Wednesday, February 23, 2011

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.

Monday, February 21, 2011

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.


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.

Friday, February 11, 2011

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)


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.


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
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.

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Tonight's Music

The Rogues at the Maryland Renaissance Festival 2009.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

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.