From an interview with Michael Crichton:

What is the most serious threat facing our civilisation?

Loss of classical liberal values in those western societies that embraced them.

England was the first modern state, the first superpower, the first nation to deal with moral issues around the world, and the first nation to install the benefits of what we might now loosely term a liberal society. I mean that in the 19th century sense of liberalism. That notion of liberalism was also present in America, but made it to the Continent only in a pale and limited form. It is a wonderful social conception that must be vigilantly guarded. It is not shared by other nations in the world. Nor is it shared by many citizens in English-speaking countries. Peculiarly, many of our most educated citizens are least sympathetic to classical liberal ideals. Indeed the term ‘liberalism’ in the modern day has come to imply a constellation of attitudes that John Stuart Mill would not recognize as liberal at all. Nor would, say, John F. Kennedy recognize them as liberal. Kennedy’s conception of liberalism was simultaneously more tolerant and more tough-minded: tolerant about varieties of behavior within the society, and tough-minded toward threats to a tolerant society from without.

That’s all gone, now. Today there is far too much sensitivity within societies, and too little hard-nosed recognition of threats from without. We are inclined to be intolerant of speech by our friends and neighbors, and tolerant of beheadings, rape, and homophobia in distant lands.

This makes no sense. But here we are.

Speaking of “liberal” (little “l”), if anyone reading this has not yet viewed Evan Sayet’s lecture at the Heritage Foundation, drop everything now, and watch it.

Seriously, this is one of the clearest explanations of the “leftist mindset” I have ever seen. I have watched it four times now and it just keeps getting more and more profound.

Said Discerning Texan @ 10:21 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

If  someone snatched a group of people off of the street in London and held them at gunpoint at a known address the SAS would be stretching off and cleaning large hunting knives.

Yet because these people were kidnapped by a nation our idiot Government decide on a less “confrontational” approach.

Caravan enthusiast Margaret Becket tells Iran that we are going to take this “very seriously” and that failure to immediately release them will result in “consequences”.  Unfortunately her “consequences” are not of the same definition as the rest of a civilised nation protecting its subjects.  Apparently her consequences  don’t involve the shelling of the Iranian south coast.

Instead we abase ourselves before the UN.  They pass a resolution that basically says “we understand Iran has some British Servicemen.  Thanks for reading”.  We ask the EU to condemn the action and to be fair they do.  But the French and Germans refuse to stop trade with the regime making the words pointless.

Meanwhile in the US we find unquestioning support but bemusement that we are being pushed around.

I guess that says a lot about which international alliances we should invest more time and effort in.

Said RfS @ 12:24 pm Comments (4) | Permalink   

It was Thomas Henry Huxley who referred to ‘The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact’. Right about now, I’m thinking anthropogenic global warming is at the chalk outline stage. Evidence like this keeps coming in. Not to belabour the point, but anthropogenic warming is a tough sell when there’s no anthro around to genic up the warming.

Of course, this is where the rubber meets the road. In so far as Liberals have spent so long berating Conservatives as anti-science that’s kind of obscured the fact that very little of what the Left cites actually qualifies as any kind of science. Au contraire, when the science points one way, and the ideology the other, it’s never too tough for the Left to decide which way to jump.

Here’s how Liberal scientists interpret their role:

we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Needless to say,  global warming groupies have taken that baton and run with it. Here’s UEA’s Mike Hulme on what the Left really thinks about science.

Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence.

Yowser! It’s like they don’t realise we’re listening. But leave aside the sheer weirdness of hearing taxpayer-funded academics debate how best to defraud the public, and think about what it implies about the Liberal philosophy of science. If science now includes stuff that doesn’t come from the ‘normal scientific process of truth seeking’, just what’s scientific about it ?

Scientists arguing against the scientific process would be ironic enough at the best of times, but consider what’s just been published by Nature. The journal which carried Crick & Watson’s structure for DNA now devotes space to the need to edit the Bible.

No, seriously.

This time round the excuse is that the geeks are worried about religiously-motivated violence, hence the concentration on the Bible. Or something. Call it a hunch, but I think we can safely say that if someone cites the Bible as the most extreme example of religion motivating violence in the modern world, it’s not about religious violence.

