Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Obama as the Messiah

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."- Obama, Super Tuesday
The more I see and hear of Barack Hussein Obama, the more he creeps me out. The adulation and the unabashed worship of and gushing about this somewhat unaccomplished first term Senator make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. I will be writing more on the Obama phenomenon, but I just read an interesting stream of consciousness from Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog on Obama that I would like to bring to your attention.

Here is another website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?". There is serious weirdness afoot.

Like I said, much more will follow on this subject. Much more.

Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48

Well, I guess this explains a lot.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

(via Corner)

As still another piece of evidence that Islam is incompatible, by its own choice, with modernity comes this:

Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.

Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".

The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.

Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at Liverpool University revealed that female Muslim students at Alder Hey children's hospital had objected to rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns.

Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate

Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam.

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said.

Dr Majid Katme, the association spokesman, said: "Exposed arms can pick up germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest skin is safer to the patient if covered. One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows."
Tolerance of this type of foolishness must simply come to an end. If Muslims cannot function in the modern world then they should leave it and go back to the medieval hellholes from which they came. There is a reason that Muslim countries are socially, technologically and culturally stunted; Islam is a retarding agent and will continue to be as long as its backward precepts are left unchallenged.
Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure'

If the Democrats are not completely embarassed by Nancy Pelosi by this point, I can only assume that they are beyond shame. Roger Simon indicates that she's stupid, but I think he may be too kind. I think she's simply lost all sight of "duty to country"; now it's all about "duty to party".
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”

"The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”

The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”
I like the way she threw a bone to the troops, as an obvious afterthought. She's an absolute disgrace to her country and to her office. Along with far too many members of her party, she has chosen to put electoral politics above the good of her nation. There are any number of terms that can be applied to that type of action, many would be considered overwrought and inflammatory. Instead, I'll just say that she is beneath contempt and wholly unfit to be Speaker of the House.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Holy Toledo! Mayor Asks Marines to Leave

In a display of anti-military sentiment and sheer political tone-deafness Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner asked the Marines, who were scheduled for exercises days in advance, to leave immediately.
A company of Marine Corps Reservists received a cold send-off from downtown Toledo yesterday by order of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

The 200 members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., planned to spend their weekend engaged in urban patrol exercises on the streets of downtown as well as inside the mostly vacant Madison Building, 607 Madison Ave.

Toledo police knew days in advance about their plans for a three-day exercise. Yet somehow the memo never made it to Mayor Finkbeiner, who ordered the Marines out yesterday afternoon just minutes before their buses were to arrive.

"The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people," said Brian Schwartz, the mayor's spokesman.

"He did not want them practicing and drilling in a highly visible area."

I have no doubt that the repercussions from this incredible act of stupidity will be swift and sure. The Blogosphere is awash in this story and Carty Finkbeiner's name is, even as we speak, becoming mud. As Toledo is not Berkeley, I am sure that the good citizens will make this putz pay dearly.

I am proud that Republicans are a party of principle; a diverse group to which ideology is paramount. I wonder though, if this is harmful helpful to the cause.

At some point, we will have to come together and do what's best for America. At some point, we have to concentrate on what unites us, rather than ewhat divides us. The sooner we get to that point, the better chance we will have.
Fred Thompson Backs McCain

While this is not necessarily earth-shattering news (who else would he support?), the fact that he's doing so publically shows he's doing his part to heal the GOP - a party in dire need of healing:
Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee.

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.

The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party
around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years,
is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.
Thompson as VP? Could be; it would certainly go a long way in mollifying conservatives. At the very least, I would like to see Fred in a highly visable position in a McCain administration (as I would Giuliani) - should that come about.

I also think that McCain needs to reach out to Romney in order to show some magnanimity and show that he is also willing to do what it takes for the good of his party. This personal enmity he has for Romney hinders his cause and validates the concerns as to his temperament.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Music cannot change the world, says Neil Young

You mean nobody listens to the political rantings of drug-addled rock stars any more? Maybe things aren't as bleak as I though they were!

It's funny though, he says it like it's a bad thing....

In news that is sure to stun Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore (he's not really a climatologist, but he does stay at Holiday Inn Express), the earth may well be headed for a period of global cooling:
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Oh well, Al Gore is in good company; the guy who developed lobotomies won a Nobel Prize as well. While I'm not a climatologist, the sun having an enormous impact on the Earth's weather patterns seems like a no-brainer to me. Then again, I've been staying at Wingate Inn quite a bit lately.
An American First, a Conservative Second

John McCain is not the likely Republican nominee; he is the Republican nominee. The time is now for the supporters of all of the previous candidates to get behind McCain and start thinking about your country rather than your ideological purity. In short, get over it.

