How very interesting!

WFB worries about the long-term fate of the Republican Party:

There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

I find this intriguing, considering how crazy everyone thought I was when I was explaining that the Republican Party had reached its high water mark back when the conservative commentariat was babbling about permanent Republican dominance. WFB may be getting old and lost his fastball some time ago, but he is still head and shoulders above the junior leaguers who populate his magazine these days.

And the Republican Party will find it hard to survive, so long as the party leaders insist on selling out their only growing demographic, religious conservatives. Our old Bible study has around 15 couples and the average number of children per couple is probably greater than three. Nearly everyone homeschools, and perhaps 25 percent of them are already now what might be best described as ex-Republicans. That percentage appears likely to grow if Bush is replaced by another faux conservative.

These religious homeschoolers are the people that the Republican Party should be catering to, not ignoring, as they are a growing part of the population and breeding faster than left-leaning atheist professors can convert their kids to secular liberalism. Bidding against the Democrats for the Hispanic vote by importing illegal aliens is a fool’s strategy that guarantees irrelevance in the long term.

Advertisements

Stealing the high ground

The Atomizer is probably correct, but never fear, I have the answer:

I predict here and now that well before the 2008 elections the term “global warming” will completely disappear from common parlance. In response to us right wing nutters who refuse to swallow the pablum we’re constantly being fed, Al Gore and crew will soon be painting the ominous picture of “global change”.

No problem. Those of us who are either scientists or happen to be interested in the actual science of “global warming” or “global climate change” or “global change” need merely begin referring to it as “global progress”.

Progress is always good, ergo global progress is unquestionably to be desired and the unthinking, unwashed, insufficiently scientific masses will speedily fall in line with us and against Al Gore and the “more government is always the answer” crowd.

The brilliance of this solution can be seen in the fact that no one, through out the entire history of “progress”, has ever stopped to ask just what they were progressing towards.

Naturally, we shall have to refer to the former global warming advocates as “Global Progress Deniers”.

A shameless lie

Michael Rubin writes with forked pen at National Socialist Review:

What is most amazing is that the State Department has downplayed Turks’ concern about the Islamist agenda. If there was any truth to Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried comparison of the AKP to a European Christian Democratic Party, Turks would not be rallying for democracy and secularism. Perhaps it is time for some introspection in Foggy Bottom and at the U.S. embassy in Ankara.

Rubin is lying as shamelessly as Fried. Those Turks are not rallying for democracy and secularism, they are rallying FOR secularism and AGAINST democracy. No amount of spin and language abuse will change that simple fact.

Nor does it escape my attention that those who support Turkish secularism, both inside and outside Turkey, are perfectly content to rely on the Turkish Armed Forces installing a secular military regime by overthrowing the legitimate, democratically-elected government… in the name of democracy and secularism, of course.

Democracy is a complete sham. This is demonstrated every time that a popular Islamic government is elected or a European nation votes against the Eurofascists’ latest power grab; in the rare circumstances that a popular vote can change anything of real significance, it is either not permitted or the results are overturned by a devil’s brew of force and legal farce.

This would be really good news

If it can be proved. If course, it won’t prevent the FDA from banning vitamins and suppliments:

For decades, researchers have puzzled over why rich northern countries have cancer rates many times higher than those in developing countries — and many have laid the blame on dangerous pollutants spewed out by industry.

But research into vitamin D is suggesting both a plausible answer to this medical puzzle and a heretical notion: that cancers and other disorders in rich countries aren’t caused mainly by pollutants but by a vitamin deficiency known to be less acute or even non-existent in poor nations.

Wait a minute… this doesn’t mean I have to go into the Big Room, does it? The one with the bright light?

DC pros

The Washington Post puts a new spin on professional women:

[Brian] Ross [of ABC] said the list includes the names of some “very prominent people,” as well as a number of women with “important and serious jobs” who had worked as escorts for the firm.

As ABC spins out this little game of “Ho Ho Ho, Who’s the Pro?” I think it’s interesting to note that these were apparently $300 girls. So according to the Sexual Value of a Woman formula, wherein SV=(P*(E/60)*(N*12), these women were worth around $8,125 apiece on an annual basis.

That’s six times more than the average woman, but it’s not enough to live on, especially in Washington DC. So they’d be expected to have jobs, and in Washington, all Federal jobs are considered to be “important and serious”.

She’s getting serious

Hillary drops the Rodham… for now:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has dropped the use of her maiden name “Rodham” in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton identifies herself as “Hillary Clinton” in her campaign press releases and on her campaign website. The lone mention of her maiden name is in a campaign biography that says “Hillary’s father, Hugh Rodham, was the son of a factory worker from Scranton.”

She continues to use “Hillary Rodham Clinton” in her New York-focused press releases and in the Senate.

And as soon as she’s elected, the Lizard Queen will bring back the Rodham and drop the Clinton. And then she’ll celebrate by eating 13 live kittens and shedding her skin.

Now I’m just waiting for her to shock the media establishment by taking a firm position against comprehensive immigration reform and endorsing immigration restrictions.

They just need more education

It’s not astonishing that feminists are idiots. What’s astonishing is that they are surprised by the absolutely predictable consequences of the idiotic things they advocate:

There is a distinctly troubling issue that faces the more than 160,000 female soldiers who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. It has been called the “double whammy”: sexual abuse and trauma, combined with exposure to combat. Its effects are devastating.

Tragically, it is not a rare combination. Equally tragically, our military women receive this treatment not from our enemies; instead, it comes at the hands of some male officers and enlisted men of the very United States military in which these women bravely serve and fight.

A 2003 report, financed by the Department of Defense and cited in the article, found that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking Veterans Administration health care “said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service.” Of this sampling of female military veterans, “37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped.”

There’s three options here. Which one makes the most sense?

1. Offer more anti-harassment education. Maybe having a few more women wag fingers in their faces and say “rape is wrong” will make a substantial difference to the very same men who have been trained to lower their natural inhibitions to doing things that are generally considered morally and socially unacceptable, like shooting people in the head.

“Shooting women, good. Dropping bomb on house full of women and children, good. Putting penis where it isn’t wanted, bad.”

2. Kick all the over-aggressive, rape-prone men out of the military. Who knows what we’ll do with them, maybe we can have them all teach PE in the public schools. After all, it seems that little kids can be expected to defend themselves about as well as these brave female warriors. I’m sure the Rangers and Marines will be just as effective if they were comprised entirely of sensitive men who would never dream of laying a hand on a woman without written permission.

3. Kick all the women out and leave the military alone to focus on killing people, breaking things and to rape and to pillage, as all armies have done since the dawn of time.

Of course, America doesn’t fight to win wars any more, so what difference does it make if we have a military capable of winning one or not anyway? I’d go with option 1 myself, you know, because education is the answer to everything.