Personally, I’ve never seen what the problem is. If you think Christianity is bunk anyway, who cares what particular flavour of bunkum it actually is ? But no, you can’t stop the geeks going on about it – it’s the perfect exemplar of how modern Liberals seem much more obsessed with what they hate, than in actually advocating anything positive. But hang on a mo’ – isn’t there some double-dipping going on there ?

If these folks ‘know’ that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but can’t actually prove it, doesn’t that sound all a little, well, faith-based ? Indeed, isn’t there something of the medieval priesthood about the demand that we give special credence to the pronouncements of scientists, even when they can’t produce any actual, y’know, science ? They’ll be slaughtering heretics next!

Uh oh – looks like they’re way ahead of us. As the Great Ann said, can you really imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein’s letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: “If you continue to speak out, you won’t live to see further quantum mechanics.” ?But that’s what counts as science these days (no wonder they get on so well with the Religion of Peace).

Curiously, in so far as it involves more tax, big government and more central planning, the science-approved method for dealing with global warming turns out to be exactly the same as the one to deal with global cooling. Well, hey, it must have worked right ? Still, I guess that’s one good thing. The supremacy of freedom and free markets is now so obvious that even Leftists seem to agree that they can only get traction for their idiot ideas by dressing up as forest pixies. So, on the Right we can point to the reality of unprecedented wealth and quality of life, while the Left has the possibility of drowning polar bears, and nothing says ‘hard science’ like cute bears. But don’t point that out - the Left will accuse you of hating science.

Said DJ @ 9:17 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

From news.com.au

Hicks confirmed under oath that he had trained with al-Qaeda.

And that,ladies and gentlemen,is that. David Hicks admitted he entered a terrorist cell, trained with terrorists, met Bin Laden and took up arms against his own people

He was not a “misunderstood little boy” he was not “misguided”, he is and was a terrorist, and speaking as an Australian citizen, I do not want him back on our soil.

Unfortunately, I have little say in the matter.

Note: for those bleating about poor David Hicks and his “rights” and the Geneva Convention, let me ask you something.

If you feel so strongly about the Conventions…why aren’t you up in arms about Iran’s violations?? About its dismal human rights “record”?

About it’s committing an act of WAR by kidnapping British soldiers who were in Iraqi waters??

About them using the soldiers as bargaining chips against the UN? Incidentally, that’s another thing…the British soldiers were on a UN mandated mission

So, where are the protests?? The memes? The ardent yelling and chest thumping to have these innocents released???

Where are Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and the other “guardians of democracy and protectors of the truth”?

Why the deafening silence???

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot.

Nothing’s a crime unless it’s committed by the United States of America

Said Sonnabend @ 3:36 pm Comments (4) | Permalink   

For the most part, the BBC’s coverage of the kidnapping of fifteen British Marines has been surprisingly even-handed. The problem for the Corporation’s lefties comes not in the reporting of straight facts, but in the analysis that follows. Here’s BBC World Service Iran analyst Sadeq Saba, attempting to explain why the Mad Mullahs acted as they did:

The capture of 15 British Royal Navy personnel by Iranian forces in the Gulf comes at a time when Tehran feels it is under unprecedented international pressure.
The country is diplomatically isolated and feels under a constant and building US military threat.

This move is, of course, straight out of the either the leftist or the Islamofascist (no news on quite which team Sadeq Saba bats for) playbook — Both ideologies are fond of arguing that criticism of either a delinquent nation or individual will result in even more of the behaviour that drew said criticism in the first place. Thus, the reason fifteen British Marines are currently guests of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has, for Britain’s state broadcaster, less to do with off-the-scale Islamofascist insanity than it does with the reaction of saner nations (and, right now, that happens to be all other nations) to a country led by a man so deranged he worships a thousand-year-dead, well-leaping Imam.

This inversion of guilt and innocence is something Sadeq Saba seems quite keen on pushing down our throats. Thus, alongside the ‘US military threat’, we’re also treated to a lengthy discussion of Iranian diplomacy:

Earlier this month the UN Security Council passed a resolution against Iran over its nuclear programme.
Iranian diplomats worked very hard to convince some members of the council, such as South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar, to support Tehran’s case.

See? The bearded-crazies aren’t so bad! They tried to talk to us! If only we could just bring ourselves to accept apocalyptic, well-leaping Islamists who threaten to wipe fellow UN member-countries off the map, then all would be well!

