Fatboy Dim speaks out

From NewsBusters:

Ever looking to criticize the American populace from his cardboard platform, filmmaker Michael Moore lashed out Thursday on CNN at supporters of Osama bin Laden's assassination. "We've lost something of our soul here in this country," he said of the mission to kill the al Qaeda leader rather than capture him and try him in court.

A guest on Piers Morgan Tonight, Moore contrasted the assassination with the post-World War II Nuremburg trials. He claimed that America then, unlike now, put itself above the level of its enemies by trying their leaders instead of simply executing them.

The liberal filmmaker ripped Americans' disregard for a trial and their support of an assassination. "The second you say that, you're saying that you hate being an American," he huffed. "You hate what we stand for, you hate what our constitution stands for....We should be standing up and saying 'listen, damn it, we're Americans. This is the way we do it. You commit a crime, we put you on trial.'"

I wonder how Fatboy feels about the death of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto (who planned the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) whose plane was deliberately targeted and shot down by the US military:

Following the fall of Guadalcanal in February 1943, Yamamoto decided to make an inpection tour through the South Pacific to boost morale. Using radio intercepts, American forces were able to isolate the route of the admiral's plane. On the morning of April 18, 1943, P-38 Lightnings from the 339th Fighter Squadron ambushed Yamamoto's plane and its escorts near Bougainville. In the fight that ensued, Yamamoto's plane was hit and went down killing all on board. The kill is generally credited to 1st Lt. Rex T. Barber.

I have news for Mr. Dim.  Lt. Barber wasn't trying to force Yamamoto's plane to land so that the admiral could be arrested and made to stand trial.

What Fatboy doesn't seem to understand is that 9/11 was an ACT OF WAR, not a "crime" in the sense of a purse snatching or even the Oklahoma City bombing.  The attack on Sept 11 was an act of war committed by an international terrorist organization with the active support of one sovereign nation (Afghanistan) and the under the table support of several others.

The Clinton administration's determination to treat similar acts of war (the first WTC bombing and the attack on the USS Cole) as matters for the criminal justice system were contributing factors to the 9/11 attacks because they were perceived by our enemies as signs of weakness (which they were).  Osama bin Laden was led to believe that he would face no consequence for his actions more forceful than having a warrant for his arrest issued.

And 3000 Americans died.

But to be fair to Fatboy I have to admit that he raised one legitimate point:

Moore added later that he "would like to know" how long the Obama administration has known the location of Osama bin Laden.

I too would like to know how long our "efficient, steely-nerved, multitasking, black ninja gangster president" sat on his ass waiting for the best time to order the hit in order to help his reelection chances before WikiLeaks and the arrest of one of the CIA officers keeping watch on the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad forced his hand.  And even then we learn that Leon Panetta had to work around the president’s "persistent hesitation to act".

Of course we know that our mighty warrior of a president had to sleep on it over a span of around sixteen hours before making his "courageous" decision to send far better men than himself into a military stronghold in the heart of a nation which is only nominally an ally in order to cut the head off the al Qaeda snake.

Just as we now know that our young and hip president (who combines the knowledge of von Clausewitz with the wisdom of Sun Tzu and the daring of Hannibal) had to be retrieved from a golf course to pose for that picture in which he and his national security team pretended to be watching the Abbottabad raid unfold in real time (in which he still managed to look like the smallest person in the room - didn't they run that past Axlerod before releasing it?).

But all-in-all we have to rack Fatboy's suspicion about the timing of these affairs up to the stopped clock being right twice a day effect.  In his zeal to find something - anything - to condemn his country and countrymen over he is forced to take some shots at his own president (and we know that when all is said and done that he will be voting to reelect Obama). 

In the end this tantrum from the Flake from Flint is like all his other bloviations, a tale told by a leftist, full of sound and fury, signifying psychosis. 

bin Laden dead

From American Thinker:

Osama bin Laden was killed last week after a firefight at a compound outside of Abbottabad, Pakistan. The attack was lead by U.S. Special Forces under the direction of the CIA. ABC News is reporting that a DNA match has confirmed the identity of the leader of al Qaeda and the mastermind of the 9/11 massacres.

President Obama announced the success of the operation late Sunday evening. Crowds gathered outside the White House in celebration of the death of bin Laden. People sang the national anthem and chanted "U.S.A. – U.S.A."

While having bin Laden killed on his watch is certainly a feather in Obama's cap it must have truly galled him to hear American citizens expressing the hated and despised sentiment of patriotism right outside his royal palace the White House.

More to come.

Tonight's Music

This was featured on tonight's episode of my favorite show, Justified.

Things are not looking good for Raylen.

Pray for him.

BTY, the group is called Ollabelle. They are from NYC and are named for the great Appalachian singer/songwriter Ola Belle Reed.

We always knew it

Tonight's Music

Gaelic Storm's Johnny Jump Up, about the evils of drinking hard cider.

Right again Sarah

Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”

Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies. The U.S. Geological Survey found that the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, one third of which is in Alaskan territory. That’s our next Prudhoe Bay right there. According to one industry study, allowing Royal Dutch Shell to tap these reserves in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide with a $145 billion total payroll and generate an additional $193 billion a year in total revenues to local, state, and federal governments for 50 years. This would be great news if only the federal government would allow Shell to drill there. But it won’t. It’s been five years since Shell purchased the lease to develop these fields, but it’s been mired in a regulatory funk courtesy of the Obama Administration. After investing $3.5 billion in exploration programs (a significant portion of which went to ensuring responsible spill response and prevention), Shell announced last month that it has given up hope of obtaining the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. That means no jobs and no billions in oil revenue from the Arctic anytime soon thanks to this Administration. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Right now Beltway politicos are quibbling over cutting $61 billion from our dangerously bloated $3.7 trillion budget. Allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas will enrich federal coffers by $167 billion a year without raising our taxes. If we let Harry Reid keep his “cowboy poetry,” would the White House consider letting us drill?

