Counterculture Con HQ

November 13, 2011

Liberal moderator argues with Newt Gingrich on targeted assassinations

At one of the GOP debates, Liberal media rep Scott Pelley forgets he’s just a moderator and tries to argue with Newt Gingrich about the rule of law as applied to enemy combatants (why are Liberals moderating GOP debates?  That is insane).  Mr. Pelley argues these targeted assassinations are “outside of the law” because they are “extra-judicial” and not approved by a judge or jury.  Essentially the same old moral posturing disguised as “constitutional analysis” we’ve come to expect from these Libs for the last ten years.  Mind you, Pelley’s job is to ask questions, not argue with the candidates, but he just can’t help himself.  But this isn’t Herman Cain he’s arguing with, who like most political neophytes isn’t yet sure why/what he believes and has to make it up on the fly.  This is Newt Gingrich, one of the smartest and most experienced players in American politics, and there’s nothing the likes of Pelley can do to intimidate him.  Here Newt reminds Pelley what is (or should be) common sense to the rest of us.  If you want the protections of the U.S. Constitution and civilian courts of law, then you must SUBMIT YOURSELF to them.  Otherwise you are off the reservation and deserve what’s coming to you.

“If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United States.

September 25, 2011

Herman Cain victory in Florida demolishes Democrat racism meme

FL Teabaggers choose Herman Cain.

In other news, Teabbagers and other assorted southern “rednecks” just gave Herman Cain a resounding victory against Rick Perry and Mitt Romney in the Florida straw poll.  There goes the race baiting leg of the Dem platform for 2012!  Hard to be a racist when you vote black, isn’t it?

The Leftist race baiting meme simply cannot survive this simple reality, Herman Cain being a BLACK MAN and all.  Unlike Barack Obama, Cain was born in the black community, raised in poverty, is a self-made man with a fantastic track record to show for in the REAL WORLD.  In other words, he is Barack Obama’s worst nightmare.  He is the anti Barack Obama, who himself is a half-white, pseudo black man who didn’t even grow up in the black community and has never known poverty, being raised by his rich white banker grandma and sent to Hawaii’s most elite high schools, then Yale, and “talks black” but only in front of a black audience.  He’s a man of priviledge, groomed for the ivory tower, yet whose track record in academia has been sealed away from prying eyes lest it reveal something about him they don’t want you to see.  The quintessential blank slate.

Nevertheless, if and when we vote for Herman Cain, we’ll be voting for the content of his character, not his skin color.

Cain upsets Perry in Florida Republican straw poll

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) – Former pizza executive Herman Cain surprised rival Rick Perry with an upset victory on Saturday in a nonbinding Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, dealing a disappointing loss to the Texas governor two days after a shaky debate performance.  Perry, leading in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, had needed a victory in the key test of strength in a crucial state to salve the wounds left over from a debate with his rivals on Thursday in which he struggled.

Instead, former Godfather’s Pizza executive Cain, who is far behind the two top-tier candidates Perry and Mitt Romney, won with 37 percent of 2,657 votes cast.

Perry was a distant second at 15 percent, just ahead of Romney, who won 14 percent despite not participating in the poll. Further back were Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann. Florida’s straw poll is a nonbinding popularity poll and is significant only in terms of showing a candidate’s strength in the state. The state contests to determine the Republican nominee do not start until early next year.

The Perry camp shrugged off the results.  “Cain won, we still have work to do,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner. “It’s his day. The conservative message won today. We’ve been in this race for five weeks. We’re going to continue campaigning hard.”

Miner put the focus on Romney’s third-place finish, saying he has been running for president for years and is still not breaking through.  “It’s more of what happened to Mitt Romney. He’s not going to be crowned president of the United States. He’s going to have to work for it. And after five and a half years he once again got rejected in a key state in the Republican primary process,” Miner said.

Perry created doubts among some conservatives at a debate with his Republican rivals on Thursday that he admitted on Friday was not his best performance.  Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Bachmann chose not to compete in the straw poll but since they took part in the debate and spoke earlier to delegates at the convention in Orlando, the Florida Republican Party put their names on the ballot.

Source

August 16, 2011

A Tale of two parties: The hecklers

Those Teabaggers are so HATEFUL and so ANGRY.  Or at least that’s how the Dems and their allies in the media like to portray them.  As evidence they provide the following where some Tea Party activists confront Obama about alleged reports that Vice-President Biden called the Tea Party a bunch of terrorists to whip up support for the debt limit deal.

That’s it?  They sounded pretty civilized to me.  Sure, they were persistent, but their tone was even and level, and they let him speak.  How incredibly presidenti­al Barack might have sounded if he had acknowledg­ed their grievances and then apologized on behalf of Joe Biden and the rest of this administration’s hatchet men and attack dogs who have so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country over the last three years.  He is the “Healer in Chief”, here to bring a “new tone”, is he not?  lol. But that’s just not how Obama is built.  When he’s off script, it’s back to his old Chicago Way.  And yet this mild little incident is what the Dems are currently shopping around to prove how extreme and “terroristic” those baggers are.  Pretty thin gruel if you ask me.

Now let’s compare and contrast that episode with how wild-eyed Leftists deal with the other side.  This was how they heckled and harangued one of the GOP frontrunners, Mitt Romney, at the Iowa State Fair:

Savages.  And yet it’s the Teabaggers who are the angry, violent ones.  Uh huh, sure.

The fact is that Liberalism never made somebody a better person.  It hasn’t, and here you have more proof.  For all their protestations about caring for “the poor” (i.e., themselves), it’s not an ideology that places very much emphasis on codes of personal behavior, which is why they can do whatever they damn well please and never be accused of hypocrisy.  Conservatism, on the other hand, does emphasize personal behavior, which is why anybody on the Right who falls short of their standard is condemned by the Left as a “hypocrite”.  A good Lib has no such dilemma, and that’s why they can behave as childishly as they want and still regard themselves as a paragon of secular progressive virtue, as long as they have the correct beliefs. Especially when the target of their bile is one of those eeeevil Reichwingers.

That’s why there are hecklers, and then there are hecklers.

July 23, 2011

Norwegian massacre a public relations disaster to the Conservative movement

Neo-Nazi fruit cake Anders Behring Breivik

CCHQ offers its deepest condolences and prayers to the victims of this attack.  It doesn’t matter that Leftism also has its wackjobs, the Norwegian massacre is a public relations disaster of epic proportions for the Conservative movement.  We just got NUKED.  Henceforth and for decades to come, anybody who counts himself as a conservative, Christian, or who opposes mass Islamic immigration will be linked by our opponents on the Left to this monster and his crimes.  Every time you raise the spectre of Jihad, the Left will counter with Anders Behring Breivik. This comes at a time when the conservative movement was making real inroads in what has been a staunchly Leftist Europe.  This mad man has done for Islam what 1,000 Muslim terrorists couldn’t have done– crippled the Right and strengthened the Left.  And Lefties know it.  And not because any sane Leftist actually believes the likes of Breivik represent conservatives in general, no, but that won’t stop them from using him in their vile bloodsport of destroying conservatives at any cost.  They wouldn’t dream of letting a crisis like this go to waste.

Norwegian massacre gunman was a right-wing extremist who hated Muslims

The man responsible for the massacre in Norway was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.  It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who hated Muslims.  According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is a member of ‘Nordisk’ which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism.

Officers also found a series of raving internet posts by the 32-year-old, who has been charged with two counts of terrorism after gunning down children on the island of Utoya and detonating a bomb in Oslo yesterday.  Media reports in Norway described Breivik as a ‘loner’, who lived with his mother in a wealthy suburb of west Oslo, was well-educated and enjoyed hunting.

Only a few days ago he set up a Twitter account and posted a single message: ‘One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests’.  It is attributed to the English philosopher John Stuart Mill, whose concept of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control.  The account appears to have only been set up a few days ago.

On his Facebook profile, Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative.  It also listed interests such as body-building and freemasonry.

Breivik is believed to have grown up in Oslo, and studied at the Oslo School of Management.  He later appears to have moved out of the city and established Breivik Geofarm, a company believed to be an organic farm.  It specialised in melons and root vegetables. There is speculation among the media in Norway that this may have allowed him easy access to fertiliser, an ingredient used in bomb-making.  Along with the farm, he also appears to own a flat in Oslo. Breivik had no military background except for ordinary national service and no criminal record.

It is thought that the 32-year-old is a former member of Labour’s opposition youth party, Fremskrittspartiet.  According the website Atlantic.com, Breivik expressed extremist Islamophobic views on forums and criticised immigration policies.  He argued on a Swedish news website that the media were not critical enough about Islam and claimed that Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands was the only ‘true’ party of conservatives.  He argued that socialism was breaking down traditions, culture, national identity and other societal structures and that this in turn made society weak and confused.

July 10, 2011

Cultural elite Issues new Marching orders: Skip the Fourth of July

Fourth of July: Young Republicans on parade.

While Leftist elites admit below that patriotism makes people more conservative, our Leftist media will make damn sure it doesn’t make the news.

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.  “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.  “There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

  • When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
  • It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
  • It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Source

Not to worry, Libs,  There’s always May Day!

So there you have it, another reason why the Left hates America, a fundamentally patriotic country.  Yet notice how Harvard says the Right has “appropriated” patriotism, as if conservative patriotism was devised as part of a concerted political strategy in a smoky back room.  The Left is fond of making this claim in order to explain their own disgust with patriotism, as well as other aspects of our cultural heritage, which comes back to bite them at the polls.  It’s those wily Republicans!  The truth is, the Right never appropriated patriotism, nor the flag, nor the Bible, nor any of those cultural traditions that we conservatives love to celebrate.  It’s the Left who has tossed them into the rubbish bin of history.  Indeed, the very notion of nation-state is contrary to Marxist dogma, and it simply bleeds over into Liberal scorn for patriotism, and even anti-Americanism.  Recall Michelle Obama’s interesting comment about pride in America?  But don’t you DARE question their patriotism!

America is the Great Experiment.  This is a country of immigrants, a mish mash of peoples from across the globe.  As a result, we have no common blood or culture to bind us together the way virtually every other country on Earth does.  We don’t even have an official language, thanks to our good Liberal friends who oppose any such efforts.  And if you ask them, we don’t even have a common religion, as they insist America is not a Christian nation.  So what makes us American?  Why, our history!  And the democratic and freedom-loving values we derive from that history.  This is what we celebrate on the Fourth of July.   And if we don’t commemorate that, then what’s left to bind us as Americans?

Nevertheless, the all-knowing cultural elite at Harvard has issued your new marching orders, and you, the good modern Lib that you are will simply accept them because they know best.  You got the memo, now follow it.

But what are all you old school JFK Liberals waiting for?  How much more evidence do you need before you finally realize today’s Democrat party is not the party of John Kennedy?  How much more proof do you need before you decide modern Liberalism is no longer your home and you jump ship?  I did.  So join me, the water’s warm over here!

June 29, 2011

“Imagine” this: John Lennon was a closet Rightwinger

Secret Reagan fan.

Lennon was a closet Republican: Assistant

Pot-addled hippies and Lefty hipsters the world over are having a mental breakdown right about now.  The guy responsible for the Left’s counter culture, anti-religious, anti-patriotism, anti-war, anti-capitalist anthem “Imagine” was a secret Rightwinger.  Love it!

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death – according to the tragic Beatles star’s last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon’s death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn’t the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, “John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

“He’d met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event… Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that… He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.

“I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist… He enjoyed really provoking my uncle… Maybe he was being provocative… but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

“He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he’d been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naivete.”

Source

January 27, 2011

Reagan at 100: Words of Warning

Here is CCHQ’s tribute to President Ronald Reagan, culture warrior extraordinaire, and one of the great American presidents of the 20th century.  I won’t pretend it was all sunshine and rainbows during his eight years.  Such an era never existed.  But if America is truly in decline as so many claim it is, then his presidency marked a concerted effort to reverse the slide.  He reminds me of a type of Charlemagne or Justinian, a leader born for greatness, refusing to accept the decay and decline amidst which he finds himself, and thus single-handedly and through sheer force of will attempting to raise his nation back to greatness.  He saw the decline.  Will America heed his warning?

“Our spirit is back, but we haven’t re-institutionalized it.”

“As far as those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style.”

“I’m warning of the eradication of the American memory that could result ultimately in an erosion of the American spirit.”

November 30, 2010

Leftism: the “Anti” Ideology

Dead eyes, like a doll's eyes.

Doesn’t that mug shot make you sick to the stomach?  I almost wish there was a ticking time bomb out there forcing us to lay him on a board and painfully wring its location from him– but not too quickly, mind you.  Nice and slow.  Alas, thanks to the FBI it never came to that.  And no thanks at all to the Leftists on the Portland, OR city council who are more concerned about moral posturing and ideological preening than the safety of their constituents.  If left to them dozens, if not hundreds of Oregonians might be lying dead today if the FBI hadn’t intercepted this monster before somebody else did.  And apparently it was only a matter of time before somebody did get to him.

Portland Rejected FBI who eventually saved city from terrorist attack

In 2005, leaders in Portland, Oregon, angry at the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror, voted not to allow city law enforcement officers to participate in a key anti-terror initiative, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. On Friday, that task force helped prevent what could have been a horrific terrorist attack in Portland.  Now city officials say they might re-think their participation in the task force — because Barack Obama is in the White House.

Reading the FBI affidavit describing Islamist terror suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud’s plan to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square is a chilling experience.  Mohamud, a Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen who attended Oregon State University, told undercover FBI agents he dreamed of performing acts of jihad in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans would die.  “Do you remember when 9/11 happened when those people were jumping from skyscrapers?” Mohamud asked the agents, according to the affidavit.  “I thought that was awesome.”

In months of preparation with men he thought were co-conspirators but were in fact undercover agents, Mohamud backed up his talk with action.  After initially making email contact with Islamist radicals in Pakistan, he took part in constructing what he hoped would be an extraordinarily powerful bomb, scouted the best location for the attack, parked the van containing the bomb near the Christmas tree crowd, and, finally, dialed the cell phone number he believed would detonate the explosives. “I want whoever is attending that event to leave either dead or injured,” Mohamud said of the 25,000 people expected to take part in the event.

What is ironic is that the operation that found and stopped Mohamud is precisely the kind of law enforcement work that Portland’s leaders, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, rejected during the Bush years. In April 2005, the Portland city council voted 4 to 1 to withdraw Portland city police officers from participating in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Mayor Tom Potter said the FBI refused to give him a top-secret security clearance so he could make sure the officers weren’t violating state anti-discrimination laws that bar law enforcement from targeting suspects on the basis of their religious or political beliefs.

But here’s the kicker.  Portland is now joining the FBI task force because Obama’s president!

Now, there are indications that the Mohamud case might cause city leaders to change their mind about the FBI and the war on terror. Current mayor Sam Adams, who says he was not aware of the Mohamud investigation until after Mohamud had been arrested, told the Oregonian newspaper that he might ask the city council to reconsider the decision to pull out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.  Because he now realizes the city was wrong?  Not at all. “[Adams] stressed that he has much more faith in the Obama administration and the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s office now than he did in 2005,” the paper reported.

Leftism is deadly.  Read the rest.

This was the silver lining for me when Obama won the presidency.  His victory would allow Liberals and Democrats to begin acting like Americans again.  We could now fight terrorism in earnest!  And at least in mayor Adam’s case I appear to have been right.  Leftists like mayor Adams aren’t pro-Islamism, and they certainly aren’t pro-terrorism.  So what gives?  Easy.  We have already discussed this at CCHQ. During the Cold War, Liberals weren’t necessarily proCommunist. Rather, they were anti those who were anticommunist. In other words, they were anti all things “the Right.”  If conservatives during the Cold War were hawks, it was the Left’s job to be soft on communism.  It was their job to be anti-the anti-Soviets. In knee-jerk fashion, they mocked the likes of Ronald Reagan as “chickenhawks” and warmongers.  That same impulse to be anti-all things “the Right” is alive and well today, compelling modern Liberals to be anti-the anti-terrorists. Before the Age of Obama, they were anti-Bush, anti-war on terror, as surely as they were anti-FBI terrorism task force in Portland, OR.  They are the true reactionaries.  We at CCHQ identified this syndrome back in August, and now the Weekly Standard confirms it:

Anti-Anti-Islamism

When Cat Stevens was introduced at Jon Stewart’s recent “Rally to Restore Sanity,” the musician also known by his Muslim name Yusuf Islam was greeted with warm applause and howls of approval. It was a strange reception coming from a culturally savvy, mostly twentysomething audience, for while Stevens’s songs are a staple in the 1970s schlock-folk canon, he is best known these days for having supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa demanding the execution of novelist Salman Rushdie.

Stevens has tried to whitewash his record over the years, without ever acknowledging or apologizing for his comments, including his response to a British interviewer’s question as to whether he would attend a demonstration to burn an effigy of the writer; Stevens answered glibly that he “hoped that it’d be the real thing.”

“I don’t know why no one in that crowd booed Stevens, or heckled him when he was introduced,” says the British author Nick Cohen, who was in contact with Rushdie after the rally. “Rushdie phoned Stewart, who said he was sorry if it upset him, but it was clear Stewart didn’t really care.”

Presumably what mattered to Stewart and the rally’s cosponsor Stephen Colbert was less Stevens’s willingness to join in the bloodlust of the Islamic Republic of Iran (the fatwa has been reaffirmed by Iran’s current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei) than the fact that Stevens/Islam had been put on a no-fly list by the Bush administration. Never mind that the folk singer had been identified as having donated to a Muslim charity with ties to Hamas; anyone considered unfriendly by Bush is an ally.

Source

This is the essence of modern Liberalism.  It isn’t a coherent, systematic belief system or ideology.  They are simply anti the Right, anti conservative.  That’s why their tent is so large and fractious.  Many are the Right’s enemies.  But they agree on one thing, and one thing only– they despise the Right.  Little else binds them.

November 6, 2010

Senator Marco Rubio on American Exceptionalism

Filed under: Anti-Americanism, Conservatism, Tea Party — Tags: — Jesusland @ 14:32

Tea Party Senator Marco Rubio is young and untested, and not yet presidential material.  But he will be someday.  The GOP continues to push black and hispanic elected officials to the forefront, and nothing would put the Dem race baiting to rest faster than electing our first hispanic president.  The Left wants you to believe the American experiment makes our country no more special than Greece. But listen to what Marco Rubio says. Keep believing, America!

Dennis Prager: In God We Trust, Liberty & Epluribus Unum

Filed under: Conservatism, cultural marxism, Liberalism, Nation — Tags: — Jesusland @ 11:35

This one is frikin fantastic and is being posted again.  We have addressed on CCHQ how conservatives lost America, and how winning elections are absolutely meaningless if we’ve lost the culture.  That’s why I’ve avoided turning this site into an Obama/Democrat bashing clone of all the rest. The GOP could win the next ten elections, and the cultural downward slide we’re on would continue apace (except for judicial appointments).  Dennis Prager (here more fired up than I’ve ever heard him before) doesn’t agree with this, and he places far more faith in party politics than I do, or at least he does when he’s trying to fire up the troops.  Yet here Dennis Prager echoes CCHQ’s position on the threat to American values that is the Left, and that’s why this is a CCHQ must see.

“America is jeopardized by our not knowing what we stand for.  That is our greatest threat.  We are our problem.”

October 31, 2010

Sarah Palin: Media are corrupt Bastards

Love it.  Palin goes off on the GOP establishment, Dems and the corrupt-to-their-rotten-core Liberal media.  Bastardos!

“That’s sick. Those are corrupt bastards, Chris.”

October 25, 2010

George Clooney Exposes Bill Maher’s Ignorant Hatred For Conservatives

George Clooney is smart. He doesn’t care if his movies tank at the box office when they insult and take gratuitous shots at conservatives.  He knows he’ll get the roles regardless.  But Darfur is close to his heart and he doesn’t want to alienate his conservatives backers. Bill Maher, unlike Clooney, is just a talker, not a doer like Clooney, so it doesn’t matter who he offends as long as he has his clapping seals on board.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

October 18, 2010

Teabaggers Riot, Shut down Capital City

The violent Left.

Oh wait, did I say Teabaggers?  I meant Leftists shut down Paris.  So is this what the Tea Party protests looked like to you?  You know, violent and enraged?  That was the narrative, wasn’t it?  Meanwhile, this sort of chaos is standard operating procedure on the Left.  STANDARD.  Their grievances (in this case having to retire at age 62) give them the license to do whatever they damn well please, and it is hardly given a second thought by the media, or anybody for that matter.  Violence and destruction is not the conservative way, and it wasn’t the Tea Party way.  But don’t expect to hear that from the Perception Shapers in the media or academia.

French riot police clash with students as petrol stations run dry

French riot police and students fired tear gas and petrol bombs at each other while truckers blocked roads and almost 3,000 petrol stations ran dry, as nationwide protests intensified. Despite claims that it had petrol provision “under control”, the government said it had activated an emergency crisis cell charged with maintaining fuel supplies.

The Socialists, like the unions, want to allow the French to continue to retire at 60 despite rising life expectancy, saying the shortfall could be filled by increasing tax on capital and the number of years a person paid into the system.  Mr Fillon said his government has already made concessions but would not back down on the two most contentious changes. President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that the reform would pass despite the strikes.

All 12 of France’s oil refineries remained closed because of strike action and many fuel depots were blocked by pickets. About 1,500 petrol stations on the forecourts of French supermarkets ran out of fuel, according to their industry association. Taking into account all other petrol stations, over 2,600 had run dry.  The UFIP oil industry lobby has warned that France may see serious fuel supply problems by midweek, obliging the government to look at tapping some of the country’s emergency reserves. A spokesman for Exxon Mobil described the situation as “critical”, while Leclerc, one of France’s biggest supermarket chains, said the filling stations on its forecourts would “all run dry by the end of the week”.

Youth protests turned violent in Paris and a string of major cities on Monday. Molotov cocktails flew outside a school in the Paris suburb of Combes-la-Ville, and police said they were even briefly threatened with a rifle-toting protester angry (sic). Police also used tear gas to quell protests in the eastern towns of Mulhouse and Montbeliard and clashed with youths in Lyon who smashed a bus shelter, looted a fast-food cafe and burned several cars. Students briefly blocked traffic at Paris town hall and police hemmed in a group of 400 protesters on the Champs-Elysées.

Source

September 21, 2010

Andrew Breitbart and Union astroturfers clash

This one’s lulzy.  Andrew Breitbart shows us the difference between the conservative grassroots and Leftwing astroturf.  Watch it till the end. This is what the Obama nation has been reduced to– a sad sack gathering of listless and dispirited drones.

Is there anybody here who can back up their protest signs?

September 4, 2010

Ronald Reagan Speech – 1964 Republican National Convention

Still relevant in so many ways.

August 30, 2010

MLK’s Niece at Beck’s Rally

Conservatism sweeps the Nation’s capital as Alveda King speaks at Beck’s rally about race, abortion, faith in the public square, the culture war.  Liberals predictably won’t touch her with a ten foot pole and instead attack the far safer targets Beck and Palin.

“MLK would encourage us to lay aside the divisive lies that cause us to think we are members of separate races.”

“Alleluyah.  We still trust in God.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

August 19, 2010

How to Win the Clash of Civilizations

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

What do the controversies around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the eviction of American missionaries from Morocco earlier this year, the minaret ban in Switzerland last year, and the recent burka ban in France have in common? All four are framed in the Western media as issues of religious tolerance. But that is not their essence. Fundamentally, they are all symptoms of what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington called the “Clash of Civilizations,” particularly the clash between Islam and the West.

Huntington’s argument is worth summarizing briefly for those who now only remember his striking title. The essential building block of the post-Cold War world, he wrote, are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.

The balance of power among these civilizations, he argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.

The West’s universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations.

President Obama, in his own way, is a One Worlder. In his 2009 Cairo speech, he called for a new era of understanding between America and the Muslim world. It would be a world based on “mutual respect, and upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles.”

The president’s hope was that moderate Muslims would eagerly accept this invitation to be friends. The extremist minority—nonstate actors like al Qaeda—could then be picked off with drones.  Of course, this hasn’t gone according to plan. And a perfect illustration of the futility of this approach, and the superiority of the Huntingtonian model, is the recent behavior of Turkey.

According to the One World view, Turkey is an island of Muslim moderation in a sea of extremism. Successive American presidents have urged the EU to accept Turkey as a member on this assumption. But the illusion of Turkey as the West’s moderate friend in the Muslim world has been shattered.

A year ago Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan congratulated Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election after he blatantly stole the presidency. Then Turkey joined forces with Brazil to try to dilute the American-led effort to tighten U.N. sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Most recently, Turkey sponsored the “aid flotilla” designed to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and to hand Hamas a public relations victory.

True, there remain secularists in Istanbul who revere the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey. But they have no hold over the key government ministries, and their grip over the army is slipping. Today the talk in Istanbul is quite openly about an “Ottoman alternative,” which harks back to the days when the Sultan ruled over an empire that stretched from North Africa to the Caucasus.

If Turkey can no longer be relied on to move towards the West, who in the Muslim world can be? All the Arab countries except Iraq—a precarious democracy created by the United States—are ruled by despots of various stripes. And all the opposition groups that have any meaningful support among the local populations are run by Islamist outfits like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

In Indonesia and Malaysia, Islamist movements are demanding the expansion of Shariah law. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s time is running out. Should the U.S. support the installation of his son? If so, the rest of the Muslim world will soon be accusing the Obama administration of double standards—if elections for Iraq, why not for Egypt? Analysts have observed that in free and fair elections, a Muslim Brotherhood victory cannot be ruled out.

Algeria? Somalia? Sudan? It is hard to think of a single predominantly Muslim country that is behaving according to the One World script.

The greatest advantage of Huntington’s civilizational model of international relations is that it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. And it helps us to identify the internal conflicts within civilizations, particularly the historic rivalries between Arabs, Turks and Persians for leadership of the Islamic world.

