Well, he did it. Today John McCain finally revealed his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and I'm not quite sure what to make of his choice. Unlike some people, I know who Sarah Palin is, having seen her on The Glenn Beck Show; I'm just not sure she's going to do McCain any good.
Picking Palin as his running mate deprived McCain of his chief weapon against Obama, namely, his inexperience. True, Palin is not running for president like Obama but given McCain's age the possibility of her becoming president is fairly high, making her inexperience a legitimate issue for the Obama campaign and the nation at large. It's rather incomprehensible to me why the McCain camp would give away it's strongest argument against Obama.
On the upside, Palin is a true conservative and a poster child for traditional family values. Her decision to have her youngest child, who was born with Down's Syndrome, reflects her pro-life commitment. Palin is a proud member of the NRA and favors drilling in ANWR. She opposes same sex marriage and has been willing to buck her party's establishment when necessary. All this will almost certainly help McCain with the Republican party's conservative base, which has been wary of the Arizona senator from the beginning of his campaign. Also, Palin's 70% approval rating as governor could bring some much needed shine to the tarnished Republican brand.
The fact that Palin is a woman will probably also help McCain. The Obama camp, and the MSM which supports it, will have to walk a fine line when criticizing Palin so as not to appear sexist. This is important because many of Hilary Clinton's supporters believe she lost to Obama due to sexism, and they're still angry about it. If Obama comes down too hard on Palin it could confirm the Clintonistas' suspicions and push them into McCain's corner, if only out of spite. So if McCain was crazy to pick Sarah Palin for his VP he might have been crazy like a fox. We'll find out November 4.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Democratic Truth
I found this on a blog--sorry, I don't remember the name--when I was looking through the link field on another blog I read. I just had to post this here. Wanna know what you'll get if you elect Obama? Take a look to the left.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
My Other Blog
Hey friends! I just wanted to ask you to take a look at my blog Hammer Folk Woman. I just wrote a new post there and I want to know what you think. So if you stop by leave a comment, ok? Thanks.
PS
To get to Hammer Folk Woman just click on the link under the "Seane-Anna-gans" title. And so you know, the word Hesperia that's in the post is one of the words I use for Western civilization. It's from the Greek hesperos meaning western. And Hammer Folk? That term is from Charles Martel who was nicknamed The Hammer for the way he ferociously defended France and Christendom from Muslim invaders in the 8th century. The Hammer Folk, then, are those in the West who are as committed to the defense of our civilization against Islamic invasion as Charles Martel was.
PS
To get to Hammer Folk Woman just click on the link under the "Seane-Anna-gans" title. And so you know, the word Hesperia that's in the post is one of the words I use for Western civilization. It's from the Greek hesperos meaning western. And Hammer Folk? That term is from Charles Martel who was nicknamed The Hammer for the way he ferociously defended France and Christendom from Muslim invaders in the 8th century. The Hammer Folk, then, are those in the West who are as committed to the defense of our civilization against Islamic invasion as Charles Martel was.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
No Outrage, No Protest
Is it just me, or have other people noticed the deafening silence from the peace groups over Russia's brutal invasion of Georgia?
The conflict started nearly a week ago when Georgia dispatched troops to try and retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia. The result was a devastating counterattack from Russia, not South Ossetia. Georgia, crippled by the Russian assault, called for a cease fire which Russia agreed to then promptly violated today. There is speculation that the real reason for the Russian offensive is not to help the South Ossetians but to topple Georgia's pro-American government. And where are the peace activists?
Some might say that Georgia provoked Russia's invasion by trying to retake South Ossetia. I don't buy that. Georgia sent it's military ONLY into land it considers its own, however much the Ossetians might dispute that claim. The Georgians NEVER entered Russia. Therefore the Russians had no right to invade Georgia proper in order to aid South Ossetia. All they had to do was drive the Georgians out of the province; they had no just cause to set one toe in Georgia itself. And then the Russians brazenly violated the cease fire by encroaching on the Georgian city of Gori. Again I ask, where are the peace activists?
Where are those people who vehemently opposed the Iraq War before even one US soldier had entered that country? Where are the people who loudly and sanctimoniously proclaimed their revulsion to war? Where are the people who raucously displayed their virulent hatred of George W. Bush? Why aren't they now marching in the streets against Russia and Putin?
