Rule 5 Blogging: American Policewomen!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Lacey Chabert in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

While we normally feature female soldiers in these posts, the American soldiers who are on the front lines against Islamist terrorism in the United States are not in the military, but are the police. This is a new type of duty for them, and they are just now getting on board with the tactics and training to deal with the hidden terrorists, now often American citizens or legal residents, who have forsaken their American identities for the imagined glories of jihad. Too often we have no intelligence as to whom the home-grown jihadi are, until they strike, but while our nation’s elected leadership are too timid and too politically correct to identify the threat, because our wimp of a President is so terribly afraid of offending Muslims, the police out on the streets have to do the hard and dirty work responding to attacks about which they had no advance notice.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: American Policewomen!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

From The Wall Street Journal:

Support Builds for Global Agreement on Climate Change

Final draft receives backing from EU, India, despite watering down obligations

By Gabriele Steinhauser and Matthew Dalton | Updated Dec. 12, 2015 12:08 p.m. ET

PARIS—Delegates from 195 nations participating in climate talks here appeared close Saturday to an international deal to tackle global warming that, if implemented, would force businesses and citizens to sharply reduce their use of fossil fuels and could fundamentally transform the global economy.

Some large players, including the European Union and, crucially, India, threw their support behind the latest proposal fairly quickly and many delegates expressed optimism that it would be approved later in the day. Others, however, cautioned of last-minute obstacles, since objection from a single country, no matter how small, could still derail a deal.

For the first time, all of the world’s countries—rich and poor—would be expected to take action to limit their greenhouse-gas emissions and thus contain global warming. Ahead of the negotiations, 186 governments had made pledges on how to limit their emissions in the coming decades, although scientists say their plans fall far short of what is needed to keep global temperatures at a manageable level. .  .  .

The new draft released early Saturday afternoon watered down obligations both for developed and developing countries—an attempt to iron out long-standing disputes that could backfire as talks draw to a close—when compared with a previous proposal published Thursday.

Crucially, a requirement for rich countries to mobilize at least $100 billion in annual aid to help poorer countries adapt to the effects of climate change and build up greener power generation—one of the major sticking points during the talks—has been moved from the body of the deal into an accompanying decision.

That could make it easier for the U.S. government to ratify the deal without involving Congress, but risks being interpreted as less convincing by developing countries. At the same time, states that were classified as developing countries when climate talks began decades ago but are now growing rapidly are expected to chip in only voluntarily.

There is more at the link, but the last quoted paragraph contains the money line: “That could make it easier for the U.S. government to ratify the deal without involving Congress.” President Obama does not want to involve the Senators and Representatives elected by the People, because he knows full well that the Senate would never ratify this as a treaty; the Constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority of the United States Senate to ratify a treaty. Were this held to be a congressional/executive agreement, a simple majority of both Houses of Congress could accept it, but that would be less binding than a formal treaty.

Your Editor did something really radical like actually read the draft proposal, and found this part:

Article 20

1. This Agreement shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be open for accession from the day following the date on which it is closed for signature. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

Article 21

1. This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The agreement itself calls for the signatory nations and organizations to ratify the agreement. If President Obama actually signs this agreement — and it is still a draft agreement at this point — he will never actually submit it to the Congress for ratification. That is actually common practice for a President who knows that the Senate, or the Congress as a whole, will not ratify a particular treaty or international agreement. However, there is nothing, nothing at all, which prevents the Senate Majority Leader from simply taking the signed agreement and holding a ratification vote on it!

It would be interesting, and really fairly amusing, to watch the spectacle of the President of the United States sending his minions to the Senate to tell the Members that the Senate, constitutionally assigned the duty of treaty ratification, that it has no business voting on the agreement! Just as amusing would be the Senate Democrats filibustering a vote on an agreement that a Democratic President signed, just to prevent anticipated rejection.