But divide and rule cannot be our only policy. We need to recognize the extent to which the advance of radical Islam is the result of an active propaganda campaign. According to a CIA report written in 2003, the Saudis invested at least $2 billion a year over a 30-year period to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam. The Western response in promoting our own civilization was negligible.

Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended. This was perhaps Huntington’s most important insight. The first step towards winning this clash of civilizations is to understand how the other side is waging it—and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion.

Source

August 13, 2010

James Caan Refuses to Be the Typical ‘Hollywood Liberal’

Old school: James Caan and friends

Veteran actor James Caan let people in on a little secret last week. After 46 successful years among Hollywood’s most outspoken liberal stars, he’s speaking up about breaking the mold.

“I’m an ultra conservative,”
he said at Moet & Chandon’s 6th Annual Hollyshorts Film Festival Opening Night Celebration in Los Angeles.

“I’m not a G** damn Hollywood liberal, I’m not,” he said, adding he only watches Fox News.

Caan, who was at the event promoting his involvement with the online platform Openfilm.com, also added that he doesn’t think Hollywood actors need to comment on every single political issue. When Pop Tarts questioned him on California courts deeming Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage, “unconstitutional,” he preferred to keep his lips sealed.

“I don’t want to comment on that. I’ll let those other geniuses do that – all those actors who like to find a stage to push their agendas,” he said. “They don’t have political science degrees… I certainly don’t. I’ll leave it to Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand to comment on that.”

Source

August 12, 2010

Oreilly on Aniston

Radical feminism meets 21st century technology where it’s perfectly acceptable to father children through artificial insemination and without the benefit of a father.  Marriage an instrument of patriarchal oppression and sexual intercourse a form of rape, now they are redefining childbirth itself.  This is what it looks like when the cultural avant garde in Academia and the culture-media establishment has captured the culture.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Naturally the one-note simplistas of the Left are whining about Bill O’reilly’s “judgmentalism”.  lol

August 7, 2010

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning

This one adds reason and logic to our feelings of outrage.  Read it till the end.

By Matthew Franck

It is something of a consolation, albeit a small one, that the best arguments advocates for a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage can muster are so transparently bad. Disconnected from nature, from history, from the canons of legal reasoning, and even from the standards of logic itself, their arguments betray themselves at every turn, as acts of the will and not of reasoned judgment. When the advocate advancing the arguments wears a black robe and sits on the federal bench, of course, even falsehood and fallacy have a decent chance of ultimate victory.

Such an advocate is Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. district court in San Francisco. After two and a half weeks of trial in January, and a day of closing arguments in June, he finally delivered his ruling and opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger on August 4, overturning California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution adopted by the people in November 2008, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court, in May of that year, had overturned an earlier popular referendum protecting marriage (that had only statutory status) on grounds that it violated the state constitution. And so the people of the state, against the odds and facing elite opposition, amended that constitution just six months later. Judge Walker has shifted the ground of the controversy to the federal constitution, and has flung wide the door of the federal courts to embrace (he hopes) some of the worst sophistical knavery that has been seen in quite some time in the pages of American jurisprudence.

Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge’s opinion is his declaration that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit-a judicial “because I said so”-and the phrase “no longer” conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive. But Judge Walker’s remark here is actually the conclusion of a fairly complex argument. The problem is that the argument is not only complex but wholly fallacious.

Judges, especially those of the lower courts, know that their innovations in constitutional law are best armored by an appearance of continuity with history and precedent. And so Judge Walker begins by reminding us that the right to marry has long been considered “fundamental” in our jurisprudence. And so it has, for those-namely couples of men and women-considered capable of entering into the relationship of marriage. Are the same-sex plaintiffs in the Perry case asking then for a “new” right, or for admission without unjust barriers of discrimination to the enjoyment of an old one? At first glance it looks like the first of these is the case. But any road that leads to the second conclusion will be smoothest for the judge-advocate’s purposes, since it will provide that much-desired appearance of continuity with the law’s long history.

Yet how to pave that road? By distinguishing between the “core” attributes of the institution of marriage and those that are only incidental, those historical attributes that have been abandoned without harm to what is essential about marriage. Many American states, for instance, once considered race an important attribute, so that racial difference was a barrier to the formation of a marriage. But race is now universally understood not to matter, and the Supreme Court even said in 1965 that the Constitution did not tolerate such a legal rule.

By the same token, says Judge Walker, the doctrine of coverture, in the common law, in which a wife’s legal identity was subsumed by that of her husband as the superior partner in the marriage-that too has been abandoned by a more modern understanding of the sexes as equal partners. Thus, concludes the judge, there has been a “movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles.” And this has not been an essential change in the “core” of the marriage institution, but merely a shedding of an extraneous characteristic, thanks to “an evolution in the understanding of gender.”

And now watch carefully, for here the fallacious reasoning enters the equation. When “the genders” are no longer “seen as having distinct roles,” it is revealed that at marriage’s “core” there is ample space for same-sex couples too. Since “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage,” indeed since it never really did, “plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.” There, you see? There is something eminently conservative about the admission of same-sex couples to the marital bond. What could we have been thinking, denying them this right for all these centuries?

Judge Walker seems to have committed the fallacy of composition-taking something true of a part and concluding that it is also true of the whole of which it is a part. If it is true that “gender” no longer matters as it once did in the relation of husband and wife, he reasons, therefore it no longer matters whether the relation is one of husband and wife; it may as well be a relation of husband and husband or of wife and wife, since we now know that marriage is not, at its “core,” a “gendered institution.” But restated in this way, it is quite plain that the judge’s conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. To say that the status of men and women in marriage is one of equal partners is not to say that men and women are the same, such that it does not matter what sex their partners are. The equalization of status is not the obliteration of difference, as much as Judge Walker would like to pretend it is.

Once having admitted same-sex couples to the ranks of those holding the “fundamental right” to marry, the judge has easier sport in his sights, manipulating the “levels of scrutiny” that so afflict modern constitutional law, and concluding withal that the voters who approved Proposition 8 acted without any “rational basis” for their decision to preserve marriage in the only form in which our law has ever known it. Now conservatism gets a hiding from Judge Walker: “Tradition alone . . . cannot form a rational basis for a law.”

Well, yes, to be sure. Tradition must give its reasons-though in the common-law legal tradition, it is novelty that usually bears a heavier burden in this respect. And is it really as easy as the judge thinks to dismiss a “tradition” so bound up with commonsense understandings of nature, of human flourishing, of the purposes of marriage and family? Confidently sweeping aside such understandings, Judge Walker declares that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

This is a very telling conjunction. Once it would have been thought to strengthen the case for a law, that it rested on the moral views of the lawmakers, if no countervailing right against being governed by such views could be adduced. And it would have been a matter of no legal suspicion whatsoever that the moral views informing a law found confirmation in widely held religious views as well. For such moral principles are not articles of faith, in the sense of being specially revealed to the elect or the faithful. They are the conclusions of trains of reasoning about right and wrong, and about human ends and the fitness of the means to them. In language we might borrow from Plato’s Euthyphro, the moral norms that govern marriage are embraced by the pious not because they are mysterious commands of an inscrutable divine will, but because they are rationally knowable as good in themselves, and for this reason find support in the dictates of faith as well.

But for Judge Walker there is an odor of illegitimacy about merely “moral” views expressed in legislation, especially when morality finds support in religion. Thus he declares that Proposition 8 expresses only a “private moral choice,” not a considered public morality. And thus in his tendentious “findings of fact” (about the purpose of which, see this editorial in National Review), he makes the astonishing claim-purporting to be a fact found at trial, not a judgment of his own-that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful . . . harm gays and lesbians.”

Perhaps here, in this nadir of absurdity, we have found the real fundament of the judge’s thinking. Citizens who wish to defend the institution of marriage as they and their families have known it all their lives, and for countless generations, are irrational bigots. Worse still, if they are moved to act because of the union of their faith with their moral opinions, they are crazy religious folk, bent only on harming others whom they merely “dislike” on grounds that cannot possibly be defended before a tribunal of right-thinking people. And those others, the same-sex-couple plaintiffs? They must be rescued from the “harm” to their feelings that results from their exclusion from a historic civil and moral institution that has never hitherto been thought to have been built for them.

That Judge Vaughn Walker evidently cannot grasp what an effrontery his opinion is to the faith, the morals, and yes, the feelings of the vast majority of his fellow Americans is the final irony of his ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. But perhaps he can be taught a lesson about the violence he has done to the rule of law, and to the United States Constitution. His fellow citizens, more accustomed than he to governing themselves by canons of reasoned judgment, may have to teach the lesson, if his superiors on the bench will not do so.

Source

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.