Wednesday, February 27, 2008

To Stand "Athwart History, Yelling Stop"

A Titan has passed. William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review, and the leading Conservative intellectual of the 20th Century, died today at the age of 82.

Determined, as he wrote in 1955 in the first edition of National Review, to stand "athwart history" and yell "stop" at the, seemingly inevitable, left-wing onslaught, Mr. Buckley re-cast Conservatism as an intellectual movement; thus providing the ideological basis for the political movement that culminated with the Reagan Revolution.


To quote George Will:

"Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley, with a spark in his mind."
Indeed. Rest in Peace, good sir - and thank you.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Change You Can Be Scared Of

Finally, something from a Barack Obama stump speech that I can believe! Apparently, yesterday at an event in Austin, Texas, Obama was trying to fend of the label of 'liberal' that he has been pegged with. In doing so, he put forth this whopper of a line:

"There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure everyone has healthcare."

And you know what, folks? He's right; there is nothing liberal about 'Universal Health Care' - only something Socialist.

But hey, we shouldn't say things like that, because, they wouldn't be nice, and they would tear down the facade that has been Mr. Obama's entire campaign. I mean, Obama is nothing more than a master masquerader, who has donned the cap of 'uniter' just long enough, and well enough, to gain a serious following of folks who actually believe his empty-yet-grandiose rhetoric.

The emptiness of this rhetoric was perhaps epitomized by his wife, Michelle, a few days back, when she claimed that Barack Obama was the only man who could "save our souls;" a statement which makes her sound like one of those idiots from the Bible helping to proclaim one of the many false prophets that God warns of.

(As an aside, if I'm looking to have my soul saved, I'd sooner ask the homeless drunkard on the street corner than a freakin' politician.)

Sadly, the analogy is more accurate than laughable, because a false prophet is exactly what Obama has become (or perhaps always was). He walks around telling us how he will bring back hope, bring people together, work across the aisle, and, most importantly, bring about "change;" but, in reality, he has the most left-wing and the most partisan voting record of anyone in the Senate. If Obama gets to the White House, he'll be as much of a uniter as George "I'm a uniter not a divider" W. Bush has been. He will be, as some on the right have described him, the next Jimmy Carter - just with more nice and a little more socialism.

In a sense, it's a good thing Obama's campaign has "hope" as its main selling point; because after 4 years of an Obama Presidency, Americans would be needing a lot of it - it's not like they'd have much else worth bragging about.

For those of you who do give a rat's behind about where your country might be in 4 years, here's some actual facts on some of Obama's, uhh, more interesting positions, that you should be aware of:


-He supports 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) with all the fervor of a good socialist.
- He wants to sit down
and have direct talks with people like Iranian President Ahmadenijad. ('Peace through conversation,' maybe....???)
- He was a very strong
advocate of gun-control while a State Senator in Illinois, and has not changed his position on that issue one bit since then.
- He didn't have to flip-flop on Drivers Licenses for Illegals (like Sen. Clinton did) because he had already come out in full support of such measures.
- He has always gotten the full
100% rating from Planned Parenthood, and while still a State Senator, he voted against a law requiring life support for fetuses that survived abortion procedures.
- He was "
extremely concerned" by the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial-birth abortion, and has consistently voted against banning it.
- He has voted
against lowering taxes every single time the issue has come up during his short stay in the United States Senate. This includes votes against repealing the Death and Alternative Minimum taxes; as well as votes against extending tax cuts on Estate, Capital Gains, and Dividend taxes.

...and I could go on; but I won't. Instead I'll just say that, ultimately, the conclusion you'd have to reach after looking at this man's actual positions, beliefs, and principles would be this: Barack Obama is not a great unifying force who can lift up America. Rather, he is a genuine Democratic Socialist (in the European sense of the term) who would be better suited to bring about the political unification of France than of the United States.

Oh no, wait a minute, I forgot, even the French were smart enough to reject this kind of smooth-talking, empty-suited, hard-left bullshit.

Dear God, stick that in you pipes and smoke on it for a minute: a year from now, we (The United States!) could have a President who is more liberal than the President of France!

