Why Every Atrocity Isn't the Holocaust...And Why It Matters

Back 2006, I wrote this post about my disgust at the urge to compare every act to the Holocaust. Having re-read it, it still holds true today after reading numerous comparisons between Nazis and Glenn Beck supporters.

I'm Sure Glad Glenn Beck's Rally Is Over

I just couldn't take any more of the civility and biparisanship on display from the Left.

The Silver Lining in All the Concern about "Islamic Hate Crimes"

There's always an underlying bigotry involved any time liberals decide to defend a religion (except Christianity--Christianity is never defensible). In this case, it involves the amazing double standard concerning recent events involving Muslims and ancient events involving Christians.

How many times have you had a discussion about the radical sects of Islam and their penchant for killing bystanders when a liberal decides to discuss the Crusades? I'd say this canard comes up in most conversations where someone rationally argues against, say, mosques that recruit people for jihad. But these arguments are ridiculous for a comparison of religion. After all, the complaints against Islam aren't about events from a thousand years ago. We're typically talking about the worst event on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and it hasn't even been 10 years yet.

The same people howling about how we can't tar all Muslims with the jihadi brush constantly accuse all pro-lifers of supporting the murder of abortion doctors or all Christians of endorsing Timothy McVeigh (who wasn't even a Christian...but he was a white guy!). Don't let them get away with it, particularly when they're spinning and deceiving like crazy.

Why Liberals Are Full of CrapDon't Understand Conservatives

If you read this, you'll understand the demogoguery of liberal ideology.

Can't argue facts and philosophy with a conservative? Argue they support feudalism! Yes, you got that right: liberals are now arguing that conservatives want to return to the days of kings, squires, and vassals. Why? Because, apparently, conservatives believe everyone should work for as little money as possible.

•Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Well, that's not really why conservatives are against government taking money from some people to give to others. Conservatives appreciate the independence and self-esteem working gives people. As opposed to taking a government check, earning your living gives you freedom and choices.

Contrary to the strawman this author erected, conservatives don't want people to work for as little money as possible. In fact, they want people to make as much money as they can. The difference is that conservatives recognize that the way to make the most money you can is through your own work and initiative, and that's something the government can't give you.

•Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

No, the reason conservatives support free trade is that free trade provides more people the opportunity to earn their own money, start their own companies, and do what they want. Rather than languishing in poverty, free trade helps people escape poverty.

•Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

I guess if you don't think babies are people, you might consider them only as a burden to their mothers, rather than people.

•Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Conservatives recognize that unions force individuals to follow the union's directives. This means not doing anything the union won't allow the individual to do. That means less initiative and less promotion on one's own merits. Worse, unions inevitably strike because they aren't getting gigantic raises in economic downturns (such as now) regardless of how the strike affects ordinary citizens. See strikes for transportation and even healthcare workers as examples of what unions bring every place they go. Unions are designed to prevent workers from working hard or efficiently. They are designed to provide the least work out of workers for the most money they can command. That's bad for consumers because it drives up costs and it's bad for business because it makes it more expensive to hire people. The result? Fewer workers and more expensive goods.

The arguments get more ridiculous from here. Believe it or not, the author argues that conservatives don't like prosperity. No, really. Why? Because conservatives disliked every government program designed to redistribute wealth.

These pathetic attempts to argue that conservatives are greedy bastards show how little liberals have to show for their philosophy. Pathetic.

White House: Obamacare Doesn't Reduce Costs or Deficit

We're not surprised Democrats are backpedaling on the strongest claims made about Obamacare: That it would cut the cost of medicine and improve the deficit.

Our lovable lefty Perry claimed repeatedly that the CBO said it would reduce the deficit in the first decade. This was always a sham claim, since Obamacare takes in 10 years worth of payments from taxpayers but only pays out 6 years of benefits. Even Democrats can improve costs when they aren't paying for things.

This is just the latest example of how the Democrat agenda is coming back to bite 'em in the ass, and I can't say "I told you so" enough. I'm hopeful November is just the start.

What Is the Legal Argument at Ground Zero?

I'm going to steal this from Hugh Hewitt. It's an excellent explanation of the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque and the legal side of the argument.

The trouble is that opposition to one mosque in one place does not a bigot make, though certainly there are anti-Muslim bigots in America. The various straw men put forward and beaten down by Bloomberg et al serve only to deepen the anger of those opposed to one mosque in one place because of their concern over the politicization of Ground Zero, and the other line --taken by Pelosi in the comments above-- that the mosque at Ground Zero is a "local land use decision"-- is instantly understood as not only quite obviously absurd but also political cowardice, especially after the president entered the debate.

As a lawyer who has long represented churches and religious schools in land use disputes, the basic law is this: The government may not constitutionally treat one proposed religious land use differently from similarly situated other religious land uses, and the government may not single out religious land uses for discriminatory treatment in ways that uniquely burden those uses.

By contrast, the government can and does zone land to serve the general good,and in the course of doing that, it may treat religious land uses as one category of land use that will be treated in specific ways, provided those ways are not intended to burden or discriminate against that class of land uses or a particular denomination.

Thus New York City or the state or even the federal government could chose to protect the entire area around and including Ground Zero from all uses that are intended to exploit proximity of the hallowed ground to send messages of any sort. None of these governments could single out the Muslim faith for special burdens or prefer a different faith seeking a shrine nearby.

Neutral principles fairly applied are the heart of Free Exercise Clause's protection of religious land uses.

This approach is, for the benefit of the president's speech writers, a fairly recent development. "The writ of the Founders" did not, for example, stop the attempted extermination of the LDS church in the 19th century.

With Nancy Pelosi calling for investigations of anyone opposed to the mosque, we need to stop pretending that Democrats are simply misguided or have different views from Republicans and conservatives. If the demonization of the Tea Party and talk radio wasn't enough evidence, surely wanting to use the power of the federal government against people speaking their minds should. Nazi and communist references are worn, but, honestly, is there any other way to characterize calling for investigating people for speaking their minds about a national issue? This is, frankly, revolting, and Pelosi should be condemned for it.

America the Un-Bigoted

If you disagree with building the Ground Zero mosque, you must be a bigot according to liberals. But Jonah Goldberg has a nice piece on the whole controversy today:

In any decent society, tolerance must work both ways. If the majority is expected to show respect for a minority, the minority must also show some tolerance for the values of the majority...And one of the things common sense should tell us is that it is not only unfair but terribly ill-advised to portray 7 out of 10 Americans as bigots when they are anything but.

It's time the left stopped demonizing people who have the common sense concern about building a mosque near the site where a group of Muslims attacked America.

Conservatives Aren't the Extreme Ones

Poor Democrats. At private fundraisers with no cameras or microphones, Barack Obama crows about passing the "most progressive agenda in decades," but in front of the cameras? No, he's a middle of the road guy. It's too bad he thinks Americans are so stupid they will fall for the tricks.

Fortunately, we have ads like this one to remind people who the extreme ones are.

My Argument for the Ground Zero Mosque

Since the left seems to be totally bereft of decent arguments in favor of the Ground Zero mosque, I decided to give them the only answer.

No, people who are against the building of a mosque at the site of the greatest Muslim atrocity in American history aren't bigots and they aren't subverting the First Amendment. It doesn't matter what buildings are nearby or if the people building the mosque really, really, really want to put it near Ground Zero as a celebration of tolerance.

The bottom line is that the government has no business determining whether a building goes into this spot as long as the business (or whatever) meets codes. And if enough protests prevent the building of the mosque, then that's a celebration of the First Amendment, too.

As hard as it must be, leftwingers need to stop making stupid arguments to support the mosque or the people who want to build it. Period.

The Problem with Tolerance

I've stated publicly that I don't think the government should stop the building of the Ground Zero mosque. This isn't the same thing as saying it should be built; I think building a symbol to the religion that fired up the terrorists to attack us is in poor taste. My understanding of the Constitution, however, doesn't allow for the government to tell people to have better taste. If the public pressures the owners not to build it, then that's a good thing.

What has struck me in the supporters of the mosque is some of the false equivalencies used to support building it. A friend of mine posted on Facebook that he's not afraid of "Muslim basketball players or culinary students," as though the only use of the building will be purely secular activities. This is false and he must know this. Islam has a history of building mosques on or near the sites of their victories (see the Dome of the Rock and the Hagia Sophia for examples) and of turning Jewish synagogues or Christian churches into mosques as a way of showing their superiority to other religions. To trivialize the concerns of Americans who dislike the idea of raising a monument to the religion of the hijackers is abominable.

I was particularly offended by this comment:

"It could just as easily have been christians fundamentalists, jewish zealots, hindus, sikhs, buddhists...well, maybe not buddhists, the point is, the extremist muslims were just the first ones to get the idea of using planes."

There are a lot of things one could say about "Christian extremists" (whoever those are), but equating hijacking planes and running them into buildings as an act of martyrdom isn't one of them. This sort of martyrdom isn't uncommon among Islamic extremists, but I'm sorely pressed to find a similar event from 20th Century Christianity.

Great Ad

Via Ace of Spades.

Why Marriage?

Interesting discussion about Prop 8 on Hugh Hewitt's show, highlighting the unintended consequences and unprecedented attack on religion inherent in the decision. Judge Walker's decision hinged on the idea that religion and religious views are inherently irrational and no basis for law. This is offensive at least and a blatant attack on Constitutional rights at worst.

Wasting Taxpayer Money

Rational people have known all along that the so-called Stimulus Bill was nothing but Democrat payback and pork. But this story on port barrel spending hits close to home.

But to former Republican presidential nominee John McCain, spending $454,200 in federal stimulus funds to replace lighting at Softball World, a city park in Euless, is a prime example of how the government is wasting taxpayer dollars.

"Playing in the glow of stimulus funded lights -- now that's something completely new," according to a "Summertime Blues" report written by Sens. McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "One would think that the teams using the fields should just pay higher fees for the light renovations instead of the American taxpayer, most of whom will never see Euless, Texas, no matter how bright the new lights are."

But many who live in the Northeast Tarrant County city said that more than 100,000 people use or visit the city park each year and that the lighting is a proper use of stimulus funds.

"This is ridiculous," said Richard Hopkins, who plays outfield with the Diamond Softball Club at the park about three nights a week. "A lot of people go to the park to play or watch, and this is a need.

"The lights are definitely antiquated, they are more than 25 years old. This will help make them energy-efficient," he said. "It's unfair that they singled out the one park in Euless."

Is this how we define a "need" these days? A bunch of people like playing softball, so they "need" taxpayer funds to upgrade the lighting system?

At a time of economic hardship, paying for new lighting at a softball field seems wasteful and trivial. And worse, look at the "jobs saved or created" numbers:

At No. 99 was Softball World, a project expected to be finished within a year and save or create 2.8 jobs.

That's something over $162k per job. For softball lights. And they wonder why Americans are angry?

Disagreeing with Conservative Majority Opinions

It's been one of those weeks for me, where I've spent a lot of time disagreeing with folks I normally agree with and agreeing with folks I usually don't. Here's the list:

1. I don't like building a mosque at Ground Zero for all the dhimmitude reasons around, but I don't oppose it, since I happen to think freedom of religion (even when I disagree with it) is pretty important.

2. I'm pretty unhappy with the way anti-Prop 8 advocates (like liberals in general since the 1960s) are hellbent on cramming gay marriage down the collective gullet of an unwilling public through the court systems rather than going the Constitutional route. But having said that, the thread at this post on Volokh Conspiracy provided (for me) the best arguments I've heard for gay marriage, and it's got me thinking it may be time. Granted, a lot of it is still anecdotal, and we won't know for decades how this affects other family relationships, but still.

3. Calls to alter birthright citizenship is nuts. And a sure loser at the polls. Do Republicans just want permanent minority status?

Ok, flog me.

Drop the Constitutional Amendment Process

After all, with judges making findings of facts like these, there won't ever be a need to actually pursuade the electorate of anything.

He’s emphasizing the factual findings in the case here, not the ostensibly more important legal conclusions about due process and equal protection. That’s smart as a legal strategy insofar as the facts, not the law, are binding on the appellate courts that’ll hear this case, and it’s smart as a political strategy insofar as the average joe will likely be interested in the sociological testimony from the trial but not so much the tedium of due process analysis. If you’re going to use your limited time on camera to push gay marriage to the public, this is precisely the sort of thing you’d want to emphasize.

The problem, of course, is the legal part of the decision:

The optics are uniquely bad — a federal judge imperiously tossing out a public referendum enacted by citizens of one of the bluest states in America on the shoulders of a multi-racial coalition. If the goal of gay-rights activists is to make same-sex marriage palatable to the public, then embittering opponents by torpedoing a hard-fought democratic victory seems like … an odd way to go about it. The response to that will be that equality can’t wait, just as it couldn’t wait vis-a-vis school desegregation in the 1950s. Except that (a) no one, including gay-marriage supporters, seriously believes that the harm here is as egregious as the harm to blacks under Jim Crow, and (b) there was no assurance of a legislative solution to racial injustice in the 1950s the way there currently is for gay marriage.

This is one of those situations which will simply further enrage the electorate. If you don't get your way after following the process, when do the People get to do what they want? According to liberals, only when they decide it's best for you.

Justice: Fox News Gets Front Row Seat at White House Briefings

After the Obama administration's failed boycott of Fox News, coupled with MoveOn.org's pathetic attempt to prevent this, Fox News gets a front row seat to White House briefings.

According to Hot Air, it was a unanimous decision by the White House Correspondents' board.

"The board ultimately was persuaded by Fox's length of service and commitment to the White House television pool," said the association.

Always nice to see people do the right thing.