Can somebody explain the logic behind this?

And it has to be logic, because I don't understand why in the world anyone would want to help their enemies.

Hillary Clinton has scolded Israel for not making sure that humanitarian aid gets to Gaza quick enough.

Gaza's main ambition is to wipe Israel from the map. Even in times of declared truce, they still try. Women and children dance in the streets when the rockets hit anywhere near their targets--or even if the rockets don't hit near their targets, and just kill a bunch of people.

Why expect Israel to help those people? Why do we try to help those who danced in the streets in celebration of the towers falling on September 11?

The Canadian lawyer/human rights activist that commented in my post on the UNCRC on Wednesday called me racist. Probably for the post directly below the one he commented in. He missed the post that explained why my attitude isn't racist--so I'll summarize again, here.

I'm not racist. I don't hate race. I hate actions. I hate ideology.

Gaza's acts, and Gaza's ideology, rather than Gaza's race, is what prompts me to cheer when Israel issues a smackdown, and to wonder why Israel would even consider helping them back up while they're reloading.

On the escalator

Russia is stepping up harassment. They sent bombers to test Canada's airspace less than 24 hours before a visit from Obama. Though the bombers didn't penetrate Canadian airspace, Canada did have to dispatch F-18s to tell the Ruskies to back off. Canadian intelligence thinks the timing was suspicious.

I think that people have deliberately buried their heads in the sand. No one but Russia wants another Cold War.

Further comments upon yesterday's post.

Yesterday, I commented on a treaty that Barbra Boxer is pushing for us to sign. One that would not only erode national sovereignty, but parents' ability to raise their children into functional adults.

I was attacked in the comments section for my opinions. I responded there, and will not repeat myself here. I did, however, decide to clarify my position.

It is my right, and my duty, as a mother to protect my children from harm. I will do that by any means necessary. If that means I have to pull the trigger on an attacker, so be it. If that means I have to intervene in his education to make sure he's learning how to read, how to write, and how to think, rather than being spoon-fed what to think, so be it. I am a teacher, and am capable of making sure he learns what he needs to be a functioning adult.

If that means I must run for, and attain, political office to maintain his freedom to choose how to think, and how to defend himself as an adult, I will do it. I won't like it, and won't want to do it, but I will.

Despite the rampant sexism in the poem (or maybe because he came from an era that understood that there were inherent differences between the sexes) Kipling explains it well:

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity -- must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions -- not in these her honour dwells.
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions -- in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! --
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

In other words, you can interfere with my family--my husband and my children--over your dead body.

Intolerable.

Barbra Boxer can go to hell. I refuse to abide by any law that tells me how I can and cannot raise my child. I think, should this go to a vote of the people, with a full explanation of what would happen were the treaty ratified, almost every parent in the United States would be against it.

"Critics say the treaty, which creates 'the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and outlaws the 'arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,' intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference."

"The right of the child to freedom of thought" I have no disagreements with. Ditto, religion. However. Most children haven't developed a conscience, and will not without infringement of the parents upon the so-called rights of the child--i.e., punishment for wrong actions.

And as for privacy? What right to privacy does a child have, when there are those out there that would hurt and exploit children? One could argue that the child has, under this treaty, the right to full privacy on the internet: that parents are not allowed to supervise what sites they visit, or who they talk to, exposing children to inappropriate images, and pedophiles.

"The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement..." In other words, we already enforce the reasonable parts of the treaty, the ones that actually protect children. So, why not the whole thing?

"... legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered 'the supreme law of the land,' superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States."

In other words, anything we sign onto with this treaty overrides our own laws. What does that mean?

"'... an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty,' said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank."

In other words,

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision. It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

Boxer and her cronies say that our not signing it leads to further abuses abroad. Not only is that terribly egocentric on her part--thanks to generations of moral relativism weakening our culture of responsibility, duty, and courage, no one looks up to the United States as an example--but flat out wrong. Any country can sign a document opting out of whatever offends their particular sensibilities. For example, Islamofacist countries have opted out of anything that might contradict their Sharia law, which permits the abuse and murder of girls that step outside of their accepted roles (like allowing those who want to learn to read to be attacked with acid).

So, why are they pushing so hard to get this ratified? Transnational progressivism.

So, who are these transnational progressivists, or tranzies? I'm going to quote from an essay added to the end of one of my favorite books by two of my favorite authors: John Ringo and Tom Kratman's Yellow Eyes.

"...suffice to say that Tranzism is the successor ideology to failed and discredited Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are, in fact, "former" members of various communist parties, especially European communist parties. These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter about it.

...One of the difficult things about analyzing Tranzis and their works is that they are not a conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don't be contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you are looking for absolute logical consistency on the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.

On the other hand, at the highest level, the ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement. They want an end to national sovereignty and they want global governance by an unelected, self-chosen 'elite.'"

Sound familiar? International Criminal Court, anyone? "Citizen of the world"?

This is intolerable. And by permitting them an inch, we've made them our rulers. Literally.

A little late to the party, but...

Pakistan has declared that they will cooperate with us to help fight terrorism within their borders.

Lot of good that will do--most of their citizens are kept ignorant and intolerant by the radical Islamofacists that the Pakistani government already gave in to.

Again, I really don't care how many of their own people they kill. All I care about is that they're not given a chance to kill more of mine. And as long as the Pakistani government is willing to try to keep them occupied, more power to them.

And, given that the average Pakistani citizen is an intolerant radical in some way, shape, or form, I hope there's a lot of collateral damage. In fact, the more "innocent" blood spilled, the better.

A little less wiggle room.

Iran is testing its first nuclear power plant. Today. And it states, firmly, that it expects to have 50,000 centrifuges set up to enrich uranium within the next five years.

Iran categorically denies that it's aiming at weaponized nuclear technology. However. They're a hard-line, radical, Islamofacist government that eagerly anticipates the Apocalypse. And the Koran states that it is more than permissible to lie to unbelievers.

Unless either we (unlikely) or Israel (impossible to know how much more likely) do something, Iran will probably have the capability to wipe Israel off the map within the year. They won't stop there, either--we'll be next.

I hate to have to point out the obvious.

But, apparently, somebody needs to in this case.

Granted, death penalty cases are far more expensive to prosecute. However, they're far less expensive in the long run: dead men and women don't eat, take up beds, require medical care, or take up any other government services.

A good friend of mine suggested that I was a bit of a hypocrite for being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I disagree. I'm anti-abortion because it wasn't the baby's choice to be conceived without the mother's actions, if not permission. A baby is innocent. A murderer is not.

And caring for a murderer for the rest of their natural lives costs more than I want my taxes to pay for. Releasing them early costs too much, too--in the risk that they'll re-offend. Therefore, the most economical and moral choice is to make sure that a) they cannot kill again, and b) that they don't take resources needed by the less guilty.

The window of opportunity is closing.

Iran is planning a "pre-commission" for its sparkling new nuclear power plant that Russia built for them.

They'll have nuclear weapons in no time, if Israel doesn't act, and soon.

Here's hoping.

Maybe if the Taliban beheads the Pakistani governmental official they detained, Pakistan will change its beady little mind about allowing them to have an uncontested supremacy over part of its territory.

After all, it wouldn't do to treat the guy like a woman, now, would it?

Update: A picture (with a caption) always makes the point better than I can in a few words:

The Senate is not a heriditary position.

We are supposed to elect individuals, not set up dynasties. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't England (or any other part of Europe), and we do not have a House of Lords/House of Commons split.

And, despite the moral and physical resemblance, Teddy Kennedy is not Henry Tudor.

Precious.

My husband and I went to have our son's first portraits made last Saturday. They turned out really well, so I thought I'd post a couple here.

This is his special smile for Mommy.


This one's his "There's my daddy!" smile


Pure precious. Let this chunk of cuteness brighten your weekend just a little bit.

No sympathy.

That's what they deserve for caving to terrorists.

And before anyone says anything to me about "But they're innocent, and had no voice in what the Pakistani government decided," let me just say one thing:

Bullshit.

Muslims, all Muslims, are equally culpable for the actions of the hardliners. Until they get radically intolerant of the radically intolerant, they deserve every death that they're dealt by their own people.

And no, I no longer care if some of those victims are children. That's just that many fewer future terrorists.

Does that make me a nasty, intolerant racist? No. It doesn't. Not all of Middle Eastern descent are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Middle Eastern. Do I hate all Muslims? No, I don't. I don't hate them. What I feel is far too cold and analytical to be termed hatred. Do I care if every Muslim were to die tomorrow? Only in that I would sleep better at night, knowing that we won't see another September 11 from those cockroaches.

Intolerant I may be, but it's intolerant of an ideology that is nasty, vicious, and blood soaked. I do not now, nor have I ever, given a damn about the color of someone's skin. I have only ever cared about the content of individuals' character.

This is not an informercial.

But I am going to use a standard infomercial line: Act now, before it's too late.

Iran has enough nuclear material to make a bomb. And it has allies.

A chilling wind of change

Barack Obama--or at least his spokesperson--claims that he opposes the renewed call for a fairness doctrine.

Is that like he opposes attempts to infringe upon our second amendment rights? Or maybe, with the pretty-much veto proof majority his party has in congress, he feels safe with that claim.

In any case, while I normally hate agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, because of the vitriol he spews on the airwaves, and the arrogance he displays when proved right (which is more often than not), I have to admit that I like the letter he wrote to President Obama.

Any attempt at a fairness doctrine would be aimed at taking Rush off the air. However, since he's the number one rated talk radio show host, he wouldn't be the one taken off. Rather, all of the other less successful (but still listened to and loved) hosts would be booted in favor of more car talk, more health talk, more money talk, more anything but political talk--because liberal politics don't have the ratings to sell advertiser space.

In other words, any attempt to force "balance" on talk radio, in the name of "first amendment speech" would, in essence, be a violation of the first amendment by squelching political speech.

Mr. President, you were elected on a platform of bringing Hope and Change to Washington. Well. I only hope you remember that not all change is good.

Absolutely unsurprising.

Iran's attempting to purchase an air-defense missile system from Russia. Unstated (but implied) is the fact that Russia is seriously considering it.

Why?

Because it's a weapon they can hold over our head to prevent us from setting up the ballistic missile defense umbrella over Europe. Never mind that it's meant to prevent regimes like Iran from nuking European nations, and has nothing to do with Russia.

At least, it doesn't from our end.

FINALLY!

Even though there's a month to go on their sentences, Compean and Ramos have been released from solitary confinement in prison to serve that final month at home.

They really should have killed the drug dealer and hidden the body. They'd've had less trouble if they had.

Hey, Mr. Government Official,

What's the difference between you and the person who defaults on a payday loan? Two things, really.

1. You don't have to pay back any interest.

2. THE INTEREST FREE LOAN YOUR TAXPAYERS MADE YOU WAS COMPLETELY INVOLUNTARY ON THEIR PART!

THIS MEANS YOU, Kansas.

Don't expect your state to not become a deadbeat.

The irresponsible press strikes again!!!

Gun fearing Nazis. They've forced a New York senator to move her home defense pieces by publishing where they were kept.

In other words, they've provided those who would break and enter to rob the residence with a treasure map where X marks the spot.

What am I doing to combat "global warming"?

To quote Ron White, I'm eating a cow. They are, according to this report, responsible for 18% of greenhouse gasses.

Just because the environmentalist religious nuts scream that raising and eating cattle is wrong, wrong, wrong, does not mean that most people will instantly turn vegan.

It's an especially stupid attempt with more and more doubting that global climate shift is a destructive shift toward warming, that we're warming at all anymore, and that it wouldn't be human-caused even if we were still warming.

There is absolutely no way this is going to work.

I just read an article that brought home to me exactly how fast our hand basket was accelerating. Before the monster "stimulus bill" was passed, our federal debts and financial obligations were $5.1 TRILLION. Now, at an estimated $65.5 TRILLION in TOTAL obligations (federal debt, "stimulus spending," and social program financial promises), our debt exceeds the GDP of the whole feckin' WORLD.

That bright light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter as it's getting hotter in here. And somebody greased the tunnel floor.

A good start.

An Italian cabinet member has recommended that rapists be chemically castrated.

As he told the media, "Talk of rehabilitation is not enough. Society must defend itself."

Indeed.

Good idea: slap down bad guys. Bad idea: show weakness to world.

North Korea is no longer listening to us.

Iran's next. And Russia.

News flash, idiot: Bush kept us safe for eight years by not making concessions and by not showing weakness.

So. What do you think will happen next? World peace? Yeah, that's likely.

We're screwed. All because Obama wants to be the anti-Bush.

It's not like I didn't see this one coming.

Pakistan has caved to the Taliban, the Islamofacist terrorist group that ruled Afghanistan at the time al Qaeda launched the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center/Pentagon/Flight 93 attacks.

Maybe we shouldn't be bombing these people, though. Maybe we should just inundate them with all of the neat technological gadgets that Americans are addicted to. After all, it works.

Most of the time. After all, if it worked all of the time, the Muslim media mogul wouldn't have beheaded his wife as she tried to divorce him.

That is, after all, permissible under Sharia law.

Does anyone else notice something wrong with that particular religion's followers? Like, maybe, they're not peaceful?

Well, the least they could have done was issue all of us some cheap, harsh vodka.

It might have dulled the pain of the sandpaper condoms with no lube. Even Wall Street, the movers and shakers on which were pleading for the government to hurry, has figured out that this "stimulus" deal is a bad idea. The Dow tanked by 382 points today, to end up at7888.88, down from a high of over 14,000 last year.

You might as well start drinking now, Comrades. Should you get drunk enough and stay that way, the lines to access the line for rationed, "single payer" medical care might not hurt as bad.

Evil son of a bitch.

Go. Read. Follow the links and read more, if you're not convinced.

Then tell me the Antichrist hasn't been elected POTUS.

And here's the answer to why so much pork in the stimulus package.

Somebody had the financial munchies...

And they're considering prosecuting someone who actually did something good for America's morale for the same thing.

Mistake, my ass!

This was done on purpose by a leftist media that hates the police.

Racial profiling is not wrong. It's practical. It is not racist to search certain races for perpetrators of certain categories of crime when said certain races commit most of certain categories of crime.

If a black man is brutally murdered, a black woman beaten and raped, or a drive-by slaughters children in a neighborhood park, it's likely that the suspect is also black. If someone straps on a vest or belt of explosives and heads to a crowded place with lots of children, it's likely a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 17 and 40. If a Latino is beheaded, the suspect is likely a Latino drug runner. If a white woman is beaten and raped, it's likely she lives in a run-down trailer park--er, likely that the perpetrator is white.

Releasing a list of names of LAPD officers who've been investigated for racial profiling to a public that's drunk the liberal grape drink that racial profiling is EVIL and WRONG was not a mistake.

There's the guy I want in the White House.

Bobby Jindal. Pro-gun. Pro-life. Pro-conservative.

"The country fired us from our congressional majority in 2006. Why? The country didn't stop being conservative. The Republican Party did. We became what we came to Washington to change -- the party of earmarks and government spending. The party needs to stop worrying about what to do to fix itself. Let's worry more about fixing our country."

Amen.

Should he not run on his own in 2012, draft 'im.

Damn. Makes you wonder.

Two stories made me go "hmm...I wonder..."

The first? "Hmm...I wonder what they're trying to hide." Two Afghanis translated the Koran from Arabic into the local language. Because they wanted their fellow citizens to be able to read the Koran in a language they can understand, rather than depend on clerics that may not be trustworthy to translate it during services, they're facing the death penalty.

The second? "Hmm...I wonder just what they were doing that scared the pilot so badly." Six Iraqi men (presumably between the ages of 17 and 40) are suing American Airlines because the pilot canceled a flight rather than take off with them aboard the plane. They're claiming racism, descrimination, and all that happy horseshit. The pilot, whom I'm more inclined to believe, said that his decision was "based on a potential threat to security--not nationality."

Hmm...I wonder what both stories have in common...

Proof.

Here's proof that showing weakness is not a good idea.

After all, the Islamofacist nations in the Middle East, and their sponsored terrorist groups are not our only enemies.

And Russia and Middle Eastern nations have teamed up against us before. And many of the Whateveristans (except for Afghanistan) used to be Russian, or Russian allies. Now that Russia is expanding its political power again, it's only natural for Kyrgyzstan to kick us out. Especially with "more than $2 billion in financial aid and credit from Russia" as a bribe.

Way to go, Israel!

Looks like the people are finally getting tired of being slaughtered like cattle. They're electing hard-line conservatives to their parliament.

Hamas, its not-so-secret backers, and other enemies of Israel had better watch their asses.

And so should we: we could lose our only real ally in that part of the world to our current administration's stupid pandering to the radical Islamofacists.

Fairness, my @$$!

I said it before, and I'll say it again: until you give conservative views equal airtime on network television (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) it's only fair that conservative views dominate talk radio.

After all, we only have (by your judgement) Fox News. And that's on cable. You've got NPR all to yourselves on the radio. That's about equal.

Oh, wait: you don't want equal, do you?

Then why don't you go here, and read my other suggestion? It's about thirteen comments down.

Oh, good God!

Those poor children! What kind of sick freak puts her daughter in an oven and turns it on?

I mean, at least my dad turned off the pilot light, first.

Gah.

There are just so many things I want to say about President Obama's policies that I don't know where to start.

Let's just say that some I mildly disagree with, and some I think are misguided, and some are so stupid that they scare the shit out of me.

The ones I mildly disagree with are few enough that it's hard to say which ones they are. Clearly, keeping going with politics as usual in his cabinet picks is one of them. However, since it appears that he's trying to use his cabinet picks to offset his lack of experience, I won't bitch too much. Well, other than complaining about what appears to be a Democrat tendency to not pay their taxes while rasing them on everyone else.

I obviously think some of his policies are misguided. For instance, I don't like that he's permitting destructive embryonic stem cell research to go forward. I don't like his idea that fair practices mean exactly equal results in the workplace. I don't like the actions he wants to take to "fix" the economy--not only will they not work in the short run, but they'll make the results of FDR's policies, and the stagflation caused by Carter's policies, look mild in comparison.

I believe strongly that abortion on demand (i.e., using it as birth control) is wrong. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should either use contraceptives, which prevent pregnancy from taking place at all, or abstain from sex altogether.

Many nations around the world agree with my view. And our Dear Leader has decided to re-fund overseas abortions. I'm sure that will go over well in Muslim nations.

Which leads me to the things that I think are so flat stupid they scare me. HE'S NOT TAKING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY SERIOUSLY. The way he's dealing with the terrorist regimes in the Middle East demonstrates that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those regimes see his attempts at diplomacy as weak. And they will think that we will topple with the right shove.

And with the current administration, I can't say I think they're wrong.

I gave him a chance. I really did. He's blown it in two weeks.

Not only a far left, gun-hating, anti-military baby murdering sociopath...

...but probably a coward, too.

Or, at least I suspect so, given these two stories.

I doubt McCain would have suggested drawing down troops in Afghanistan, any more than he would have suggested cutting the military's budget in the midst of a fight for our lives.

Oh, wait: most of the Left thinks of terrorism as a law enforcement issue.