Monthly Archives: October 2010
Op-Ed: They Hate Our Guts (And They’re Drunk On Power) – P. J. O’Rourke
They Hate Our Guts (And They’re Drunk On Power) – P. J. O’Rourke
Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.
They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.
Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.
Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.
Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.
Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.
Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.
Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.
Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.
Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.
And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.
This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.
*VIDEO* Obama Stumps For Harry Reid In Nevada
Meet the New Marxists, Same as the Old Marxists
I have long-held that the Democratic Party, having become overwhelmingly a liberal party, is now become increasingly Leftist. The “fringe” of the Democratic Party, the self-styled Progressives, is actually driving the Democrats ideological bus in many cases, and Progressive is just another word for Communist.
For those who disagree that progressive=communist, consider the stated aims of Progressives.
State run health care, no private insurers, no options, no choices.
Massive redistribution of wealth, to fund more entitlement programs, and more dependence on government
Environmental, and economic policies that crush businesses, property rights, and personal freedoms in the name of being “green”.
Ideals that sacrifice individual rights on the altar of “Social Justice”. Progressives seek more collectivism, and individualism, is the enemy of their beloved collectivist utopian dreams.
Bob Belvedere writes of another commonality between the old and new Marxists. The tactic of demonizing, and questioning the sanity of those who dare oppose the Progressives aims.
Having lived through the last thirty years of the Cold War and having begun a serious study of Soviet Russia during the last fifteen years of it, I can see the possibility that the Left in America may be adopting one of the main tactics employed against the dissidents during the Brezhnev Era: declaring those who oppose The State to be mentally ill.* A good number of these innocent people were put in the Psikhushka, the name for Soviet psychiatric hospitals [for a very good, short history of this evil practice, please click here] where they were subjected to ‘various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, entrapment, servitude, a range of drugs (such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin) that cause long lasting side effects, and sometimes involved beatings… inhumane uses of medical procedures such as lumbar punctures’. Others were stripped of their offices and privileges and, in a sense, declared unfit for anything but manual labor. Some were sent to the Gulags.
Granted, unlike in the old USSR, the American Bolshes have been, so far, more subtle about it, but, still, it seems to be happening.
Case in point: the comments made yesterday by NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, as related by Mark Memmott, writer at the NPR blog, The Two-Way [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum][emphasis mine]:
Fired NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist,” the network’s CEO told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club earlier today.
Bob gives more examples, and surely we can recognize that the Progressives have been doing this for years. Just try to think of any Conservative voice that has not been attacked as loony, nutty, crazy, dangerous, potentially violent, or a threat by the Progressives. Tea Partiers, bloggers, columnists, politicians, etc. have all been accused of horrible things, simply for opposing the Left’s aims. They use intimidation, threats, and character assassination to silence us, let us say no more!
The New Marxists, are no different than the old Marxists really. They just do not hold the power that Stalin or Lennin or Mao did, not yet. See, the Constitution checks them, but they have been assaulting that for decades now, andwill continue to do so, unless we, the People, do our job on November 2nd!
I have kinda realized, a few minutes ago, that, I have lost my closest friend and a person I had come to consider almost a daughter. Someone who made my heart smile every time I saw her. I have lost her friendship and I have no idea why. Absolutely no idea why, and that might be the worst part of this. So, back to blogging in the morning, I am emotionally drained, and just ready to get back to work!
You know, if Websters ever decides to change the definition of loser……
These douchebags are great candidates! How sweet it is!
Hotline- Where the DCCC didn’t spend money is as indicative as where it did. With two weeks to go, Democrats are using their checkbooks as acknowledgement that nearly a dozen members are beyond saving. The DCCC did not spend money on behalf of Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and Steve Kagen (D-Wis.), the filings show. Republicans believe those seven seats are all but guaranteed to fall their way.
Daily Benefactor Columnists – Who Says Islam Is Totalitarian? – More Op-Eds

——————— CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE DAILY BENEFACTOR———————
——————————————————- TOP STORY ——————————————————-
Who Says Islam Is Totalitarian? – Andrew C. McCarthy
Who says Islam is a totalitarian doctrine? Well, Geert Wilders does, of course. As the editors point out in Monday’s superb National Review Online editorial, the Dutch parliamentarian has even had the temerity to compare Islam with Nazism. Strong stuff indeed, and for speaking it, Wilders has earned the disdain not just of the usual Muslim Brotherhood satellite organizations but even of many on the political right.
Though they support free-speech rights, and thus grudgingly concede that Wilders should be permitted to say such things, they want you to understand they find his sentiments deplorable. Taking the politically correct view, they assure you that Islam is not a problem at all – it’s just those bad extremists and Islamists who have, as the Bush-era refrain went, “hijacked one of the world’s great religions.”
Emblematic is the estimable Charles Krauthammer, who has described Wilders’s views as “extreme, radical, and wrong.” Dr. K.’s complaint, expressed on Fox News back in March (and published on the Corner), was that Wilders conflates “Islam and Islamism.” The latter, Krauthammer insists, is “an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].”
As I take a backseat to no one in my admiration of Dr. K., I wonder what he’d make of Bernard Lewis’s take on this subject. Professor Lewis is the distinguished scholar widely and aptly admired, including by Wilders’s detractors, as the West’s preeminent authority on Islam. At Pajamas Media, Andrew Bostom has unearthed a 1954 International Affairs essay in which Professor Lewis quite matter-of-factly compared Islam with Communism. The essay, in fact, was called, “Communism and Islam.”