We have, supposedly, a democratic representative republic, but our 44th President seems to see himself as our Führer, ruling by decree, unable to tolerate a recalcitrant Congress doing its constitutional duty. Well, nuts to that! Senator Mitch McConnell needs to stiffen his spine and not wait for the President to submit the agreement for ratification, but take control of the process himself, assign it to the proper committee, see to it that hearings are held, and hold a Senate ratification vote. Let’s see if the American people, via their elected representatives, really want this agreement burdening their lives.

And now, on to the Blogroll!

Care For Your Veterans: What You Can Do For Them This Year

Care for Your Veterans: What You Can Do For Them This Year

No matter where you fall on the scale of neoconservatives or liberals, you probably care about the health of the veterans that serve your country. They’ve done a lot for you, so it isn’t it time for you to do something for them?

You don’t have to go crazy though, and you don’t have to spend a ton of money helping veterans. Use this guide to determine what you can do this year for those that have served your country so proudly.

Donate Money

One of the hardest things for veterans organizations to do is to raise money. After all, many people think that the US government should be taking care of veterans needs, so why would they have to give money?

The fact is that the government doesn’t always provide everything a veteran will need once they return home. For many, even paying for counseling that they need for PTSD and other traumatic problems can be difficult.

Donate even a few dollars this holiday season to an organization in your area. That way you’ll be contributing to veterans that need your help without breaking the bank.

Holiday Gifts

Many veterans don’t have gifts for the holidays and they don’t have the means to be able to provide gifts for their children over the holiday season. Buying toys for them to give to their kids is one of the best things you can do over the holidays.

Look for veterans organizations in your area that organize an annual toy drive for the people they work with. You don’t have to give a bunch of gifts – even one small item you get at the toy store while shopping for your kids can create a happy holiday for a veterans family.

Food Donation

Veterans don’t always have enough to eat if they’re unable to work regular full-time jobs. Many veterans also have families that they need to support, but doing so isn’t always an easy task after coming back from overseas.

While the government should be providing some help for these individuals and their families, it isn’t always enough. That’s where you can really come in and help out the veterans and their families.

Donating items like canned food can really make a difference in their lives on a day to day basis. You don’t have to spend a lot either. Even $10 worth of canned food can make a huge difference.

Dear Republican “Establishment”: You cannot f(ornicate) Donald Trump worse than he can f(ornicate) you!

As I was sitting on the couch this morning, putting on my work boots, the television was tuned to Fox & Friends Early (since the Weather Channel had a guy instead of the lovely Jen Carfagno doing the weather), and there was a story that I sort-of caught out of the corner of my ear, so to speak. Fox is reporting that the “GOP establishment,” naming Mitch McConnell and Reince Priebus, was looking for ways to derail Donald Trump’s candidacy. This was hardly he first story about the GOP establishment, whatever that really is, trying to exorcise The Donald from the party, and it won’t be the last, but four points have to be made here:

  1. The “establishment” doesn’t get to determine who is or is not a Republican. If a person registers as a Republican (in the states which have registration by party), he is a Republican whether anyone else likes it or not. This lesson should have been learned the David Duke problem in the early 1990s. If Mr Trump says that he is a Republican, then he is, his past affiliation with the Democratic Party notwithstanding.
  2. Both tradition and well-established rules leave the nomination of candidates to the voters in the primary. If Mr Trump is defeated in the primaries, in a manner he sees as reasonably fair, he might not launch an independent candidacy; if he is defeated for the nomination in a way he does believe is unfair, he almost certainly will launch an independent candidacy.
  3. If Mr Trump launches an independent candidacy, the Democratic nominee will win the general election. Mitt Romney was excoriated for telling the truth, that the Democratic nominee has a guaranteed 47% of the vote, due to being bought out by welfare programs; an independent candidacy by Mr Trump that takes just 7% of the vote means that the Republican candidate has no chance at all.
  4. If Mr Trump launches an independent candidacy, not only will he cut into the Republican vote significantly, but he will cut into the lower-level vote as well. An independent candidacy by Mr Trump would be a pox-on-both-their-houses campaign, which would reduce down-ballot votes for Republicans: we would lose the Senate, and a lot of seats in the House as well!

Allow me to be clear on this: I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, and he is the candidate running whom I would least like to see win the nomination. If it was a choice between Lindsey Graham and Mr Trump, I would vote for Senator Graham!

But if we are going to be honest and fair about this, we have to stick to the established rules, even if those rules look like they will give the nomination to Mr Trump. If we try to deprive him of the nomination unfairly, he has the ability to deprive us of the election win, not only for the presidency but throughout Congress as well.
________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

We told you so! Obaminablecare does not work, and will never work, because it cannot work!

From RedState:

Will Obamacare put YOUR doctor out of business next?

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | December 8th, 2015 at 08:30 PM

The Democrats are continuing to stick Americans with bills for Obamacare – only this time, it’s the hospitals and doctors who are sweating.  Quick background on this: as most of you know, the Obamacare nonprofit co-ops are largely living up to the adjective, if you define ‘nonprofit’ as ‘literally burning money in a pile on the ground.’  They’re collapsing left and more-left; and the bankrupt ones are running into the problem that, well, they have no money, which means that they can’t pay their bills.  Tautological, nu?

Now, as Politico noted, states have healthcare industry-supported guaranty funds that cover situations like these… normally.  Except that some states’ guaranty funds don’t cover HMOs, and apparently most of the co-ops were created as HMOs. States potentially on the hook? Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New York, Oregon and Utah. Healthcare companies and the relevant state bureaucracies are right now having an exquisitely anxious and dread-filled holiday season; because if those outstanding claims aren’t actually eventually paid, then a lot of hospitals and doctors in those states are going to take an absolute bath.

There’s more at the link, but Mr Lane’s most important point is a simple one: it was the Democrats, without the aid of a single Republican’s vote, who pushed this abomination down our throats.

This cannot be a surprise to anyone; I doubt that it’s really even a surprise to our banned former commenter who used to tell us that the wholly-misnamed Affordable care Act was going to “bring premiums down” and (lower)ing premiums for both employees and employers.1

I noticed the part in Mr Lane’s article that my once and future home state of Kentucky was going to be one of the states hardest hit. Then-Governor Steve Beshear (D-KY) simply accepted the Obysmalcare provisions, including Medicaid expansion, and even though the Bluegrass State is a poor one, and has a lot of people on Medicaid through Kynect, the voters in Kentucky rejected Governor Beshear’s hand-picked successor, Attorney General Jack Conway, and elected Matt Bevin, a Republican who promised to undo Mr Beshear’s actions, by an eight point margin, despite pre-election polling which forecast a different result. Governor Bevin has got his work cut out for him, trying to plug the budgetary hole that his predecessor left.

It’s simple, and it has always been simple: you cannot add something like 40 million uninsured people who couldn’t afford health insurance to the insurance rolls, subsidizing if not outright paying their premiums, and not have the costs go up. We have pointed this out before! And, as is almost always the case, the conservatives were right, and the left were wrong.

From the apparently abandoned Bridging the Gap:

It would be difficult to have been more wrong! But that is what he left do: get things wrong, then claim that they were right anyway, or will be proved right in the future, right until things come crashing down around them, at which point they blame the conservatives who said all along that the left’s plans wouldn’t work.

You should never vote for a Democrat. It doesn’t matter how nice or how reasonable an individual Democrat might sound, each Democrat in office increases the power of other elected Democrats to do harm to our nation.
__________________________________

  1. If I continue with the working title of “We told you so,” the initial article url of http://www.journal14.com/2015/12/10/we-told-you-so-11/ indicates that this would be the 11th article with that title. It seems as though The First Street Journal has been pretty good at predicting the future!

Democrisy! Paul Krugman blames Republicans for global warming climate change, but lives in a huge house Don't worry: Our Betters know what's best for us!

