baldilocks

Pattern: Masters

So U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is pondering an investigation of the CIA and of Former Vice President Dick Cheney for some sort of crime when the man possibly directed the organization to even ponder making a direct hit on America’s enemies? And the particulars of said program were made public by the New York Times in 2002?

But didn’t this same Department of Justice decline to prosecute blatant voter intimidation perpetrated by the “New Black Panther Party” in Philadelphia—the exact same sort of voter intimidation which was practiced in the South against black Americans prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

I guess it really does come down to who is doing the crime with these people. Any sort of principle or morality is never even considered. Such must, of course, be grounded in truth.

And don’t forget the revenge motive, because these “inconsistencies” are always about that.

One more pattern observed: AG Holder pretends that his putative investigation is against the wishes of President Obama in the same manner that U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pretends that her own crusade to show photos from the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program and from Abu Ghraib are against the president’s wishes. Bull cookies. The two are merely acting on the president’s orders and taking the heat which he doesn’t have the stones to shoulder. These actions—and all the others—are done with President Obama’s approval, make no mistake about that. Delegation of authority isn’t part of a Leftist philosophy.

(Thanks to Karl at Hot Air)

Tales from the Cold War

Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president of the United States, repudiates President Obama’s version of the Cold War:

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

Just so.

With President Obama, it’s to the point where his groveling to and rewriting history for our enemies and frenemies has become so frequent that we are beginning to become complacent in refuting his fantasies. Good thing that pundits like the fearless progeny of Darth Cheney have not.

(Thanks to Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ. Drew thinks that Miss Cheney and her father should be on the 2012 GOP presidential ticket and, to that end, has a most excellent slogan.)

New York State's Problem and America's

Leftists.

New York State Senate Democrats refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States. And when one of their number tries to stand, he is pulled down.

So does that mean that this particular group has no allegiance, no loyalty--no Fidelity--toward this country?  Just wondering.  It would be instructive to know.

(Thanks to La Shawn Barber)

The Right Leader

This Father’s Day has me thinking particularly of God the Father—the Good Shepherd who leads his flock down the right path.

It’s obvious that our earthly fathers choose us, whether they are conscious of it or not.  But don’t forget:  our Heavenly Father consciously does the same thing.  But He won’t compel you to follow.   You, the individual, must answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It’s a life-and-death issue to choose whom you will serve—whom you will allow to lead you.

Simply, I’m thankful to have been called and even more thankful for the grace to say ‘yes.’

Bow Down

Well.  I know what brand(s) my next vehicle won't be.

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

On Monday, President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

Do the last 69 days give anyone from the other political disposition a clue as to why the prospect of this man as president--Barack Obama--made those of us on the right cringe?  Probably very few.  

But no worries.  We'll all be clued in soon enough.

UPDATE:  Let them die (ignore the headline).

UPDATE:  Take over.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, bluntly rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, demanding fresh concessions for long-term federal aid and raising the possibility of quick bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.

Obama took the extraordinary step of announcing the government will back new car warranties issued by both GM and Chrysler, an attempt to reassure consumers their U.S.-made purchases will be protected even if the companies don't survive.

For the Progeny

Uptownsteve asks:

What will you black conservatives tell your grandchildren?

It’s a question which I take to imply that, somehow, our grandchildren will presume to vilify us for voting against the man who will become the first black president of the United States. It’s a very easy question to answer, actually: we believe that political, social, moral and spiritual principles take precedence over ethnic tribalism and we followed through on that assertion. But I’m guessing that Steve needs things spelled out a bit more, so I’ll do it for him and for my great nieces and nephews and—perhaps—any grandchildren I might have through being a step-mother. Here goes.

When a voter picks a candidate to serve in an office, that voter is essentially saying “Of all the choices available, I think that this person will do a better job in that office that all of the other available candidates.” In this case we are, of course, talking about the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. We are talking about a person whose job it is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people.

In order to make that decision the American voters need information and during the campaign season we are presented with information designed to allow the voters to make an informed decision as to which of the candidates will be the most competent in fulfilling the objective particulars of that office. By November 4th, we are supposed to come to a conclusion about this matter and record that conclusion in the voting booth.

While we are evaluating all of the information which can indicate a candidate’s competency at supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people, we have to take the information we receive and decide whether that information is relevant to the particulars of the office in question. Additionally, we have to decide whether the positive information outweighs the negative. And on top of that, we have to decide which candidate’s positive-negative ratio is better than that all of the others.

I concluded that the things which I know about Barack Obama which are relevant to his possible abilities to adequately support and defend the U.S. Constitution, the American land and the American people —his political background, his expressed political/social ideas and his overall judgment were either of lower quality than John McCain’s or that those things would be overtly detrimental to the well-being of this nation. I also concluded that either man’s ethnicity/race/color was insignificant factor in making a judgment as who was able to better serve this nation and, therefore, was irrelevant to making that decision.

I made my decision by making judgments about the following:

• Barack Obama’s decisions about the Surge conducted in Iraq
• His words regarding the success of that Surge
• His words about the US Constitution in 2001
• His words to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.
• His voting record in the Illinois Senate
• His voting record in the US Senate
• His words about his association with domestic terrorist William Ayers
• His adherence to Black Liberation Theology as formulated by James Cone and as articulated by Jeremiah Wright, Emeritus pastor of Trinity United Church of “Christ”
• His claim to not know the nature of Wright’s theological stance and to not have heard the latter’s more incendiary sermons after sitting in the pews of Wright’s church for twenty years.
• His stance on abortion and on the “Born Alive” provision in Illinois law.
• His stated intention to conduct presidential-level negotiations with rogue heads of state
• His promise to accept public funding for his campaign

There are many more factors but I hope that I have formed a picture---I did not like Barack Obama's words and/or subsequent actions regarding the above topics. And I would state such to the younger members of my family without hesitation. And if my sisters and my brother-in-law are doing their jobs properly, their children will understand that if a presidential candidate goes against every dearly-held ideology and principle in which you believe but is your same color, it’s a no-brainer to make the decision to vote against him/her.

Because if a candidate’s political, social and moral values are an anathema to a given voter but that voter chooses that candidate anyway solely because the voter shares race/ethnicity with the candidate and/or because of historical precedent, that voter has exchanged principle for emotion and for carnality. The voter has exchanged political, moral and spiritual values for pride of tribe (blacks) or to assuage tribal guilt (whites).

And that, good sir, is the very illustration of a selling-out.

However, if one’s “principles” are for sale, I guess that’s not such a big deal. And if one has no principles, we all know what’s being exchanged, what’s being sold: one’s very person. One's soul.

I’ll tell the kids that I retained mine.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, uptownsteve is banned. Pearls, swine, you know.

UPDATE: Welcome, friends from Ace of Spades HQ!

Missiles of November

Russia takes the opportunity to test welcome President-elect Obama to the world stage.

President [Dmitry] Medvedev ordered missiles to be stationed up against Nato’s borders yesterday to counter American plans to build a missile defence shield.

Speaking within hours of Barack Obama’s election, Mr Medvedev announced that Russia would base Iskander missiles in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad – the former German city – next to the border with Poland.

He did not say whether the short-range missiles would carry nuclear warheads.

Taking advantage of the world’s attention on the US elections, Mr Medvedev also cancelled plans to withdraw three intercontinental ballistic missile regiments from western Russia by 2010.

In his first state-of-the-nation address, Mr Medvedev said the missiles would be deployed “to neutralise if necessary the antiballistic missile system in Europe”. He added that Russia was also ready to deploy its Navy off Kaliningrad and to install electronic jamming devices to interfere with the US shield, which relies on a radar station in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland.

Well. I think that it doesn't take too much discernment to figure out that today's Presidential Daily Brief that DNI Chief Michael McConnell is conducting for the president-elect--his first top secret intelligence briefing--will have a distinctly Russian flavor.

Nato’s eastern members greeted the Russian move with dismay.

Gee, ya think?

Anniversary

One year without a cigarette.

By the way, I'll be busy again today. And as I've found out, when you leave your comment section un-moderated, some people can't resist taking advantage, so the comments are held. That means that I will allow them to post when I return to the computer.

Comment moderation is like locking your door when you're away from home to keep out those who would move into your house and take advantage. Don't think so? Check out the outrage displayed by a couple of...guests when they discovered that their nasty comments wouldn't post when they wanted them to. It's instructive of a larger mindset--let's call it a "redistributive" mindset.

Later.

UPDATE: One of the persons has apologized.

Im-Plantation

“Don’t you want to be on the right side of history?”

“You don’t want to be on the wrong side of history!”

Suddenly people who haven’t cracked a history text voluntarily in ages are concerned about being on the “correct” side of history. I’m seeing the phrase “right/wrong side of history” everywhere lately. Of course we know what the topic is: voting for Obama.

Months ago I heard the phrase issue out of the mouth of an old boyfriend whom I’ve known for over twenty-five years. He called me because he wanted to hear the actual reasons that I was not supporting Obama without having to read this blog—or at least he claimed to want to hear them. It was a fruitless conversation during which few of my reasons received a full hearing. (Listening was never his strong suit.) The question about the level of my desire to be on the correct side of history is the one useful thing that stuck in my head about the conversation.

In response to the question, I was about to rhetorically ask “who cares” when Old Boyfriend ended his unsuccessful efforts at proselytizing. (Actually his phone died and I assume that he has though better of calling back.)

Who indeed does care about being on the “right side of history?” I don’t. But I’m wondering how this thing-of-alleged-importance got placed on the list of desires which the average American citizen is supposed to hold. I began to wonder about the origin of the phrase and idea(s) behind it. Who was the first to think that this particular choosing of sides was important and why?

I had no luck with the phrases “right side of history” and “wrong side of history” searching with Google, even though—judging by the number of results--both seem to be one of those phrases which has become worn out from overuse by professional and amateur pundits, right, left and indifferent.

But finally, with an intuition kick-started by a breakfast of hotlinks and scrambled eggs, I inserted the name “Marx” into the search field. Jackpot.

The concept of a right side of history is derived from Marxism, and it is founded on the belief that there is a forward advance toward a socialist future that can be resisted, but not ultimately defeated. But does anyone believe this anymore? Does anyone take seriously the claim that the present state of affairs will be set aside and a wholly new order of things implemented in its place, and that such a transformation of the world will happen as a matter of course?

Jay Ambrose (March 28, 2006):

What does it mean to say someone is on the wrong side of history? Something like this, as best I can tell: History is moving discernibly and inevitably in a uniform, progressive, good direction, and if you hold to ideas or purposes contrary to that direction, you will find yourself more or less discarded, left by the wayside, a fossil of an era that was happily wiped out.

Though my scouting about indicates conservatives may use the expression as often as leftists, it clearly has deep roots in the thinking of Karl Marx, who supposed there was an economically determined class struggle the consequences of which were clearly predictable. [SNIP]

I am not saying equal misery will derive from the mere use of an expression about being on history's wrong side, but I do think that the assumptions buried in the phrase are treacherously fallacious and that bandying it about frequently could help inculcate them.

It’s fascinating to note how Marxist phrases and concepts have been getting floated into the main of communication. And I’m more nervous that Ambrose is about them—especially when people use these “persuasion” tools without knowing what they mean. But I'm betting that, by now, Mr. Ambrose is nervous as well.

ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY was Toledo's Joe the Plumber who had the "bad luck" to be outside when History swept through his neighborhood.

The Twisting

Another One-Act Play

******

He: The sky is blue.
She: No it’s not, it’s plaid.

He: Why are you saying that?
She: Because that the way I see it.

He: But it is the color that has been historically called blue.
She: I don’t see it that way.

He: (stops passing man and points at the sky) What color is that?
Man: Blue. (Man goes on his way.)

He: (stops another passing man and points at the sky) Welche Farbe is das?
Man 2: Blau. (Man goes on his way.)

He: (stops a woman and points at the sky) ¿De qué color es que?
Woman: Azul. (Woman goes on her way.)

He: See? Everyone sees blue up there.
She: But it’s not blue, it’s plaid.

He: No it’s not—it’s blue!
She: I have a right to say it’s plaid! Are you trying to infringe upon my rights?

He: What? This conversation doesn’t have anything to do with your r—
She: I see. I’ve hurt your feelings. You simply feel that the sky is blue. Well, I can’t do anything about your feelings. The sky is plaid and that’s that.

He: (pauses with jaw-dropped) Rights and feelings? The color of the sky is objectively blue! Plaid is not a single color! It’s a--
She: I’ll come back when you’ve calmed down. (walks away)

[The End]