In it, Lewis considered “the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought,” and concluded that its principal defining characteristic is the “authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.” Expanding on this, he wrote:
There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law… For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy,” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”
But what about the conceit that undergirds current American foreign policy, the notion that Islam and Western democracy are perfectly compatible? Lewis dismissed the idea as so much elite wishful thinking:
Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical – attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument expresses a need of the uprooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who tries to justify, or rather, restate, his inherited faith in terms of the fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim thought to the impact of the West.
Clearly, the ensuing half-century has found Western intellectuals – regardless of political bent – joining romantic forces with their uprooted Muslim counterparts. Thus the accusation by Dr. Krauthammer, to take a prominent but by no means singular example, that Wilders fails to perceive the distinction – I’d call it a hoped-for distinction – between Islam and Islamism. Yet this accusation itself conflates Islam with Muslims, as well as Islamists with violent jihadists. This confusion leads Krauthammer to surmise both (a) that only a small minority of Muslims believe jihad is “the essence of Islam,” and (b) that because most Muslims in the West are not terrorists, it should be “obvious” that they are not Islamists.
This is wrong on several levels. First, as Robert Spencer explains, “Jihad… is a key element of the Islamic faith according to every single Islamic authority on the planet.” To deny that it is the “essence of Islam” – which is how the prophet Mohammed regarded it – is to deny a basic fact. And though, as Spencer acknowledges, jihad is subject to varying interpretations, Lewis is clear on the preponderant construction. As he has recounted several times, most recently in The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years, “The overwhelming majority of early authorities… citing relevant passages in the Qur’an and in the tradition, discuss jihad in military terms.” This jibes, to quote Ibn Warraq, with “the celebrated Dictionary of Islam,” which describes jihad as an “incumbent religious duty,” and defines it as “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.”
Spencer echoes Lewis when he elaborates that “all the mainstream sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach as a matter of faith that Islam is intrinsically political and that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law.” The fact that most Muslims do not engage in violent jihad, whether out of practicality, indifference, or what have you, does not change what Islamic doctrine says. Nor does it mean these Muslims are “rejecting” that mandate. They are ignoring it.
Moreover, as I’ve noted on several occasions, the point of jihad is to spread sharia, the Islamic legal system whose installation is the necessary precondition to creating an Islamic society. That need not be done by violent means. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization, maintains that America and Europe will be “conquered” not by violence but by dawa – the proselytism of Islam by non-violent (or, more accurate, pre-violent) means, such as infiltration of our institutions. Spencer calls this phenomenon “stealth jihad.”
Click HERE For Rest Of Article
———————————————————————————————————————————
Leftists, Progressives And Socialists – Walter Williams
One of the greatest sources of confusion and deception is the difference between leftists, progressives, socialists, communists and fascists. I thought about this as I caught a glimpse of the Oct. 2 “One Nation” march on Washington.
The participants proudly marched with banners, signs and placards reading “Socialists,” “Ohio U Democratic Socialists,” “International Socialists Organization,” “Socialist Party USA,” “Build A Socialist Alternative” and other signs expressing support for socialism and communism.
Click HERE For Rest Of Article
———————————————————————————————————————————
Chris Coons Lied, Granny Died – Ann Coulter
In all of life’s tribulations, there is nothing so aggravating as being condescended to by an idiot. In last week’s CNN debate in the Delaware Senate race between the astonishingly well-spoken Christine O’Donnell and the unfortunate-looking Chris Coons, O’Donnell had to put up with it from Coons for 90 minutes.
O’Donnell wiped the floor with Coons, moderators Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian, and the idiotic University of Delaware students asking questions – all of whom were against her.
Click HERE For Rest Of Article
———————————————————————————————————————————
Public Sector Unions Choke Taxpayers – John Stossel
“I thought unions were great – until at Chrysler, the union steward started screaming at me. Working at an unhurried pace, I’d exceeded ‘production’ for that job.”
That comment, left on my blog by a viewer who watched my Fox Business Network show about unions, matches my experience. No one ordered me to slow down, but union rules and union culture at ABC and CBS slowed the work. Sometimes a camera crew took five minutes just to get out of the car.
Click HERE For Rest Of Article
———————————————————————————————————————————
Change, Don’t ‘Celebrate.’ Cultures – Thomas Sowell
There was a reason that employers in the middle of the 19th century had signs that said, No Irish need apply – and why employers in the middle of the 20th century no longer had such signs. It was not that employers had changed. The Irish had changed.
The Catholic Church for years worked to bring about such changes among the Irish immigrants and their offspring, just as various religious and secular organizations among the Jews, among blacks, and among other groups worked to bring about changes within their respective groups.
Click HERE For Rest Of Article
———————————————————————————————————————————
Extreme Girls: All The President’s Radical Women – Michelle Malkin
We are in the era of Democratic Extreme Girls – Big Nanny handmaidens who demand control of your children, your health care, your energy use, your pocketbook and your news. And that’s just for starters. If you think President Obama will move to the center after the midterms, think again.
Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the possibility that environmental czar Carol Browner could be appointed White House chief of staff next year.
Click HERE For Rest Of Article
———————————————————————————————————————————
If Dems Lose, Obama Will Blame Everyone But Himself – Byron York
Assume the polls are correct and Republicans win control of the House, and perhaps even the Senate, in next month’s elections. What lessons will the White House learn? Will Barack Obama interpret the vote as a repudiation of much of his agenda, or will he conclude that he made a few tactical errors but was still right on the big issues?
Bet on the latter. All indications coming out of the White House suggest that if Democrats suffer major losses, the president and his top aides will resolutely refuse to reconsider the policies – national health care, stimulus, runaway spending – that led to their defeat.
Why are Democrats going to lose their asses on 11-2-10?
Biggest reason? Their complete lack of regard or respect for their duty to REPRESENT their constituents!


