Posts Tagged ‘Key Word’

The “Chickification” of America

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

This is article 230 of 301 in the topic US Military

Rush Limbaugh has predicted the end of the National Football League and sees its demise drawing closer.

Is it really any surprise that Obama is leading the charge to make football “safe”, given that it is a sport where there is a lot of physical contact, often resulting in the occasional injury? Americans do not watch football to see players get injured. They watch because it is a version of war. It is fought in stadiums. The field of battle is well defined. And men outfitted like gladiators engaged in a modified version of combat.

The key word here is “men.” Nobody wants to watch two teams of women play football.

Obama is a girly man. When you think of Reagan, he is astride a horse at his ranch. When you think of Obama, he is riding a bicycle.

The latest manifestation of an effort that pre-dates Obama, the “chickification” of America, is the decision by the Department of Defense to allow women to engage in battle alongside their male counterparts. There are few ideas more idiotic than this. Forget the usual arguments put forth about upper body strength and such, even the Israeli Defense Force, famous for including women in its ranks, uses them auxiliary functions in order to free up the men to do the actual fighting.

No civilized nation wants to send women into combat. No military that depends on unit cohesion and morale wants to put the two sexes together in close proximity because the two sexes tend to do what comes naturally in close proximity. They’ve been holding hearings in Congress about the problems this has created in our military services. We have, however, compounded this idiocy by opening the ranks to openly gay service members. There have always been gays in the military, but in the pre-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell days, they kept that to themselves.

In an earlier era, the roles of men and women were well defined. Women, indeed, had fewer choices and, to the degree that they now have more, that is a good thing. To the degree that they are in the workplace it also means that both marriage and children are impacted in ways that the 50% divorce rate and the numbers of single mothers were predictable.

It is troubling to me that women in films and on television have been increasingly portrayed in roles where, rather than being the damsel in distress of former times, they are now gun toting, karate smashing characters on a par with men. This undermines traditional values from chivalry to the instinct of men to come to a woman’s aid, to be protective.

I fully understand that culture is always subject to change, but some aspects of culture are worth retaining and this is particularly true in light of the glaring fact that women are different than men. Even women know that!

What bothers me is the creeping effort to turn men into women in terms of their attitudes. Part of the push to permit gay marriage, an element of the Democratic Party agenda, is the constant pressure on heterosexual men to “accept” homosexuality as “normal”, when it has never been regarded as normal. Homosexuals are approximately 3.5% of the population.

Click to continue reading “The “Chickification” of America”
Go straight to Post

Obama dishonest on assault weapons ban

by John Lott on Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

This is article 245 of 603 in the topic Gun Rights
From Obama on gun control at Tuesday night’s debate:

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.  . . .

And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur. . . .

This is what I wrote earlier.

“AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even — or perhaps especially — at such a time, distinctions need to be made.

The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians.

Yes, the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” — they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The M&P 15 is similar, though it fires a much smaller bullet — .223 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .30-inch rounds used by the AK-47. . . .

Obama knows all this.  He was deeply involved in the gun control debate before he even entered politics.

I wish that someone would have been willing to note that despite all the predictions murder and violent crime didn’t rise after the assault weapons ban sunset in 2004.  The murder and violent crime rates never went above what they were in the year prior to the ban sunsetting.

Go straight to Post

New op-ed at National Review Online: ‘Military-Style Weapons’: Function, not cosmetics, should govern gun policy

by John Lott on Saturday, July 28th, 2012

This is article 204 of 603 in the topic Gun Rights

My newest piece starts this way:

‘AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities,” President Obama told the National Urban League on Wednesday. After the deadly attack in Colorado last Friday, the president’s concern is understandable. However, even — or perhaps especially — at such a time, distinctions need to be made. The police in Aurora, Colo., reported that the killer used a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is “no reason” for such “military-style weapons” to be available to civilians. Yes, the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” — they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns. . . .

Go straight to Post

Friday Afternoon Roundup – Drill Barry Drill

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, February 26th, 2012


I did an interview yesterday on the Speakeasy with Guy Green and if you want to listen then you can go to their site or try the embedded version here. SPKEZ DANIEL GREENFIELD 2-2


What is worth more in the eyes of Obama, an American soldier or a Koran? We all got the answer to that when after an Afghan soldier murdered two American soldiers, Obama apologized to the Afghan government because their already defaced Korans were not properly respected, venerated, kissed and tucked into bed.


