I Don't Mourn Kennedy

Even Fox News Radio asserts that "the nation mourns Ted Kennedy." This part of "the nation" emphatically does not mourn Kennedy. The man was a scoundrel, the worst of the bad Kennedy "dynasty." For decades, he epitomized the unthinking, arrogant, hypocritical, elitist liberal who knew better than you what was good for you. Many people have hated Ted Kennedy since he left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he wandered around, thinking up ways to salvage his political career. Worst of all, he never owned up to what he did, trying to generate sympathy for himself with his pathetic neck brace. Other than partisan socialists, who have always believed that the ends justify the means, people recognize those who are bereft of good character, and they recognize Kennedy as one of those. An AOL poll I saw since Kennedy died showed that an overwhelming percentage of respondents viewed him negatively. As one commenter to an online article put it, Kennedy wasn't a lion, he was a rat.

I'll never forget reading of the "waitress sandwiches" Kennedy and his fellow Senate bum Christopher Dodd enjoyed making in Georgetown. Kennedy was also on hand in Florida, partying shamelessly, when his infamous nephew, William Kennedy Smith, was accused of raping the "blue dot lady."

The left will turn Kennedy's death into a days-long religious observance. Of course, they didn't do that when the great Senator Jesse Helms passed away, issuing no encomiums then. My only thought on the passing of this disgraceful politician is that they'll only replace him with someone just as bad.

Words to Live By

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all."

--Richard Weaver, 1962 (quoted in Liberal Fascism, the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 391.

Could it be. . . ?

Bill, though the battle is far from over, I have to give you credit: You have suggested all along that these Marxists of ours would overreach. I believe that is what we are seeing, especially in the Obama-Don't-Care Plan and in Cap-and-Tax. The question is whether there will be enough opposition among the populace to turn the tide. The Marxists thought that because of Obama's 53-47 victory and big majorities in both houses, they could ram their Marxist agenda right up our collective you-know-what. That's what I thought as well. You know me: I'm the pessimist. (With Bob Novak, I was in pretty good company.) I have thought that the dumbing-down of the citizens of this country had dealt a death blow to common sense. Perhaps there remains more common sense than I thought. Levin's and Beck's books have sold well. Interest in and attention to the details of the health scare plan have grown exponentially, while the media ineffectually tries to run interference for the Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

On the other hand, most of the leftists in Congress are defiant of their constituents; they know that a few malcontents at their Town-Hall dog-and-pony shows will not prevent their reelection. And even some Repubicans (that's right: Repubicans) have defied their constituents. Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing that Comrade Obama and his Politburo have all this time been attempting to ensure Republican (or even Repubican) support for their health scare monstrosity.

All in all, I'm cheered to see that the Republic is not going down without a whimper.

No surprises here

Is anyone who’s been paying attention to the American left for the past several generations – but particularly over the past decade or so – really surprised at the turn of events in Washington? I’m not talking about the various policy proposals on the table; those are the same tired leftist “solutions” to existential human problems we’ve seen forever and have been shown in case after case to be tragically counterproductive.

No, no one who has paid attention to the left these many years can be at all surprised that the usual suspects are again trotting out their socialized medicine plans, their breathless save-the-planet plans, their adolescent tax the successful plans. These are all mother’s milk for the left.

But really, can any student of the left be surprised that it is doing everything it can to stifle discussion aboiut anything and everything and is very close to criminalizing dissent? It was clear even at the time that its attacks on the Bush administration about matters of public dissent were a case of projection, pure and simple.

The fact is, for anyone honest enough to look at the evidence, the Bush administration was almost heroically stoic in the face of often wildly unfair and unfounded political and character attacks. Far from being “brave” for attacking Bush and his policies (for such was the conceit of the pony-tailed, earth-shoed Prius-driving bohemian bourgeoisie), criticizing Bush became a ritual, like something you had to recite to join the fraternity, as rigid and structured and ossified as a Japanese Noh play.

The febrile attacks (circa 2009) on legitimate criticism – or even legitimate questioning of policies for which one seeks clarity – betray the adolescent heart beating deep within the body of leftist ideology.

The teenagers are in control, they know best and the stupid adults are the ones who have caused the mess (as Obama puts it) we’re in today. They just need to shut up and let the kids show that we can all get along.

The danger here – the scary part – is that there is no one more sanctimonious and capable of the most sociopathic rationalization than the self-satisfied teenager with his dudgeon up. I wouldn’t want to predict how far and fast this situation could get out of control.

When is that magic moment?

"Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." ~ Albert Schweitzer

I do not agree completely with Dr. Schweitzer's definition of morality, but taken as it is, it would certainly consign abortion to the side of evil. No honest person can argue that life does not begin at conception. Would anyone suggest that a fertilized egg is not a living "thing"? The argument is over when this "thing" should be protected under the law--when it becomes a life worthy of maintaining, protecting, and enhancing. People can argue if it should be at twelve weeks, six months, or eight months. But whichever position a person takes, he must admit that, according to his position, one moment the unborn is unworthy of protection and the next moment, voila! it is worthy. But who among us has enough insight to assume the prerogative of determining when that exact moment is? The mother? The father? The abortionist? A Supreme Court justice? Put the question to any five-year-old child and see what answer you get. People have to educated out of believing that all unborn children should be protected. The natural human inclination is to protect the innocent and vulnerable. Every position that presumes to set some magic moment when an unborn child suddenly has the right to life is arbitrary, arrogant, and, as Dr. Schweitzer would say, on the side of evil.

The Rahm-bama Youth

The Rahm-bama machine is now proposing that every young person in America serve three months at boot camp where they will learn how to respond in civil disasters and what it means to be a good citizen. After all, "citizenship is not an entitlement program" (so says the Rahm). When asked by a reporter if this public service would be compulsory, Mr. Emanuel responded, "Only in the sense that it will be required" (yes, I heard it with my own ears). Can there be any doubt that this is a smokescreen for a program to remove every young citizen from his environment where he can be drilled in the protocals of the New Order?

Poll numbers below 50 pecent in the new Rasmussen poll
Obamacare tanking
India and China laughing at his lectureas on climate change
Europe yawning
Cap and Trade in trouble
Police "stupidity.

I believe the term, gentlemen, is Schadenfreude

Why is Jacko a hero to blacks?

Has there ever been a man who so thoroughly repudiated his own race? Clearly Michael Jackson despised his blackness and did all that his millions could do to eliminate it. He whitened his skin, he altered his facial features, he straightened his hair, he obtained white children through a white woman (though he was not the actual father). Yet he is celebrated as a hero of the black race. Hard to figure why any black person would give him the time of day.

"Gangster Government"

Excellent speech by Rep. Michele Bachman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=thR-lVuztIY

This does not make sense

I happened to hear HHS secretary Kathleen Sabelius discussing Obama’s federal health insurance option with Bret Baier on Fox News. Her mantra was that we need to bring competition into the health insurance industry to lower prices. They are obviously trying to make it seem like a reasonable idea, since they’ve chosen to use market-place competition as their primary selling point. Here’s how the plan will work: the federal government will open up a health insurance company run by public employees. The president said that this would enable them to run a cheaper operation, presumably because federal bureaucrats are such tireless and efficient workers. This will then force the private health insurance companies to streamline in order to compete. But this would not be fair, since the government insurance company would not need to make a profit in order to stay in business. In fact, if it were to run at a loss, the loss could be made up with tax money. So Mrs. Sabelius assured Bret that "the playing field will be level." But how would this happen? By the government increasing their prices? Wouldn’t this defeat the whole purpose of creating competition? Maybe by subsidizing the private companies. But how does this result in any actual decreases in health care costs. And the fact is, today there are hundreds of companies selling health insurance, so how is one more going to suddenly make the whole system more competitive? Frankly, this whole thing has to be a cover for something else because it makes no sense at all.