AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

We Could Have Gone Full Roman on Anyone We Wanted, but We Didn’t. And We Won’t.

Some good comments in the thread to this post at AoSHQ: Merry Christmas: Muslim Terrorist Group May Be Planning Big Terror Attack In Mumbai

133 It really is inevitable. I remember that Three Conjectures article when it came out. Reading it again just hammers in the point that this period of bootlicking and fawning over our enemies in hopes they “give up” on their aim to murder us all is just delaying the inevitable.

The intent will determine the response, not the capability once the nuclear threshold has been crossed – and any rational actor must recognize that the intent of Islam is to conquer and enslave. Period.

We can’t be waiting for a Muslim Martin Al’Luther anymore. We’ll have to either eliminate Islam by application of thermal/pulsed EM energy or we’ll have to eliminate it by replacement wtih a form of religion we can trust – basically, they have to become Amish. Or we’ll ripple-burst nukes over their faces and countries for a few months.

Either or.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 24, 2010 03:32 PM

==============================================

138 Going back, I found linked at that Belmont Club article an earlier one from Lileks. These were in 2003, remember, when the unAmerican left just started to get it’s howl going – that howl of insanity that resulted in our current President.

Annnnyways.

Here was the perfect summation of both the domestic enemy- the hard left – and of what will happen if we don’t want the war to go on any longer.

They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers – and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:

But.

And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.

I’ve no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world’s good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that’s lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who’s giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn’t. And we won’t.

Which is why this war will be long.

I have highlighted what I think are quite good and quite effective policy changes.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at December 24, 2010 03:43 PM

This is one of the major reasons why I detest America-hating, “anti-war” people who do nothing but trash America, trash our military and consider everything wrong in the world to be the fault of America… all while claiming that the rest of the world are just innocent victims of our horrible oppression. These people have NO idea what is true oppression and how oppressive we could be, if we actually wanted to be.

Advertisements

December 24, 2010 , 3:59PM Posted by | Anti-War Groups, Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamofascism, Jihad, Liberalism, Muslims | Comments Off on We Could Have Gone Full Roman on Anyone We Wanted, but We Didn’t. And We Won’t.

What Does ‘Serving Openly as a Homosexual’ Mean?

Good questions related to the impending repeal of DADT (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the Congressional law signed by former President Clinton banning homosexuals from serving openly in the US military) raised in the comments here: Showdown Day In The Senate For DADT And DREAM Act. — UPDATE: DREAM Act Cloture Vote Underway – Cloture FAILS 55-41. — UPDATE 2X: Repeal DADT Vote Underway — DADT Cloture Passes 63-33

438 Saw this on the Daily Caller:

What does “serving openly as a homosexual” mean?

Will the personal opinion on homosexuality of a service member become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets? Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned?

Will the Senate and the House Armed Services committees demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to “compensate” for previous years of discrimination?

What benefits will same-sex “partners” receive? How long must one have a relationship to qualify as a partner? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former partners of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option?

Will homosexual service members be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as partners in bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) or bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)? How does this affect fraternization regulations?

Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where homosexuality is a crime? If not, who picks up the slack?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 18, 2010 03:02 PM

December 18, 2010 , 3:58PM Posted by | Democrats, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism | Comments Off on What Does ‘Serving Openly as a Homosexual’ Mean?

10 Reasons to Oppose the DREAM (Amnesty) Act

Put together by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) [found via DrewM at AoSHQ]:

* The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children — Applicants can be up to the age of 29

* The DREAM Act Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans — CBO failed to assess costs for education, increased levels of unemployment due to the addition of workers to the workforce, and increases in potential applicants because of loopholes.

* The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application — Burden of proving inaccurate information on a DREAM Act application is on the Department of Homeland Security.

* Certain Inadmissible Aliens, including those from high-risk regions, Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

* Certain Criminal Aliens — including drunk drivers — Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act — The DREAM Act allows applicants be convicted of 1 felony or up to 3 misdemeanors.

* Conservative Estimates Suggest That At Least 1.3 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

* The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty — The applicant only has to complete the equivalent of two years of college.

* The DREAM Act Does Not Require That an Illegal Alien Complete Military Service As A Condition For Amnesty, and There Is already A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

* Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive — Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

* Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

This bill is absolutely despicable. In a time when unemployment for American citizens is >10%, the Democrat Party — along with RINOs and DIABLOs — is looking to flood that already flooded pool with illegal aliens, who will add even more ridiculous competition for American citizens looking for work. This bill is a big fat middle finger to the entire American workforce and the entire pool of unemployed citizens looking for work.

December 18, 2010 , 12:16PM Posted by | Amnesty, Democrats, Illegal Immigration, Liberalism | 2 Comments

Fairness is About Opportunity, not About Results

There is a good discussion going on in the comments of this post over at This Ain’t Hell regarding economic policy and tax cuts: The Waddler fears GOP “gangsters”

It is a rarity when I actually can articulate my thoughts well enough to (1) make sense and (2) have others understand them. So I decided to make my comment contribution there into a post here. But do click over to This Ain’t Hell to read (and join in, if so inclined) the economic discussion there in the comments.

Michael in MI Says:
December 14th, 2010 at 6:43 pm

I would like to know why some people are bound to succeed despite setbacks, whereas others in a similar situation fold under the pressure, get depressed, get alienated, never recover. Or where the line between assisting and enabling lies, and how you determine that line with different people. Or how you give someone who’s been beaten down the incentive to dust themselves off and get back in the fight. These are not democratic or republican questions. They’re human questions.

The difference in philosophies between the modern liberal and conservative is that liberals want equality of result while conservatives want equality of opportunity. The fallacy of the liberal way of going about government is exactly as you mention here… everyone could have the same opportunity to succeed, but not everyone takes advantage of that opportunity. The result for everyone is not the same.

But that is not the responsibility of government to guarantee the result. It is the responsibility to provide an environment that everyone has the opportunity. There is a reason people from all over the world have seen the United States as the “land of opportunity” and not the “land of guaranteed result of living off welfare” (though they might be feeling that way now).

The fact is that it is not the responsbility of government to provide everything for the people. The government should do just enough to provide everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. After that, it is the responsibility of the individual to succeed or fail on their own. Some will succeed. Some will fail. It is not the government’s responsibility to guarantee that no one fails. It is the responsibility of the indidividual to take advantage of their opportunities given by this nation to succeed.

Some people will only work minimum wage jobs and will live their lives poor. Some people will go to a trade school and learn a skill that will help them earn a middle class wage and live a middle class lifestyle. Some people will go on to college and do the same. Some people will go on to college and earn an upper middle class wage and live an upper middle class lifestyle. Some people will go on to graduate school and earn an upper class wage and live an upper class lifestyle.

All of those results came from having the same opportunity. But there is no way for the government to guarantee that every person in the nation is able to have the result of going to a great university and ending up earning an upper class wage and living an upper class lifestyle. And just because that does not happen does not mean the system is not “fair”. Fairness is about opportunity, not about results.

What liberals are obsessed over is fairness of results. And there is just no possible way to guarantee that. But that is what socialism and communism try to do. But what they end up doing is making sure everyone is fairly miserable.

The problem with liberals is that the logical result of their policies of socialism and communism is that they encourage people to be lazy and dependent. That’s what happens when “the rich” are taxed for their success and their earnings are given out for free to those who haven’t achieved success, even though they had the same opportunity of everyone else to achieve that success. All that does is encourage people to not achieve… why bother when the see that when you achieve you are punished, but if you do nothing, you will still be given handouts.

The liberal policies are akin to a parent allowing their grown children to live for free at home, instead of encouraging them to move out of the house, get a job and become independent and self-reliant. Why would a grown child (citizen) have the incentive to move out on their own if their parents (government) were providing everything for them for free (welfare and unending unemployment ‘benefits’)?