So four years after a serenade of Drill Baby Drill, the cost of gas is climbing through the roof. It’s almost like it’s impossible to drill for oil in this country. And no amount of Chevy Volts being bought by GM employees is going to save the day.

The tactical policy of the left has been to drive up energy prices to force people to “cut back”, but the people being forced to cut back aren’t Barack ‘Hawaii Temperatures in the Oval Office’ Obama, it’s actual Americans who don’t have their heating bills covered by taxpayers.

“It’s the easiest thing in the world to make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,” Obama told a crowd at the University of Miami. “What’s harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.”

… or you know… ever. Because buying a whole lot of subsidized solar panels or bailing out car companies and forcing them to make energy efficient cars that people don’t want, doesn’t solve anything.

Sustainable is the key word here and that means following the Euro plan of hiking energy prices and taxing what’s left to keep people miserable and deprived. To the left it’s a matter of stating the problem. And their view of the problem is not a technological one, but a human problem. The problem being that people exploit natural resources for their own comfort and the only way to make them stop is to raise prices.

Characterizing Republicans’ energy policy, he said: “Step one is drill, step two is drill and step three is keep drilling. You know that’s not a plan — especially since we’re already drilling. That’s a bumper sticker.”

Now drilling for oil is actually a pretty good plan, because it’s how you get oil. Just like you get money by working for it or you get wheat by growing it. It’s the actual definition of what a plan is.

But that’s too simplistic for Caliph Nuance who thinks plans need to be so ridiculously complicated that they can only be unraveled by a drunken Columbo with a copy of Das Kapital.

Sure we could go out and drill for oil. But that’s not a plan. What we need to do is not drill for oil. Then we borrow money from China to buy solar panels from China. Then we wait while gas prices go through the roof. Then we give the people a lecture on saving money by going green. Then we go play golf on the greens. Then we visit China and beg them for more money. Now that’s an energy policy that we can all get behind.

1 2 3 4 5
Go straight to Post

When a Compromise Isn’t a Compromise

by Frank Salvato on Friday, April 15th, 2011

This is article 200 of 526 in the topic Government Spending

President Barack Obama took to the stage at George Washington University to allegedly lay out an argument for what he perceived to be a need for “compromise” where the current debt, spending and budget issues are concerned. In the end, the President’s speech turned out to be nothing more than a partisan approach to the launch of his 2012 re-election campaign. But Mr. Obama did highlight the need to employ true compromise in approaching the financial crisis facing our country. And while this may be a notion that many on both the committed Left and committed Right will not be wont to hear, it is the truth, if in fact we are serious about reforming the way our government utilizes taxpayer monies.

The key word here, however, is “compromise.” For there to be true compromise several realities must be present, including honesty among the participants, a commitment to statesmanship over political opportunism and a true middle ground, to name just three necessary prerequisites. Sadly, those realities – the people who hold those qualities – do not exist in the nation’s capitol in large enough numbers to create an atmosphere where “compromise” can be struck.

When one reads the text of Mr. Obama’s speech and examines it for inaccuracies there are myriad opportunities to spotlight his deference to political rhetoric and opportunism at the expense of fact and history. For example, in his speech, President Obama stated:

“…our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit — three times. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush, then made by President Clinton, by Democratic Congresses and by a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. But they largely protected the middle class; they largely protected our commitment to seniors; they protected our key investments in our future.

“As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.”

Two events that come to mind in hearing this portion of Mr. Obama’s speech are the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, or the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and what many call the “Peace Dividend.”

Regarding the Welfare Reform Act, just like Mr. Obama has to have been dragged kicking and screaming to affect a Continuing Resolution extending the functioning of the federal government, then-President Bill Clinton reluctantly – and that’s putting it nicely – enjoined in advancing welfare reform. In fact, after vowing to “end welfare as we know it,” President Clinton then waited over a year before he proposed legislation that would have increased welfare spending by $14 billion over five years. In addition, Mr. Clinton vetoed welfare reform measures twice – first on December 6, 1995, and again on January 9, 1996 – before finally signing PRWOA on July 31, 1996, and then only under the spotlight of a re-election campaign. To the latter, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) said “If it were 14 weeks after the election, he’d say no.” Mr. Clinton also promised to undo many of the reforms.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Deconstructing the Global Warming Fraud

by Alan Caruba on Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

This is article 38 of 342 in the topic Global Warming

I have been reviewing books for fifty years and have long since lost count of how many books were written to propagate the global warming fraud, nor how many have been written to deconstruct it. That’s how the war of ideas is fought these days, along with documentaries, blogs and websites, conferences, and all the other ways lies are defeated by the truth.

From the earliest days the global warming “theory” was proposed I knew that it was a complete hoax. It never made any sense to me that an element of the earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide that measured an infinitesimal 0.0389%, could have an effect on the planet’s climate. Just one of the so-called “greenhouse gases”, water vapor—clouds—is 51 times greater than CO2.

Moreover, not one single computer model can factor in the effect clouds have on the planet’s weather because not one single meteorologist, living or dead, has a clue why they do what they do. They appear and disappear in the very definition of chaos. So it struck me as odd that all the computer models of the advocates of global warming always came to the same conclusion; it’s coming and the earth’s temperature will rise dramatically IF…

IF is the key word that global warming advocates, now called “warmists”, kept saying. If you don’t stop using coal and oil for energy, we’re doomed. If you don’t reduce your personal “carbon footprint”, we’re doomed. If we don’t immediately start using ethanol, wind and solar power, we’re doomed.

Beyond IF came an endless avalanche of claims that global warming was altering or affecting every single natural phenomenon in the world. The claim was that glaciers were melting. Polar bear populations were disappearing. Hurricanes were increasing. The seas were rising. Eventually, just about everything happening anywhere was blamed on global warming.

Follywood and the mass media signed onto this absurdity, ignoring the science involved and the most obvious fact that an entirely natural cooling cycle began in 1998 and continues to this day. The worst of it, however, was a combination of the way the government and the nation’s educational system became parties to this massive fraud. And still are!

The EPA claim that it has the authority to regulate CO2 is a pure lie and it is based on the global warming lie.

Ultimately, however, not one “warmest” ever once pointed to the single greatest factor in the earth’s climate, the sun.

All this brings me to a new book, “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, by eight co-authors, contributors whose expertise ranges across climatology, meteorology, physics, and mathematics, along with an expert in the legal aspects of the hoax. All have been derided as “deniers” and “skeptics.”

I know several of them as Internet friends, I count Hans Schreuder, Joseph A. Olsen, and John O’Sullivan among the many people who have helped me, over the years, to understand the complexities of climate science.

This book is not light reading. Indeed, if you don’t come equipped with an understanding of physics, for example, some chapters will remain beyond your grasp. And mine!

Click to continue reading “Deconstructing the Global Warming Fraud”
Go straight to Post

Will America Ban Criticism of Islam?

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

This is article 10 of 114 in the topic Free Speech

In 1935 Sinclair Lewis wrote It Can’t Happen Here, a novel about the rise of tyranny in America, whose message was that it indeed can happen here. Just to remind us that in fact it “can happen here”, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer used the occasion of his appearance on noted legal forum, Good Morning America, to suggest that there may not be any First Amendment protection for burning the Koran.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Breyer’s statement was every bit as flippant and ignorant of the Constitution and even previous Supreme Court decisions as you would expect from a Clinton appointee.

To begin with, Breyer misstated what Holmes had said and what he had meant. In Schenk vs United States, Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” The key word here is “falsely”. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there really is a fire, is a warning. Shouting it when there is no fire, is a malicious attempt to start a panic. Holmes used the metaphor to argue that freedom of speech was contextual, so that some speech which presented a clear and present danger in a time of war could be banned. An Anti-War argument during peacetime might be legal, but illegal in wartime.

Breyer is relying on a widely discredited decision from almost a century ago, and taking it completely out of context. It’s as if Breyer had decided to pluck Dred Scott vs Sanford, a decision made closer to the time of Schenk vs United States, than to our time, and used it to argue that companies don’t need to pay non-citizen workers anymore. No Supreme Court has actually banned political speech on the grounds that Holmes did in a very long time.

What Breyer is proposing smacks of an attempt to reintroduce WW1 security measures back into law, measures that were widely considered illegal even at the time, and that next to slavery and prohibition, represent low points in American jurisprudence. The same liberal civil rights activists who warned us that the Patriot Act was scary and totalitarian, will of course have nothing to say about Breyer’s flirtation with laws that make the Patriot Act seem like Woodstock.

Am I exaggerating? No. We are talking about laws that prohibited derogatory or disloyal speech toward the government. Laws under which a filmmaker who directed a movie about the Revolutionary War was imprisoned on charges of making German propaganda since the British were our allies. We’re talking about laws which extended into monitoring people’s speech in their own homes. Theodore Roosevelt denounces those laws as “unpatriotic and servile” and “morally treasonable to the American public”.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin