Crusader War College

Burning in effigy is a long cherished tradition in America since the Revolution. Hanging in effigy is a different matter.

If you don't want to burn in effigy, get a big fish tank, put a sign over it, and pour ash into the tank....

=> Read more!

The bastards are back AGAIN.

This comment (#2) from the Rantburg article is worth thinking about:

As far as the failure of what Lewis calls "the jihad east of the Pyrenees" being "one of the most significant losses in world history," where is H. L. Mencken now that we need him? He once wrote "Here is something that the psychologists have so far neglected: the love of ugliness for its own sake, the lust to make the world intolerable."

Godspeed to you, Major.

This has to be the Comment of the Week.

Charles Johnson quotes the following from a Reuters article:

After agreeing to nuclear cooperation with Libya, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the West should trust Arab states to develop such technology for peaceful purposes or risk a war of civilizations.

He then finishes with the following observation:

In what universe does it make sense to say, “We need to trust their peaceful intentions, or they’ll declare war on us?”

The link is to the Rantburg article about a wealthy couple who kept two Indonesian women as slaves in their home. The comments are better. Here's Gromky's. Short. Penetrating. Its sad-sounding bewilderment adding to its eloquence:

There's something about these people's culture. It's not enough that you be rich and successful. No, you have to be rich and successful and other people have to be miserable. I don't understand it at all.

I don't either. It's a complete mystery to me, which means I probably wouldn't do something like this myself.

=> Read more!

The Anchoress Online rips into the culture of flexible truth. A magnificent rant! Here's an excerpt:

A few people, however, are starting to look around and are saying, “well…I might be a Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I have to swallow this crapola.” Or they’re saying, “just because we replaced feckless Republicans with you, that doesn’t mean we told you to demoralize and undercut the troops and leave the Iraqi people to a bloody fate. Or to screw around for your personal gain” They’re saying, “how is it Israel is the bad guy when Hamas - whom we fund like mad - is saying they want to kill all Americans?” They’re saying “what’s this nonsense about some churches needing to get with the times, when the ones that embrace modernity are imploding and the church set most palpably in the 8th century is the one being pandered to, left and right? What’s up with that?”

What some people are actually starting to say is: “When the evidence of something is right in front of my face, why do you insist on telling me that what I am seeing is not what is real, that what I am hearing is not really being said, that what my own reason can sensibly deduce makes no sense? Stop telling me I don’t know what I’m encountering and that my reason is faulty. Stop telling me that the Bush White House “outted” Valerie Plame to punish Joe Wilson, when your own boy Richard Armitage admitted to doing the job. Stop telling me he lied to us about yellowcake while neglecting to mention that the Butler report confirmed the intelligence. Cease this nonsense that everyone loved America until 2003. For the love of Pete, don’t tell me George Tenet is saying something other than yes, Saddam did have WMD. Stop feeding me bullshit narratives that have barely a nodding acquaintance with the truth, because it’s starting to seriously piss me off!”

You need to go read the original article, since the above text is laced with links to relevant articles and postings proving each point.

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, addresses the following problem:

This morning I received an email from a friend of ours who has noticed the nuke-the-ragheads mentality which so often rears its head in Gates of Vienna comments:

A couple of your commenters have got Islam so deeply on the brain, they think the only good ay-rab is a dead ay-rab. People who can’t distinguish individuals from groups are by definition prejudiced.

And indeed they are.

In fact, what they are doing is arguing for the assignment of collective guilt. They believe that innocent people within a group defined as “the enemy” should not be spared the fate of the group, deserve no sympathy, and should be disregarded.

The Baron goes on to cite the passage in Genesis 18:20-33, where Abraham bargains with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah. Baron Bodissey argues from this the principle that the presence of some Muslim Moderates should moderate our response. He finishes by saying:

We can chew gum and walk. We can fight the vampires of Islamic fascism while supporting those Muslims who have the courage to speak out on behalf of values we share. Both jobs can be done.

If there be but ten righteous, let the city be spared.

Unfortunately, the problem of quoting the scriptures to support one's position is that ALL the scriptures relating to the issue at hand should be addressed.

=> Read more!

Oldspook, a Rantburg regular, made the following comment to the above article, in which a NATO official appeals to the United States to open negotiations with the Taliban and come to an understanding.

The problem is the writer does NOT understand the fundamentalists.

The ONLY available positions for any non-Islamic opponent, in the view of the Talib, is either footstool (subservience/dhimmitude) or rug (you die and they take your stuff).

These are not typical marxist or drug-lord rebels, these are people on a mission from God (in their minds). They consider death a reward, not something to be avoided. There is no negotiation.

That's the big problem with liberals, left and others on that side, like the writer: they are NOT people of faith, so they have no concept of how faith can drive a person's life, for better or worse. And in the case of Islamic fundamentalists, it is far worse -they have distorted and warped things to where only violence is preached.

We are not trying to contain Stalin, we are fighting something as elemental as fire.

The only way to beat it is to extinguish it.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-09-19 10:20

Right on the money, Oldspook.

Bigwig at Siflay Hralka notes the following:

Houses Built Upon The Sand
Lots of coverage in the internet press on the left side of the Blogosphere's vicious attacks on Joe Lieberman during the run-up to the Connecticut Democratic Primary, but so far the answer as to why remains elusive to those not drinking the Ned Lamont kool-aid.

Bigwig quotes from two sources that show that Liberman is not as conservative as the LeftNet (Bigwig's terrific term) wants us to believe. He then says:

I think the answer is simple. Having so obviously targeted Lieberman, the netroots/nutroots/Townhouse crew must now defeat him, or risk being seen as irrelevant, especially considering their dismal electoral record thus far.

National races are one thing, but If the LeftNet cannot elect a candidate of their own choosing in a Democratic Primary in one of the most liberal states in the Union, then they can't win elections, period. If that happens, it should become obvious to one and all that the Emperor has no clothes.

As to the question of why the LeftNet has yet to discover this on its own, despite repeated reminders, we've talked about this before:

Essentially, the Internet has given the Left a perception of growth where there is in fact none. It may have even masked a decline in the real political power of the Left.

Say one 10-member anti-globalist organization, in San Francisco, comes into contact with another 10-member group, in Seattle. Each feels that their membership and political power has doubled, when in reality nothing of the sort has occurred. Communication and coordination between the two is enhanced, but the actual number of votes has not changed at all. There is an inflation in each group's perception of its political power, but there is no corresponding rise in actual power wielded.

Given the horrid demographics of the Daily Kos readership (mostly elderly blue state boomers), the situation can only get worse, another reason why the effort to defeat Lieberman is so important to the LeftNet. When the most dedicated members of your power base are also the ones most likely to wake up dead tomorrow, you have to move now when it comes to grabbing a piece of the political pie. A victory in Lieberman/Lamont is crucial for the LeftNet. "Just wait till next time" is useless as a rallying cry for your base when so many of them won’t be around.

His observation that the Internet gives an illusion of increased power that may mask a real diminution of power is an eye-opener. The comments were particularly enlightening, including this one by a Mr. Snitch! about sites that edit comments to maintain the integrity of their echo chamber. He was probably referring to Democratic Underground, but it equally applies to another site that comes to mind.

Hattip Mike via Rantburg.

In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Federal Election Commission left unregulated almost all political activity on the Internet except for paid political advertisements. Campaigns buying such ads will have to use money raised under the limits of current federal campaign law.

Perhaps most important, the commission effectively granted media exemptions to bloggers and other activists using the Web to allow them to praise and criticize politicians, just as newspapers can, without fear of federal interference.

The rules "totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified," said FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner. The regulation "protects Internet activities by individuals in all forms, including e-mailing, linking, blogging, or hosting a Web site," he said.

OUTSTANDING! The restriction on BUYING advertising makes sense. At the same time, posting an ad for free on your site should be treated the same as planting a campaign poster on your lawn.

An excellent decision to have, but like all liberties, must be monitored and defended when occasion arises. "You have a Republic, Madam", Benjamin Franklin was reported to have said to a Lady who asked him about the Constitution, "provided you can keep it."

The article cited is about a convention of "God-bloggers" being held at Biola University. I thought the following excerpt was significant:

Blogging's popularity is no doubt on a rapid rise, although it hasn't yet taken hold over the vast majority of Internet users.

By the end of 2004, 8 million U.S. adults — 7 percent of adults who use the Internet — reported having created a blog, according to a study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

The same study estimated that some 32 million Internet users reported reading a blog, which represented more than double the amount from less than a year before. Other studies have estimated the number of blogs at anywhere from 15 million to more than 30 million.

=> Read more!

This is an article at Rantburg where comments were closed. "Which side is nuttier? Democrats or Republicans?" Here are MY comments.

I think that the article and the comments are exercises in strained moral equivalence. Instead, I prefer using the following rules:

"By their fruits ye shall know them." What is the outcome of their life? Of their teachings? Of the laws they advocate? The results of their programs?

"Buy the truth, and do not sell it" Do they follow logic? Do they respect the facts? Are their comparisons strained or flow naturally? Are there questions they avoid answering, or questions that make them angry and set them off?

"Birds of a feather flock together" What kind of company do they keep? Who do they praise? Who do they condemn? What are the fruits of those they support? Of those they condemn.

The current plight of the Democratic party (and the potential future of the Republican party) can be explained by the sayings "Where the Body is, there will the vultures gather also.", and "Bad money drives out good". There are people who do not want to work their own way through life, but want to live off the sweat and blood of others. They will be attracted to where "the body is", where the power, the money, and the authority are, in order to hijack it and use it for their own profit. Look at the numbers: the Democrats used to have majorities in the House and Senate, the Presidents, and thus the power. The vultures were attracted to it. When they arrived and took over some of the power centers, they drove out the good and worthy Democrats. Some of the best Republicans were former conservative Democrats, and they brought the Conservative South with them into the party. As the old guard dies out, pining for the good old days, the brats of the 60s move in and take over.

Prediction: The same thing will happen to the Republicans. As Democrats lose power, the vultures will start going over to the Republican side, seeking the body to feed upon. Not only will it happen, but given the RINOs in the party, the process is quite well underway.

So which side is Nuttier? At the moment, clearly the Democrats and everyone to the left, since their fruit is known and has been shown to be bad economic juju. Hundreds of millions of dead bodies is bitter fruit. Their silence in the face of hundreds of thousands killed and tortured, and their screams at the non-fatal humiliation of less than a couple of dozen, is quite damning.

I'm sure there are some rational democrats still left in the Party, but the political platforms are an official expression of what it means to be a Democrat or a Republican, and the Republican platform is clearly more rational, while the policies of the Democrats has bourne bad fruit and have not been repudiated. At the same time, I admit that there are RINOs in the Republican side that contain elements of the hair of the dog that bit the Democrats.

However, I believe natural processes will reward the rational and respecters of reality, and punish the irrational and the willingly ignorant. As I outlined above, the rewards going to the Republicans will eventually attract the vultures. The bad will drive out the good, and the pendulum will swing the other way.

Imperial Minister of Truth Bill Whittle at "Eject! Eject! Eject!" has two essays out: Sanctuary I, and Sanctuary II

They're so great, that any commentary on the same page on them would be embarassing.

=> Read more!

At some point you have to stop tracking, gathering information, analyzing the data and stringing together the variable and just shoot the bastards.

This priceless gem comes via Shipman's comment at Rantburg.