Taken altogether, it’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling. The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

Hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth to foreign regimes who are providing us the energy we refuse to provide for ourselves. Like inflation, higher energy prices are a hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. And these high gas prices will be felt in the form of higher food prices due to higher transportation costs. Energy is connected to everything in our economy. Access to affordable and secure energy is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth. Energy is the building block of our economy. The President is purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

- Sarah Palin

If there was no other reason to vote for Sarah Palin in 2012 her understanding of our nations desperate need to develop all, and I mean ALL of our domestic energy resources would be enough to justify electing her.

 

Of course there are a great many other reasons to hope that she runs and wins next year.

Quote of the day

From Clair, blogging at the new and technologically superior Sondrakistan:

The President of the United States — Leader of the Free World — stood there with his face hanging out and allowed himself to be quoted in public as saying “it would be easier” to be a totalitarian leader who has people confined in organ farms for their non-conforming beliefs.

This in response to Obama's wistful comment that it would be "eaiser" to be president of China.

Go read the rest for some interesting facts about China.

All things considered do we really want him paying attention?

Keith Koffler writes in White House Dossier:

The Middle East is afire with rebellion, Japan is imploding from an earthquake, and the battle of the budget is on in the United States, but none of this seems to be deterring President Obama from a heavy schedule of childish distractions.

The newly installed tandem of White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Senior adviser David Plouffe were supposed to impart a new sense of discipline and purpose to the White House. Instead, they are permitting him to showcase himself as a poorly focused leader who has his priorities backward.

This morning, as Japan’s nuclear crisis enters a potentially catastrophic phase, we are told that Obama is videotaping his NCAA tournament picks and that we’ll be able to tune into ESPN Wednesday to find out who he likes.

Saturday, he made his 61st outing to the golf course as president, and got back to the White House with just enough time for a quick shower before heading out to party with Washington’s elite journalists at the annual Gridiron Dinner.

With various urgencies swirling about him, Saturday’s weekly videotaped presidential address focusing on “Women’s History Month” seemed bizarrely out of touch.

Obama Friday took time out to honor the 2009-10 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks. Thursday was a White House conference on bullying – not a bad idea perhaps, but not quite Leader of the Free World stuff either.

Obama appeared a little sleepy as he weighed in against the bullies, perhaps because he’d spent the night before partying with lawmakers as they took in a Chicago Bulls vs. Charlotte Bobcats game.

Meanwhile, the president has been studying for weeks whether to establish a No Fly Zone over Libya, delaying action while the point becomes increasingly moot as Qaddafi begins to defeat and slaughter his opponents. And lawmakers from both Parties are wondering why he seems to be AWOL in the deficit reduction debate.

The Libya indecision follows an inconsistent response to the protests that ousted former Egyptian President Mubarak and seemed to catch the White House off guard. The perfunctory response from the White House Monday to Saudi Arabia’s dispatch of troops to Bahrain suggested the administration wasn’t prepared for that one either.

But the fun stuff won’t end anytime soon. On Thursday, the Taoiseach of Ireland will be in town to help the president celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. And then Friday it’s off to Brazil for the start of a three-country Latin American tour.

Oddly, he’ll be missing Carnival, which went down last week.

This is a perfect companion to the piece directly below. 

Obama is incompetent and in over his head.  He is lazy and obsessed with the perks of the office.  He is disconnected and sees the office of the president as nothing more than an opportunity to advance his radical leftist agenda of turning America into a European-style socialist nation.

He is working on making his picks for college basketball rather than an American response to events in the Middle East or Japan because he cares more about college hoops than he does about the Middle East or Japan.

This is just another way for Obama to vote "present".

Maybe when he gets back from Latin America he can invite some of his left-wing Hollywood buddies to the White House for another high fat, high calorie feast the cost of which would feed an entire Appalachian town for a month or the entire nation of Haiti for a year.

It isn't that they can't see the truth - it's just that they don't care

AWR Hawkins writes in today's Big Hollywood:

When I read Sarah Silverman’s gushing description of a “private” meeting between her and President Obama in a hotel hallway, one in which he gave her “a big hug,” my first reaction was to laugh out loud. I found it hilarious that even amid crippling unemployment figures, skyrocketing energy prices, and foreign policies only Jimmy Carter could love, Hollywood elitism was still clinging to the dream.

Of course it went from hilarious to sickening when I read further into Silverman’s account of the event, and saw how she reacted to the “big hug” by equating Obama’s body with that of a thoroughbred. At this point I said to myself: “Silverman has obviously never hugged a thoroughbred.” (I grew up around racehorses, and Obama’s emasculated frame is by no means reminiscent of a thoroughbred.)

As a matter of fact, Silverman’s comparison of the two – Obama’s body with that of a thoroughbred – is so silly that one might call her sanity into question were it not for the fact that she’s not alone in speaking the absurd in relation to Obama. In other words, she’s not the only Hollywood celebrity to utter such imbecility; she’s just the latest one.

For example, during the 2008 campaign cycle, director Spike Lee said an Obama presidency would not simply bring “a new day, [but] a better day.” George Clooney said Obama possessed “the one quality you cannot teach…which is he is a leader.” And actor Josh Lucas described Obama as “a truly scholarly man.” (Pardon me while I throw up.)

I wonder what the people represented by the approximately 10% unemployment figures in this country would say about Obama’s new day? I wonder what Gulf of Mexico residents who watched Obama play golf in 2010 instead of taking a hands-on approach to the BP oil spill would say of his leadership? And since when does thinking the United States has 57 states or stuttering through speeches on a teleprompter or spending a country into oblivion by running a 3 trillion dollar deficit up to 14 trillion in 2 years seem scholarly?


Obama hasn’t brought a better day, he isn’t a leader, and the only scholarly attribute he has is the distance he keeps between himself and the real world.

Other than that, his only credentials arise from the way his speeches send a thrill up Chris Matthews’ leg or make some second-string comedian like Sarah Silverman tell him she’s going to be naked in her next film.

Yawn.

The left-wing elites, Hollywood or otherwise, simply don't care how America and its people have suffered under the "leadership" of Obama.

