Living the Dream.





Showing posts with label Francis W. Porretto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francis W. Porretto. Show all posts

Thursday, August 9, 2012

re: "Another (Almost Completely) InstaPundit-Driven Assortment"

at Liberty's Torch ("For Americans who still understand and love freedom") relied heavily on Prof. Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit, as should we all.

Money quote(s):

"It's difficult to imagine the blogging world without Professor Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. InstaPundit. For my part, on those days when I find myself without inspiration, he's a reliable source of things about which to vent my spleen that I might have overlooked in the national news. And on those days when I have an inspiration, the way the rest of the DextroSphere employs him as an aggregator makes him a handy source for material to supplement whatever has already become the focus of my ire."

CAA often finds that Instapundit has wittily summarized blog posts and news items he's already read in the original, but far more often than not Prof. Reynolds has gotten there first.

"I shared the widespread fears that an arms trade treaty would be used as a tool by the Obama Administration to cut deeply into Americans' rights to keep and bear arms. It appears that, for the moment, those fears can be put to rest... But for the moment, only.

All governments, no matter how constituted, are implacably hostile to their subjects' possession of the means of resistance. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is words on a page. It is not self-enforcing...no more so than any of the other rights Americans cherish. The one and only way to keep our rights alive is to exercise them vigorously...and to stand ready at all times to punish the arrogance of men in positions of authority who presume to infringe upon them.

In other words, keep your powder dry."

Sometimes, despite the earnest efforts of American diplomats to negotiate a consensus agreement on one or another of many international issues, the best actual outcome for America and for Americans is no agreement at all.

"DaTechGuy notes a relationship many of us would be slow to recognize:
I have heard a lot of people on the left self righteously complain that conservatives are unwilling to agree to "common sense gun control" that we are unreasonable fanatics who would oppose restrictions on the ownership of Sherman tanks.

Most of all, we are totally wrong to believe that the left is after our guns just because of the proposed assault weapon ban.

Why would we have such a belief, how can the folks on the right even think we on the left are after their guns, all their guns?

The answer: Chick-Fil-A.

We in the Right know perfectly well about the Left's tactic of gradualism. DaTechGuy cites a number of interesting examples as reminders, and for the edification of those who might disbelieve in it. Please read the whole thing."

Read the whole thing. The DaTechGuy makes a lot of sense, he's speaking from where a lot of conservatives and even moderates are living these days. It's a realworld example of something you should have learned from watching Star Trek.



7/28

Monday, December 12, 2011

re: "Ten Years After"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road aims to influence your opinions.


Money quote(s):


"I've received a fair amount of email this past week, inquiring about whether I planned to write something on the tenth anniversary of Black Tuesday: September 11, 2001, when Islam openly declared war on the United States. Yes, I said Islam, not "terrorists," "extremists," or "fundamentalists." We have it on the authority of a head of state -- Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey -- that there is no "moderate Islam;" there is only Islam. Any number of imams, mullahs, ayatollahs and so forth have said the same -- and have proceeded to justify the atrocities of Black Tuesday as a response to the "humiliation" Muslims have endured at America's hands.


What humiliation? Daring to rise and progress out of the seventh century. Proclaiming a doctrine of individual rights beyond what their scriptures allow. Treating persons of all races, sexes, and faiths as possessing a perfect right to be as they are and believe as they do. Letting women read, drive, and go about in attractive clothing, unaccompanied by a male chaperone.
We "humiliate" Muslims and Islam by being Americans: believers in freedom, a secular state, and an objective rule of law and justice.
" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)


There're what, a billion muslims in the world? That's almost as many muslims as there are Catholics! Surely all of them aren't at war with the United States?


"If you're a person of wholesome values and rational mind, you were as outraged about Black Tuesday as I was -- and you remain so, as I do. If we differ at all, it's in what would constitute the appropriate responses, short and long-term, and the enduring stance America ought to take toward the perpetrators, their enablers, their apologists, and their co-religionists.


Needless to say, even among men of good will, that's a wide spectrum of opinion. What I'm here to do, today and every day, on this and every subject of public import, is to pull your opinions toward mine. Anyone who writes op-ed is trying to do the same. " (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)


I know it's supposed to be a bad thing to hold onto anger all this time, but frankly I've come to doubt whether the veracity itself of that bit of modern-day folk wisdom. Anger isn't always a bad thing, it seems to me. It can help keep you focused on whatever, presumably important, thing that has angered you. After all, if the thing is still making you angry, maybe the fault isn't you after all.


Not to rule that out, you understand. Let's not rule anything out, let's keep an open mind to all the possibilities and then start to rule them out, based on facts and observations.


Regarding the bolded portion of the excerpt above, I have no quibble with Mr. Porretto's wording except the final three (including one compound-) words: "and their co-religionists." And I'll tell you why:


My issue, my anger, my "eternal hostility" remains with "the perpetrators, their enablers, (and) their apologists." And while I certainly don't limit that hostility to "their co-religionists," nor do I intend to categorically sweep them into the "eternal hostility" category unless, by their perpetration, their enablement, and their apologetics, they place themselves therein.


Frankly, those who are in essence accessories, before and after the facts of 9/11, constitute a sufficiently broad category within both the non-Muslim and Muslim worlds as to provide no end of enemies.


But, as we are in a war, not a criminal court, the object is not conviction of the guilty (including the accessories) but their defeat. So let not your heart be troubled.


"We are at war with Islam, and have been since Iranian "students" stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, took 52 Americans hostage, and kept them for 444 days.


Don't bother to argue with me about this. Either we are or we aren't. If we aren't, the evidence for the proposition demands a better explanation than any I've heard. Worse, there's no objective evidence that we aren't, and no Islamic apologist has dared to present any.


But we're not fighting that war. We're acting, in large measure, as if some other force were responsible for the crimes and atrocities committed in Islam's name. We're acting, in other words, as if Islam and Muslims generally are the victims rather than the cause and the perpetrators."


A couple of points:


First, while certain Islamic actors (including entire governments) have been at war with the U.S., indeed with Western civilization, for at least since the Tehran embassy takeover, we have not ourselves been at war back. At least not until 9/11 when the war which had been being waged against us abroad for all these years came crashing into the home front. No pun intended.


Second, the first (and last) victims of the Sharia-based ideology of militant, fundamentalist (and occasionally socialist) Islam are always muslims themselves. Muslims who disagree, muslims to aren't fundamentalist, aren't militant, aren't murderous enough; they are always the ultimate victims of our Islamist enemies.


This is not to minimize our role as an obstacle to a Sharia-controlled world where muslims may be terrorized and murdered without hindrance, since there won't be anyone else left to terrorize and murder; we're the Great Satan, after all. And with that greatness comes great responsibility.


"In part, it's because of the barrage of propagandization we've received about Islam, about American "imperialism," and about our duty to "tolerate" this totalitarian creed. Like it or not, people's attitudes and unconscious assumptions are shaped by the Legacy Media even today. They see, hear, or read a "news report" and accept it as undiluted, unpolluted fact. They read a bit of op-ed from some eloquent columnist with whom they agree on less weighty matters, and they accept his rendition rather than performing their own. They hear persons whom they admire, and whose good opinion they crave, declaim in this or that fashion, and they accept it and parrot it back to him for no better reason than their need for his approval.


And in part, it's because we've become uncomfortable with the concept of evil. We simply dislike the idea that there are persons in the world whose ultimate aim is our subjugation or destruction. And since it's an abstraction, not represented by any individual we have close at hand, we scowl and shrug it away.


Got a hot flash for you, sports fans: There is evil in the world. Now and then it's codified into a creed and set down between book covers. The Communist Manifesto. Mein Kampf. The Koran. Those who embrace such a creed are embracing evil.


Yes, it's a Christian's part to hate the sin but forgive the sinner and pray for his repentance. But it's a free man's part to fight the evildoer with all his power -- especially when at the end of the contest, one of you will be dead, and the other free to go on as he's done.


We are at war with Islam. We've been at war with Islam for forty-one years." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


See my remarks above. Islamic terrorists (including entire governments) have been at war with us for each of those forty-one years, but for much of that time we brushed aside the insults, the murders, the treachery, and the attacks against our military, our diplomats, and our civilians, as mere nuisances to be ignored or somehow bought off. Actual warfare, at least since the Jefferson administration, against Islamic terrorists, bandits, and pirates (but I repeat myself) has been quite rare, and more the occasional skirmish indicental to various rescue or other reactive and defensive missions.


"Try reading this concise report on Muslims' behavior in Western countries to which they've been admitted. Try rationalizing its evidence against any other conclusion than that Islam is an aggressive program of totalitarian conquest of the world, with a few theological trimmings as protective coloration.


Try imagining how "tolerance" for such a creed could eventuate any other way than in mass slaughter of the "tolerant" and the subjugation of the survivors."


Those with eyes to see need only observe developments in the erstwhile "Arab Spring" nations for a sneak-preview of what may be in store, Ralph Peters notwithstanding, for Western Europe.



9/11/11

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

re: "Children"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road ("where my shorter emissions will appear") is keeping tabs on broader trends.

Money quote(s):


"The Palestinian irredentists, as you're almost certainly aware, are demanding to be recognized as a nation-state by the United Nations. Their claim is hardly compatible with Westphalian criteria for statehood:


o Clear borders and the ability to maintain them militarily;


o The ability to maintain order within those borders, including the ability to suppress insurrections and avert civil war;


o Independence from external agents as regards domestic matters.


The absence of all three conditions from the autonomous zones along the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip hasn't slowed the Palestinian demand for recognition of state-sovereignty one little bit. They want it. They demand it. And for the other nations of the world to deny it to them is just not fair!


Mind you, the supposed president of this would-be nation-state won't grant Israel's sovereignty. Indeed, he's said he'll never do so. I have little doubt that anyone in his position would say so. Palestinians are quick to murder anyone who dares concede the legitimacy of Israel. Certainly no one who maintains it openly could rise to the top of their society. Yet Israel is a sovereign state by Westphalian criteria, and one of the most advanced nations in the world, at that. " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


CAA bows to none in his appreciation, even reverence, for the extraordinary civilizational artifact that is the Westphalian nation-state system. Yet, from its beginning, it has incorporated exceptions, some of which persist to this day.


"(T)he Greeks, whose country will collapse entirely without an infusion of cash from other European Union states, are unhappy about the terms of the deal the Eurozone central bank has concocted for them. It involves "going on austerity," a deadly phrase in European politics. The exact dimensions of that "austerity" are unknown to me, but they're probably pretty savage: you know, forty-hour work weeks and no retirement until age 62."


The horror. The horror.


CAA has a few Amcit relatives residing within the greater Athenian metropolitan area, including one whose recent retirement was greatly in advance of her sixtieth birthday.


It should be noted, to be fair, that although she retired more than two years ago, she has yet to begin receiving her promised retirement pay.


Where do you even start to fix a country like that?



11/2

Saturday, June 11, 2011

re: "An Overfilled Heart: Usages And Abusages"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road is laudatory towards Mark Steyn and assesses politicians and policies.



Money quote(s):



"They who go into politics are generally persons of weak conscience. Two centuries of the demotic incentive -- the need to please 50%-plus-one to gain or retain power -- have produced a sub-race of Mankind almost completely free of moral qualms. All that matters to them in any situation that requires a decision is the utterly pragmatic determination of the currently relevant constituency: just who those 50%-plus-one are to be "this time." " (Emphasis in original. - CAA)



"It has been clear since 732 Anno Domini that the Western world, once better described as Christendom, is at war with Islam. Clear, that is, to anyone with adequate knowledge of the dictates of Islam whose intellect isn't fettered to an irrational desire to appear "tolerant" and "inclusive." "



Mr. Porretto has this precisely reversed. Islam has been at war with Christendom, indeed with all its neighbors, since its inception. (It's hardwired into the programming, after all.)



"Denunciations of the assertion that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim have been widespread. Suffice it to say that we'd rather not believe that 53% of American voters did such a stupid thing. And perhaps, in the sense of having disclaimed the Shahada and accepted Christian baptism, Obama is at least formally not a Muslim. However, his behavior since his inauguration to the presidency speaks otherwise. At the very least, in any clash between Muslim and non-Muslim interests or sensibilities, he prefers to take their side against ours. He's even said so, publicly."



If you're of the opinion that having a Muslim father suffices to make one a Muslim (as many do believe), then that's going to be your opinion. If you're of a more Christian mindset, you believe (as I do) that an individual's professions of faith are what matters.



(Think of it as an extension of our Constitutional principle forbidding "corruption of blood.")



He concludes:



"Ugly language can be abused -- and abusive. However, as I've written before, there are times when nothing else will suffice. If we're not at such a point today, we're awfully damned close to one.


But at the ultimate cusp, the "WTF macro" will not suffice. Present trends in mealy-mouthed, insincere international diplomacy continuing, we'll soon reach a nexus at which the options will be two: to surrender to Islam, root and branch; or to "cowboy the fuck up!" and acknowledge the true dimensions of this war. At that point, no amount of profanity, however employed, will adequately describe the horrors before us. More, the longer we take to get to that nexus, the worse the sequel will be, no matter which course we choose to follow." (Emphasis in original. - CAA)


This is indeed the quandary. Was Pres. Bush (#43) correct in directing us to painstakingly avoid the very Clash of Civilizations that UBL wished to incite? Or is such a global conflagration inevitable, with delay only increasing the bloodshed, body count, and likelihood of victory.


These are the sorts of questions that serious people should be thinking and talking about, not this ridiculous "Wiener-gate" nonsense.