Friday, January 29, 2010

Pelosi: Bipartisanship is Great...But Not Really

The wondrous Nancy Pelosi never ceases to disappoint. After the President's multitudinous yet hollow calls for bipartisanship on healthcare reform during the State of the Union address, and after the Democrats have repeatedly accused the GOP of refusing to work with themselves on healthcare, Pelosi contradicts:

"We...have the responsibility, if we can't find...common ground, to stand our ground on principles," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rejecting bipartisanship as a goal unto itself. "If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."

In other words: even though the American people don't want our stupid healthcare bill, we are going to forcefeed it to em'. If you don't want in, then to hell with you.

"First Thoughts": Be Careful About Blasting Obama for Supreme Court Remarks

First Thoughts cautions conservatives not to be too quick to judge Obama for the criticism of the Supreme Court that he doled out in his State of the Union address. Twas' the all-powerful nine justices who rammed abortion down our throats, after all.

Looks like I'm not the only one who felt this way!

Thursday, January 28, 2010

State of the Union Post-Game Thoughts

For sheer exhaustion and sheer lack of interest in hearing truthless partisan rhetoric, I cannot claim that I have delved into President Obama's State of the Union address enough to give an "analysis" of its every in and out. However, I have seen enough of it (and have read enough of the transcript) to give a low-down.

Here are some thoughts on Obama's address:

Joe Biden nodded with approval at everything Obama said, with a stern sort of smile on his face. Nancy Pelosi looked more squirmy and frowny. That spanking that her healthcare bill took must still be fresh in her mind.

A word on demeanor: thankfully, he didn't use that damned shouting lilt that emerged at certain town meetings.

"Bad work on Wall Street is rewarded, while hard work on Main Street isn't." Well, Mr. President, who was doing the rewarding?

Cries against bipartisanship? A need for Republicans to do more than "say no"? Seeing as how the Obama White House and the Pelosi Congress have effectively shut the GOP out of the healthcare reform process, this comes off as unstudied hypocrisy. It is all too easy to point out the speck in others' eyes without acknowledging one's own plank.

There was much talk of "the people". The dreams of the people, the stubborn resilience of the people, the hopes of the people. I get queasy whenever any politician resorts to lofty generalities about "the people". It smells of overripe Latin American populism (and yes, some Republicans are guilty of this too). It also seems a tad desperate.

"From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear...that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on healthcare, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again." It seems that Obama has a pathological need to blame George W. Bush for almost every single problem his own presidency has run into. In a State of the Union address, a solemn and typically dignified occasion, this cheap trickery is particularly disgusting and unwelcome.

Finally: Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court for its campaign finance decision was awkward. Now, conservatives need to be fair here. I'm no fan of the Supreme Court's unchecked power and its arrogant assertion of its own opinions as law (see Roe vs. Wade). If a president blasted the Supreme Court for that particular decision, I would be applauding. However, given that Obama was blasting the Court for a ruling that I agree with, I was disappointed. The real question is whether or not such political posturing ought to be occurring at such a solemn and (ideally) non-partisan occasion? If Obama had been more discreet, more veiled, less open, would the idea he expressed have been more acceptable?

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

President Obama's State of the Union Address

As the President of the United States prepares to deliver the annual State of the Union address, I can only ask one question: what can he say? What has he done during the first year of his presidency to alter the union's prospects for the better? What can he point to as he stands before the entire country and attempts to justify his first year as our leader?

In light of diving poll numbers, State Senator Scott Brown's bill-killing victory in the Massachusetts senate race, and the basic failure of "Obamaism" in terms of claiming legislative victories, there is not much material to draw from.

The massive spending/stimulus packages? Utterly ineffective.

Obama's decision to send reinforcements to Afghanistan? Right, perhaps, but late.

Obama's healthcare bill? Dead in the water.

Obama's attempts to campaign for Democratic candidates around the country? 0 for 3.

Unemployment? Higher than it was a year ago.

Lay-offs? Steadily streaming.

Hence, there is not much good news to share. Most are expecting a fundamentally reactive presentation. Now is not the time for Obama to jog onstage and arrogantly reassert the failed healthcare reform initiative that he pushed in 2009. Now is not the time for him to set his chin angrily and raise his voice into that telltale shout that he uses when he wants to "talk tough" about his agenda. When you're being hammered by your constituents, and when your cheerleaders in the press can barely conceal the public's anger, you must give an inch or two. Is it not a bad sign for Obama that he's already publicly mulling over the ramifications of losing in 2012?

Look for Obama to reach for some middle ground, hawking his policy goals with renewed rhetorical vigor while simultaneously acknowledging the brick walls.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Give

Give to Catholic Relief Services as they continue to bring aid to the suffering population of Haiti. Each day, the numbers of dead rise, and needs of the living increase.

The whole point of being conservative is believing that it is not a federal bureaucracy, but rather real people, who ought to respond to disaster. Be one of those people. I cite Catholic Relief Services as the best charity to give to because the Catholic Church has been tending to the needy for two millenniums. Your money will not be misappropriated or misplaced, nor will it end up funding immoral practices (those heartless, tacky, murderous bastards at Planned Parenthood are using the quake to push their anti-life agenda; read, be disgusted, and choose your charities wisely).

Also, read this post from The Anchoress. The part about the couples adopting Haitian orphans will make your eyes water. Truly, the couple mentioned exemplifies everything that is good in humanity. Tragedy can indeed inspire the greatest heroism.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Haitian Mission

It says something about our country that, in spite of the fact that we are fighting two wars overseas, the U.S. has committed significant military forces to the security and rebuilding of Haiti. The Haitian mission will be costly for our country, but the right thing to do is never easy. At least 20,000 U.S. soldiers, with their requisite equipment and supplies, will be deployed by January 24th, according to the Department of Defense.

Naturally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sees our relief operation as an opportunistic "military occupation" (Lord knows that Haiti has so much to offer for the imperially inclined). He goes so far as to accuse the U.S. of causing the quake with a secret earthquake-inducing superweapon!

Anyone who sees our presence on the island as an "invasion" is certifiably moronic. The Haitian people are at the mercy of the worst elements within their society: armed gangs of looters and criminals have a habit of taking disaster relief supplies for themselves. The presence of our military will facilitate a more effective framework for international aid missions.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Man Threatened With Death For Posting Unflattering Michelle O Pic

I guess you can't poke fun at Michelle Obama without being targeted by stalker types.

I'm going to link to the unflattering pic, too. Consider this reparation for all the unflattering pictures of George W. Bush that every major American newspaper ever ran.

And if anyone threatens me with death...bring it, foo'. I'll have Elmo eat your heart!

A Day of Mourning

On this anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, read the late Richard John Neuhaus' speech on the pro-life movement. It's been republished over at First Things. The great Father Neuhaus was one of the most eloquent defenders of the unborn in recent memory.

How tragic it is to think of the nameless, faceless generations that would now walk this Earth had abortion remained an illegal practice. This is the greatest of our national sins: that we allowed nine robed dictators to infer a non-existent "right to privacy" from our Constitution that allows a doctor to kill an unborn child on behalf of its mother. I've never been able to fathom the philosophical connection between a right to "privacy" and a right to do whatever one wishes, right up to killing another human being.

Our cowardly politicians continue to hide behind empty rhetoric in order to avoid the consequences of admitting abortion is wrong. "We can't impose our views on others!" "Women can do whatever they want with their bodies!" Such statements, taken as Gospel by the gullible masses, are so at odds with common sense moral principles. If we can "impose" our opposition to littering, tax-evasion, and assault and battery on those whom we penalize for such offenses, why should abortion be any different? Does taking another human's life really count as a mere exercise of control over one's body?

These are the questions that the left does not want you to ask. The answers are obvious, but the implications of the truth would destroy the liberal utopian ideal. Therefore, abortion advocates hate anyone who expresses qualms about unfettered abortion access. Question their permissive, anti-human ideology and they call you a misogynist, a neanderthal, perhaps even a racist for good measure (because Lord knows, if you disagree with anything that the Democratic Party does, you MUST hate minorities). What they will not do, in my experience, is respond in a logical, sensible, or scientifically sound way.

Be thankful that maybe, just maybe, the common folk are waking up and realizing all of this. A majority of Americans are pro-life, according to Gallup. Maybe one day, when the Democratic Party and the pro-choice press have spent their credibility, the majority feeling will translate into action.

Assclown of the Week: Keith Olberman


Apparently, because Scott Brown is a white male, owns a pickup truck, and opposes the healthcare plan of a black president, he is racist, and so are those who voted for him.

Thus sayeth Keith Olbermann, the liberal blowhard whose false, useless, race-baiting, hateful hyperbole was unleashed on TV screens across America prior to the Massachusetts senate election.

Liberals have begun to utilize the race card in truly bizarre, irrelevant ways. A Democrat loses to a Republican, even though neither candidate is a minority? Blame racism. A majority of Americans oppose the Democratic healthcare reform bill? Blame racism. It is utterly absurd. When will minority commentators stand up and object to this patronizing, utilitarian ass-kissing? Isn't it somewhat condescending and insulting to have fat, white, old, liberal "journalists" constantly invoke your race as a weapon against those whom they dislike?

Olbermann deserves to be sued for libel on this one. Keith, you are indeed the Assclown of the Week, and you may yet be Assclown of the Year.

On Victory

Scott Brown is headed for D.C. Truly, his victory on Tuesday ranks as one of the greatest political upset victories of all time. With his admittance to the Senate, the GOP will now be able to stop the ridiculous Democratic healthcare reform bill from passing.

Ought Publius eat crow, given his earlier post declaring that the race was, in fact, a non-race? Sure. I was wrong. But I wouldn't dream of deleting my hopeless December rant. It stands as a tribute to the limits of healthy skepticism. Miracles happen after all.

I have come to admire many things about Scott Brown during this campaign. Granted, there is room for improvement. However, Brown ran the kind of campaign that I believe America has needed for years: it was honest, positive, energetic, and devoid of hyperbolic sniping (alas, on the last of these, Coakley was the dead opposite, what with her patently false "Scott-Brown-Hates-Women" ads). I believe he will be an effective and hard-working U.S. senator, and I look forward to seeing what he contributes.

As far as his conservative credentials go: he needs to ante up and oppose abortion flat out. On the greatest civil rights issue of our day, he is not entirely reliable. Yet his desire for healthcare worker conscience protections, and his opposition to partial birth abortion, are healthy signs. There is a moral compass present in Brown that we can work with. Supporting him while simultaneously holding him accountable is the right curse.

I will say this for Martha Coakley: had she so desired, she could have stomped her feet and demanded copious recounts in light of her defeat. Instead, she took the high road (finally) and conceded when it became mathematically impossible for her to pull ahead. Still, her campaign is destined to go down as one of the most lethargic, lame election bids in history. Her defeat can rightfully be attributed to both a general lack of excitement amongst the Democratic base and a massive surge of pro-Brown energy in the suburbs. While the vapid, brainwashed masses of densely-populated Newton, Wellesley, Cambridge, and Brookline probably turned out for Coakley, it was the mass of commoners across the rest of the state that put Brown over the top.

The common man hath spoken. Obamacare has been repudiated, honesty and integrity on the campaign trail has been rewarded, and the liberal element in American politics has been made to look arrogant, out of touch, and unpopular. Obama has begun his post-defeat two-stepping, but it's all for naught. Good luck to Senator Brown as he takes his place in the higher chamber.

P.S. Glenn Beck's blistering attack on Scott Brown is frown-worthy. Brown's joke about his daughters' "availability" was innocent/harmless. Ayla Brown thought so, at least. Though I appreciate a decent amount of Beck's material by and large, I disagree with him here.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Biden: If You Can't Beat Em...

...then change the rules.

After all, who needs a majority? When you've got the anointment of Obama on your side, why bother with things like rules and procedures?

Clearly, the Dems are preparing us for the new round of unethical behavior on their part that a Scott Brown victory will trigger.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Obama's Last-Minute Trip to Boston

Again, I return to the subject of the pending Massachusetts election. At this point it has become a national story. The intensity was ratcheted up today by President Obama's last-minute, emergency trip to Boston, where he stumped for Coakley after spending a couple of weeks saying that he had no plans to do so.

Obama's visit is indicative of the Democrat's utter terror at the prospect of losing. Earlier this week, one poll showed that Brown was not only alive and well, but leading the race. This made Coakley's shy, non-campaigning, and her increasingly negative tone, seem ever more inappropriate; you can't project complacency and arrogance when you're losing. Hence Obama came to invigorate her lackluster campaign with some liberal, hope-and-change magic.

Needless to say, the president is worried about Brown's ability to kill the healthcare reform bill that is currently being rammed down our throats. It's highly unlikely that he would have flown to Massachusetts if the bill was already a done deal. Obama's visit is yet another example of his White House's constant "campaign mode" method of dealing with public policy challenges.

If Brown wins, Obama will have spent political capital on a high-profile, losing battle. Surely, a Brown victory will be seen as a repudiation of Obama's presidency. This is Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the union. A Republican victory here would be a clear sign that liberalism is not as embraced in America as its proponents want everyone to think.

P.S.- Is it not delightful that the vile blob of uselessness known as Representative Barney Frank (D-Newton) is already trying to distance the Democratic establishment from Coakley, should she lose?

P.S.S.- Senator Chuck Schumer is an asshole. His crude, politically-irrelevant cutdown of Scott Brown leaves me unable to call him anything else.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Prayers and Support for Haiti

Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the disastrous earthquake in Haiti, where unknown thousands of people are hurt or dead. This is truly a catastrophic event. As the world mobilizes to lend aid to the suffering, we should find reputable charities and venues through which we can donate relief funds.

We should remember that as much as we complain about recessions, stock market problems, and other fiscal woes, there are some who have it worse than we do. Haiti is a destitute country that has never had any real social or economic infrastructure, and the strife caused by this earthquake can be multiplied tenfold as a result. There were no building codes, no speedy 911 services, no reserves of supplies and money at hand just in case. We live like kings in comparison.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Sticks and Stones: Dems on the Ropes

Nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh! The Democrats in Massachusetts, collectively reeling at the horror of a potential Scott Brown victory in the January 19 senatorial election, have resorted to childish taunting maneuvers. According to today's Boston Herald, they are (believe it or not) making some kind of snide insinuation that Sarah Palin ought to endorse Scott Brown, and that somehow, this would help there cause, because no one likes Sarah Palin.

I am not exactly sure what is being said, in this case. When a whiny child is wrong about something and knows it, he will often grope for oblique, immature, illogical quips that he can use to annoy and insult others for his own gratification. This DNC press secretary is following suit. Can't think of anything worthwhile or original to say? Attack Bush and Cheney. Still can't think of anything? Attack Sarah Palin (who, by the way, is being hit with major new allegations of stupidity and incompetence; perhaps a review of this forthcoming book is in order).

Ultimately, the DNC's sniping illustrates that the Democratic Party is (pardon me) scared utterly shitless of Scott Brown. Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Congressmen Delahunt and Capuano, traditionally ignored their marginal Republican challengers, running non-campaigns that yield 70-30 victories. Not this time. Coakley's mousy, silent bid for the Senate has backfired. You can't ignore a guy who has made as huge an impression as Brown; he raised nearly a million dollars in one day!

Will he win? I don't know. I believe that any prediction I make would be a 50-50 guess. In an earlier post, I aired my criticisms of both Brown and the race in general, and believed the situation looked dim. It's still not a lock, by any means. The left-wing machine in Massachusetts is quite powerful.

However, while I still have reservations about Brown's stance on crucial issues, he is the only choice for those of us who are looking for leadership and common sense instead of left-wing demagoguery. The longer his dogged, honest campaign has run, the more I've come to like his style.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed

Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.

From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.

Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.

Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.

P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.

P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.

P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Strange Minutiae of the Week: Woodrow Wilson Was A High Roller




Considering that he is, in hindsight, seen as a somewhat weak president, Woodrow Wilson was an odd choice for the now-extinct $100,000 bill. I would expect a Washington, a Lincoln, perhaps one of the Roosevelts...but Wilson? Maybe because the heavy hitters of the presidential lineup graced other bills, the Treasury had to dip into the second tier of U.S. presidents/officials for the big notes.

If kids today were aware of any of this, I'm sure there'd be all kinds of jokes about dropping Wilsons, snorting white powdered substances out of Wilsons, etc.

For a possibly accurate crash course in other extinct cash, check out Wiki.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Liar of the Week: U.S. Senator Paul Kirk

Ah, the pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken. After pledging not to endorse anyone in the race for the open Massachusetts senate seat, interim-Senator Paul Kirk has gone ahead and endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mission accomplished: talk a good game to your constituents, make them think that you are going to stay above the partisan fray, and then go back on your word the second that people aren't paying attention (after all, Kirk is hardly a household name, and has kept a low profile in the Upper House; his endorsement's effectiveness does not trouble me, only the fact that he made it at all).

After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.

How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.

He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Who's Afraid of the "T" Word?

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Janet Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, March 2009 interview with Der Spiegel

In light of the gaping security breaches that became evident during the failed Christmas Day bombing plot, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's above statement has become a major subject of debate and ire across the U.S. Coupled with her initial pronouncement that "the system worked" on Christmas Day (ignoring the fact that a disaster was averted only by terrorist stupidity), Napolitano's past statement is causing major concerns about her efficacy as one of the nation's top security officials.

Some are calling for her head. Some are coming to her defense. Predictably, Obama has made it clear that (barring mass public opposition) he will not be swayed by Napolitano's detractors.

Napolitano's demure attitude towards the word "terrorism" is far more troublesome than the left is willing to admit. Mind you that for me, the recent controversy is merely so much more icing on the cake. From the beginning, I never liked her. A great piece from American Thinker briefly and rightfully reminds us that Napolitano branded pro-life individuals and returning military veterans as domestic security threats. This nakedly partisan approach to national security suggests a lack of focus on the real danger. For all their whining about Bush and Cheney's "totalitarian" ways, lefties seem awfully willing to use homeland security powers against those whom they find distasteful.

Perhaps we should merely expect Obama's DHS secretary to target those who disagree with him, on political principle. But for a sitting DHS Secretary to openly deride the term "terrorism" as part and parcel of "the politics of fear"? It's ridiculous. By cloaking the reality of today's terrorist threat in politically-correct language so as not to scare people, Napolitano and company seem to be the ones who are most afraid. They are afraid of the truth. Terrorism is a real, potent, and unpredictable threat that we face. There is no point in calling it anything other than what it is. Semantics can't change the facts.

P.S.- Obama's nomination of Erroll Southers for the long-vacant Transit Security Administration leadership position is running into some fresh snags. Looks like he was censured by the FBI in the past, and GOP senators are none too happy. How many more senate confirmation woes can Obama afford before his political capital is effected?

Good Riddance

This morning, Publius smugly smiles at the idiocy of these Afghan terrorists who undertook a suicide bombing mission and ended up being its only casualties. As Winston Wolfe said: "Better you than me, gentlemen."

Doubtless similar situations have arisen between 2001 and now, but this is the first time I have actually heard of such a thing occuring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be thankful that the terrorists involved were only able to bring harm to themselves, and not to the battered population of Afghanistan nor the American and Afghan security forces that protect it.

Should we rejoice in occasions such as these? Philosophically, I don't know. I feel guilty for finding the story funny, yet I cannot muster one iota of sympathy for a pack of murderers who blew themselves up while targeting innocent people.

One of warfare's cruel ironies is that there is the occasional macabre slapstick to be found on the battlefield. I've heard more than a few veterans relate stories that are, in their eyes, both horrifying and darkly humorous.

Does how we react to these stories say something about our nation's character? Is there such thing as an appropriate response? Am I thinking way too much about this? Post your comments. I'm interested in what you might say.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Happy 2010, Plus Recommended Reading

This is my inaugural post of 2010. I suppose it would have had more impact had I authored it a couple days ago, but I have been busy. A belated "Happy New Years" to all.

I can only hope that 2010 will be better than 2009. Last year that saw countless economic woes and employee lay-offs, infuriating failures of national leadership, mounting terrorism both at home and abroad, and protracted warfare involving U.S. troops across the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than that. However, there can be improvement if America is willing to pull itself up by its boot straps and demand more of its leaders and institutions. This year, we will have the opportunity to toss the bums out of Congress and start afresh. This strikes me as one of the most crucial things that the American people can do this year.

So keep your hopes high and your expectations low, as you peruse some recommended reading for the week:

-Heather McDonald at the Wall Street Journal brilliantly demolishes the "crime-as-a-symptom-of-social-injustice" theory.

-Joe Carter at First Thoughts airs an infuriating New York City Health Department pamphlet that helps people learn how to "safely" shoot heroin.

-George Weigel, writing for The National Review, explicates just war theory in regards to Obama the Afghanistan situation. This brilliant article appeared in December, and I forgot to link to it sooner.