He's young, he's black and he's a leftist just like them and that is all that matters.

Seriously the Left doesn't care that Obama has gone out of his way to insult and betray our allies.  After all if they were allies of the Unites States in the dark time before Obama then there must be something very wrong with them.  And they don't care that he apologizes and bows down before our enemies since if they were our enemies in the dark time before Obama then they must be good people.

They don't care that he has wrecked the economy since the more people who depend upon handouts from the government the more people who vote Democrat.

They don't care that he has made America militarily weaker since a powerful America is a bully who pushes around innocent dictators like Saddam Hussein and innocent jihadists like Osama bin Laden and others whose murderous tyranny can be easily overlooked because they hate the United States as much as the Left does.

They don't care that Obamacare will dramatically reduce the quality of healthcare available to the average American since they can always jet off to a private clinic in another country like the elites of Europe do.

They don't care that he is saddling the nation with massive debt which will take a century to pay off - if ever - because it will make it very much harder for a future Republican administration to rebuild the economy, the military and America's place of world leadership.

As long as the lifestyles of the leftists are not lowered and they can retain their place in what they regard as the elite ranks of Hollywood, academia and politics they will just fine with the loss of wealth and liberty of the American people.

No one wants The One (tm) to speak to them any more

From CBS News:

The White House is ramping up an effort to promote a nationwide competition to decide which high school wins a commencement speech by President Obama.

An internal White House memo indicates that the White House is facing a shortage of applications less than a week before the deadline.
The competition was extended from the February 25 deadline until Friday, March 11 after few schools met the original application deadline. CBS News has learned a White House Communications Office internal memo dated February 22 noted "a major issue with the Commencement Challenge."
"As of yesterday we had received 14 applications and the deadline is Friday," the memo said. The memo also urged recipients to, "please keep the application number close hold."


A follow-up memo on February 28 reported receipt of 68 applications. Noting the competition among more than 1,000 schools last year, the memo said, "Something isn't working." It called on staffers to ask "friendly congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral offices" to encourage schools to apply. 

"We should also make sure the Cabinet is pushing the competition out to their lists," the memo said. The note reiterated, "We do not want the actual application number out there (we didn't release the number of applications we received last year until after the submission period)-so folks should not use it in their pitches."

On Monday, officials declined to cite the number of applications received so far.

[. . .]

Officials were unable to explain the reason for the apparent lack of interest, beyond pointing to possible procrastination by school systems.

How about the fact that even public school officials are waking up to the fact that Obama is a toxic loser who is running the nation into the ground and doing it deliberately?  Think that could have something to do with why no one wants him coming around stinking up their campus?

Notorious Mexican Shower Gang strikes again

From The Smoking Gun:

After breaking into an Oregon residence last night, Timothy Chapek, 24, barricaded himself in a bathroom after the owner unexpectedly arrived home. Chapek, you see, was worried that Hilary Mackenzie might be armed (or that her barking German Shepherds could prove problematic).

So he called 911 seeking help. “I just broke into a house and the owner came home,” Chapek told a police operator. “You broke into a house?” the surprised operator responded. “I think she’s got guns,” Chapek added.

Simultaneously, Mackenzie called police to report that there was an intruder in her Portland home (she told an operator that Chapek had reported he was taking a shower). . .

According to a Portland Police Bureau report, Chapek told cops he was “taking a shower, nothing more.” Mackenzie reported that none of her belongings were out of place and that Chapek had “earlier made some utterance…that ‘Mexicans’ had kidnapped him and put him in the bathroom.”

These Mexicans have also been known to force people to brush and floss and on at least one occasion they invaded a suburban San Francisco home and forced two children to pick up their toys.

Seriously, this housebreaker is a true and genuine moron - but he did have the sense to fear an armed home owner.  The woman didn't even have to have a gun in fact. It was enough that the idiot believe that she was armed to make him soil his diapers and beg the cops to come and rescue him.

This illustrates two key points.  One is that there is no better way to protect yourself than to have a gun (and the knowledge of how to use it).  The other is that criminals fear armed citizens far more than they fear the police.

Tonight's Music

Dave Alvin & the Guilty Men - Out of Control

More evidence that the left is evil

Recovering liberal Robin of Berkley has some comments inspired by the events in Wisconsin:

I have noticed fewer people around town this past weekend.  First I thought it was because of the Presidents Day holiday.  Then I realized it was because anarchists were being bused into Wisconsin!  More for them, and fewer for us!

The Midwest is getting a bit of a taste of Berkeley life.  I'm guessing they are not liking it one bit.  The violent, hostile vibe wouldn't sit well with decent Midwestern folks.

 

Of course, around Berkeley, riots are nothing new; there are street uprisings whenever  the spirit moves people.

 

On Telegraph Avenue, the poor merchants have endured impromptu mayhem for decades.  I say "poor" merchants for a reason: most of them are struggling, and, if you've visited the area recently, you'll find that a number of storekeepers have packed up and moved on.

When the infamous BART police shooting occurred a few years ago, there was lawlessness all over downtown Oakland.  Cars were destroyed, stores ransacked and looted, and people were injured.  Of course, many joined in who weren't motivated by righteous indignation, but by the promise of free jewelry and clothes.

 

And, when the verdict was announced, there were riots again, because, well, why not?  Since the law-abiding don't balk at rampant criminality, there's an incentive to act out.  And to borrow from Rahm Emanuel: Never let a crisis go to waste -- especially when you can procure a new television set!

 

Since I woke up from my leftist stupor two years ago, I've had many epiphanies.  Here's one: the Left is comprised of two distinct groups, the abusers and the abused.  The dynamics are like any abusive relationship. 

 

Similar to a battered spouse, the abusee will put up with terrible treatment because she's convinced she deserves it.  Out here, all the propaganda about social justice leaves citizens drowning in white guilt.  They'll do anything, accept even the unacceptable, in order to do atone themselves.

 

Berkeley has our very own version of the Stockholm Syndrome, where, out of fear for one's survival, people come to admire, even love, their abusers.  Berkeleyites will passionately defend the very people who abuse them.  ("It wasn't his fault that he robbed and beat me!  He's a victim of white imperialism!")

 

The victims even delude themselves into believing that though they are preyed upon, they are somehow lucky.  I hear it all the time out here, "We're so lucky to live in Berkeley!  It's so tolerant here!"  And I think, tolerant of what, violence?  Sociopathy?

 

As for the abusers, they have been told since they were knee-high that the deck is stacked against them.  Consequently, if the whole system is unjust and bogus, why not take advantage of it?  

 

And since society continually excuses and rationalizes their bad behavior, they never learn to take responsibility.  They may even become intoxicated with their own power and invincibility.

 

This is why so much of the crime out here is brazen, right out in broad daylight for all the world to see.  For instance, not long ago, a noon client came in and told me that she had just seen a mugging a few feet from my office building.   

 

The fact that there were hordes of people on the street and many witnesses didn't deter the mugger in the least.  Why should the miscreant fear the sheep-like unarmed, citizens of Berkeley? 

 

When I analyze why I am one of the rare progressives to ever see the light, I think it's because I never accepted being a sacrificial lamb.  I have always been appalled by the wanton criminality around here and the foreboding, uncivil streets. 

 

I even recall writing a passionate letter to the editor bemoaning the unconscionable crime rate -- and I did this twenty years ago!  It has always frustrated me that the multitudes are too indoctrinated to defend themselves or others.

 

With the demonstrations in Wisconsin, the country is getting a sneak preview of what life will be like for everyone if the left prevails.  The climate that the left has created in Berkeley will be the norm in Milwaukee and Toledo and all over the country should the left win.

Because the left are not just abusers; they are terrorists, with leaders who engage in or call for terror, including Bill Ayers and Frances Fox Piven. 

This is why the Governor and the citizens of Wisconsin must hold strong, and not buckle under pressure.  Because in some ways, the country is at a tipping point.  As goes Wisconsin, goes the entire nation.

Remember who are the leftists: they kidnapped Patty Hearst from her own house and raped and tortured her; they support the regime that sexually attacked and beat Lara Logan. 

 

The leftists are more ruthless and rapacious than your wildest imagination.  They do not simply want your money and your property.

 

They desire something much more essential: your ability to fight back; the innate belief that you and I and this country are worth fighting for. 

 

They want to crush your self-respect and dignity, to steal the virtues that are hidden deep down in your soul.  It's too late for Berkeley.  But, Wisconsin, don't give it to them. 

Robin nails it.  The left doesn't just want our money or even our liberty.  As George Orwell said in 1984 they want our entire identity.  Our hearts and souls and minds and bodies.  They want us to "love Big Brother".

They demand the we not only endure having our spirits crushed but that we willingly cooperate in the process and think that we are lucky to going through it.

This is part, a large part, of the reason why I don't just disagree with them but know them to be utterly evil.  I don't just dislike them I hate them with a pure and burning hatred.

This is why I don't even recognize a common humanity with them.

On a related note Robin's comments reminded me of a comment Bob Beckel made on Sean Hannity's radio show a couple of weeks ago.

Beckel admitted that entitlements like Social Security and Medicare were unsustainable and needed reforms like private accounts.  He said that he and other Democrats (Beckel was Walter Mondale's campaign manager when he ran for president in 1984) had used the issue to attack Republicans but now that wouldn't work any longer.

I wondered at the time if he knew what he was admitting to.  He throws out the fact that for at least 27 years he and other Democrats have known that Republicans were right about Social Security needing reform and that he and they lied about it for political advantage.

And now that the system is paying out more than it takes in and our damaged economy can no longer afford to continue paying out money that we simply don't have he comes along as says, "Oh by the way the GOP was right all along we had better do something about entitlements".  Only the population has so successfully been demagogued by men like Beckel and his fellow liberals that it may not now be possible to do anything meaningful about the problem.

It may now be so late in the game that we can no longer avoid an economic collapse and a global depression.  A depression which will cause millions in the Third World to starve to death and further pave the way for Islamism to sweep the Middle East.  While the West is weakened perhaps to the point of being unable to defend itself.

I hope Beckel and those like him spend eternity burning in hell.

Never hit a girl?

There is a piece up on American Thinker today about the high school wrestler who refused to fight a female opponent, forfeiting the match instead:

Their anticipated match was scheduled to take place this past Thursday, but Joel had other plans.  Stating that "wrestling is a combat sport (that) can get violent at times", Northrup came to the conclusion that "As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner." Sounds like a well-mannered kid, the type of guy you'd want to date your daughter, right? Well not everyone finds this gallant gesture praiseworthy.

The author of the AT article, Abraham Schwartz, goes on to discuss and quote from the criticism which has been poured upon young Mr. Northrup by, among others, ESPN writer Rick Reilly:

Enter Rick Reilly, the critically acclaimed, award winning columnist for ESPN. In his latest article  Reilly delves into the sixteen-year olds decision not to engage in violent sport with a girl.

Reilly writes "Does any wrong-headed decision suddenly become right when defended with religious conviction? In this age, don't we know better?'.

So Reilly isn't very impressed with Northrup's "wrong-headed decision" to decline fighting a girl.  He continues, "If the Northrups really wanted to "respect" women, they should've encouraged their son to face her."

This sentiment projected by Reilly is an indicator of how distorted the argument over gender equality has become. Since when is hitting a girl deemed ok, when did the forum of wrestling pardon such an act?

As you can see Mr. Schwartz is fully on Northrup's side in this matter.  His reason is summed up by these statements:

When a male teenager is told to wrestle a girl, to get into a secluded area with her and strive for one thing and one thing only; to hurt her, to bruise her, to cause her pain until it is clear that he has "won", well, that is the kind of win that should be respectfully declined. It is an accolade that defies respect, a trophy that has lost its luster.

If it is morally correct to advocate the beating of woman in a monitored setting, what makes one think that the feelings incurred during that "event" will wither away and die. What could make a person so sure that they won't carry over into real life, into relationships and friendships? Once a barrier is broken it is broken forever. An individual cannot pick and choose what human emotions will come out of such an occurrence.

And

No one is questioning the physical stability or self sufficiency of Cassy, Mr. Reilly. The issue that you fail to address is the effect it will have on Joel Northrup, and all those present. Just because a girl says "hit me" doesn't mean that one should oblige her. Cassy may be different than most girls but that doesn't change the fact that she is a girl. Hurting her physically would instill in Joel Northrup a predisposition of violence towards women.

 

And what about all the young children that would be privy to watching such a spectacle? Would they in their youthful innocence be able to differentiate between wrestling and real life, or would they walk away endowed with the harmful "knowledge" that men and women are to be treated in the same manner even when concerning using physical force?

Fighting a girl violated Joel Northrup's beliefs and so he declined to do so, forfeiting the match instead.  He was right to do so because as the Bible warns us it is a dangerous thing to violate one's conscience.  I support Mr. Northrup's decision to do what he thought to be right even though I don't agree with it.

In my view if a woman wishes to modify the social contract which dictates how men and women relate to each other that is her privilege as long as it is understood that the modified contract only applies to her and other females who choose to sign on to it.  And, most importantly, that she understands that she has given up every right to complain about the consequences of the new contract.  In other words if she wishes to engage in combat martial arts with men she has no right to bitch about getting her ass kicked.

What I really wanted to respond to, however, was not Mr. Northrup's decision but Mr. Schwartz's arguments in support of it.

To sum up Mr. Schwartz's position it would seem that he beleives that allowing boys and girls to battle each other physically even in a controled and refereed sports setting with strict rules to minimize the chance of serious injury would encourage the young men and any "innocent children" who view such a competition to believe that it was morally acceptable for men to savagely beat their wives and girlfriends.

I find this argument to be highly suspect.

Since Mr. Schwartz seems to believe that participating in athletic competition has the power to completely rewrite one's moral code then why does he sanction allowing men to engate in such sports with other men?  If Joel Northrup is in danger of wrestling a girl and emerging from the match with the conviction that it is OK to beat down any woman under any circumstance then why would he not feel the same way about fighting another man?

As for the "innocent children" who might witness such a match between male and female athletes if they are too young to grasp the difference between a refereed athletic competition and a real life then they should not be allowed to attend.  Just as they should not be allowed to watch boxing on television lest they also learn that punching other children in the face is an acceptable way to settle schoolyard differences.

I am not writing this to say that I think that it is a great idea to allow boys and girls to compete against one another in combat sports.  I just rebelled against Mr. Schwartz's defective reasoning.  If allowing Joel Northrup to wrestle a girl would transform him into a wife beater then allowing him to wrestle boys should also transform him into a violent brawler.  I don't think that Abraham Schwartz really believes that and push come to shove I don't think he really believes, deep down, that wrestling a girl would have turned Mr. Northrup into a future abuser of women.

I just think that the idea of the "wrongness" of men striking or doing any other kind of violence to women is so deeply ingrained into Mr. Schwartz that even allowing it to occur in something as innocuous as a high shcool wrestling match offends him to the core.  This offense caused him to dredge up a worst case horror senario which borders on hysteria and completely fails to stand up to logical examination.

There is an argument to be made for keeping boys and girls segregated in sports, especially violent sports like wrestling, but it isn't the one Abraham Schwartz made here.

Egypt - Updated

Some of you may be wondering why I haven't posted anything about the events in Egypt.  The reason is simple.  I don't have any clear idea what is going on there.

People are rioting in the streets demanding a change of government.  This is an undeniable fact.  The people are desirous of ridding themselves of the dictator who has ruled them for the last 30 years and replacing both him and the governmental system that he presided over with one of their own choosing.  This is also an undeniable fact.

In the most basic and simplistic definition of the word democracy this is a democratic revolution.

However we must ask ourselves if the people of Egypt are (either knowingly or unknowingly) choosing to give themselves greater liberty or less.

Because, you see, democracy is desirable and valuable only if it is a means to securing liberty.  The people of Iran were given a choice by their new government after the Shah had fled to vote on whether they wanted him to return and rule over them or whether they wanted to be ruled over by Ayatollah Khomeini.  They rejected the tyrant whose lash they had felt for the past decades in favor of a new religious ruler they hoped would make their lives better.

They made a horrible tragic mistake.  Iran went from the frying pan into the blast furnace and the people of that unfortunate nation have been suffering the consequences of their poor choice ever since.

Over three quarters of the Egyptian people say they favor living under sharia law (Islamic religious law).  If Egyptians express that desire in free elections they will have one man - one vote - one time as a mullah takes the throne of the pharaohs and declares that since Allah has been put in charge of the nation there is no need to ever have another election.

Is this what is going to happen in Egypt?  I don't know and neither does anyone else except God.  So when things like this happen I tend to keep my eyes rather than my mouth open.

All in all I suspect the best advice came from the Lord Jesus:  "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)

UPDATE

Drudge is now reporting this:

CAIRO – Egypt's Hosni Mubarak resigned as president and handed control to the military on Friday after 29 years in power, bowing to a historic 18-day wave of pro-democracy demonstrations by hundreds of thousands. "The people ousted the president," chanted a crowd of tens of thousands outside his presidential palace in Cairo.

Several hundred thousand protesters massed in Cairo's central Tahrir Square exploded into joy, waving Egyptian flags, and car horns and celebratory shots in the air were heard around the city of 18 million in joy after Vice President Omar Suleiman made the announcement on national TV just after nightfall.

Mubarak had sought to cling to power, handing some of his authorities to Suleiman while keeping his title. But an explosion of protests Friday rejecting the move appeared to have pushed the military into forcing him out completely. Hundreds of thousands marched throughout the day in cities across the country as soliders stood by, besieging his palace in Cairo and Alexandria and the state TV building. A governor of a southern province was forced to flee to safety in the face of protests there.

The military in Egypt is said to be largely secular and was probably the only hope of keeping the nation out of the hands of the Islamists so in that sense this is probably a good thing.

Probably.

It still pays to remember what Jesus said.

Ron Paul is an ass-clown

Remember how many comments I would get when I posted anything about Ron Paul's ass-clowness.  His pod people followers would swarm all over the comments with confident assertions that Mr. Paul would be the next president.

And you all thought it was B. Hussein Obama who invented brainless zombie followers.

I remember one Paul pod-boy who would write to tell me how he had just made a new donation to Paul's campaign every time I posted about him.

I would have like to have been there when that guy's dad got the Visa bill.

I bring all this up because Mr. Paul is apparently planning another run for the White House and if events at CPAC are any indication Paul's legions of young followers are undiminished in either their enthusiasm or their obnoxiousness.

So I guess we have this campaign season's comedy relief lined up for the GOP side (Mr. Obama himself will serve that function on the Democrat side).

Expect hijinks.

Happy Birthday

Sarah Palin Pictures

Sarah Palin born Feb. 11, 1964 and destined to become president of the United States on Jan. 21, 2013.

Like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan before her Mrs. Palin will join the ranks of great American presidents born during the month of February.

Tonight's Music

The Rogues at the Maryland Renaissance Festival 2009.

Knowing the enemy

From American Thinker:

Philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn is among the more notable proponents of the view that "facts" are always laden with theoretical presuppositions.  This may be an exaggeration, but there is nothing like commentary on Middle Eastern affairs to show that it is not devoid of truth. 

Almost everyone on the left, and some on the right, insist that Islamic hostilities toward America stem from America's support of the state of Israel; That is, ultimately, it is the existence of Israel that accounts for why Muslims throughout the Middle East (and elsewhere) hate us.  For the leftist, however, Israel is just the latest chapter in a long history of "oppression" that Muslims -- "people of color" -- have experienced for over a millennium. 

The conventional wisdom among establishment Republicans is that Islamic aggression toward America is due solely to "the radical Islamists'" contempt for "our freedoms," a disdain born of an ignorance to which "the democratization" of the Islamic world would be an antidote.  Within recent days, much of the Republican commentary on Egypt has reflected this bias.

These competing positions on the question of the West's relationship to Islam are as long on ideology as they are short on reality, for they each fail to take seriously the elephant in the room: Islam. 

It isn't that they are wrong, necessarily.  There can be no question that legions of Muslims resent the existence of Israel -- and the support that the latter receives from the United States.  It is also doubtless correct that similar numbers of Muslims despise the cultural and political arrangements of America and the West.  But because neither view recognizes the other, what truth each possesses is obscured.

It doesn't require much familiarity with the Islamic tradition, and the Quran in particular, to discover that Islam is an intrinsically militant religion.  It demands even less familiarity with the contemporary experience of Muslims throughout the world to realize that true Islam calls on its adherents to conquer, or destroy, all non-Muslims. 

I will not embark upon the enterprise -- well-accomplished by now, thanks to such brave souls as Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, and others -- of quoting the many passages from the Quran that substantiate this point.  But however unpleasant a thought this may be, it is a reality. 

Anyone seriously concerned with coming to terms with "the nature of our enemy" must give up all of this silly talk of "Islamofascists," "Islamonazis," "Islamists," "radical Muslims," and "Islamic extremists."  The "enemy" -- and anyone who looks upon me as an "infidel" to be converted or killed I do indeed consider my enemy -- is the orthodox Muslim.  America and the West are in conflict with "Quranic literalists" -- or "Islamic fundamentalists," if you will -- and no one else.

Interestingly, in refusing to take the Islamic fundamentalist at his word, the leftist betrays his own "Eurocentrism" -- those parochial proclivities that he deplores in others -- for he judges Muslims not by their own standards, by his own.

Self-avowed "conservatives," on the other hand, are no less guilty of contradicting themselves.  In staunch contrast to their leftist counterparts, conservatives have always been keenly aware of the fact that culture is fundamentally, ultimately more important to human life than politics. To borrow the Marxist's idiom, culture is "the substructure," politics "the superstructure."  Yet in ignoring the "second nature" with which the religion of Islam has clothed the inhabitants of the Islamic world, in treating the problems of the Middle East as if they were primarily a matter of political arrangements, "the conservative" has betrayed his own position.

If we really want to take our situation seriously, it is high time that we left ideology behind.

I have made this point myself.  Osama bin Laden is a "better" Muslim - if we define "better" as taking the Koran seriously, believing it literally and obeying the commands of the founding prophet - than any Muslim "moderate".

This is why genuine reform in Islam is going to be nearly impossible.  When Martin Luther and the other Christian reformers confronted the Roman Catholic Chruch of their day they had the advantage of the fact that the Bible was on their side.

Luther, Calvin and the others were working to strip away centuries of human tradition that had become attached to the Church and was very often in contradiction to scripture.  The Muslim reformer, on the other hand, must convince his fellow Muslims to adopt an interpretation of the Koran and other Islamic scripture which is flatly contradictory to its plain meaning and at serious odds to the example set by the "prophet" Mohammad.

Frankly speaking this is probably an impossible task.  At least as things stand now.

Too many people in the West, conservatives included, believe that if we can just raise the Muslim standard of living they will forget about jihad.  If we can just introduce them to iPods, flat screen TV's and premium movie channels that, along with a good secular education and a good paying job, will turn them into clones of modern Americans or Europeans.

Of course people who hold that opinion are at a loss to explain the Ft. Hood shooter who had an excellent American education and access to all the cultural blandishments America has to offer and still chose to murder as many fellow Americans as possible while shouting "god is great" in Arabic.

They also have trouble explaining how the 19 9/11 hijackers were able to live in the US for years and have plenty of money to throw around, and even spend the evening of 9/10 in a strip joint getting lap dances, and still go forth to fly planes into buildings.

How could spending years immersed in American society with all of our freedom and affluence, not to mention leggy blondes who put out at the drop of a hat - this was Florida after all - not have turned these men into supporters of American culture rather than blood enemies?