The howling from conservative ranks has been deafening. Many are indicating that they will “never vote for McCain” and will sit out the election. I am sure that the Democrat nominee is counting on them doing just that and will be deeply grateful for their support – even if the support is passive. Make no mistake, regardless of intention that will be the outcome of such an electoral boycott. Go ahead, make their day.

To those who will take this course I ask: is your ideology so important to you that you would sacrifice your country on its behalf? I would expect this from a liberal, I would not expect it from a conservative.

McCain wasn’t my first choice, in fact, he wasn’t even close. I have serious problems with any number of his positions over the years, his temperament and his propensity to poke his fellow Republicans in the eye and the particular (and peculiar) glee that he seemed to take in doing it.

I have long noted that, for me, the winning of Iraq and the larger war was the main issue and I must say that my position on that has not changed. Well, as they say, be careful what you wish for. I believe that John McCain is right on that issue and I have no reason to believe that he will not deliver as president. He was a vocal critic of Rumsfeld and the previous strategy in Iraq, but our current level of success may well indicate that he was correct in doing so. While I still have enormous respect for Don Rumsfeld, he would be the first to admit that he is not infallible. The point is that we are now winning and McCain, for all of his faults, was a major proponent of our current successful strategy.

Again, on any number of other issues, I have enormous apprehension as to a McCain presidency. He does have an 82.3% rating from the American Conservative Union, which should dispel the charges that he’s a liberal. Unfortunately, those issues on which he has strayed from conservatism have been very high profile and sensitive, particularly immigration and campaign finance. As it is a key component of our national security, I am deeply concerned about his position on immigration, but I am concerned about Bush’s as well. Still, without a vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq and the wider war on Islamic fundamentalism, many of these issues become rather moot.

The fact is, the next president will be John McCain, Clinton v2.0 or (shudder) Barack Hussein Obama. The gulf between McCain and either of the Democrat candidates is enormous, regardless of what his critics might say. If you feel that your principles are so sacrosanct that you feel forced to hand the White House over to Hillary or Obama, it’s your right to do so.

As for me, I will support McCain with all of his faults. I will set my philosophical differences aside and do so for the good of my country. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I am doing the best I can do, given the choices available.

Should you be of the mind to “sit this one out”, I only ask that you consider the consequences of your inaction. I ask you to put your country first.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Three (3!) Terrorists Were Waterboarded

Unbelievable. All of this hand-wringing and national soul searching was over this technique being used on a grand total of 3 terrorists?
At the same hearing, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly confirmed for the first time the names of three suspected al-Qaida terrorists who were subjected to a particularly harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding, and why.

“We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,” Hayden said. “There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed.”

Hayden said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the purported mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States — and Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were subject to the harsh interrogations in 2002 and 2003. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that critics call torture.

Waterboarding induces a feeling of imminent drowning with the restrained subject’s mouth covered and water poured over his face.

“Waterboarding taken to its extreme, could be death, you could drown someone,” McConnell acknowledged. He said waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA’s arsenal, but it would require the consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.
From the coverage this has received, you would think that it was something that was being used as a general rule, on at least hundreds.......but 3?

If we don't have the stomach for something as reletively benign as this, we simply do not have a chance against the barbarians.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Chelsea Clinton: "You're not voting for the Clintons. You're voting for my mother"

Oh yeah, that eases my mind. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Chelsea.

"She makes the best applesauce. She reads to me still when I don't feel well. I've never doubted that I'm the most important person in the world to her."

Well there you have it! What more do we need in a President?

Friday, February 01, 2008

Is the GOP the REAL Party of Diversity?

What is a political party about, if not about political philosophy? It's not about gender, it's not about race, as neither of these factors is relevant, nor should they be. Since I can remember, the Democrats have talked about their "big tent" where all were welcome as they portayed themselves as the "party of diversity", but I find that portayal increasingly suspect, and their tent becomes smaller by the day. If you want to talk about ideological diversity in the Democrat party, talk to Joe Leiberman.

From where we find ourselves at this point, it would appear that the "big tent" that the Republican Party has sought for so long has indeed been pitched and diversity abounds. One need only to look at the Republican hopefuls in the 2008 Presidential race to see a wildly divergent field of candidates in terms of philosophy:

John McCain: A foreign policy hawk whose commitment to the military is unquestioned. On the flip-side however, he also has a history of pandering to the left on domestic and social issues which has infuriated conservative purists. His commitment to fiscal conservatism seems questionable as do many of his stands on domestic issues. Lack of executive experience is a minus.

Mitt Romney: The clear candidate of fiscal conservatives, whose business acumen is unquestioned. While there has been some questions regarding his stance on some social issues in the past, his foreign policy stands have seemed well in line with those who see foreign policy as a paramount concern. Domestically, he seems to be, at the very least, center-right. Good executive experience in both the private and public sector is a big plus.

Mike Huckabee: The social conservative candidate who is a favorite among the evangelical crowd , who seem to be his main constituency. He's a foreign policy neophyte, and his domestic policy seems questionable, at best. While being governor of Arkansas does qualify as executive experience, the fact that it was Arkansas is a mitigating factor.

Ron Paul who is technically still in the race is little more than a curiosity, whose main contribution to the debate has been comic relief.

Fred Thompson, who was probably the clear all-around conservative in the race, has, unfortunately dropped out. His mature and common sense views will be sorely missed as the selection process moves forward, but he and his campaign never seemed very determined and that was unfortunate.

Rudy Giuliani, who has also dropped out, was an interesting contradiction: a foreign policy hawk, a fiscal conservative with centrist domestic views and rather liberal social views. I liked Rudy and I think that he may well have been able to unite manyof the main factions of the Republican Party and would have have had pretty broad appeal in the general election.

This is a pretty varied field of individuals, philosophically speaking, with no one candidate being the embodiment of all the needs of all Republicans. The debate has been vibrant, indeed even hostile at times, but such is the nature of intra-party politics. Most importantly, the debate has been centered on policy and political philosophy, which is, and should be, the nature of politics in general.

In contrast, among the Democrats we have the following field of contenders:

Hillary Clinton: Could become the first woman to be nominated by a major party for the office of President who is a foreign policy dove, but has dabbled in periods of hawkish platitudes when it suited her ends. She's fiscally, domestically and socially liberal. She's an unreconstructed 60s-type leftist who believes in the power of the state in all matters and whose basic views have not changed in more than 40 years. Her role while her husband was president was to pull him to the left, while his better instincts (to his credit) pulled him to the right. During that time, her claim to fame was the design of a top-down government takover of the nation's health care system which, thankfully, failed miserably. She was elected to the US Senate as her first elective office, almost exclusively due to her last name. Save the health care debacle, she has no executive experience and her claim to the highest office in this country seems to rest upon the fact that she's a woman, and her husband was president for 8 years.

Barack Obama: Could become the first black to be nominated by a major party as a candidate for President of the United States. He's been a US Senator for 3 years and previously was an Illinois State Senator. Obama is, admittedly a great speaker who has chosen "change' as is campaign slogan, but offers few clues as to what that change might be. He speaks in flowery oratory which is rooted in little substance. He was recently named the most liberal member of the US Senate for 2007 by the National Journal. He has been a consistent opponent of the Iraq war and favors withdrawl - a position that he has consistently maintained. Obama has no executive experience, few concrete ideas but has garnered the support of such bastions of liberalism as Ted Kennedy. He has captured the imagination of many on the left, presumably because imagination is a key component in understanding why he is a candidate in the first place. Oh, did I mention he was black?

Yes, there was also John Edwards who has recently pulled out of the race. Edwards was always a bit of an empty suit who was never a serious contender.

The Democrats seem intent on 2008 being the year of identity politics as they pin their hopes on either the leftist woman, or the leftist black man. Where does a moderate or conservative Democrat go? There is actually a place for liberal Republicans, such as Giuliani, in the Republican Party, is there a place for conservative Democrats in the Democrat party? If so, where are they in the field of contenders? The Left rejoices in the idea of diversity, as long as the diverse identities are philosphically monolithic. While the Republicans are debating a variety of policies and ideas, the Democrats seem to be mired in gender and race.

From my perspective, the party of "diversity" is, and continues to be the Republicans - for better or worse.

At the time of this writing, John McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. While the race is far from over, it's clear that the nominee will be either McCain or Romney and McCain does seem to be in the driver's seat.

I've often said that the narrow war (Iraq) as well as the broader war (the war on Islamism in general) is the defining issue of our time and is, quite simply, the single most important issue in this race. I believe that John McCain will prosecute the war on both fronts and will do so admirably.

Alas, I disagree with him on practically every other issue.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for.