Pages

Saturday, February 28, 2015

THE PRESIDENT’S MANGLED HISTORY: Please Stop Thinking He’s a Genius

barack_obama
by Dr. Mom 
Seriously, people. This man appears to have gotten his world history from the Castro brothers, his understanding of Judaism from Josef Goebbels, and his American history from Howard Zinn (actually, that last is not at all improbable; the anti-American hack is all the rage in the Ivies, I’m told.) If this is what Harvard has been teaching, it should be closed down, and the earth upon which it sat salted so that nothing will ever grow there again.

Let’s start (and, perhaps, finish—I don’t have much room allotted here) with the abysmal word salad of nonsense he spewed out at the National Prayer Breakfast. Speaking to a few thousand people who know their way around both religion and history, the President of the United States phenomenally beclowned himself by drawing a twisted moral equivalence between ISIS (which he calls “ISIL,” either because he doesn’t realize it insults the nation of Israel–or, perhaps, because he does) and both the Christian crusades and America’s history of slavery:
“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Setting aside that the “Inquisition” was a series of different events, most of which were directed by heads of state, not solely the Church, let’s focus on Muslim aggression, the Crusades, and slavery.
Of those three events, the Muslim jihad against the Christian West has lasted the longest, with slavery a far, far distant second (by about 1000 years) and the Crusades barely a blip in world history, occupying 200 years to the Jihadists’ whopping 1400. However, for Obama, all meanness is the same—unless you are objecting to violations of your religious freedom, in which case, he expects you to just suck it up.
When the alleged leader of the free world has the same understanding of Middle Eastern history as the insurgents and tyrants of the still-not-free-and-convinced-it’s-the-fault-of-the-Jews-world, we have a real problem. Moreover, the Crusades were not an aggression, but a response to aggression, as Christian soldiers sought to defend Jerusalem pilgrims from being kidnapped, enslaved, and murdered in the midst of the Muslim march toward dominance of the Holy Land and most of the formerly Christian world. Muslim invaders of the Middle East and Europe behaved just like Islamicists do today—badly.

So let us understand that the Crusades were small potatoes compared to the behavior engaged in by the same people the president is trying to say are not as bad as Christians—and he takes this position, even though they are doing the same things today. Defending Islamic murderers who target Jews in a deli, massacre cartoonists at work, and behead Americans unlucky enough to be grabbed up by them by comparing them (favorably!) with Christians defending themselves a thousand years ago from the same people is staggeringly inappropriate. It’s like defending Jeffrey Dahmer’s cannibalism by saying cannibal tribes in other parts of the world were once killed by missionaries and explorers trying not to be eaten. (Were they? Who knows? It’s as good as the president’s grasp of history, I’ll wager.)
And let’s talk about the 400 years of slavery in America (only a scant 80 of which were under the auspices of the United States as a nation). The president seems blissfully unaware of the role of religion in the eradication of slavery, preferring to simplistically blame the peculiar institution itself on Christianity, despite the fact that the abolition movement was fundamentally Christian—and completely missing that it was his own beloved party that fought to maintain slavery and fought a war to do so.

Tsk, tsk, he scolds. We used to be awful to people, too. We should not be too judgey of others just because they haven’t yet figured out that reveling in spilling the blood of innocents based entirely on their religion is a bad thing. One wonders what the world would have been like if Churchill and Roosevelt had been so sensitive to the delicate sensibilities of the Nazis. Instead of the Newsreels screaming about the atrocious behavior of the Nazis, no doubt Walter Winchell’s reedy voice would have warned us not to be too harsh on them, since, after all, we were pretty mean to each other not so long ago during the Civil War.
Barack Obama’s hubris knows no bounds. It’s not his hope that is audacious—it’s his audacity that seems hopeless. It is offensive that the president presumes to lecture us about history when his grasp of history is so weak. It is astonishing that he still claims to be a Constitutional scholar when he is so frequently slapped down by the Supreme Court for overreaching his power and misunderstanding the law. Most of all, it is nauseating that no one in Congress has the testicular fortitude to impeach this imperial tyrant.

The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is about to go to Congress to ask permission to pursue yet another war-ish adventure in Ukraine, without ever apologizing for his scathing invective against his predecessor who got us into fewer armed conflicts and got fewer people killed in them.
So, after we stop pretending he’s smart, could we stop pretending he’s principled, too?
 

MUSLIM WELFARE QUEEN: Wouldn’t Remove Hijab in Court, Thankfully The Judge Wasn’t a PC Wuss

This Canadian judge wasn’t budging with this woman who came into the courtroom wearing a hijab.
A Quebec judge told a woman appearing in her Montreal courtroom she would not hear her case until she removed her hijab.
In an audio recording of the proceedings obtained by CBC News, Judge Eliana Marengo is heard telling Rania El-Alloul on Tuesday that the courtroom is a secular place and that she is not suitably dressed.
“Hats and sunglasses for example, are not allowed.  And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo says in the recording.
“The same rules need to be applied to everyone. I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”
El-Alloul was in court to apply to get her car back after it was seized by Quebec’s automobile insurance board, the SAAQ.
Read more: CBC 



WHAT DID WE REALLY EXPECT? Establishment Republicans Fold and Sell Out — Again

McConnell
by Chuck Gruenwald
Despite the fact that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, had given the Republicans’ bargaining chips to the Democrats as an early Christmas present, and that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is acting as if he had accepted a dare to prove that he could fold faster than a White House lawn chair, Republican control of Congress is different than in it had been in the past: this time around, conservatives prepared for disappointment.

Except for denial on the part of Republican, not conservative  voters, there was no reason to expect career Republicans to act any different than they had between 2001 and 2007. In fact, conservatives are accustomed to hearing from GOP politicians only in the form of robocalls when election season rolls around. What is perhaps most infuriating is how members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate have settled for what is best described as the fundamental transformation of leadership.
The individual Republican members of the House are no different than career Republican voters: they are afraid to throw their votes away. Whereas Republican voters believe that a vote for an independent candidate and/or vote against a “most electable” candidate is a wasted vote, GOP Congressmen are afraid of the political repercussions of casting a vote against the correct candidate for the position of Speaker.

Those Congressmen think according to their individual needs. And while those who placed the correct vote had been rewarded by not being punished, the end result is complacent representation in the Speaker’s chair, and subordinates who have proven to act in political self-preservation.
As for the Senate, the absence of Republican leadership has its roots in the 2014 Kentucky Senatorial primary race.
When Kentucky Senator Rand Paul decided to endorse incumbent fellow Senator McConnell over Matt Bevin in the 2014 primary race, could Senator Paul have imagined that as Senate Majority Leader, Mr. McConnell would have transformed the Senate into the house of horrors that conservatives had feared? If Mr. Bevin had won the 2014 election, how would different leadership in the Senate address the issues, such as funding for executive amnesty, that present leadership chooses to cave in on? 

Senator McConnell was, and still is no different than other Republican Senators, such as John McCain when showing his contempt for self-proclaimed conservatives. Senator Paul’s supporters are those same self-proclaimed conservatives. Expecting to pacify both the party elite and his supporters is impossible. However, the results of such an experiment will follow him in 2016, as either a candidate for re-election, or in the presidential primary race.
While John Boehner and Mitch McConnell dismiss conservatives as nuisances who resort to panic voting during elections, they cower in fear in front of a special group of voters: the voters who exist only as random numbers that Karl Rove draws on his white board during his many appearances on the Fox News network; the same “voters” that predicted the huge losses as a result of “Ted Cruz’s shutdown” of the federal government in 2013.
Facing the possibility of a non-shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, Senator McConnell has taken it upon himself to prevent such a disaster as the previous shutdown. After all, the Great Government Shutdown of 2013 – the brainchild of Texas Senator Ted Cruz (a fact that elitist Republican politicians, not Democrats, insisted on pointing out before the 2014 election) — resulted in such a massive electoral defeat for the Republicans that, uh, nevermind. 

The GOP elites’ fear of confrontation and losing power within the party is so strong, that if the Republicans held every seat in both houses of Congress, as well as the White House, the likes of Mr. Rove would appear on every Fox News talk show explaining how the GOP will have a better chance of challenging the Democrats, after the next election. Democrats create problems, while Republicans perpetuate them by not rescinding them when given opportunities.
If the actions, or lack thereof on the part of Congress in this young year are any indication of the results of the 2016 election, a safe assumption is that a conservative President may have little more than a minority-class Republican Congress to work with, while the Democrat majority won’t accommodate the minority party as well as the Republicans are accommodating the Democrats at present.