Search This Blog

Thursday, July 20, 2017

This might explain

... someone's famous touchiness about his status as a war hero -- Edward Szall / TruNews.com John McCain’s 1969 “Tokyo Rose” Propaganda Recording Released

McCain has been dining out for 40 years on his status as the iconic war hero -- "How *dare* criticize my constant abandonment of Republican Party principles (such as they are) and my continual dereliction of my duty to the interests of America and of Americans, both for the purposes of 'bipartisanship' with people who hate America and despise Americans! Don't you know that I'm Teh War Hero™ ?"

To paraphrase President Trump: "I prefer my war-heros to not make enemy propaganda."

Continue reading ...

Monday, July 17, 2017

Collusion!

In the post Burn in Hell, commie pinko!, I had linked to an article from The Federalist discussing Ted Kennedy's courting of the Soviets to destabilize (sitting) President Reagan's foreign policy so as to help Kennedy's electoral challenge to Reagan in 1984 (*).

Turns out, Kennedy had *also* tried to pull the same trick against (sitting) President Carter in 1980 (**) -- DailyWire: 5 Times Democrats Tried To Work With The Russians [and Soviets] To Swing Elections

(*) As did (Democrat) Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill that same election cycle.

(**) Amusingly, that same year, President "Carter tried to work with the Soviets during the 1980 election to improve his chances against [challenger] Ronald Reagan."

What's a poor Soviet dictator to do when his "useful idiots" act like such useless idiots?

===========
There are *reasons* that the Partisans of the Ass are rightly called "the Party of Treason".

Continue reading ...

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Atheism and Infanticide

Shadow to Light: Atheism and Infanticide
Shadow to Light:As Coyne’s reasoning makes clear, the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide. I can’t be sure, but I bet if you look at the arguments of those opposed to legalizing abortion back in the 1960s and 70s, you’d find people warning about this exact development and you’d find such warnings being dismissed.

Ilíon: I can be sure, I remember it. And it wasn’t just in the 60s and 70s. I wasn’t really aware of the abortion regime until about 1980 … and at least into the 1990s, if not into this century, the pro-abortionists were pooh-poohing the argument not only that that “the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide”, but that it *must* lead to infanticide.

At some point in the very recent past, the pro-abortionists totally switched it up — whereas previously they had pooh-poohed the argument that “the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide”, they began to actively argue that *since* there is no moral difference between a pre-birth human being and a born human infant and *since* the killing of a pre-birth human being is legal, that *therefore* the killing of a born human infant must also be legalized.

You know, exactly as we anti-abortionists had argued they eventually would and must.

Here is an exchange from Facebook occasioned by the post at Shadow to Light --
Ian Bibby: The "Slippery Slope Fallacy" - the one "fallacy" that somehow results in correct predictions 100% of the time.


Bradley Nartowt: Strictly speaking, the slippery slope States that A does not mandate B as a consequence.

Often, people will misuse this and think "because slippery slope, if A, then B is prohibited." Which, of course, is nonsense.


Ilíon: There is also a Slippery Slope which can be stated as "He who says 'A' must say 'B'", and that's the one that the people who want 'A' and don't really object to 'B' always pooh-pooh.

"He who says 'A' must say 'B'" -- that is, given that 'A' entails 'B', if someone asserts 'A', then ultimately he will assert 'B'.

Here, 'A" is abortion (because that is the moral outrage that our society accepted first), and 'B' can be either euthanasia or infanticide. Here, the Slippery Slope does indeed apply. As Ian said, "he "Slippery Slope Fallacy" - the one "fallacy" that somehow results in correct predictions 100% of the time." The Slippery Slope applies becasue the same *premise* that justifies any one of euthanasia or infanticide or abortion -- denial of the Imago Dei, and thus denial that all persons possess the inalienable right to life -- also justifies all of the others.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

On Capital Punisment

Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette have new book on capital punishment. Edward Feser links to a review of it: Briggs on By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

My comment --

All societies have the obligation to deliver justice to their members, and also to non-members who are presently within the ambit or jurisdiction of the society. No society has such an obligation toward persons who are not members of the society *and* who are outside its ambit or jurisdiction.

To *refuse* to execute the murderer -- to *refuse* to deliver justice to her (*) victim(s) -- is to give the murderer to power to declare, by the act of the murder, that justice for the victim(s) is not the responsibility of the society. That is, it is to declare that murdered persons were not *really* members of our society and were not really within the ambit or jurisdiction of our society.

Thus, blanket opposition to capital punishment is profoundly immoral. A society which refuses, as a matter of "principle", ever to execute anyone whom justice demands be executed, is a society that is profoundly unjust and immoral; such a society will inevitably *create* broad swathes of injustice.



(*) in case it's not clear, I used the grammatically incorrect "she" to mock the idiots who do it to promote "gender inclusive" leftist bullshit.

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Posterity!

The breathtakingly intellectually dishonest 'Vox Day' -- who, by his own (ahem) reasoning, is not actually an American; and who thus, again by his own (ahem) reasoning, has no right to express any opinions about what American is or is not; ... and who, moreover, has abandoned America many years ago -- has recently been on a kick trying to assert that the "Posterity" to whom the Preamble (*) of the US Constitution refers can *only* be persons who are the direct, genetic, biological descendants of those persons who were US citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution. (See here for a recent example.)

Oddly enough, that very document -- which, seemingly, no one ever reads -- makes explicit provision for foreigners to be incorporated into the body of "We the People of the United States". Apparently, the Framers of the Constitution, and the citizens who ratified it, were too ignorant, or too stupid, to understand that "our Posterity" cannot ever include anyone who is not a direct, genetic, biological descendant of themselves.


Being myself a direct, genetic, biological descendant of persons who were US citizens in 1787, and moreover whose white ancestors have been on this continent almost from the beginning of English settlement, I would like to propose that 'Vox Day' dry up and blow away.

(*) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Continue reading ...

Sunday, July 2, 2017

Coming Soon to a Street Near You

Jihad Watch: German court: Sharia police may patrol streets

Continue reading ...

Thursday, June 29, 2017

The Baby Must Die!

... so that Socialized/Nationalized Medicine may live! For, after all, it wouldn't be "fair" if The State were to get the hell out of the way and allow his parents try to save his life outside the auspices of the government bureaucrats.

THIS is the sort of situation and outcome that socialized medicine *must* generate. For, after all, tax monies and resources spent caring for this child is tax monies and resources that cannot be spent sexually mutilating some other little boy so as to gratify his mother's trendy Munchausen-by-proxy pretense that he is really a girl.

AT THE SAME TIME, once The State has swallowed "the healthcare system", it simply cannot allow anyone to use private means to escape its clutches.


Think about this.

If this case were an insurance company's bureaucrats refusing to pay for the experimental care these parents seek, advocates of socialized medicine (*) would be outraged ... or at least, would be pretending to be outraged ... at the "injustice" of it all. This would be, according to them, the "proof" that we need to empower government bureaucrats to decide what medical care we can and cannot receive -- and even what medical care we can and cannot seek independently of them.

BUT, when was the last time that an insurance company's bureaucrats used the threat of force and violence-unto-death to prevent anyone from using monies raised independently of the insurance company to seek a treatment that the insurance company's bureaucrats had decided to decline to pay for?




(*) And I *am* looking at you, B.Prokop and Victor Reppert.


===================
Here is Donald Sensing discussing this case, with further information on the continued barbarity of the NHS bureaucrats -- Single Payer Death Panels are Real


===================
Update 2017/07/07: Breitbart: ‘Charlie’s Army’ Call on Lawmakers to Save Charlie Gard Outside Westminster --

Charlie has a very rare mitochondrial disease called infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, or MDDS, with only a handful of sufferers worldwide.
Mitchondria are the machines inside cells that supply the energy for the cell to perform its functions. The Wickedpedia says that MDDS "is any of a group of autosomal recessive disorders that cause a significant drop in mitochondrial DNA in affected tissues." Thus, absent an effective treatment, Charlie Gard will surely die young.
Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, want to bring Charlie to the U.S., where a specialist is willing to offer him an experimental treatment called nucleoside bypass therapy. They have raised £1.3 million to pay for Charlie’s treatment and transportation themselves through an online appeal.

Doctors, however, are determined to block the trip and ensure that Charlie’s life support should be withdrawn. They have kept him in the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children for months whilst fighting Charlie’s parents in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and even the European Court of Human Rights for permission to withdraw his life support without their consent.
The "doctors" have been fighting the efforts of Charlie Gard's parents for months!
The parents of the first child to receive the U.S. treatment, Arturito Estopinan, have expressed shock at the attitude of the British doctors.

“We feel very fortunate to be American and not British – because if we lived in the UK Arturito would surely be dead by now,” they said.

“We are beyond shocked that doctors in the UK are saying Charlie should ‘die with dignity’.

“How insensitive when there is a treatment which could save Charlie’s life and eminent doctors in the US who are willing to help him.”
Apparently, the experimental procedure may help Charlie Gard ... and the bureaucrats of the NHS have been engaging in a turf-war, with little Charlie Gard's death being the prize they seek, for months.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Appreciating the Dems

I think that we conservatives ought to work harder to appreciate the Partisans of the Ass ... and their leftist puppet-masters ... for they perform a vital function in this ever-changing modern world: they supply consistency. Oh, sure, what they say today may contradict what they said yesterday, and almost certainly will contradict what they said the day before yesterday. And, sure, the "crisis" over which they are hyperventilating may change, and almost daily (as what does not?); but, whatever the "crisis" -- even if they have to manufacture it themselves (*) -- we can rest assured, and indeed take comfort in the fact, that the "solution" will never change: give the leftists life-and-death power over our lives and then everything will be fine. And for that consistency, we should appreciate them; for, after all, what other human endeavor has been this rock-solid over two and a half centuries?

(*) economic humor of the day -- Leftists have (both absolute and) comparative advantage in the manufacture of two staple commodities: crises and corpses.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, June 22, 2017

About the Dems' 'Trump is Caesar' Murder Porn

An amusing thing about the Democrats' "Trump is Caesar" murder porn is that Caesar was of the party of the 'Populares', rather than of the 'Optimates'. That is, according to the Democratic Party's own self-serving mythology about itself, Caesar was one of them!

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Stupid Leftists Tricks II

Stupid Leftists Tricks II, Or ... so why is your fist still in my pocket?

One of the favorite stupid tricks of leftists is to assert the existence of imaginary "rights" ... which generally seem to cash-out as the assertion of ownership of other people's cash. Which is to say, the non-existent "rights" that leftists assert are really assertions of ownership of other people; for to claim ownership-by-right to the fruit of another man's labor just is to assert ownership of the man himself. In case you're still not getting it, this means *you* -- when leftists assert these non-existent "rights", they are generally asserting that they, as the self-designated spokesmen for some collective or other, own you, as an individual (*).

This is an easy way to tell that an assertion of some novel right is bullocks -- if the asserted novel right denigrates someone else's actually existing rights, then there is no such right. Consider, for example, the so-called "woman's right to choose", which is to say, the assertion that a woman has the right to procure an abortion for any reason or no reason at any point in her pregnancy. There are a number of actual rights denegrated by this non-right; the major one being, of course, the right of the pre-born child to not be murdered.


(*) Among other things, this claim of ownership of other people in the name of some collective is one way that you can tell that the so-called "alt-right" advocated by the remarkably dishonest 'Vox Day' is really just another flavor of leftism. His "alt-right" is an "alternative" to the right because it is not rightist.

===============================
So, let us consider Victor Reppert's recent leftism-based attempts to claim having a "right" to "free" health care and/or health insurance. See here for background, including why it is that he is no longer merely a "liberal", as we misuse that term in America, but has graduated to open support of leftism. Understand, I am not saying that he has graduated to the ranks of the puppet-masters; no, he is still as much (in Lenin's memorable phrase) the "useful idiot" as ever, dancing as the string-jerks dictate. But he has stopped objecting to the strings because ... "free" shit!