By invading Georgia Russia has committed a brazen act of imperialism. It's trying to redominate the countries it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For years Russia has been outraged by Georgia's closeness to the West, especially America, and it's efforts to join NATO. The current fighting is Russia's attempt to punish Georgia for the crime of building democracy and acting like the sovereign nation that it is.
So, Russia invades an independent country in order to destroy its democracy and sovereignty and the peace activists say nothing. America invades an independent country in order to topple a murderous tyrant and the peaceniks have a tantrum. There's something wrong with that.
As I said above, there is speculation that Russia's goal is to overthrow Georgia's pro-American president--and send a warning to the US. I suspect that objective is one reason why the notoriously anti-American peaceniks aren't objecting to Russia's aggression. Any violence is ok with them if it's targeted, however indirectly, against America. Another possible reason for the silence is Russia's control over Europe's energy supply. Western Europe, particularly Germany and Italy, gets much of its gas and oil from Russia. Ticking off the slavic bear might have unpleasant consequences for Europeans this winter. So the shameful silence from the peace lovers is a combination of anti-Americanism and cowardly self-interest.
I'm praying to God that He will deliver tiny Georgia from the Russian giant. I'm not praying for peace. I'm convinced that the so-called struggle for peace is in truth warfare by other means. And since that's the case I pray for deliverance; I pray for victory. Victory for Georgia! And God damn the peace lovers.
The conflict started nearly a week ago when Georgia dispatched troops to try and retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia. The result was a devastating counterattack from Russia, not South Ossetia. Georgia, crippled by the Russian assault, called for a cease fire which Russia agreed to then promptly violated today. There is speculation that the real reason for the Russian offensive is not to help the South Ossetians but to topple Georgia's pro-American government. And where are the peace activists?
Some might say that Georgia provoked Russia's invasion by trying to retake South Ossetia. I don't buy that. Georgia sent it's military ONLY into land it considers its own, however much the Ossetians might dispute that claim. The Georgians NEVER entered Russia. Therefore the Russians had no right to invade Georgia proper in order to aid South Ossetia. All they had to do was drive the Georgians out of the province; they had no just cause to set one toe in Georgia itself. And then the Russians brazenly violated the cease fire by encroaching on the Georgian city of Gori. Again I ask, where are the peace activists?
Where are those people who vehemently opposed the Iraq War before even one US soldier had entered that country? Where are the people who loudly and sanctimoniously proclaimed their revulsion to war? Where are the people who raucously displayed their virulent hatred of George W. Bush? Why aren't they now marching in the streets against Russia and Putin?
By invading Georgia Russia has committed a brazen act of imperialism. It's trying to redominate the countries it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For years Russia has been outraged by Georgia's closeness to the West, especially America, and it's efforts to join NATO. The current fighting is Russia's attempt to punish Georgia for the crime of building democracy and acting like the sovereign nation that it is.
So, Russia invades an independent country in order to destroy its democracy and sovereignty and the peace activists say nothing. America invades an independent country in order to topple a murderous tyrant and the peaceniks have a tantrum. There's something wrong with that.
As I said above, there is speculation that Russia's goal is to overthrow Georgia's pro-American president--and send a warning to the US. I suspect that objective is one reason why the notoriously anti-American peaceniks aren't objecting to Russia's aggression. Any violence is ok with them if it's targeted, however indirectly, against America. Another possible reason for the silence is Russia's control over Europe's energy supply. Western Europe, particularly Germany and Italy, gets much of its gas and oil from Russia. Ticking off the slavic bear might have unpleasant consequences for Europeans this winter. So the shameful silence from the peace lovers is a combination of anti-Americanism and cowardly self-interest.
I'm praying to God that He will deliver tiny Georgia from the Russian giant. I'm not praying for peace. I'm convinced that the so-called struggle for peace is in truth warfare by other means. And since that's the case I pray for deliverance; I pray for victory. Victory for Georgia! And God damn the peace lovers.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Why Not "Hail Victory!"?
Hail Victory!!! Two words that are rejected and even hated by not only liberals but a lot of conservatives, too.
When Barack Obama took his I'm-the-Messiah tour through Europe he gave a speech before the Victory Column in Berlin. Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck derided Obama's choice of venue because, he felt, it was too closely associated with the Nazis and their battle cry of "Sieg heil!", or "Hail victory!". While I share Beck's disdain for Obama's rock star jaunt through the Old Continent, I totally disagree with his discomfort with the Victory Column location and with the cry "Hail victory!"