But it failed, and the vote in favour of the resolution was unanimous, further convincing the Iranian leadership that they have few friends left at the UN and that diplomacy is not working in their favour.

Well, now, let’s be quite clear about this: by ‘diplomacy’, Sadeq means ‘rush to nuclear weapons while diplomatically threatening genocide against Israel’. To be blunt (or, at least, blunter than BBC can bring themselves to be), if you’re too crazy and too unstable to earn the support of even Russia or China, then it’s a safe bet no amount of diplomatic speech is going to fix your problems.

… So what to do? What to do? The BBC’s Sadeq knows. Blame Amerikkka:

Iran is now also militarily encircled by the US forces. American troops are based in almost every country bordering Iran - Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan.

Bad Amerikkka! Bad! If only the Great Satan would allow the Mullahs to go nuclear, then this sort of thing just wouldn’t happen:

Iran has released a second letter apparently written by the only female member of the 15-strong Royal Navy crew it captured in the Gulf.
The letter, apparently signed by Leading Seaman Faye Turney, says she is being treated “well and humanely”.
It adds: “Isn’t it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?”

The Iranian scumbags have, of course, put Leading Seaman Turney to very good use over the last few days. After the first letter they forced her to write, there was the video appearance in Sharia-compliant headscarf and Sharia-compliant, GPS-defying admissions of ‘guilt’ … So how does Sadeq Saba square this behaviour with his line about the ‘diplomatic’ Mullahs?

It is not clear whether the capture of the British sailors and marines was premeditated or not, but the ayatollah’s comments could have given a green light to Revolutionary Guards to seize them.
If it was premeditated, the capture could be interpreted as an act of desperation by a government which feels isolated and threatened.

Got that? Maybe the Iranian’s didn’t mean to capture British troops. And if they did pre-plan the operation, well, then it’s All Our Fault for making them ‘desperate’.

Meanwhile, Leading Seaman Turney is being forced to ‘interpret’ the mad Mullahs’ ‘acts of desperation’ for all the world to see. And the BBC? Well, they’re trying to understand what goes on in the Islamofascist mind.

You know, as opposed to being sickened by it.

Said RottyPup @ 1:51 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

Government already gives billions of dollar a year to “the poor.” They already get cash payouts, free housing, free food, and free, well, whatever you want. And yet the “poor” are already so well-off as compared to the rest of the world, it’s utterly insane (a #1 hallmark of liberalism).

Have you noticed how many of “the poor” have cell phones? Have you noticed how many of “the poor” have cable or satellite television? Have you noticed how few of them are skinny, suffering from malnutrition, or are even honestly hungry? “The poor” in this country are incredibly well-off, no matter what anyone tells you. If they claim that they’re “needy,” they honestly have no clue what the word “needy” means.

But that won’t stop us from giving them more, now will it? This time it’s New York City that’s going to be giving away millions of dollars to the poor for making decisions that the government wants them to make.

Bribe:

anything given or serving to persuade or induce

So government is openly bribing people to do what they say. This is just horrible. It’s incredibly wrong. And something about it absolutely stinks. From the article, it appears that the city is going to be administering this new program. Yet they claim that the cash has been raised from “private funds.” I would love to see that list of donors and see how many of them received cash payouts from government.

What an absolutely horrible idea.

What message are we sending to the poor? I’ll tell you: we’re teaching socialism. We’re teaching them that if you do not work; if you do not produce; but you do what government tells you; you will get cash. No, you don’t need to question where it comes from, just do as government says, be non-productive (because if you’re not poor, you can’t get this free cash), and you get free money. That is so incredibly wrong it’s hard to grasp the long-term significance of it.

We’re encouraging people to be lazy. We’re encouraging people to be poor. We’re encouraging people to go to the doctor when they cannot afford it because government says to do it. We’re teaching open socialism where you must do what government says, no matter what, or you will be punished. This is absolutely anti-freedom in every facet.

If you honestly want to teach people how to make “healthy choices” then simply allow them to suffer the consequences of their own actions. They would learn much, much faster. And they would actually learn about consequences. With this program, they’re not learning that behaving is good — they’re learning that obeying government = cash. And that’s just wrong.

Said Ogre @ 9:53 am Comments (4) | Permalink   

Is it still possible for San Franfreakshow to plunge even deeper into moonbattery? The surprising answer is yes: by electing zillionaire movie star and ultra-left nutcase Danny Glover as mayor.

A few highlights from Glover’s stellar career in moonbattery:

• Shortly after 9/11, announced that we are in no position to pass judgment on terrorists, because America is “one of the main purveyors of violence in this world.”
• Denounced post-9/11 displays of patriotism: “It’s basically this rabid [post-9/11] nationalism that has its own kind of potential of being maniacal, in some sense.”
• Accused President Bush of being a racist and his administration of being composed of “liars and murderers.”
• Pledged support for the communist dictatorship in Cuba.
• Supports the Maoist fanatics of Not In Our Name.
• Lavished praise upon the commies at Monthly Review.
• Publicly denounced Ronald Reagan immediately after learning of his death.

Other bullet points on Glover’s resume have been noted earlier:

• Assaulted a photographer.
• Participated in sham hunger strike to undermine American war effort.
• Endorsed Darryl Hannah’s absurd crusade against property rights.
• Supported violent psycho Cynthia McKinney against the Capitol Police officer she assaulted.
• Raised funds for the hebephrenic anti-Americans at Pacifica Radio.
• Took part in moonbat delegation paying homage to the hostile regime of Hugo Chavez.

Oh, and he has:

• Campaigned to get cab drivers killed out of race-obsessed petulance.
• Publicly indulged in a passionate homosexual smooch with motor-mouthed America-hater Harry Belafonte.

San Franfreakshow has found its man!

On a tip from V the K.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Said Van Helsing @ 7:14 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

Where are the professional protesters who demanded the U.S. set a higher standard in treatment of those not covered by the Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions:

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Unlike the terrorists at Gitmo, the Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the British naval personnel seen in the photo above being held captive in Tehran.

Iran Parades British Hostages in Broadcast

Article 13:

…Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Iran is a signatory to this provision widely meant to prevent the display of prisoners for propaganda value and why you will never see even Al Queda prisoners NOT COVERED by the Geneva Conventions on television.

Iran clearly scoffs at the Geneva Conventions. But we all know they would be first in line to complain if their prisoners were treated in violation of the conventions.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

Said Mike's America @ 2:20 pm Comments (7) | Permalink   

While it is no surprise that the U.N. is ineffective, irrelevant and corrupt, last Friday was another demonstration of its rejection of criticism and truth. A transcript of the remarks of Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, is as follows:

Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Good for Mr. Neuer. He spoke the truth while in the lion’s den. The reaction to his remarks from a responsible and serious organization would be to take his comments, respond to them or attempt to correct the deficiencies. Instead, this was the response from U. N. Human Rights Council President Luis Alfonso De Alba:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you’d kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I’m not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.

The only conclusion one can reach is that attempting to reform the United Nations is futile. It will continue to be an irrelevant and ineffective organization whose sole purpose has been subverted to criticize the State of Israel.

Cross-posted at Bear to the Right

Said Bear to the Right @ 12:37 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

FRENCH GUARD:
You don’t frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

FRENCH GUARD:
I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
(Either from Monty Python and the Holy Grail or excerpts from Sean Penn’s anti-war letter to President Bush)

Some people are blessed with the ability to wield words as an elegant weapon, skewering their target with the precision of a brain surgeon and the pizazz of a circus performer.

Then, there’s Sean Penn:

We cower as you point your finger telling us to support our troops. Will you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and blood-soaked underwear, continue that noise and shut up because we will be “snowed” no more.

Penn, who scratched out a letter to President Bush and read it at an anti-war rally in Oakland over the weekend, broke every rule governing good writing in his desire to insult the President. Perhaps “desire” isn’t the right word. When someone becomes as unhinged and incoherent as Mr. Penn, something stronger might be in order. How about “crazed obsession?”

“Let’s make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families,” he said. “The money that’s spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It’s a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in Dante’s Inferno.”

I can actually think of a dozen or so equally worthy government projects (and even worthier non government projects) to give the money we are currently spending in Iraq. (Why we would be fully funding health care in Africa might be a question the overwhelming majority of American taxpayers would almost certainly want answered.)

But stopping a war because it’s costing too much money? There may be many reasons to end a war but, save the kind of total war fought by the Europeans and Americans in the last century where bankruptcy stared France and Great Britain in the face, the 5% of our total budget dedicated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly a good reason to throw in the towel. Wars should be ended because they are won, or lost, or the people lose heart to carry on - in other words, based on the reality of what is happening on the ground not on where else the money could be spent.

Perhaps Penn should be talking to Congress. I have actually half-heartedly advocated raising taxes to pay for the war as a small way to involve all Americans in the fight. This is, I believe, one the greatest failings of the Bush Administration; allowing the war burden to fall largely on the military and their families. Would people have continued to support the war despite the blunders over the last four years if they felt they had a real stake in the outcome, not banking on some nebulous rhetoric about “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here?”

It doesn’t matter at this point. Timetable or not, the surge will allow us to start drawing down troops perhaps as soon as the end of this year. And if the surge doesn’t work in tamping down the violence in Baghdad, it will be because the Iraqi government has failed to follow up our military’s success with political measures that will start rebuilding Iraqi society. At that point, even President Bush has said he will throw in the towel and leave the Iraqis to their own devices.

Penn called Bush “Our country and our Constitution’s most devastating enemy.” He was cheered wildly when he said those words. What does it say about the left who see an American President as a “devastating enemy,” (sic), worse than those who as they were applauding that thought were gleefully planning to kill as many of their fellow citizens as possible?

I fart in their general direction.

Said Rick Moran @ 4:59 am Comments (7) | Permalink   

Via the Jeruselum Post

A senior US officer in the Persian Gulf expressed surprise at how easily a team of Britsh sailors were taken captive by Iran on Friday, saying that US marines would have fired on the Iranian forces, the British newspaper The Independent reported on Monday.

“The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defense but also an obligation to self-defense,” Lt.-Cmdr. Erik Horner, who has been working with the British task force in the region, told the newspaper.

“They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”

But then again, the Jews understand very well that we have a right to defend ourselves from terrorists, even though the leftists engage in this blind factless moral relativism that would make ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. They haven’t, of course, taken into consideration the head hacking videos, and their admitted goal; a theocratic fascist state.

For the blind protesters who complain we live in a fascist state, they wouldn’t have the freedom to protest if that were true; just try speaking against the French government in France or any of the other countries who espouse this hatred of America; you’d be picked up immediately by the jandarmes.

Said Cao @ 2:49 pm Comments (13) | Permalink   

In an interview with Fox & Friends, Lt Gen Raymond Odierno discusses recent weapons caches discovered in Iraq, which point to Iranian involvement in the war.  That’s interesting, now Iran has taken British soldiers hotage, claiming they’re spies and will be brought up on charges for espionage.

People would be listening to our soldiers if they really ‘cared’ so much.

Keep the diplomats out of it, and let the military do their job unencumbered by whining leftists who cry for the nonexistent rights of foreign Al Qaeda terrorists. Notice what he says about Iran here.

Said Cao @ 3:26 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

Said Richard Nixon @ 7:29 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

This is really good. Evan Sayet speaking to the Heritage Foundation. It just proves how empty liberalism really is.

The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

Here’s a little more, forgive the errors - I transcribed very quickly this morning:

One of the interesting things he mentions, and he points out numerous points about what is failed about the leftist ideology, is that they relentlessly seek to tear down what is good, and elevate what is evil so there is nothing left to fight for.

It’s hard to really accept; there is no criteria for truth, beauty, justice or anything else for the modern liberal. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because rational moral thought is an act of bigotry. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. But at the very minimum, in order to be called a freedom fighter, wouldn’t you have to be fighting for….freedom? Quite literally, being indiscriminate leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off.

No matter how sincerely you are in gathering the facts, no matter how earnestly you look at the evidence, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your own bigotry, that no matter what your conclusion is, it’s useless; the only way to get rid of bigotry is to eliminate rational thought.

The problem is chosing the best options is the essence of rational thought. In order to eliminate discrimination, the modern liberal has opted to become indiscriminate. We are dealing with people who reject rational thought as a hate crime. We have citizens of voting age who quite literally are utterly unwilling and incapable of critically judging the merits of the positions they hold, and have held unquestioned since they’re 5 years old; since they first entered the leftist indoctrination process.

