Past Observations On Present Problems

Thomas-Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson

IT'S ABOUT TIME YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS were made aware of the plethora of remarks we have coming from the likes of Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Theodore Roosevelt, Sri Aurobindo, William Gladstone, Arthur Schopenhauer, the Nazis themselves and the rest of those who made famous quotes about Islam, and on top of this, make them aware of what of Ayatollah Khomeini and other Muslims have to say about Islam and how its adherents are to handle infidels. They ought to be damned shocked. Past observations on present problems with this moribund religion should be a starting point for those Westerners naively sympathetic to today's jihadists.

  • "Hatred of the non-Muslim is the pivot of Islamic existence." —Anwar Sheikh
  • "Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain... "Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1970.
  • “The most successful lecherous man who used religion for his personal gain is Prophet Mohammed. Islam is a cult with its complete irrational belief in Allah created by Mohammed who was a liar, thief, murderer and rapist till his last breath”. —Dr Khushwant Singh
  • ”Allah is a cruel tyrant, a barbaric killer and a violent despot. Islamic Umma is the biggest criminal gang on earth and Allah is leader and guide of that criminal gang and is trying to establish himself as the God of the world (not of the universe) with the help of the mujahidin through terror and bloodshed”. —Dr R. Brahamchari
  • "The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and the truth which the world has yet known." —The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905)

Power of the People vs. Political Parties

Andrew Breitbart & US Flag
Andrew Breitbart
....nothing new under sun.

FOR THE RECORD, I am not a member of any political party. I am, moreover, repelled by arguments that people should vote for a party’s candidate because . . . he is the party’s candidate. I have no interest serving any party simply for the sake of serving the party. I want best practices principles advanced, whoever, and from whatever party this person should come forth from the nation who supports those principles, but I also remain a pragmatist who considers each decision carefully.

"I think George Washington was right when he said, in his 1796 Farewell Address, that political parties “are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” He went on to argue:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

More intelligent scorekeeping over at the Pileus blog.

Allegory: the Cave of the Mama Grizzly

palin_fair1
Palin strikes perfect pitch in a crowd of Republican voters...

Into the midst of all this pent-up political need steps up the Mama Grizzly named Sarah Palin, and she hails from resource-rich hinterlands of Alaska. "I so admire Taranto," writes Clarice Feldman of the American Thinker, "and I think that of all the good explanations I read this week of the hatred directed at [Sarah] Palin and the derangement respecting her views and conduct, his comes the closest to the mark.

"Yes, many liberal women irrationally hate Palin, but I think they hate her because her very life is dragging them into the sunshine, where they have momentarily lost their way. Right now, Palin's very life is an affront to them—she's beautiful, powerful, and the center of a large family—and most of them are not.

"It will take these people some time to see that it is their own views and conduct, not Palin's, that is responsible for the distinction. Moreover, I think liberal women are not alone in this temporary mental disordering. I think others at first will hate Palin for taking them into the blinding light, but that with time and more media stunts like last week's, they and the Times and USA Today readers, the present consumers of the medias' distortions, will get some glimpses of life outside the cave and come to realize the distinction between truth and reality on one hand and projected lies and make-believe on the other."

As someone posted earlier on a different thread, (perhaps it was you, Clarice?), "my dad always said, dogs don't chase parked cars."

Meanwhile, Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, an unrepentant liberal, this week has published an article defending Sarah Palin against the continued crriticism his own party levels at her:

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin's name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she "scared the hell out of me." My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party. She is Mama Grizzly writ large.

Ed Koch
Ed Koch, former NYC mayor

I repeat my earlier comment that she "scares the hell out of me." Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I've never met her, but I've always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don't believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others—men—to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

Sarah Palin is the right person, at the right time, in the right country. . . our country the great United States of America.

The American Sisyphus

It's uncanny that both US political parties use the very same descriptions (right up to the same exact words) to incite fear among their own constituents in an attempt to soil their political opposition. Both fear the same outcomes, and accuse the other of being fearmongers. Both claim the same desires, and accuse the other of systematically thwarting the honest fulfillment and judicious harvest of their own spirit-filled policies. This money-charged he said, she said plants "hope in change" among the hapless voter classes every year or two, but the Sisyphian task of governing a critical mass remains critical as long as there are people who refuse to govern themselves at least as critically as they govern others.

Here is one liberal feminist's rather opaque outlook:

sisyphus
Sisyphus

SUSIE GAVE THE STANDARD ANSWERS about what can be done. Show up at a congressman’s office en masse, hang out in front of the restaurant where he/she and friends have lunch, throw a tent city or two and call the local paper or TV station about it. Butcha know, I don’t think that’s going to work anymore and as one of them said: the right has the biggest megaphones and they simply won’t report it.

The right knows their voters. They motivate their voters to vote by romanticizing the fetus, by appealing to their religiosity. If bad things happen to other people, it’s because they weren’t as pious and good as the typical Fox News viewer. That same religiosity prevents the religious conservative from doing too much to help the poor by contacting their representatives and demanding action. It’s because there is so much evil and bad and pain in the world that mankind does not have the capacity to clean it up. Only God does. So, we need to just wait for Jesus to come back, which should be any day now. If you’ve ever wondered what the apocalyptic messaging in right wing propaganda has to do with anything, there’s the reason. It’s to keep the older conservative voter who sees disturbing things from taking any action.

If Susie wants to know what to do, she is going to have to target these viewers to get involved. One thing that temporarily woke people up was the sight of so many people suffering in the wake of Katrina in New Orleans. Which means that the news machine will be very careful to never do that again. So, if you can’t bring the news to the people, maybe you have to bring the people to the news.

Don’t isolate your older, more conservative relatives. Tell them what’s going on because you’ve seen it personally. Tell them what is happening to your unemployed friends. If they ask why they’re not willing to relocate, tell them the truth. There are no jobs. Anywhere. Be harsh with them. They won’t want to see you. But they’ll call and ask why you haven’t come to visit. Tell them you’re trying to help your friends—who are unemployed and that they just don’t get it. They’ll go on about how God is the only one who can clean this mess up. Tell them that’s bullshit and Jesus wouldn’t want them to ignore the poor. If they tell you that you’re friends did something wrong, tell them the only thing they did wrong was being born in the wrong part of the 20th century. If they say, yes, it’s true, the older generation has it good in comparison, tell them, great! We’re moving in with you. With the bird. And the kid who likes to play Edith Piaf songs all. the. time. and refuses to speak to you in anything but French and eats like there’s no tomorrow. When they express some hesitation about that, tell them to turn off the fricking TV news.

As for Susie, I think she has a future in broadcasting but she really has to ditch her propensity to glom onto left wing memes. I’m not saying stop being liberal. I’m saying stop letting the left do your thinking. On one broadcast a couple of months ago, I think Athenae was on, they got so frustrated with it all that they want to just ditch everything and go rustic, which is great if you have no dependents. But in some respects, it reminds me of the older religious person’s decision to just stay in the house away from the evil men and sexual predators until Jesus comes back. You can’t run away from the world’s problems when they seem insurmountable. If you do that, the bad guys win. They want people to feel helpless. Learned helplessness is their goal.

The only way to win is to get together and fight back. And if Susie hasn’t figured this out yet, the left’s support of Obama in 2008 has resulted in thousands of sparkling shards of leftiness with the incapacity to reform itself. I keep appealing to people like Susie to stop blowing us off and join with us and let’s do something together. But the left hasn’t given up on the stuff that doesn’t resonate with their potential allies who work for the big corporations the left condemns. It’s incomprehensible to me that for all the intelligence the left claims it has that it hasn’t figured out yet that the corporations are not the ogres here. It’s the rulemakers they help elect. If the rules weren’t bent or destroyed, the corporations would go back to playing by the rules and merely scheming like grinches instead of running around causing havoc like Thing 1 and Thing 2. Then there are people like us who voted for Hillary and are still personas non grata.

We’re always going to think Obama was the wrong guy for the moment. But why would the left cut off half of its strength if it really want to make a change? Let me ask you this, Susie, why haven’t you asked any of US on your show yet? Not that we can’t host our own shows but that’s hardly togetherness, is it?

Now here we get to the real concession in drawing the line where right greets left, they shake hands, fold their cards, then settle back into their routines for another round of the Sisyphus game from which we are never expected to resist:

The left’s obsession with perfection mirrors the right’s eschatological fervor. Neither one addresses the causes and concerns of people in the middle who still bitterly cling to their FDR era programs with track records of success for those who participate. Both sides insist that if they can’t have everything their way, no one will get anything at all.  In this respect, the left does as much damage to its cause as the right does with its huge megaphones.

If you want to know why no one hears your cries, it’s because you haven’t joined with other voices. And the men in charge, and it’s ALWAYS men, like it that way. Power is the ultimate drug and no one is going to wrest it from them without a fight. As long as the left remains broken, Susie and her tent cities are no threat to the power brokers.

Sarah Palin's Buoyant March To Washington

A MUSICAL TRIBUTE TO former Republican Party VP candidate, Sarah Palin, is a recent YouTube sensation. The video went viral Monday, burning up Twitter and popping up on various news and entertainment websites.

The tribute song is set to the tune of the famous Civil War-era 'Battle Hymn of the Republic.' According to credits posted on YouTube, the song was written by Tom Dempsey and sung by Gary Mcvay.

The song is an anthem to Sarah Palin in particular, and the Tea Party in general, although the song is not officially affiliated with Gov. Palin nor her organization in any way.

Sarah Palin's Hymn of the Republic Lyrics:

She’s a cold blast from Alaska,
Ingrained with common sense.
She’s not a Harvard lawyer,
but she knew what the Founders meant.
A cold blast from the North,
That freezes Congress in their tracks.
With God and the Tea party, she’s gonna take it back.
Sarah Palin, she won’t listen to their bunk.
Sarah Palin’s coming south to hunt some skunk.
Sarah Palin, she’ll throw them all in jail.
And when she gets to Washington, it’ll be cold as hell.
Sarah has the wisdom to walk through an open door.
She’s stomping out the wretches where the evil lies in store.
She will scrub the floors and sweep the riff-raff into cracks.
With God and the Tea party, she’s gonna take it back.
Sarah Palin, she won’t listen to their bunk.
Sarah Palin’s coming south to hunt some skunk.
Sarah Palin, she’ll throw them all in jail.
And when she gets to Washington, it’ll be cold as hell.

Spoken:
Congress pats themselves from some new bill they just passed.
I watch as my freedom slowly runs through an hourglass.
They think they spend our money better than we do.
But they can talk until they’re blue and old.
Cos if they ever gave us anything,
They always wanted something in return, Sarah knows.
Sarah's marching on on.

Closing dedication:
“I’d like to dedicate that to the Tea Party and all the patriots.”

Ilood libel speech? Who cares? Today has been a fabulous day for SP fans, and here's part two of that fabulous in an article posted by Adam Katz of the Generative Anthropology Summer Conference:

"I will lay down a marker right away—for me, the main criterion for supporting a Presidential candidate is that he or she knows what the left is; anyone who thinks that a Republican president will be able to settle into the White House in 2013, put on the green eyeshades, and start balancing the budget in a sober, bipartisan manner is criminally naïve, and I don’t want anyone like that anywhere near the Presidency."

spalin4
Sarah Palin

Normal America and free America are at war with the Left, and anyone one who is not ready to fire back when fired at need not apply. Sarah Palin seems to know what the Left is, and none of her potential contenders seems to have a clue. At this moment, the ability to create and run a political and economic media empire is more pertinent to presidential aspirations than the ability to balance a budget with your bare hands, which you can hire someone to do anyway.

But leaving that aside, Palin, and the Palin phenomenon are intrinsically interesting—there seems to be widespread agreement on that, at any rate. She, in her public persona, seems to me an almost perfect complement to Barack Obama, and the Obama phenomenon—she seems destined to be his nemesis, a role she seems to relish and which she plays very well. I think an Obama v. Palin race in 2012 would dramatize all the post-Bush, indeed, all the post-9/11 conflicts; even more, it would finally bring the entire Progressive Era in our politics, dating back to the turn of the 20th century, on the stage—and I think this would be both very healthy and incredibly exciting. We desperately need such a polarization now, and it would be nice to deal a blow to the illusions of the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal center” of the country. I don’t doubt that there are many Americans, maybe, depending upon definitions, a majority, who can be described as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”; nor do I doubt that in a certain sense they are the “center,” picking and suturing together the least antagonistic items of both right and left.

It’s an empty center, though, and a campaign that showed as much by forcing the “centrists” to choose would be healthy as well—if you support the kind of judicially driven federal government needed to push through and sustain the “socially liberal” agenda, than you can forget about fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism would mean federalism and expanded property rights, both of which, as the politically savvy know, mean death to “social liberalism,” i.e., abortion on demand, gay marriage and religion out of the public sphere. And I might as well also say that I can’t say the word “gravitas” without, at the very least, smiling. I think that things are going to get rough, especially if the prerogatives of those plugged into the victimary public arena are even mentioned, much less trespassed upon—we need someone whose first instinct isn’t to placate the New York Times.

Read it all. And here is another Katz exploration into the amazing Obama-Palin dichotomy.

Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill

We are fortunate to be able to peel back the layers of time to find that dual juggernauts Winston Churchill and George Orwell summed up so-called intellectuals so succinctly, how they are a weakening force because firstly everyone assumes what they say is right because they've got a reputation as intellectuals, even when they're wrong, and that believing these intellectuals can have such dire consequences. He said it about Britain but it could so easily be any Western country today. Here's what Winston Churchill said about them 78 years ago:

"Historians have noticed, all down the centuries, one peculiarity of the English people, which has cost them dear. We have always thrown away after a victory the greater part of the advantages we had gained in the struggle. The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners; they come from a peculiar type of brainy people, always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement, into which we have been cast, by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer, but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias? Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told." – Winston Churchill, 1933

Of course, words being words, and the bird's the word, George Orwell, Dwight D Eisenhower and Albert Camus summed up the so-called intellectual elite, a group of talkers and writers who often mistake their years of practice and subsequent compensation for a certain collegial profundity of thought whenever they open their mouths or commit their pens and keyboards with these jostling texts:

  • You must be an intellectual. Only an intellectual could say something so stupid. —George Orwell
  • An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. —Albert Camus
  • I heard a definition of an intellectual, that I thought was very interesting: a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows. —Dwight D. Eisenhower

What Makes a Good Shotgun?

OR RATHER, WE MIGHT PUT IT THIS WAY, what makes a shotgun good?

There's been a fair amount of debate here amounting to "My shotgun can whip your shotgun". Maybe some dialog on what we want and expect from our shotguns is in order. This can apply to both "Serious" and recreational shotguns. Here's my [set of] opinions, none graven on Tablets of Stone. A good shotgun should be....

Reliable. A failure rate of LESS than 1/200 rounds is minimal.Most modern US made repeaters qualify.

Durable. A use life of upwards of 35K rounds. Again, most modern US made repeaters can do this, some with a bit of small parts replacement.

Comfortable to use. This means fitting the shooter, of a weight consistent to the Rule of 96 with the load of choice, and capable of being shot many times in a short time period w/o pain. Ergonomics fit in here, and so does a clean, light but safe trigger.

Appropriate to the mission. 410s should not be used for pass shooting geese, nor 10 gauges weighing 12 lbs lugged through alder thickets for woodcock.

Appropriate to the shooter. That 10 gauge in pixie hands is punishing to use.

Affordable. Either on base price or per use. A $1K gun that lasts 50K rounds may be "Better" than a $500 gun that barely makes it through 25K.

Esthetically pleasing. This is completely subjective.

Capable of quick and effective deployment. Most shotgun usage, from crisis management to quail hunting, takes place in short time frames. The weapon, in the hands of THAT shooter, must be fast but sure.

Uses commonly available ammo. No 24 gauges. No 2" chambers.

That's about it. What do YOU think?

Thanks to Big Dave McCracken for the perfect shotgun theory detailed above, as he adds, "It's the pianist, not the piano." Works for me, as well.

Congressman Allen West's Presidential Timbre

NOW THAT COLONEL ALLEN WEST has been elected to the US Congress from Florida, and today, being appointed to the House Armed Services Committee, we can look forward to progress on these important matters before us. Thank God for Colonel West, America now has an insider who KNOWS his stuff.