The fact is that there are many Muslims, some who live in poor Middle Eastern nations and have only the education they received in mosque, and some who live in the Middle East but who have traveled extensively in the West and have high quality Western educations and some who live lives of affluence in the West itself, who take their religion seriously enough to do what it commands. 

And the command of the Islamic religion is to wage jihad against the infidel, killing those who will not convert.

That is how the prophet lived his life and that is how the Islamic caliphate became a great world empire in the years after Mohammad's death and it is that era which a great many Muslims look back upon as a golden age and wish to recreate.

Until the West comes to grips with the fact that it is Islam itself which is the enemy we will be fighting the current war blindfolded and with one hand tied behind our backs.

Selective outrage is not real outrage

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.


California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.


In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino's Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh's national talk radio show.


"The comments that he made - the mimicking of the Chinese language - harkens back to when I was a little boy growing up in San Francisco and those were hard days, rather insensitive days," Yee said in an interview Thursday. "You think you've arrived and all of a sudden get shot back to the reality that you're a second-class citizen."

When I find Sen. Yee's equal condemnation of Rosie O'Donnell's outburst of faux Chinese on The View I'll consider that he has the credibility to speak out now.  And I don't mean an after the fact, of course Rosie was wrong too, statement.  I mean a statement of condemnation at the time O'Donnell said what she said.  When I see the evidence that Yee was calling for boycotts of The View's sponsors I'll assume he has standing to speak out now.

I'm waiting for the evidence.


Still waiting. . .

[Crickets]

The RINO doesn't change

From American Thinker:

The tactic Republicans used to win the midterm election was to tie every Democrat in Washington, D.C. to Barack Obama. He and his liberal policies were so unpopular that identifying a Democrat candidate with the president delivered a Republican's victory.


At the ballot box, the American people sent liberalism to the woodshed. The nation cast off Obama, as well as Pelosi and much of her progressive Congress. In January, the Republicans triumphantly arrived in Washington, D.C. promising to repeal health care reform, address out-of-control spending, and elevate conservative principles by making the U.S. Constitution the foundation of legislative discussion.


It's clear as 2012 approaches that a similar blueprint of calling attention to a failed presidency could help unseat Barack Obama from the Oval Office. Yet rather than continue to turn up the heat to accomplish that goal, one particular politician appears to be confused about what side of the aisle he should sit on. That politician is...yes, you guessed it: that poster child of bipartisanship, the always civil and moderate John Sidney McCain.


As witnessed during the last presidential campaign, the Republican nominee had a peculiar way of promoting his bid for the presidency. On more than one occasion, rather than pointing out the inauspicious prospect of electing Barack Obama, avuncular John reassured a tentative electorate, dismissing very real fears. Senator McCain encouraged anxious voters not to worry, because his unqualified opponent was "absolutely qualified" to be president.


Instead of promoting his own candidacy, on occasion McCain would attempt to put voters on both the right and the left at ease by saying things like "Barack Obama would make a good president." McCain reassured America that his opponent was someone that he "both admired and respected."


For all the positive free press John gave Barry, the senator might as well have gassed up the YesWeCanmobile and hung up two Barack campaign posters for every one "McCain/Palin 2008" lawn sign.


John McCain's self-deprecating approach, suppressing a well-deserved distrust for Obama's left-wing agenda, started two years ago, and now nothing -- not even a country devastated by the president's less-than-impressive stint -- can stop John from continuing that trend. Fawning over Barry in the name of civility compounds the mess McCain started during the presidential election, undermines the success of the midterm election, and paves the way for Obama to leave his suitcases unpacked.


The American public has been closely observing Washington, D.C. since the midterm election for reassurance that by voting for Republicans, they made the right choice. Instead of keeping the heat on and stressing why the job that was started will be complete only when Barack is sent back to Chicago, old faithful John McCain has stepped forward as an advocate to help rehabilitate Barry's sullied reputation.


In a Washington Post op-ed, John McCain praised Obama as a "patriot." McCain then jumped aboard the Barack bandwagon, lauded the president's Arizona memorial speech, and said the president's words "encouraged every American who participates in our political debates -- whether we are on the left or right or in the media -- to aspire to a more generous appreciation of one another and a more modest one of ourselves."


Apparently, bipartisan John wasn't privy to some of the president's more partisan soundbites.


Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)'s State of the Union dance partner chose to applaud Obama's impressive performance as a president. McCain advanced the crusade to undermine the effort to send Barack back to Chicago by speaking on behalf of "hope and change" and expressing the comforting opinion that "the president has already changed a great deal."


Rather than lay the groundwork for Obama's defeat in 2012, the Arizona senator is fast becoming a foundational promoter for the president's bid for reelection. John McCain should be helping to further the Republican platform of smaller government, less spending, privatized health care, low taxes, and all things anti-Obama. Instead, McCain told John Schieffer that

"[t]he president, I think, has learned a lot in the last two years, as any president does.  He is a very intelligent man. I think he's doing a lot of right things."  

If John McCain's mouth even comes within fifty feet of a microphone, it seems as if the senator uses the occasion to underscore what he perceives to be Obama's positive presidential accomplishments.  Based on McCain's relentless attempts to undermine Republican chances to gain back the White House, the historically bipartisan Arizona senator's misappropriated civility indicates that if there is anyone the very partisan Barack Obama can depend upon to help him win a second term, John McCain is the man.

Remember now why I was so dead set against John McCain getting the Republican nomination back in 2008?  Remember now why I said (right up until he chose Sarah Palin as his VP) that it would have been better to elect Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton than McCain?

Does anyone still doubt me?

McCain is a betrayer.  He is a Judas like he is a mammal, a Quisling like he breaths oxygen it is simply a fundamental part of what is and he can no more change it that he can sprout wings and fly.

If John McCain were president we would have a slightly different version of ObamaCare only it would be called McCainCare and it would have been passed with Republican support.  The brain-dead McCain sycophant wing of the GOP led by McCain's detestable little butt-boy Lindsey Graham would have been its margin of victory and a bi-partisan health care "reform" law would be vastly harder to repeal.