Something that I have not see asked is concerning the Democrat politicians’ focus on unemployment extensions (and the idiotic claim by Democrats that tax cuts don’t spur the job growth, but unemployment benefits do spur job growth… I believe that was the verbal riTARDation emanating from Nancy Pelosi herself last week). Well, we know that when people are given unending unemployment checks, they don’t have the incentive to go out and look for a job. I wonder if something similar is also happening with regards to the Democrat politicians. I wonder if Democrats don’t feel the incentive to improve the economy and job growth, since they can just pass unemployment benefit extensions and their constituents are appeased for another 6 months to a year. Imagine no more unemployment benefits and tens of millions of Americans demanding a better environment for job growth. I think that would give the Democrats (and everyone else in Congress) plenty of incentive to get their asses moving to improve job growth. Instead, they keep the masses appeased with unemployment benefit extensions and the Democrats go back to not doing a damn thing to improve the economy.

My friend Nathaniel added a great comment:

NathanielPatton Says:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:05 am

Michael, that has got to be the dumbest post I’ve ever read. Trying to say that it’s about opportunity, not results. Have you ever even read Keynes? HAHAHA I’m just pulling your leg man, great post, thanks for letting me know about this debate, I’ve gotten a lot of good laughs off of the basic beat down that’s gone on here. Looks like the battle’s all over, but I’m going to fire a volley anyway just in case.

Joe, I’m assuming that you went to school. Maybe not college, but if you did, I think that your economics professors owe you a refund, but the point is this. At any point in your scholastic life did you get A’s? Maybe upper B’s? Hell, even C’s? I’m going to assume that if you got the upper grades, you probably had to work and study for them. You know, homework, show up for class, do the reading, etc. How would you feel about the following scenario?

Your professor tells the class after the first exam that he’s got an amazing parity. Most of the kids passed with C’s, there were a few B’s and even fewer A’s. He also had some D’s and a few failing E’s. BUT, those results aren’t fair. How is it fair that some kids are going to end up on the Dean’s List while others are failing? So the prof says that he’s going to take points from the A’s and give them to the E’s to boost them to C average, and he’s going to take a few less points from the B’s and give them to the D’s to get them to a C average. NOW the grades are fair, because everyone in the class has a C. There’s nothing wrong with a C, you can pass the class with a C, so what’s the problem? I mean sure, you worked your ass off to get the A, you skipped a party last weekend, you put in several hours a week just on reading for that class alone, but why should you have all of those points while Joey doesn’t have any? Sure, he did go to that party, his book is still in it’s wrapper, and that last time you saw him in class was the 1st week, but how is any of that his fault? We’ve got to have fairness and fairness means an equality of results, not opportunity. Everyone had the opportunity to pass, but not everyone did pass, so we’ve got to fair stuff up a bit.

Ok, it’s at this point that Michael left off, but I’m going to go 1 step further and fast forward a little bit.

Alright, back to our scenario. Prof evened out everyone’s grades. You go home after class and you are PISSED. You worked your ass off for that A, and what’d it get you? Your friend Joey begged you to go to that party with him, he found a girl and said he had one for you too, he hasn’t put in a dimes worth of work, had tons of fun, and got the same grade in the end. Screw it, next time Joey asks you to a party, what are you likely to say? “No, I’ve got to study?” Hell no, you’re going to go to that party, you’re going to read less, skip classes, etc.

Fast forward again now to the next exam, how many people who got A’s on the 1st exam get A’s this time? A quarter maybe, who still have some pride in hard work, or are just really smart, or are socially awkward, or just really enjoy the material? Meanwhile the number of kids with B’s also went down, the number of kids with C’s went down, there are way more D’s and E’s out there. BUT the prof can’t make points up for his grading system, he can only take them from the haves and redistribute them to the have nots. So now, with fewer people at the top(because really, what incentive is there to be at the top when the results are the same?) there are fewer points to give to those down below. Now, instead of everyone averaging a C, the class average is a low D to a failing E.