Conservatives who continue to hold a grudge against John McCain for various reasons ought to think about that before November rolls around. In the meantime, I think I'm gonna be depressed.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The Case Against Kosovo

For those of you who haven't been following the news recently, earlier this week a tiny little region of Serbia (which you may remember from a little bombing a few years back) named Kosovo declared its independence. The announcement, coming after 9 years of UN/NATO administration (which hasn't stopped, by the way), was welcomed by all of the usual suspects in the "West," including the U.S, and openly disdained by the various Slavic Nations in the "East," most notably, of course, Russia. Indeed, with separatist rebels of their own to worry about in Chechnya, Putin's men have been out and about condemning the independence declaration and promising to veto any sort of international recognition for Kosovo that might come up for a vote at the U.N.

In other words, Russia is doing what Russia does best, obstructing Western interests - and the scary thing is that, for once, I agree with them.

Kosovo should not be an independent state and the most important reason for this is precisely the one that the Russians have been giving in all of the Pressers they've been holding the last 3 days; namely, the potential snowball effect that Kosovo's independence can have on all of the various ethnic minority regions in Europe and Central Asia. Indeed, given all the various ethnic minorities that live in countries throughout the Balkans and Central Asia, from the Checheyens, right on across the board, the declaration of Kosovoian (?) Independence has far greater ramifications than just the writing of an additional chapter to the tumultuous story of Albanian-Serb relations.

But come now, you insist, who are we to step in and try to prevent these folks from having their Democratic rights? Indeed, you might have an argument, if it weren't for the fact that this declaration is motivated largely by a desire for some kind of ethnically pure (a.k.a non-Serbian) country. Oh sure, they'll probably talk about things like the principle of self-determination; but at the end of the day, Kosovo wants independence because it's full of Albanians and they don't want to be under a government that's largely made up of, and run by, Serbs. I mean, let's face it, like most other ethnic groups in the Balkans, the Serbs and Albanians hate each other, and have killed enough of each other over the last decade or so make that obvious even to the most ardent of peace-loving Hippies. But them hating each others' guts to the point of killing each other is not, in this case, a very good justification for independence. Here's why: you see, the dirty little secret of territorial-ethnic conflicts like this is that, no matter how hard the do-gooders at the EU, UN, and NATO try, the problem of ethnic minorities can never be fully resolved. There's always some ethnic group who gets left behind after the partition, and ends up becoming the new dissatisfied minority.

And, alas, such is the case in an independent Kosovo; where not all of the population is, in fact, Albanian. Oh, sure, 90% of it is - but, uh, that other 10% is still Serbs; which means that all the creation of this new country does is turn the tables around by making the Serbs the ethnic minority.

In other words, the Albanian Kosovars aren't really solving the problem; they're just making sure that they have a better hand to play when the game re-starts. Indeed, unless these people want to keep dividing up their part of the world until it's in small, Medieval-style fiefdoms, they will continue to have this same problem - if on a somewhat smaller scale.

Here, of course, is where we encounter a second problem with the new nation of Kosovo: its size. Because, as these various 'rebel' regions in Europe and Central Asia try to (or do) break away from their mother countries, they become smaller and smaller; and thus, by extension, weaker and weaker. Now, certainly there are countries like Luxembourg, Monaco, and Switzerland who fare quite well despite their size; but those guys have something that neither Kosovo nor any of these other new-nation wannabes do - money. This means that these are small, essentially defenseless countries who, in addition to coming from countries that weren't particularly wealthy to being with, have the added bonus of being dirt poor.

In other words, we're allowing the creation of new, additional countries that we're going to have to help finance the security and basic economy of. To put it another way, we're basically taxpayers sitting around watching welfare recipients breed, and actively encouraging the process.

Thus, at the end of the day, Kosovo's declaration of independence will just make the Balkan situation that much more complex, and, perhaps not surprisingly, create a good deal more problems than it solves.

It's kind of depressing when you think about it.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Rah, Rah, Wake Forest, Rah.....

86-73 - Read it and weep Dookies.



Yea, that makes for a pretty darn good day, if I do say so myself.

Oh, and just for the heck of it:




Go. Deacs.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

A "Political Stimulus Package"

Once again, Jim DeMint gets it right:



Indeed. It's just too bad that no one else in our government seems to have the guts to stand up and say this kind of stuff. But, I suppose that's just the wacky world of the welfare state - once you start giving people money from the public treasury, you just can't stop; everybody loves 'free' handouts. Besides, most of these people begging for 'stimulus packages' are too stupid to realize they're bankrupting the Country anyways.

Monday, February 4, 2008

1984 2008

As we've noted before in this forum, one of the key issues surrounding the Democratic Presidential primaries this year is the question of which candidate has the most awesomest Orwellian plan for "Universal Health Care." Indeed, the issue has become front-and-center in the Democratic debates with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton duking it out for the right to be the "I-care-for-you-the-mostest" candidate. The only real substantive difference between the two's policies is that Mr. Obama's apparently allows a few blessed souls to avoid the impending 'U.H.C' catastrophe while Mrs. Clinton's takes the more communistic approach and vows to leave no one behind. The only problem, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to specify exactly how she plans on enforcing the Health Care mandates that her system promises.

(Gosh, who'da thunk, a politician with a plan and no explanation as to how it might actually work.....)

Thankfully though, Mrs. Clinton
was on ABC yesterday to assure all of us in the proletariat that she most certainly "[has] an enforcement mechanism" in mind for this (surely genius...) health care plan of hers - and she was even willing to expound upon this rhetorical talking point (unusually rare for the current meaningless platitude war that is the '08 Dem Presidential primaries). On tap for Mrs. Clinton's potential enforcement plans were "[garnishing people's wages], some other mechanism through the tax system, or automatic enrollments."

Because clearly the best way for us to try and stave of a possible recession is to jack up taxes on the middle-class workers who refuse to voluntarily accept her health care mandates. Alas, with these pro-"Universal Health Care" folks, raising taxes is always fair game - never mind the fact that some of these people probably can't afford health insurance on their current salary because their taxes are too high as it is.

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton's answer was, to be blunt, not particularly heavy on specifics (a fact which Mr. Obama was quick to point out), but let's be fair; she was indeed justified in claiming that "there are a number of mechanisms" which could be used to bring her plan to fruition. Indeed, this, sadly, is the reality of social democracy - the government is big and powerful enough to coerce a good deal out of you, including money for misguided "universal health care" programs.

But hey, it's for your own, personal Health Care for godssakes - so don't mind the dark beady eyes and toothbrush mustache staring down at you from the telescreen; afterall, he's there for your own personal good!

Here, naturally, we hit upon the reason that Mrs. Clinton refuses to directly articulate her means for enforcing these Health Care mandates - because the only agency that can enforce these mandates is the Government; and this would deny her the facade of claiming, as she has in the past, that the program is "not government run." Indeed, it would, in effect, be an admission that the program is not "universal health care;" but full-blooded Socialized Medicine. Moreover, as she learned in 1994, most Americans aren't willing to accept Socialized Medicine; they're smart enough to know that socialism is a bad idea. This is why, in the aftermath of the massive failure of HillaryCare I, the socialized medicine movement here in the United States cleverly changed its rhetoric. No more would Americans be asked to suffer European-style, Socialized Medicine. No, instead, they would be asked about "universal health care" and told of the "millions of uninsured" (especially children!!!) who desperately needed help - it would be presented to them as a sob story.

No longer would it be, as it was in Europe, a top down movement forced upon the majority of citizens "for their own good;" but rather, it would be portrayed as a great, grassroots effort by the lower class to get what they rightfully deserved - indeed, were owed - in this, the wealthiest Nation in history.

And this was the story that Americans would slowly buy into.


Never mind that, even if under different pretenses, they were actually being sold the same damn bill of goods (by the same saleswoman, no less!); the marketing was different, more likeable, so they bought it. Thus proving, with all due respect to Shakespeare, that, in American politics, what's in a name does matter - at least to the many gullible voters we have.

Ignorance is strength, if you will....


These Messages Brought To You Courtesy of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy