.

The HJ was organized into local cells on a community level.

For example, many HJ activities closely resembled military training, with weapons training, assault course circuits and basic strategy.

Me, I’m wondering why we need a civil defense service. We have the Civil Air Patrol, the Boy Scouts, the Explorer program. Against what are we defending? As well funded as the military? Isn’t that called the National Guard?  The Police? EMS?

There is only one reason you need an organized civilian “militia” made up primarily of young, energetic, and quite impressionable youth.

The HJ maintained training academies comparable to preparatory schools. They were designed to nurture future Nazi Party leaders, and only the most radical and devoted HJ members could expect to attend.

Another branch of the HJ was the Deutsche Arbeiter Jugend – HJ (German Worker Youth – HY). This organization within the Hitler Youth was a training ground for future labor leaders and technicians.

One can only imagine the screeching, flailing flame wars that would ensue where a Republican President to suggest this.  Do you thing that the Nazi analogies wouldn’t be flying thick then?!

Remember towards the end of “The Sound of Music?” All the eager young men in their bright new uniforms, “watching” for “criminal” elements, as in, those who won’t get on board with the program?  It won’t be a neighborhood watch…it will be your neighbors watching YOU.

200px-pioneers_member_pinYou can invoke Godwin’s law all you want, but there’s a reason the Brown Shirt analogy keeps popping up.  Or perhaps, the Young Pioneers in Soviet Russia.

Because it looks and sounds exactly the same. Does anyone really believe that this will just be a domestic peace corps, going around cleaning up graffiti and picking up trash?

Then why is it called a “defense” force? It just fits all too neatly into this grand new socialist paradigm B.O. is preaching.  Expect that this will not go away.  It is an essential element of ground-roots social re-engineering.  Otherwise known as Change©.

It’s in the freakin’ manual. Get the youth first. 1960’s ringing any bells?

Once in power, communist leaders made the transformation of the younger generation central to the attempt to create new communist societies. Because young people lacked prior political experience and were considered more malleable than adults, communist leaders believed they could be transformed into ardent supporters of communism and builders of new socialist societies.

obama_biden_forward_poster_print-p228824279734048682td2a_210Watch as this idea, this program, is steadily retooled, renamed, reinvent and remarketed over time,all to make it sound more palatable and to respond to its detractors.  The words and labels will shift and change to counter opposing rhetoric by making the critics look increasingly petty and confrontational.   The consensus process will be brought to bear to marginalize dissent and encourage conformity through the use of emotion-laden catch phrases and rhetorical questions like, “Surely you care about X” or “You wouldn’t want Y to happen, would you?”  Just like it has with global warming, gay rights, radical environmentalism, and every other Progressive pet program.

It is not paranoia, political partisanship, racism, or ODS to look at the examples history gives us of “boiling the frog slowly,” to draw parallels to today’s burgeoning political trends, and then be watching and prepared for the next steps.  It is simply discernment and prudence.

And yeah, what she said.  Cuba’s “Committee for the Defense of the Revolution

The concept behind the CDRs was to create a citizen force that would reinforce the dictates of Cuba’s government, establishing a kind of omnipresent peer pressure network among next-door neighbors. Leaders of CDRs could put Castro’s every public thought directly and rapidly into the hands of every Cuban, so the government would not have to rely solely on mass media.

So, essentially, yeah.  That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying B.O.’s new militia will become.