Monthly Archives: February 2013

When Even Europe Notices

Posted on by
1

Gregor Peter Schmitz notes in an introductory paragraph in his recent Spiegel International Online article

Global politics have come to a standstill in recent years, with the United States unwilling to show leadership….

He repeated this theme near the end of his article:

You would think it were high time for Obama to jump back into the saddle [referring to restoring American global leadership] before he gets reduced to a lame-duck status.  But no matter how many blinding smiles the notoriously perky Biden flashes in Berlin and Munich, this is probably too much to expect.

In emphasizing this American withdrawal, Schmitz noted a couple of things:

In 1998, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called America the “indispensable nation.”  But now, 15 years later, it is primarily an exhausted one, a global power in decline that has its gaze turned toward the domestic front…

which he said matter-of-factly, as an established truth.  And

[W]hen Obama recently gave his second inaugural address, he avoided making any reference to John F Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural speech, in which he said that America would “pay any price, bear any burden…in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” around the globe.  Instead, the key sentence of Obama’s speech was: “A decade of war is now ending.”

It’s especially telling that the continent that for so long decried America the “global policeman” and American “arrogance” now is noticing the pell-mell retreat from the world that the Obama administration is effecting.

The 1st Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

…and the Progressives’ war against it.  They insist that only certain speech is permissible, and they are the arbiters of what we will be allowed to say and what we will be allowed to hear.

If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.

President Barack Obama said that to The New Republic in a recent interview.  Plainly, some folks shouldn’t be allowed to talk to their Congressmen, or to influence the vote of that employee.  Nor are news organizations allowed to report on that, unless they’re saying the right sorts of things.

There’s more, as Kirsten Powers noted in the article at the above link.

[T]he White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network.

This is an extension of the attack on that inconvenient clause in that hard-to-understand Constitution that has continued since Obama tried to blacklist Fox News from press conferences in 2009.

It’s not just the Party, though.  Media Matters typifies the assault from outside the Party.  In their Media Matters 2012 memo (copies here and here) [emphasis added]:

…during a recent press conference, ABC‘s Jake Tapper asked Robert Gibbs how Fox News—”one of our sister organizations,” as he put it—is different from any other network.  His question indicates the pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club.  By legitimizing Fox News as a news organization, reporters and commentators are enabling the network to continue conducting a massive conservative political campaign under the guise of journalism.  In the process, they are permitting Fox News to dominate the national discussion by spreading smears and lies—smears and lies that become conventional wisdom.  They are also defending an organization that has nothing but contempt for journalistic standards—hence undermining their own profession and the public interest at the same time.

Disagreement can only be dishonest, and so the disagree-ers must be prevented from speaking.  Thus, Media Matters proposes “The Solution:”

…we must launch new initiatives specifically designed to push back against Fox News’ partisan tactics.

Media Matters even complains about the reach of the 1st Amendment:

Conservatives are unwilling to yield even to minimal restrictions placed upon the press and speech by our laws….

Because it’s just plain wrong to insist on individual liberty.  When that’s inconvenient to a point of view.  And not a single LiberalProgressive, as Powers notes, is sufficiently embarrassed by these activities to protest.  It isn’t Progressives who favor, in Powers’ words, “cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

This is Progressive freedom.

This is a Secretary of Defense?

Posted on by
Reply

Toward the end of his SecDef nomination hearing in the Senate at the end of last week, Chuck Hagel offered this assurance [emphasis added]:

A number of questions were asked of me today about specific programs: submarine programs, different areas of technology and acquisitions, and our superior technology.  And I’ve said, I don’t know enough about it. I don’t.  There are a lot of things I don’t know about. If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.  I will have to.

Huh?  On what is he waiting?  Why doesn’t he know more now?  He’s known for months that he’s up for this job.  He’s been a critic of DoD for his political career.

As to his last sentence, well, NSS.

Taxes and Spending

Posted on by
Reply

…and how badly they’re misunderstood.  Texas Governor Rick Perry (R)

has for weeks called on the Legislature to cut taxes and continue to hold down government spending—even though Texas’ economy is booming.

The AP hasn’t a clue.  That should be “because,” not “even though” Texas’ economy is booming.  The anonymous reporter apparently thinks government owns our money, and when we have more, it should relieve us of it and spend it themselves….

Self Defense and the Police

Posted on by
Reply

The following is part of a larger beef between a sheriff and a mayor, and between a sheriff’s department and a state government, but the principle he espouses is a sound one, for all that.

In the aftermath of personnel cutbacks driven at least in part by recent changes in state law effected by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) and the Republican led state house, and against the backdrop of a personal animus felt toward him by the city of Milwaukee’s Mayor, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr has some advice for those he’s sworn to serve and protect.

I need you in the game.
…
With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.  You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back.
…
Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there.
…
You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.  We’re partners now.

The only disagreement I have with him is in that last bit: “We’re partners now.”  In fact, we’ve always been partners with our sheriffs and police, and with all of our first responders.  The duty of which he speaks is older than the concept of government—it’s at the foundation of any social compact: we come together to form a government to help us satisfy our duty of protection.  But that duty to do so existed prior in order to be the motive.

This cop is taking a lot of heat, all of it unfairly because he’s simply stating a truth.

When the bad man comes, and seconds count, the police will be only minutes away.
-Neptunus Lex