Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Conservative Writer and Iraq War Veteran's Book: A Biting Satire on Liberal Causes

Benjamin Duffy, a reader of No Pasaréan from its earliest days as well as an Iraq veteran whose post writings have been frequently linked on this blog, is now an author in his own right. He was already the author of a novella, his first book is out, and its title sounds heroic enough: We Are Fat and We Are Legion!
When fat civil rights activist Gabby Medeiros's supersized boyfriend decides to lose weight, he unwittingly forms a fissure in their relationship. Can their relationship survive? As a fat acceptance warrior, Gabby necessarily rejects dieting as unhealthy and counterproductive. A telephone bill collector by day, she spends two evenings a week doing what she really loves: pontificating from her position at the local radio station about the evils of the diet industry and a society that shames those who don't fill out the proper dimensions. Though people sometimes snicker at the cause she holds so dear, fat acceptance is very serious business for Gabby. When her live-in beau Denny Emory tells her that he is going to lose weight in order to control his diabetes, Gabby advises against it. Slowly, his diet changes the very dynamic of their relationship, to the point that Gabby questions whether it will survive.
FYI, I can confirm that Ben seems to have changed little, physically speaking, since the first time I met him, he has not gained weight, and he is still a slender, well-built guy. As for his new title, the first person to write a book review on Amazon sounds enthusiastic:
Loved the story and I was amazed at the amount of medical research done by Ben. I almost thought it was really OK to be fat. 

Monday, April 21, 2014

What Makes England Great?

What makes England great, asks The Daily Telegraph. Among the things up for a(n inter)national vote are several foods (believe it or not), Robin Hood, the Magna Carta, and
World renowned yet elusive graffiti artist Banksy [who] is from Bristol and many o[whose] original murals can still be seen on walls around the city and beyond. This example, which popped up recently in Cheltenham near GCHQ, depicting spies listening in on a phone box, is thought to be his work (Picture: Matt Cardy / Getty Images).
See the short list of things that sums up England's contribution to the world more than anything else
The top thing that sums up England's contribution to the world more than anything else will be revealed next Wednesday, April 23 – St George's Day. See the shortlist of 60 at englandshalloffame.com/shortlist or visit the exhibition at the Southbank Observation Point, London, from April 23 to 30.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The taxpayer will be robbed blind and anyone who doesn’t like it is a bad Christian, anti-American, and of course racist

Among the list of whoppers the public was told in order to sell the Affordable Care Act we can now include assurances that illegal aliens would not be able to claim benefits 
writes Benny Huang.
 … The “no illegals” pledge was a calculated lie that the president and his supporters discarded as soon as it was no longer needed. President Obama was counting on the people’s short memories not to recall the promises he made in order to ram through his pet piece of legislation, and on the sycophant press’s loyalty not to remind the public of what he said.

Anyone with a memory longer than a goldfish will remember the uproar that Representative Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) caused at the 2009 State of the Union Address when he shouted “You lie!” during the new president’s remarks. Fewer people will remember what Obama was lying about.

“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants,” said Obama. “This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

 At that point Wilson rudely interrupted President Obama’s absurd lie, for which he later apologized. The president however, has not yet apologized for deluding us all. He still thinks he’s the wronged party because someone with no respect for decorum sounded the baloney alarm while he had the floor.

 … All liberals had to do was lie to get the enormous new entitlement established. Having achieved that, they can now shame anyone who was actually dumb enough to believe them by accusing them of depriving poor people of badly needed medical care, no doubt because of racist motives. “Of course Obamacare won’t cover illegals” is slowly being replaced with “What’s wrong with Obamacare helping the undocumented?”

 … To think that the new healthcare entitlement will be any different from previous entitlements is the pinnacle of foolishness. We’ve been down this road a thousand times before. The program is supposedly only for citizens or legal resident aliens, but in reality no one’s checking. It will all run on the honor system, at the insistence of the dishonorable. The taxpayer will be robbed blind and anyone who doesn’t like it is a bad Christian, anti-American, and of course racist.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

So that's why they want unisex restrooms!


So that's why the leftists want unisex restrooms!

Jessica Sidman (thanks to Instapundit):
Alan Popovsky, who owns Lincoln Restaurant and Teddy & The Bully Bar [in Washington DC] … has found that unisex single-occupancy restrooms—and handicap-accessible ones in particular—tend to be the most popular hookup spots. “If you go into a restroom and you can actually lock the door behind you, that’s just an open invitation,” he says.

Friday, April 18, 2014

90 Days of Madness: Dealing with a Haunting Tragedy from China's Cultural Revolution 40 Years Later


Brice Pedroletti has a story in Le Monde called the Repenters of Maoism. We learn that, 40 years after China's Cultural Revolution, former students — one of whom appeared in a famous picture with Chairman Mao (she is in the center of the modern picture, below) — have publicly repented the fact that, "during 90 days" of madness in 1966, they let their Beijing high school director be punched and kicked to death.

Nowhere is it mentioned, of course, that one solution for avoiding such tragedies is the equivalent of America's Second Amendment.
Cela fait dix ans que Liu Jin, Song Binbin, Luo Zhi et plusieurs de leurs camarades du lycée de filles de l’Université normale de Pékin s’efforcent de faire la lumière sur les quatre-vingts jours de 1966 où elles furent les protagonistes d’une tragédie qui allait engloutir la Chine tout entière. Ces sexagénaires, qui ont derrière elles des carrières et des vies de famille bien remplies, se sont engagées sur une voie encore très peu explorée en Chine, et à demi taboue : celle de la repentance pour les atrocités commises par les gardes rouges durant la Révolution culturelle (1966-1976).

Le 12 janvier, elles ont franchi le Rubicon en présentant publiquement leurs excuses à ceux de leurs professeurs de l’époque qui ont survécu, lors d’une réunion du lycée. « La plupart nous ont dit qu’ils attendaient ce geste et qu’on aurait dû le faire il y a longtemps ! », raconte ainsi Liu Jin, 67 ans. Cheveux gris coupés court, jean et pull-over bleu marine, cette éditrice retraitée avait été désignée chef officielle des élèves du lycée dans les premières semaines de la Révolution culturelle, en juin 1966.

MILLIONS DE MORTS

Ce nouveau mouvement lancé par Mao, d’abord encadré par des « groupes de travail » du parti formés de cadres adultes, semblait alors inoffensif. En réalité, Mao, écarté des affaires courantes, allait jouer de son statut de dieu vivant auprès de la jeunesse pour renverser la direction du parti à tous les échelons, dans une bataille insensée qui fera des millions de morts.

Pour comprendre, il faut remonter à une journée bien particulière, celle du 5 août 1966. Ce jour-là, c’est une scène digne d’un film d’horreur qui a lieu dans un lycée pékinois réservé à l’élite rouge. Les « groupes de travail » du parti viennent d’être dissous par Mao, furieux de les voir « éteindre le feu de la révolution ». Dans ce lycée, Liu Jin et son adjointe, Song Binbin, restent les seules représentantes d’une autorité au statut ambigu. Depuis la mi-juin, les professeurs et les cadres dirigeants débusqués comme « ennemis de classe » ont été soumis à des « séances de critiques ». Sur les conseils de Deng Xiaoping, à l’époque vice-premier ministre, à qui elles avaient rendu compte des avancées de la Révolution culturelle dans leur lycée, Liu Jin et Song Binbin ont renvoyé des professeurs aux antécédents « problématiques ». La chef du parti du lycée (l’échelon suprême de direction dans toute administration chinoise), une femme de 50 ans, Bian Zhongyun, elle, reste sous bonne garde car son dossier est accablant.
« SÉANCE DE CRITIQUES »

Ses crimes ? Elle n’a pas répondu à la question d’un élève voulant savoir, lors d’un exercice organisé au lycée, s’il fallait décrocher le portrait de Mao en cas de séisme. Puis elle a refusé de « repêcher » la fille du président chinois Liu Shaoqi, recalée de peu à l’examen d’entrée. Enfin, une femme a clamé, en juin 1966, lors d’une « séance de critiques », que son mari, professeur au lycée, la trompait avec Mme Bian (une accusation qui se révéla fausse). La femme réclamait en fait que la chef du lycée lui verse le salaire de son époux dont elle était divorcée, ce que Mme Bian a refusé. Tout cela finit de convaincre que Mme Bian est un « mauvais élément ».

Ce 5 août, les élèves la forcent à crier à tue-tête, en frappant une poubelle en fer comme si c’était un gong : « Je suis une tenante de la voie capitaliste ! Je suis une révisionniste contre-révolutionnaire ! Je mérite d’être battue ! » Ce sont les filles de première année, soucieuses de montrer leur ferveur révolutionnaire, qui ont organisé cette punition. Les coups pleuvent : fusils en bois, barreaux de chaise sur lesquels des clous dépassent. Coups de pied, aussi, car certaines lycéennes en treillis portent des bottes de l’armée.

A trois reprises, Liu Jin et Song Binbin interviennent. « La première fois, raconte Liu Jin, la foule se dispersa. » Mais dès que les jeunes cheftaines remontent dans leur bureau, d’autres recommencent à s’acharner contre Mme Bian. « Je craignais d’être critiquée en empêchant les violences. C’est vrai que c’est pour cela que je n’ai pas fait de mon mieux », a reconnu Song Binbin dans le discours qu’elle a prononcé le 12 janvier. « La vie humaine ne valait pas grand-chose. Mao était un dieu. Ses paroles étaient saintes. Tout le monde était prêt à se sacrifier », déplore Gao Ning, une autre ancienne élève du lycée, déjà à l’université à l’époque.
There is only one comment, far fewer than if the article had been on a subject involving that nightmarish society that is America's, such as (horrors!) Abu Ghraib or (imagine!) the lack of gun control. But it is worth reading. JP. Tournebroche writes:
On attend avec intérêt les réactions des anciens adorateurs de Mao et thuriféraires de la Grande Révolution Culturelle, notamment celles de M. Sollers et de ses anciens camarades de Tel Quel. On se souvient des flamboyants articles dans lesquels ce grand penseur nous instruisait de la différence entre "la pensée Mao Tsé Toung" et "la pensée de Mao Tsé Toung". On se rappelle aussi de quelle façon ces maolâtres furent descendus en flammes par Simon Leys lors d'un "Apostrophes" mémorable....

Monday, April 14, 2014

"You don't want to go there, buddy"; Many, many thanks to Eric Holder

Doesn't Eric Holder deserve our deepest gratitude?

As reported by Fox News, the attorney general told a congressman,
You don't want to go there, buddy.
Let's look at this first, briefly, in the specific venue it was said, and second, in a more general way.

1) "You don't want to go there." Can this be constructed as anything but either scorn or a veiled threat or both? Let's read the sentences that follow.
Holder went on to say that [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)] "should not assume that that [the 2012 House vote finding Holder in contempt of Congress] is not a big deal to me."
"I think that it was inappropriate and it was unjust, but never think that was not a big deal to me. Don't ever think that," Holder said, pointing his finger.
Get this right, people; get this right, congressmen: How dare you — how dare anybody — ask any member of the Obama White House for justification (documents, emails, etc) for their decisions?!

Eric Holder is part of the team of brilliant reformers sent to radically transform America by telling ordinary men and women (as Ricardo Fernandez calls the latter, "the great unwashed [who] merely swill beer, drive pickup trucks and believe in superstitious nonsense like good and evil, right and wrong, God and the devil" — thanks to Instapundit) to stop thinking they know how to manage their own lives and telling them what to do (mainly, what to do with their money, as in hand it over to the government of reformers and to their ever-growing bureaucracies).

So, for one of those unwashed people — for what else are Republicans anyway, and besides, what business do those clods have being in DC in the first place?! (stupid constitution and thank God the IRS intervened to keep the Tea Partiers in their place, and us reformers in Washington) — to question their decisions and bring up such (non-)scandals as the Mexican gun-walking affair, the failure to go after (Democratic) voting fraud, and the IRS's Tea Party hunt, all of which is highly unfair not to mention highly insulting.

2) More generally, we should all thank Eric Holder for articulating the attitude that has come from the White House (and prior to that, from the Obama campaign) for the past five or six years — as well as from its brilliant reformers (as stated above), from the mainstream media (remember the Journolist?), and all the supporters of the left in the population:
You don't want to go there, buddy.
The Benghazi massacre? The Syria red line? The reset with Russia?
You don't want to go there, buddy.
The Obamacare vote? The (repeated) "misspeaking" of Obama's promises?
You don't want to go there, buddy.
Obama's past? The Reverend Wright's Church? Obama's rise through Chicago's machine politics? Obama's winning one election after another through at least partially dubious means, from the invalidating of the petitions of Democratic party opponents (1996) and the unsealing of divorce papers (2004) to the siccing of the IRS on the Tea Party (2012).
You don't want to go there, buddy. (CNN is a Wright-free zone; ABC, CBS, and NBC haven't mentioned the IRS scandal (scandal?! what scandal?!) in months.)
Even something so innocuous as the content of Obama's Harvard papers and his grades?
You don't want to go there, buddy. (Racism, racism, racism.)
And having the gall, generally, to question people such as Barack Obama and Eric Holder?
You don't want to go there, buddy. (Racism, racism, racism.)
But why should this surprise us?

What this attitude is, basically, is symbolic of the entire Alinsky stance and everything in his radicals book:
You don't want to go there, buddy.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

BBC to Commemorate the 70th Anniversary of D-Day


The 70th anniversary of the 1944 D-Day landings is to be marked by a series of programmes on BBC TV and radio, announces the British broadcaster.
The June 6 attack saw more than 156,000 Allied troops storm the beaches of France and marked the beginning of the end of World War II.

 … "We all owe so much to the brave servicemen and women who took part in the D-Day campaign," said Danny Cohen, director of BBC Television.

"It is a privilege to commemorate and mark this incredibly important anniversary with a range of programming across BBC TV, radio and online."
The story of D-Day.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Starting in the late 60s, child support and alimony went from necessary evil to an open bribe available to any woman who was willing to betray her husband and children

 … starting in the late sixties we reorganized our legal and social structure with the (unquestioned) assumption that replacing marriage wasn’t a necessary evil, but a moral imperative
writes Dalrock (echoing Stephen Baskerville).
We replaced a patchwork of bastardy laws with a declaration that legitimacy doesn’t matter.  Around the same time, we ushered in no fault divorce with very strong bias towards mother custody, while leaving in place the punitive practices of child support and alimony.  Suddenly child support and alimony went from necessary evil to an open bribe available to any woman who was willing to betray her husband and children.

Now we not only promise a woman cash and prizes if she will agree to betray her family, but we have created a presumption of guilt on the part of the very husband she sells out. As Lydia McGrew explains here it is misogyny to not assume that our pandemic of wife initiated divorce is proof that the men must have had it coming.

This assumption that the sin of divorce must be justified is combining with the lure of the financial reward to sin and snaring very large numbers of women.  Where Christians should be defending marriage and discouraging sin, most are enthusiastic supporters of child support and stand forever ready to offer justifications for women to divorce their husbands, however flimsy.   However, remaining silent about the evil of child support and alimony and encouraging frivolous divorce is not kind to women and children;  it is cruelty.

In our current rush to find some fault, any fault, by the husband to justify the divorcing wife we aren’t being honest that the standing offer of a cash reward for ending her marriage can’t help but cloud her judgment.
Update: Instapundit links another Dalrock post:
The Great Douchebag Mystery, or, How Douchebags Are Created

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Leading From Behind: Obama Wants to Give an Important Role to Hollande





Delucq describes an American puppeteer leading from behind — from behind a constable-looking Hollande puppet in his hand:

• Barack Obama: Tremble, Syria! Shake in your boots, Central Africa! The world's policeman is about to get mad!

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Restored WWII plane to return to Normandy for D-Day anniversary

At the invitation of the French government, [a] restored Douglas C-47 will fly in for 70th-anniversary festivities and again release paratroopers over the original jump zone at Sainte-Mere-Eglise
writes the Associated Press.
"There are very few of these planes still flying, and this plane was very significant on D-Day," said Erin Vitale, chairwoman of the Return to Normandy Project. "It dropped people that were some of the first into Sainte-Mere-Eglise and liberated that town."

 … Leslie Palmer Cruise Jr. … still remembers being squashed between other paratroopers seated on pan seats as the plane left England's Cottesmore Airdrome. He was weighed down with probably 100 pounds of gear, including an M-1 rifle that was carried in three pieces, 30-caliber rifle ammo, a first-aid pack, grenade, K-rations and his New Testament in his left pocket, over his heart.

"We could hear the louder roar as each plane following the leader accelerated down the runway and lifted into the air," he wrote in an account of the mission. "Our turn came and the quivering craft gathered momentum along the path right behind the plane in front."

The airplane's engines were so loud he had to shout even to talk with the paratrooper next to him, he said, and the scenery through its square windows looked like shadows in the dark. Over the English Channel, a colonel pointed downward.

"In the partial darkness below we could make out silhouetted shapes of ships and there must have been thousands of them all sizes and kinds," Cruise wrote. "If we had any doubts before about the certainty of the invasion, they were dispelled now."

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud; Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy

When the Reverend Al Sharpton embraced felonious vote fraudster Melowese Richardson he embraced her crime
writes Benny Huang.
Harlem’s own race-hustling clergyman appeared at a political rally in Cincinnati in support of the “Ohio Voters’ Bill of Rights,” that would make it illegal to ask voters for ID at the polls, when Ms. Richardson, freshly sprung from a prison she should not have left, was called up to the stage for a heartfelt “welcome home,” complete with thunderous applause and big hug from Reverend Al.

Ms. Richardson, a county poll worker, pleaded no contest in 2013 to four counts of voter fraud. The previous year she voted five times for President Obama—once for herself, and four times illegally. She has also admitted to voting illegally in 2009 and 2011, though those charges were excluded as part of her plea deal. She was then sentenced to five years in prison, though she served only eight months before the same judge that sentenced her in the first place re-sentenced her to parole.

“In the interest of justice, it is time for her to go home,” said Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, a Republican. He offered no objection to Ms. Richardson’s resentencing.

Apparently eight months in prison was punishment enough for depriving (at least) four other citizens of their franchise. That’s what voter fraud is—disenfranchising voters. Each illegitimate ballot cast nullifies a legitimate one. Her fraud was no different than reaching into the ballot box and removing four ballots, or physically blocking four people from the polling place.

 … Any talk of voter fraud elicits swift backlash from the Left. A series of billboards reading “Voter Fraud is a Crime” created quite a stir In the Buckeye State in 2012 and were quickly condemned by the “civil rights establishment” who demanded to know who they were “targeted at.”

Answer: vote fraudsters, of course. Who else?

But misnamed “voting rights” groups didn’t see it that way. They asserted that the billboards were intended to intimidate minorities and felons, who are permitted to vote in Ohio. How someone might have interpreted “Don’t vote illegally” to mean “Don’t vote,” is beyond me. It would be like claiming that advertisements against drunk driving dissuade people from driving sober.

But I wasn’t born yesterday so I can see through their transparent objections. Liberals weren’t concerned that the billboards would send the wrong message. They were concerned that it would send the right message, thus stymying their efforts to cheat. No one honestly believes that the billboards were designed to intimidate legitimate voters from voting only once. They were aimed at the Melowese Richardsons of this world who think nothing of voting five times in a single election.

Leave Melowese alone!

 … So let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud. If they were, they wouldn’t object to billboards that warn against it and they wouldn’t make a martyr out of Melowese Richardson, who served only eight months in prison when she could have spent decades.

Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy. They know what the law says but the law is, in their eyes, unfair. So they flaunt it. They recruit noncitizens to vote, some of whom aren’t even in the country legally. They get felons to polls, even though felons are ineligible to vote in some states. They comb the voter rolls for people who have recently died, and they never allow anyone to clean up voter rolls, even if they contain more registered voters than a precinct has eligible citizens.

This isn’t an argument between two groups of people who both care about the integrity of our elections but disagree about how best to ensure it. It’s an argument between people who think that elections should be clean and well-ordered, with sensible safeguards to ensure that only eligible voters vote and only one time each, and those who think that cheating is okay so long as it is done in the service of a just cause. And really, there is no cause more just than electing saintly liberals and defeating evil conservatives.

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

In the Wake of Crimea, What Lands Does the Kremlin Have Its Heart Set On?

After Crimea — whose historical ties to Russia are discussed by the BBC's Ruth Maclennan — will other territories be coveted by Moscow, ask Le Monde's Jules Grandin, Flavie Holzinger, Benoît Vitkin, and Mathilde Gérard.