As I said before, as best I can tell, the following is his response to what I wrote at the above link --
Here is the problem. Not even conservatives want to say that people should be able to keep all they earn. Money for defense in necessary. It it taken from people in exactly the same way that money for Medicare or socialized medicine is taken, through taxation.

The military protects me from ISIS. Medicine protects me from cancer. No conservative ever complains about a socialized military. They all complain about socialized medicine. Why? Protection is protection.
Taking is Taking, Part I
First, note that the "problem" of the first two sentences doesn't even exist; it has been invented by conflating unlike things, namely, limited-and-specific taxation of everyone so as to fund a necessary common/public good, on the one hand, and unlimited-and-nonspecific taxation of *some* (politically disfavored) persons so as to redistribute the monies to other (politically favored) private parties, on the other hand.

Protecting is Protecting, Part I
I could *swear* that I had already dealt with this "protection from ISIS" ploy in my previous post ... along with noting that Mr Reppert's leftist puppet-masters work overtime to make that particular governmental duty, along with "protection from criminals", more difficult for the various appropriate levels of government to acheive.

Note, not only are "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" governmental duties, and not only are these actions two instances or aspects of the same duty of government, but this duty is the primary duty of government. And the primary duty of government (*) -- the duty that legitimizes a government (**) -- is not some vague all-purpose "protection" of those it rules, but rather that it enact justice on their behalf, so that they don't have to enact vengence, which begets vendetta.

It is unjust for ISIS to maim or murder Mr Reppert. It is unjust for Joe Schmoe to rob or maim or murder Mr Reppert. AND, it is unjust for Mr Reppert to assert that *he* is owed any of the wealth already owned or newly-created by Joe Schmoe.

But, notice also, that "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" are societal goods; they do not accrue to any particular individual, but to all of us, corporately. Even imprisoning the specific criminal who bopped Mr Reppert is not about "protecting" Mr Reppert specifically; it is about justice-in-society. If it "protects" Mr Reppert, well and fine, for he, too, is a member of the society ruled by this government.

Notice also, that "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" are directed against identifiable actors or agents, not against vague non-entities such as "terrorism" or "cancer".


(*) Leftists *hate* justice; this is why they work over-time to increase injustice in the world, whether by coddling criminals and encouraging crime, whether by crippling the military and encouraging foreign or terrorist attacks, or whether by teaching the people to assert ownership of their fellow subjects.

(**) A government that cannot -- or *will not* -- deliver justice for those it rules is illegitimate, and will not long endure.

Protecting is Protecting, Part II
As mentioned above, the primary duty of legitimate government is to enact justice on behalf of the people it rules; or, to put it another way, the primary duty of legitimate government is to exact vengence and retribution against those who unjustly use its subjects.

It is impossible for any government to "protect" is subjects, that is, to always prevent injustices against them before the injustice occurs. Even a police state cannot do that ... and none of us (except the lefties) want to live in a police state in any event. Hence, since direct "protection" of its subjects is impossible, we have no choice but to settle for after-the-fact indirect "protection" via the exacting of vengence and retribution against the evil-doers.

Taking is Taking, Part II
I trust Gentle Reader recalls the infamous and anti-Constitutional Kelo decision, in which the "liberal" members of the US supreme Court turned the Constitution's "takings clause" on its head, so as to justify governmental confiscation of one person's property for the purpose of giving it to another person.

The very same "principle" animates Mr Reppert's demand that monies be confiscated from you and me and given to him (whether directly or indirectly via subsidies).

It is a perennial sin of mankind to attempt to live off the sweat of another man's brow -- and it is a perennial sin of leftists to stand that statement on its head as they attempt to paint their covetous envy with the colors of righteousness, and thereby "justify" their own desire to live off the sweat of another man's brow.

Slavery is slavery ... even when you vote on it and call it "fairness".


Rights vs "Rights"

[to be continued]

So, why is your fist still in my pocket?

Continue reading ...