When I was 5-years old I’d go trick-or-treating. I’d have a bag for candy in one hand, and unicef box in the other. We learned then, don’t hit, talk, and share your stuff. But since we’re 5, we’ve learned that the United Nations isn’t as great as we thought. But liberals won’t grow out of the 5-year-old mentality even with new evidence like the oil for food program, corruption, genocide in Rwanda, etc. So then, it’s a completely blind and mindless indiscriminateness. This is why Bush is Hitler. Reagan is Hitler. Giuliani is Hitler. Hitler discriminated against the jews, Giuliani discriminated against the crack addicts in Time Square. Any form of rational thought or critical thinking must have been arrived at through discrimination. They don’t even think about your stances or positions, they don’t have to. The best way to eliminate the attempt to be right is to prove that right isn’t right. And there is no wrong. Imagine a time where everything that people value is devalued to the point where there is nothing left to kill or die for. Everything they believe is designed to tear down what is good, and elevate what is evil. Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the behaviors that lead to failure until there’s nothing left to believe in. They quite literally can’t differentiate between good or evil, right or wrong, better and worse.

Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Indiscriminateness of thought inevitably leads the modern liberal to side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over success. Why? Because in a world where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse than any other, then the expectation is that all behaviors should lead to equally good outcomes. In the real world, different behaviors lead to different outcomes. You and I know why, because we think. We know why communities that promote teenage promiscuity fail at a greater rate than those that promote abstinance. Promiscuity is not the same as abstinance.

Let’s forget about the moral component let’s talk practicalities. If your boy’s out messing around, he’s not home reading a book. If your daughter is at the abortion mill again, she can’t be studying for her SAT’s. If your son is in the hospital dying of AIDS, he’s not putting together his 5-year plan.

To the modern liberal who cannot make that judgement, success is cheating. In a world where they don’t talk about the consequences of behavior, but want instead to ‘live for today’, is the reason why they vote for themselves more entitlements. They don’t think about who’s going to pay for it. Whatever policy seeks to tear down what is good, America, Israel, Walmart, until everything meets in the middle and there’s nothing left to fight about.

The one thing that I find incredibly disturbing about all of this is the fact that they’ve become like anarchists; with no solutions, and nothing to replace the system that they hate so much.

Here’s Evan’s website, and here’s his blog.

Books he refers to:

How We Got Here: The 70’s: The Decade That Brought You Modern Life–For Better or Worse (Paperback)

The Closing Of the American Mind Professor Alan Bloom

All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten

Thanks to Right on the Right, and Cao’s blog

Said Cao @ 5:59 am Comments (5) | Permalink   

PREFACE: This is my first post for the Wide Awakes, a great group of bloggers with whom I am proud to be associated again. This first post is also cross-posted at my own humble little blog, The Discerning Texan. I am looking forward to a fruitful and stimulating partnership.

If you read my blog with any regularity, you probably already know all about Al Gore’s Carbon Offsets–the ones he funnels his money to in order to “counter” his $22K per year electric bill, his private jets, limos and other “carbon footprints” which are causing Martian Warming. You probably also know that Generation Investment Management LLP–the company he pays those “offsets” to has a chairman and co-founder named…Al Gore! So–to review–in order to assuage his “guilt” for his exponentially larger carbon print than the average citizen of the evil United States, the Goreacle is giving his money to…himself. And then he immediately goes out to the media and tells them about how responsible he is being. And thus the elite media’s Gore-gasm continues, unabated…

Not to be outdone by this mass-media confidence game, however, entrepreneurs Dave and Glen of Total Kaos have created Guilt Offsets for just about every transgression possible.

In this spirit of helping the guilty come clean, I would like to throw my own entry into the fray for the 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans who have betrayed their country (and for any future Congressmen, Senators, CIA agents, reporters, or currency traders who do so): I will call these the “American Defeat Footprint Offsets”. Just click here, page down to the Pay Pal button (it is on the right), and give as much as your guilty conscience dictates. I promise to contribute most of the proceeds to the Congressional opponents of the traitors, or to good causes like the Heritage Foundation.

Said Discerning Texan @ 8:06 pm Comments (8) | Permalink