If the left didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all!

Krugman: Climate Change Will Kill Us All, and Republicans Will Be Responsible

By Adam Bandler | December 5, 2015

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman produced another doozy of column on Friday in which he warns that climate change will result in armaggedon and it will be fault of those dastardly Republicans.

The opening paragraph of Krugman’s column predicts, “Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming. But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.”

Krugman then warns his readers that “we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.”

The former Enron adviser spends the rest of his column dismissing the Republicans’ climate change skepticism as “conspiracy theories” without delving into any actual facts or data. He concludes his column by saying, “I’d urge everyone outside the climate-denial bubble to frankly acknowledge the awesome, terrifying reality. We’re looking at a party that has turned its back on science at a time when doing so puts the very future of civilization at risk. That’s the truth, and it needs to be faced head-on.”

Click to enlarge

There’s more at the link, as well as Dr Krugman’s original, but a picture is worth a thousand words: the noble Dr Krugman and his wife live in this huge house; how many solar panels do you see?

I am reminded of the line by Comrade Kaprugina in Dr Zhivago:

There was living space for thirteen families in this one house.

And, knowing his place — or knowing that he would be shot if he disagreed — Yuri Andreievich responded:

Yes, this is a better arrangement. More just.

One wonders when the esteemed Dr Krugman is going to partition off his energy hog mansion and allow those twelve other families to take up residence there. How is it that Dr Krugman, who lives only with his wife — his Wikipedia biography lists no children — needs a house of that size in the first place? Oh, I can see why he might want one, but why is it that someone who makes money railing about the evils of the top 1% of earners is engaged in such conspicuous consumption that he’d build of buy a house of that size?

This is the biggest problem with the “Warmists,” as William Teach calls them: they are either hypocrites or liars. Either they really believe the things that they say, and are mostly huge hypocrites to judge by their own conspicuous consumption lifestyles, or they don’t believe what they say, and are just plain liars. There is no third alternative!

Now, if they just behaved as they tell us the rest of us should behave, it would be far easier to take them seriously.

The toll of Political Correctness is 14 dead Americans Will anyone learn the right lessons?

July 3, 2001, was a day I will never forget. I was at the concrete plant when the cement tanker driver, a 41 year old independent trucker who looked to be in good shape, complained that his chest hurt. “You’re probably having a heart attack,” I joked.

“Well, my left arm does hurt.”

We laughed it off, and I got the call the next day: he had gone home, sat down in his recliner, and died. If I had taken him seriously, when he said that his left arm hurt, and taken him to the hospital, he might be alive today. Instead, because I, personally, failed to do something, when I knew better, a good man, with a wife and family, is stone-cold graveyard dead.

Neighbors of husband and wife San Bernardino shooters ‘noticed them acting suspiciously but did NOT report them for fear of racial profiling’

  • Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik were ‘receiving packages’ and ‘working at strange hours in their garage’ according to their neighbors
  • But neighbors feared reporting them in case it was merely racial profiling
  • It has since emerged Farook and Malik had 12 pipe bombs in the house
  • The couple shot 65-70 rounds at Inland Regional Center on Wednesday 
  • They had 12 pipe bombs, tools to assemble bombs, 2,000 9mm rounds, and over 2,500 223 rounds stored at their suburban home, according to the FBI 

By Mia De Graaf and Snejana Farberov For Dailymail.com |

The husband and wife shooters who shot 36 people in San Bernardino in Wednesday had been acting suspiciously in recent weeks, neighbors claim.

Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, were apparently working late at night in their garage and receiving numerous packages to their home in Redlands, California.

But according to nearby residents, they did not report them for fear of racial profiling.

It has since emerged the couple had 12 pipes bombs, a stock pile of tools to assemble explosives, 2,000 9mm rounds, and over 2,500 223 rounds in their suburban home.

Aaron Elswick, whose friend lives on the street, told KTLA a neighbor described her regret at not reporting Farook and Malik.

‘Sounds like she didn’t do anything about it,’ Elswick said.

‘She didn’t want to do any kind of racial profiling. She’s like, ‘I didn’t call it in … maybe it was just me thinking something that’s not there.’

There’s more at the link, but, interestingly — though not surprisingly — a Google search for didn’t report profiling, made at 6:10 PM EST on Sunday, December 6, returned only two “professional media” sites, the Daily Mail story quoted above, and this local CBS story on the first page. There was this Fox News story at the top of the second page, but that was the only professional media story on that one. Going through the first ten pages of that Google search turned up exactly zero references to that story in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or any other major metropolitan daily newspaper. Oh, there were plenty of links to conservative sites, but as far as the left are concerned, this is news to be buried. We have found out just what news the media believe is fit to print!

Well, President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the nation last night, discussing the war against Islamism — not that he ever called it that, or anything like that! — and said:

(I)t is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.

Is it really a “perverted interpretation of Islam,” or is it actually fairly mainstream?

Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.

First of all, I object to the Administration’s use of the initials “ISIL,” which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the Levant includes Israel; President Obama, by his choice of using ISIL rather than ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), subtly legitimizes Da’ish’s claims over the Jewish State.1

But, more importantly, he is telling Americans to do just what the witnesses who didn’t report the suspicious activities of Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, did, to refuse to say anything to the authorities which might indicate the profiling of Muslims. Our esteemed President would rather restrict the rights of all Americans rather than concentrate on the people who are most likely to actually be or become terrorists.

January 20, 2017, cannot come soon enough!
__________________________

  1. Da’ish is The First Street Journal’s preferred way of referring to ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī ‘l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām. The group renamed itself simply ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah, or simply Islamic State.

An Army Ranger

As noted in yesterday’s From Around the Blogroll post, Robert Stacey Stacy McCain’s son was just graduated from Army Ranger School:

Rangers Lead the Way

Posted on | December 6, 2015 | 3 Comments

“Acknowledging the fact that a ranger is a more elite soldier, who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a ranger, my country expects me to move further, faster, and fight harder than any other soldier. . . .”
The Ranger Creed

Bob with his girlfriend Johanna, after his graduation Friday

COLUMBUS, Georgia
Friday morning was cold, and our family arrived at Hurley Hill in three cars. My wife and I had Kennedy and Reagan with us. Emerson rode with Bob’s girlfriend Johanna. Jim and Jeff had ridden down with Matt, a boyhood friend of Bob and Jim’s. We had more than an hour to wait before the graduation ceremony for Ranger school Class 1-116 began.

Hurley Hill is named in honor of Sergeant-Major Pat Hurley, who was killed during Operation Desert Storm. The hill overlooks Victory Pond, where graduation ceremonies are held for Ranger School, “an intense 61-day combat leadership course oriented toward small-unit tactics”:

It has been called the “toughest combat course in the world” and “is the most physically and mentally demanding leadership school the Army has to offer.”

Graduation ceremonies feature a “Rangers in Action” demonstration — rappeling, helicopters, explosions, hand-to-hand combat — that is very impressive. The demands of Ranger School are extreme. Our son Bob was among 90 graduates in a class that had begun with 350 men, and the attrition rate of more than 70 percent came this close to stopping Bob. He made it through Camp Darby with flying colors, but had to “recycle” Mountain Phase because of negative “peer reviews.” This news caused much stress and prayer for us, especially for my wife.

Mrs. McCain with Bob and his twin brother Jim (“photobombed” by 16-year-old brother Jeff).

Being an Army mom is a tough job under any circumstance, but when your son is going through Ranger School, he is incommunicado — no cellphones, no Facebook — and he only gets a few minutes to make a call from a pay phone after completing each phase. You can write him letters and he can write back, but this is a poor substitute for talking to him. Even if you’re not the “helicopter parenting” type, there is a frustrating sense of helplessness as a parent, knowing your son is going through such an ordeal and that all you can do is wait and pray and hope for the best.