If McCain had been elected we would have still had all the spending only it would have been REPUBLICAN spending.

If McCain had been elected we would not have regained control of the House last year.

I have now come to understand that if McCain had been elected that having to go forward day after day and defend him and his policies would have destroyed Sarah Palin's political future.

If John McCain had been elected president in 2008 the Republican party would be dead and the conservative movement would be adrift trying to build a third party with no chance of winning a national election for at least a generation.

God works in mysterious ways.  B. Hussein Obama's victory in 2008, which the left took as the sign that they had finally won and could transform the US into a European socialist state, not only saved the GOP from John McCain but made the left so overconfident that they ripped off their masks.  By revealing their true nature and agenda to a frightened nation they catalyzed the tremendous Republican victory in 2010 and positioned the nation for a decisive win by a genuine conservative like Sarah Palin in 2012.

Tonight's Music

Whirling Pope Joan - Puit D'amour/Tiennet

China (and America's) closing window

From American Thinker:

With Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington, there's a lot of talk about the rise of China as an economic and military power. But the Chinese may have only a small window in time to assert global dominance -- and Chinese leaders have to know it. China is, perhaps, twenty years from the start of a demographic implosion, one that will cause enormous internal strains, economically and socially.


Could awareness of the hard demographic realities that lie ahead for China drive the Chinese to advance their interests militarily, if need be, before China is hampered by an aging population? Will the Chinese military, alarmed by the coming demographic crisis, push its nation to imperialism, similar to that inflicted on Asia-Pacific by the Japanese through World War II?


An increasingly assertive Chinese military may be providing the answer. Chinese leaders -- party and military -- may well appreciate that China needs to secure its position as a great power before tackling the huge challenges of a graying population.


The root of China's coming demographic crisis is the nation's longstanding one-child policy; that policy has markedly skewed the Chinese population older. Not far off, many more old people and fewer young people mean greater strains on China.


Neil Howe and Richard Jackson, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in the Washington Post about China's demographic plight:

Consider China, which may be the first country to grow old before it grows rich. For the past quarter-century, China has been "peacefully rising," thanks in part to a one-child policy that has allowed both parents to work and contribute to China's boom. But by the 2020s, as the huge Red Guard generation born before the country's fertility decline moves into retirement, they will tax the resources of their children and the state. China's coming age wave -- by 2030 it will be an older country than the United States -- may weaken the two pillars of the current regime's legitimacy: rapidly rising GDP and social stability. Imagine workforce growth slowing to zero while tens of millions of elders sink into indigence without pensions, without health care and without children to support them. China could careen toward social collapse -- or, in reaction, toward an authoritarian clampdown.

Howe and Jackson aren't alone in their assessment of China's future. AT's Thomas Lifson notes that because Chinese parents widely prefer that their one child be a male, aborting female fetuses, there will be about 40 million bachelor males in 2020 unable to find a female spouse. Not only does this reduce births, it provides an ample supply of unattached males suitable for military service.


Rodger Baker wrote recently at Stratfor about the end of China's economic miracle in the "not-so-distant future." But the Baker article chiefly addresses the evolution of the Chinese military into a broader leadership role within the country.


For three decades now, the Chinese have been reorienting its military from a primarily land-based border defense to a military that can project its strength in the air, on blue water, and through advanced weapons' technology and systems.


Baker writes that China's rapid economic expansion has led to China's dependence on resources across the globe. China, though not a resource-poor island like Japan, has an estimated population of 1.33 billion. Economic growth and growing consumer demands require that the Chinese obtain resources overseas. China's leadership is seeking to project military power to ostensibly protect vital sea lanes to ensure access to raw materials.


But one wonders if China's buildup in projectable military power doesn't allow for a contingency. China, facing an end to its economic miracle, and facing a demographic crisis in a mere twenty years, may find its beefed up military useful in securing resources sooner through intimidation or, in some cases, through outright seizure -- particularly in Asia, where China's military would have its strongest reach.

Go read the rest.

It is just possible that at the mid point of this century we will look back on our fears of looming Chinese dominance as a case of mass hysteria like the "Japan scare" of the 1980's.  Remember how so many people believed that Japan was going to take over the world.  How they were buying real estate all over the USA, sometimes even significant landmarks?

Remember also how Japan just imploded?  Remember how they were forced to sell all that real estate that they had paid vastly inflated prices for at a fraction of its real value?

China's demographic time bomb could very well bring on the same kind of implosion.  Or China could go old school communist and require all persons too old to work to report to the fertilizer factory for rendering.  It would have a large enough army to enforce its will on the population.

The point that the author of the AT piece is making is that China might decide to use the military that it is building up to establish China's place as a world power before it has to deal with its coming demographic problems.

It would be foolish to ignore this possibility.  China is spending a great deal of money building up its air force and deepwater navy and it is focusing its military R&D on various projects which have "carrier-killer" stamped all over them.  This is clearly intended to push America out of the Asian theater of operations and allow the PRC to snap up choice targets like the Spratley Islands and Taiwan.

I would not be all that worried about China's ability to pull off its ambitions given America's numerical and technological advantages but we do have to face the fact that we have, for at least the next two years, an American president who most likely thinks that America richly deserves to lose at the hands of the Chinese (or anyone else for that matter) and who will miss no opportunity to set up the circumstances for America's failure.

This is just the latest, and one of the strongest, reasons why it is so desperately important that we do the right thing in November, 2012 and not just send Obama back to Chicago but put someone in the White House with the strength to do what must be done.

Under normal circumstances the GOP leadership would come in off the golf course long enough to ask, "whose turn is it this time", and then nominate some RINO loser like John McCain or George HW Bush.  We really never could afford to do that and we absolutely cannot afford to do it now.

If the candidate chosen by the Republican rank and file to represent the party in 2012 isn't the kind of person who causes the GOP establishment leadership profound digestive upset (like Ronald Reagan did and Sarah Palin does) we will probably not win the election and even if we do it will not matter in the long run.