What Do You Mean, ‘WE’?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

In the post on the GZM as an election issue, I had said:

“I’m all for seeing ecumenical centers at all sorts of hallowed sites, like Mecca, Medina, and Ground Zero. Because if ‘tolerance’ and ’sensitivity’ are not omni-directional, then they may just be cheap talking points proffered by the nefarious.”

And our senior critic from the Left, Young4Eyes, replied:

Your point is moot.
It’s not a matter of any tolerance or sensitivity being omni-directional or not; I’ve heard this argument before and it strikes me as sadly devoid of any reason.
Our principles are not theirs. Dare I say that our standards are better? Of course.
Therefore any excuse making that seeks to equate their ways with ours is pathetic. WE abide by principles that distinguish us from their Sharia standards.
You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?
Because we are America.
Anything else reeks of the phony Conservatism you folks espouse.

Actually, the point is well-founded on a reasonable argument. I even expounded on the point here.
The notion of deciding what is and is not tolerance is a purely moral case.
I can espouse and follow as radical a flavor of Christianity as I care to, even dropping out to become an Amish farmer.
Do I get to drag you with me, though?
No, that would be unethical.
WE, in fact, do not abide by standards that distinguish us from Sharia. Sharia, from casual reads of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Andrew McCarthy, is a totalitarian, Borg-like system that, in full bloom, really doesn’t play well with notions like, say, Western Civilization.
And, no, I don’t think Christianity, and its individual moral choices and doctrine of individual salvation require a completely passive acceptance of being treated like a doormat. Furthermore, the notion that the US is a “Christian nation” is truly radical to me, for reasons stated in the previous sentence: Christianity is an individual, apolitical, moral endeavor. If you want to attend my church, study the Bible in the King James version, and build some argument whereby you think your point is tenable, fine.
Until such time, all I see is projection: “You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?”
Who is being denied religious freedom here? Who has explicitly stated “You cannot go to location X unless you are a member of Y faith”? What, specifically, is intolerant about requesting your own views on a matter as emotionally charged as a mass murder receive respect? And not lip service, but tangible action?
What about a church at Ground Zero that was destroyed, and has not been rebuilt, but may not be receiving equal consideration?
I realize you’re here to troll, Young4Eyes, but even you must admit that the Ground Zero Mosque is achieving exactly the opposite of its stated intent, and this Saul Alinsky “Hold the opposition to their standards” tactic is a barrel of hogwash.

Doctor Zero is also worth your time on the topic.
As is the rather more passionate Freeberg.

Obama’s Propaganda Machine

Posted on Comments

Rep. Darrell Issa’s office has issued a new report on how the Obama administration is using taxpayer dollars to promote a political agenda. Jonathan Strong of Daily Caller writes:

One of the Obama administration’s more expensive “propaganda” efforts, according to the report, was a television commercial boosting the then-newly passed health care law. The advertisement features 84-year-old television star Andy Griffith and was designed to sell senior citizens, whom polls show are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, on the “good things [that] are coming” in the law.
“Free check ups, lower prescription costs, and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud . . . I think you’re gonna like it,” Griffith said in the ad. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency responsible for implementing the health care law, paid $700,000 for the commercial, the Issa report says.

Dan Riehl notes that the administration has used blog trolls to spread its message, and there’s more from Bob Owens at Pajamas Media. Fox News featured the Issa report:

Congratulations, Pamela Geller!

Posted on Comments

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America just went into its second printing, Pamela told me last night in a phone conversation. 

Geller is in Los Angeles to speak tonight (7 p.m.) with Robert Spencer at the Skirball Cultural Center in an event co-sponsored by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Pamela told me that they are planning a 9/11 rally against the Ground Zero Mosque with Newt Gingrich. She is quoted in a Wall Street Journal story today:

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller, founder of a group called Stop Islamization of America and a vocal opponent of the mosque near Ground Zero, blasted Mr. Obama in a statement. The president, she said, “has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists.”

It’s as if Obama is trying to help Pamela sell books — as is Hamas:

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.

Having Hamas on your side isn’t exactly a formula for success in American politics. Obama has screwed the pooch on this one. This morning I was watching MSNBC, where Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas) was telling Obama to keep his presidential nose out of New York’s business and Pat Buchanan was opposing the mosque saying, “This is sacred ground!” Clearly, Pamela is winning this argument.

UPDATE: Professor Donald Douglas plans to attend tonight’s L.A. event with Geller and Spencer.

Conspicuously Absent Words

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Reading Lefties can be a source of sad amusement. Curtis Valentine at PuffHo has a piece trying to find the ointment on the economic fly. Here is a bit of introductory text for flavor:

Over the past twenty-five years, the exorbitant increase in the American standard of living has had an inverse affect on our tendencies to borrow and share. With millions of Americans enjoying a flourishing economy, the idea of Keeping up with the Jones’ was given new meaning and the term community development was reserved for poor neighborhoods filled with America’s underprivileged.

For all the Americans migrating to major cities and the immigrants arriving on our shores over the past century, this sense of community was the expectation not the exception. The recent age of overconsumption has caused the middle class to become less dependent on one another creating a level of independence that altered the traditional idea of community as we all envisioned it.

But then there is this:

With all the talk about preserving the institution of marriage and strengthening the American family, there has been little discussion about creating communities and institutions that can act as a support system or safety net for the families in times of need. The need is even more pronounced in single-parent homes that depend on extended family members, friends, and neighbors for emotional and financial support.

OK, Curtis, you managed to say “institution of marriage”. You almost uttered a word to describe where such an event occurs; a church, or a synagogue, or even a mosque maybe? See, those are safety nets not only when in need, but even more importantly, before the need arises.

You can generalize to “community of faith”, if you’re fretting an attack for proselytizing. But the statistical truth since the Great Society is that your social programs are a cure worse than the disease.

Socially, as politically, our task is to revive the mostly valuable traditions that the country is founded upon, and tell the Curtis crowd to talk to the hand.

Ron Miller Question And Answer Part 2

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Last Wednesday, I took in the Ron Miller party for “Sellout”. The man has a great, pro-American story, and now we’re enjoying the Q&A portion of the evening. The last clip is going to hurt a few people in their business model.

Growing up in an apolitical family

An interestig Condi Rice fact.

Segmenting communities

A shameless plug, and the notion of balkanizing the population as a means of building collectivism. Individualism as the antidote.

Diving on media grenades

Ron Miller is willing to go anywhere that Clarence Thomas or Michael Steele has gone. Critics can discount ideas, but Ron is confident in letting experience talk.

Condi Rice was no victim

“Victimhood is a choice,” speaks Ron. But it is not necessarily a holdover from slavery, but rather an effort on the part of some to keep a sense of grievance alive.

Previously:

Ladd Ehlinger Jr. Goes Hollywood

Posted on Comments

My latest column at The American Spectator:

HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — On a sound stage near Santa Monica Boulevard, actress Valerie Novak flubs a line and director Ladd Ehlinger Jr. asks her to repeat it. “And — action!”
Novak nails the line this time and continues with her dramatic monologue when the director’s cell phone rings, forcing another retake. Ehlinger mutters, “Can somebody fire the director, please?”
Sunday’s daylong shoot was running slightly behind schedule, as actors and actresses lounged around the studio awaiting their turns in front of the camera for a series of political advertisements. Three members of Ehlinger’s cast are Republican candidates for Congress and, by Labor Day, these videos could be bringing them YouTube fame. . . .

Please read the whole thing. Here are some more photos of yesterday’s shoot in Hollywood:

Ladd Ehlinger Jr. adjusts the camera to make sure he’s got the parting of the CGI green-screen Red Sea in perfect focus.

Stage 15 of Ben Kitay Productions: “Quiet on the set!”

Mona Lee Goss is actually a much nicer person than the character she’s portraying in this shot.

Standing between Steel Chambers as the Monster and Jack Marino as Igor, Mattie Fein is easily the best-looking character in this photo.

Standing alone, I’m easily the best-looking character in this photo.

Mark Reed is running for Congress against Brad Sherman in California District 27. Considering his Native American ancestry, when Reed says “take our country back,” it has a distinctive resonance.

Mattie Fein and political operative Ali Wolter relax on the set.

“Toto, I don’t think we’re in What’s the Matter With Kansas anymore!”

Who could possibly wish harm to sweet little Kylie O’Brien?

Who else? It’s the Wicked Witch of the West!

Ground Zero Mosque As An Election Issue

Posted on Comments

by Smitty (h/t Libertarian Republican)

John Gomez floats the obvious question:

He has Sarah Palin’s endorsement.

I’m all for seeing ecumenical centers at all sorts of hallowed sites, like Mecca, Medina, and Ground Zero. Because if ‘tolerance’ and ‘sensitivity’ are not omni-directional, then they may just be cheap talking points proffered by the nefarious.

On the other hand, it’s a shame to see this issue eat up so much mindshare. One wonders if that outcome isn’t somewhat deliberate.

Update: Ace has the psychoanalytic breakdown of the POTUS motives

. . .my belief is that these people take a psychological comfort, a psychological delight, in taking positions that the majority of their fellow countrymen find repugnant, because this affords them what they really want: A method of differentiating themselves from the common and thereby elevating themselves to ranks of elite.

And note this is quite necessary: The “elite” are not made up of the rich. Sure, there are many rich in the elite, but that’s not what makes them elite. There are many poor “elite” who claim to be elite not due to their salary or position but due to thinking what the other elites think only.

RTWT. It’s a nice variation on the Codevilla theme, and the Shatner “Common People” chaser is a hoot.

Update II: Some further thoughts from the purveyor of Rhiel politik:

In that case, a member of the ruling class might even be considered somewhat Center Right; however, money, education and position matter a great deal. And that presents a real challenge for both conservatives and libertarians. Having such individuals in the ruling class, like Bush and others, compassionate conservatives in that instance, makes it extremely difficult for an honest small government mindset to prevail.

Gosh, Dan: are you implying that a Senator might be more beholden to the plutocrat who buys the Senate seat with campaign contributions than (s)he is to that annoying Oath of Office?

We gave King George a thumping. We wrote a Constitution. We allowed it to be honored in the breach. We’re now taking it in the breaches, but we can still rise against our contemporary King George.

Update III: The mighty Victor Davis Hanson surveys the GZM madness, contrasts it to the AZ border, and concludes:

In short, the great enigma of our postmodern age is how American society grew so wealthy and free to create so many residents that became so angry at the conditions that have made them so privileged—and how so millions abroad fled the intolerance and poverty of their country and yet on arrival almost magically romanticize the very conditions in the abstract that they would never live under again in the concrete.

This November, far from being a repudiation of the Constitution, promises to be the greatest test yet of the notion of the House coming up for re-election every two years. It’s almost like those dead Presidents kinda knew what they were doing, in their pre-transistor wisdom.

Toomey GOP Weekly Address: C+

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Toomey speaks clearly and plainly. As a relative new guy, he’s beholden to the party line: Democrats are irresponsible.

The complaint seems more one of style than substance, however.

I can’t foresee any long-term improvement until a more Tea Party attitude of limited, Constitutional, Federalist government takes hold.

This Democrat-lite talk is rather ghey and should throw itself under the Straight Talk Express, if we’re going to do more than slow our transition into Europe.