Bob with his older sister Kennedy.

Mental toughness is essential to being an Army Ranger. The physical requirements are certainly demanding — 49 push-ups in two minutes, 59 sit-ups in two minutes, 5-mile run in 40 minutes, etc. — but the real test is psychological. The old saying by Vince Lombardi, “A winner never quits and a quitter never wins,” aptly expresses the situation of a Ranger School trainee. He is constantly pushed to the limits of his endurance while being required to perform tasks that require both physical strength and mental concentration, yelled at by Ranger sergeants who don’t want any quitters to make it through. The instructors all wear that Ranger tab, signifying their membership in an elite combat brotherhood, and quitters are not eligible for membership. About 40 percent of those who begin Ranger School are weeded out in Ranger Assessment Phase, a/k/a “RAP Week” at Camp Rogers, which finishes with a “ruck march” in which soldiers must march 12 miles with 65 pounds of gear in three hours.

There’s a lot more at Mr McCain’s original, but I want to point out one thing, from the middle photograph, where Mr McCain’s youngest son “photobombed” the picture. When our older daughter was graduated from Basic Combat Training at Fort Jackson, SC, we made the trek down, and our younger daughter got really big eyes seeing everything. She had never mentioned anything about enlisting herself prior to that, but she was talking about it soon after. At the time, she was a junior in high school, and she wanted to do BCT during the summer between her junior and senior years. Her recruiter was interested, but by the time she’d have had to commit, all of the MOSs which interested her were filled, and it made more sense for her to wait until October of her senior year to enlist. She was graduated on June 6, 2010, and left for BCT on June 22nd. Mr McCain, I’d say that it’s even money that “16-year-old brother Jeff” will be enlisting himself!

Our congratulations to the McCain family, and especially the new Ranger.

Rule 5 Blogging: Sailors!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Megan Fox in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week: United States Navy sailors! (Click any photo to enlarge.)

ARABIAN GULF (Jan. 18, 2014) Master-At-Arms 1st Class Renault Nwokeuku, right, instructs Aviation Maintenance Administrationman 3rd Class Amber Mahaffey, left, and Culinary Specialist Seaman Deantae Kirkwood how to conduct a proper take down maneuver aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Harry S. Truman, flagship for the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations, supporting theater security cooperation efforts and supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Emily M. Blair/Released)

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Sailors!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

The brave editors of The New York Times decided to publish an editorial on the front page . . . as though most of their front page stories aren’t editorials:

Here is the text of the editorial, but I remain unmoved. Like President Obama, like the rest of the left, the editors of the Times want to do everything that they can to not blame the killers, to not blame Islamism, but to try to take action by attacking the rights of people who have not committed crimes, of people who are blameless, rather than going after the blameworthy.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

Even the editors understand that, when it comes to criminals, gun control doesn’t work; they have already admitted that.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

Trying without succeeding doesn’t seem like much of an argument to me. But read the words of the editors: they blame politicians, and say that the “voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.” Does that not mean that the voters, the people in our democratic representative republic, approve the choices by those politicians not to infringe on our constitutional rights?

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

I wonder: would the editors of The New York Times say that the freedom of the press, the freedom that they exercise every day, ought to be subject to “reasonable regulation?” Perhaps they like Barack Hussein Obama, but Mr Obama will not be President 15 months from now, and who is to say that the next President — imagine if it’s Donald Trump! — would not want to impose real restrictions on the freedom of the press, restrictions that he might claim were “reasonable”? Indeed, published this very same day, is a Times article “95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue,” decrying the Republican front-runner’s tendencies to use an “us vs them” style:

While many candidates appeal to the passions and patriotism of their crowds, Mr. Trump appears unrivaled in his ability to forge bonds with a sizable segment of Americans over anxieties about a changing nation, economic insecurities, ferocious enemies and emboldened minorities (like the first black president, whose heritage and intelligence he has all but encouraged supporters to malign).

“‘We vs. them’ creates a threatening dynamic, where ‘they’ are evil or crazy or ignorant and ‘we’ need a candidate who sees the threat and can alleviate it,” said Matt Motyl, a political psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who is studying how the 2016 presidential candidates speak. “He appeals to the masses and makes them feel powerful again: ‘We’ need to build a wall on the Mexican border — not ‘I,’ but ‘we.’ ”

In another pattern, Mr. Trump tends to attack a person rather than an idea or a situation, like calling political opponents “stupid” (at least 30 times), “horrible” (14 times), “weak” (13 times) and other names, and criticizing foreign leaders, journalists and so-called anchor babies. He bragged on Thursday about psyching out Jeb Bush by repeatedly calling him “low-energy,” but he spends far less time contrasting Mr. Bush’s policies with his own proposals, which are scant.

The Times does not like Mr Trump’s “demagoguery:”1

And on Friday night in Raleigh, he mocked people who reportedly did not contact the authorities with concerns about the California shooting suspects for fear of racial profiling.

“Can anybody be that dumb?” Mr. Trump said. “We have become so politically correct that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing. We don’t know what we’re doing.”

The specter of violence looms over much of his speech, which is infused with words like kill, destroy and fight. For a man who speaks off the cuff, he always remembers to bring up the Islamic State’s “chopping off heads.” And he has expressed enthusiasm for torturing enemies beyond waterboarding. Last month, after several men hit a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his rallies, Mr. Trump said, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

The Times, as a good leftist newspaper, absolutely abhors the notion that we might take distinctions concerning people based on race of ethnicity,2 editorializing that we should Fear Ignorance, Not Muslims, and telling us that Muslim Refugees From War Aren’t the Enemy, but saying that we should instead fear law-abiding American citizens exercising their constitutional rights because a few crazies and jihadi break the law and kill people.3

The last thing I would ever do is depend on the left to protect my rights. In our good neighbor to the north, the left are trying to get climate change deniers criminally prosecuted, and I have little doubt that the editors of the Times would cheer that. Liberal writer S E Smith, obviously a city-dweller, asked, “What private individual needs to own a long gun?” Today being the second Saturday of deer season in Pennsylvania,4 something which probably makes a city-slicker nauseated, I can understand why some people would need to own a long gun. While I don’t hunt, I have several friends who were planning on being out in the woods today, and they will be using their sport to put meat on their tables.5

Let’s face facts: the left in the United States are no longer just the people with whom we have polite disagreements. Rather, they have become the people who believe that they should use the power of government, the police power of the state, to force everybody to live the way that the left say that they should. For the left, government no longer exists to protect people from having others trample on their rights, no longer has anything resembling a libertarian bent, but is as fascist as anything Benito Mussolini ever even dreamed of in requiring others to comply.

And now, on to the blogroll!

_______________________________
The main article, but not the blogroll section, published under a different headline on RedState.
_______________________________

  1. Demagoguery is my changing of the word to fit the line properly; the Times’ direct quote is, “Mr. Trump has built one of the most surprising political movements in decades and, historians say, echoing the appeals of some demagogues of the past century.”
  2. Except, of course, where Affirmative Action is concerned; on that, the editors absolutely approve of taking such distinctions.
  3. Yet, strangely enough, the editors were very concerned about the rights of the American people being compromised by the NSA surveillance program. I guess that the rationale that the Supreme Court has used in allowing Affirmative Action in some cases, that it is a “compelling government interest,” doesn’t apply to trying to protect Americans from Islamist terrorists.
  4. Technically, it’s the second Saturday of rifle season; muzzle-loader and archery deer seasons have already passed.
  5. And for more than a meal or two; some of them own large chest freezers, and they’ll have deer meat (no one calls it venison around here) throughout the coming year.