Yes, I get the Nazi thing. And no, I'm not a Nazi. But neither am I someone who blindly rejects things simply because of their untoward association. The hard truth is that the Nazis were right to yell, "Seig heil!". And we'd be just as right to yell it, too.
What is the alternative to "Hail victory!"? What should we cry instead? Hail defeat? Hail slavery--or humiliation, occupation, or genocide--which usually follows defeat? The truth is that victory is good. It is good for nations to win. When conflict befalls a nation victory should be sought with all the urgency, resolution and singlemindness of a wolf pursuing a wounded deer. Defeat should never be an option.
Unfortunately, defeat is not only an option, it is an eagerly sought objective for a dangerously large segment of the Western world, including America. Gripped by an incomprehensible self-hatred and a corrupt "anti-racism" that insists non-Whites can do no wrong, Western progressives have sided with their civilization's worst enemy. From pop stars openly hoping for a Muslim victory to an Israeli PM declaring his country was "tired of winning", progressives purvey the poison of defeatism from every available venue.
To these woefully misguided people pursuing victory, or simply naming the enemy, is "warmongering". Peace, they think, can be had only by ensuring the West's defeat, thereby showing the enemy our good intentions. If we show the foe that we mean him no harm, the theory goes, he'll abandon his aggression and become a reasonable, well-behaved member of the international community. Progressives--and irrational pacifists--followed this theory during Hitler's rise to power, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and now during the War on Terror. That this theory has been a monumentally tragic failure in practice doesn't deter each new generation of progressives from having an almost religious devotion to it.
Working for the West's defeat is not a noble show of peacemaking. It is, rather, a crass display of cowardice, useful idiocy, and betrayal of the West's highest principles. Peace and the survival of Western civilization can be secured only by resolutely and totally crushing the enemy. The West needs another leader who will bluntly tell us, "Victory at all cost...for without victory there is no survival". Without victory there is no survival.
Hail Victory!
When Barack Obama took his I'm-the-Messiah tour through Europe he gave a speech before the Victory Column in Berlin. Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck derided Obama's choice of venue because, he felt, it was too closely associated with the Nazis and their battle cry of "Sieg heil!", or "Hail victory!". While I share Beck's disdain for Obama's rock star jaunt through the Old Continent, I totally disagree with his discomfort with the Victory Column location and with the cry "Hail victory!"
Yes, I get the Nazi thing. And no, I'm not a Nazi. But neither am I someone who blindly rejects things simply because of their untoward association. The hard truth is that the Nazis were right to yell, "Seig heil!". And we'd be just as right to yell it, too.
What is the alternative to "Hail victory!"? What should we cry instead? Hail defeat? Hail slavery--or humiliation, occupation, or genocide--which usually follows defeat? The truth is that victory is good. It is good for nations to win. When conflict befalls a nation victory should be sought with all the urgency, resolution and singlemindness of a wolf pursuing a wounded deer. Defeat should never be an option.
Unfortunately, defeat is not only an option, it is an eagerly sought objective for a dangerously large segment of the Western world, including America. Gripped by an incomprehensible self-hatred and a corrupt "anti-racism" that insists non-Whites can do no wrong, Western progressives have sided with their civilization's worst enemy. From pop stars openly hoping for a Muslim victory to an Israeli PM declaring his country was "tired of winning", progressives purvey the poison of defeatism from every available venue.
To these woefully misguided people pursuing victory, or simply naming the enemy, is "warmongering". Peace, they think, can be had only by ensuring the West's defeat, thereby showing the enemy our good intentions. If we show the foe that we mean him no harm, the theory goes, he'll abandon his aggression and become a reasonable, well-behaved member of the international community. Progressives--and irrational pacifists--followed this theory during Hitler's rise to power, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and now during the War on Terror. That this theory has been a monumentally tragic failure in practice doesn't deter each new generation of progressives from having an almost religious devotion to it.
Working for the West's defeat is not a noble show of peacemaking. It is, rather, a crass display of cowardice, useful idiocy, and betrayal of the West's highest principles. Peace and the survival of Western civilization can be secured only by resolutely and totally crushing the enemy. The West needs another leader who will bluntly tell us, "Victory at all cost...for without victory there is no survival". Without victory there is no survival.
Hail Victory!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)