Do you kind of see the point here Joe? Taking from those that work the hardest (The A’s), and giving to those that don’t work at all (The E’s) so that they can enjoy a middle class like living eventually brings everyone down. Pretty soon, you’ll see those with an A transfer their points/wealth to another classroom that doesn’t have such a redistributive professor, i.e. move their money overseas or hide it in a fund of some sort. The B’s and C’s won’t do this because they either don’t have the knowledge or it’s too expensive for them to transfer, so they end up having to shoulder more of the D’s and E’s burden.

Yes Joe, it’s about people. Now you look that A in the eye and tell him he doesn’t need his A, he can share his points because he doesn’t need them as much as E over there.

Oh, and as for the gov’t providing a “safety net” and us not knowing when best to pull them off of it blah blah blah, no, not at all. That is NOT the job of the gov’t to provide a safety net for anyone. If people like that billionaire liar Warren Buffet are sooooooo concerned, they could be funding private organizations who would make sure through a vested interest that the person was out looking for a job, in earnest, because the rug isn’t going to be under them for long.

December 14, 2010 , 7:45PM Posted by | Communism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on Fairness is About Opportunity, not About Results

LGBT Group Wants Apology for Statement, but is Okay with Law Banning Homosexuals?

That is the way I interpret this bit of riTARDation from “a leading international gay rights group … the European branch of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association”:

LONDON — A leading international gay rights group demanded an official apology Tuesday from FIFA following Sepp Blatter’s comment about homosexual fans traveling to Qatar for the 2022 World Cup.

The president of the world soccer governing body said Monday that gay fans “should refrain from any sexual activities” during the World Cup in Qatar, where homosexual behavior is illegal.

Juris Lavrikovs, communications director for the European branch of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, said the comments were “very unfortunate and have left people deeply offended.”

“I think they should come out with a strong statement and not just wash it away,” Lavrikovs told The Associated Press. “We are talking about a very basic human right that is being violated.”

If that is the case, when why don’t ol’ Juris and his so-called “leading international gay rights group” attack Qatar for their law, instead of the FIFA official who simply warned people about the law. Just goes to show that Juris and his “gay rights group” are a bunch of cowards. They criticize this official, but are they following their own advice and coming out with a “strong statement” against the government of Qatar? Of course not, because that would take actual courage and bravery. Instead, they are bullying a FIFA official, who can do nothing.

In addition, talk about a passive-aggressive pansy. “Come out with a strong statement”? Do Juris and the idiots in his group think that is how to change back-asswards ideology in Muslim countries? Talk about ignorant and naive.

“This is not a joke, this is a matter of life and death to people,” Lavrikovs said. “Qatar and more than 70 other countries in the world still criminalize individuals for homosexual relationships, and some countries even punish them by death sentence.

Let me guess, the vast majority — maybe even all — of those 70 countries are Islamic Republics. In other words, the problem is ISLAM. Yet, will you ever hear these so-called “gay rights” organizations have such strong words and complaints about Islam and Muslim countries as they do here about FIFA? Not a chance. Because they are nothing but cowardly bullies. They bully those they know will not kill them and refuse to stand up to those who will. Therefore, the problem, “gay rights” groups, is not with organizations like FIFA, but with YOU.

“We can’t have that from the top of the world governing body — you’ve got to show leadership because you’ve got to influence the standards of behavior required and then you’ve got to enforce it when there’s a failure.”

Oh that’s rich. “Gay rights” groups lecturing the rest of us on “standards of behavior”. When you all can influence the “standards of behavior” in your own community — such as those prancing down the streets flaunting themselves in “gay pride” parades as well as in Folsom Street Fairs — then you can hold the moral high ground.

December 14, 2010 , 4:46PM Posted by | GLBT Movement, Homosexual Movement, Sports | Comments Off on LGBT Group Wants Apology for Statement, but is Okay with Law Banning Homosexuals?