You know the old saying. Now the successor to such august personages as Josef Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev actually caught what he apparently was chasing — but what to do with it? V. Putin’s most recent remarks, nicely encapsulated here: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/04/putin-no-really-we-arent-going-to-annex-crimea/ — show he has fallen victim to his tyrannical lineage and perhaps his own grandiose ideas of bringing Russia back to top billing on the world stage. The address he made is an embarrassment to himself and, indirectly, his own people. There is no principle of international law which allows his support of an armed seizure of territory and facilities in Ukraine. Notice he made no comparison to the 2008 invasion of Georgia territory. He can’t. No ethnic Russian-Ukrainians have been threatened or harmed by the interim Ukrainian government nor by roving bands of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. So even that flimsy pretext was out of his reach this time. Indeed, it had been remarkably peaceful in Ukraine after her leader fled in disgrace.
Stalin was a brutal dictator who viewed Ukrainians as a subtle threat to his rule. Ukraine’s identity was as old as Russia’s and over the centuries its people developed a distinctive, albeit similar, culture. At the same time, Ukrainians inhabited strategic territory. Its history is largely one of the various surrounding powers fighting and staking claims to portions of what is now modern day Ukraine. In the 17th Century, the most powerful of Ukraine’s rulers sought the protection of the Russian Tsar and pledged loyalty to him. The two countries’ lives have been closely intertwined ever since. In the Soviet era, Stalin needed a device to stop any possible independence aspirations of Ukrainians. He decided to include numerous ethnic Russians into the official territory of the then Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. Students of the region have dubbed this Stalin’s “poison pill.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/24/codevilla-an-opportunity-to-end-stalins-legacy-in-/. Thus should the Soviet leader or his successors have reason to fear a rising Ukrainian nationalist movement not only could the ethnic Russians oppose such a movement but the Soviet Union (or later Mother Russia) could claim a right to assist those Russians.
The German Chancellor said Putin was out of touch with reality. But isn’t this the case with any autocrat who sees the world as either his to play with or with assassins around every corner? The twin desires of showing power and staying in power drove President Putin to this most unfortunate precipice. Who knows what he will do now? Even his own advisors aren’t sure what the game plan is. What we do know is that the heart beating in this man is not that of a man but that of a dog.
Administrations always have the advantage of timing. What is a floundering Administration to do when confronted with the possibility of damning whistleblower testimony and the inevitable follow-up? Not much unless you can divert attention to another, even more pressing, issue. Enter the IRS targeting revelations which were pre-coordinated to be released by the acting IRS commissioner and other IRS officials through a planted question from a member of the tax bar.
The Treasury Inspector General had completed its audit into the matter in September of 2012 — http://floppingaces.net/2013/05/22/investigation-of-irs-targeting-tea-party-completed-a-year-ago-hid-from-congress/comment-page-1/. Clearly the initial reason for the delay was to protect the current president’s vulnerable campaign, but why the Lerner staged apology May 9 and the IG report release May 15 when even the IG said it would get the report to Congress by March? On May 8, the Benghazi whistleblowers testified under oath to the House. Try as they might, the bought-and-paid-for media and faux objective blogs like Media Matters would not be able to blunt the impact of passionate testimony such as Greg Hicks’s “my jaw dropped” when he heard the Administration blame a pathetic youtube video and spontaneous demonstration. So why not pull the trigger on the IRS targeting scandal that waiting in the wings for the right moment? To paraphrase a former advisor to the current executive — never let a good scandal go to waste. The idea being that the public will begin to think that Congress and Republicans generally see scandals behind every bush at 1600 Pennsylvania and Benghazi will fade from the public eye.
Congress must not let this happen. It is one thing to abuse power and instruct the IRS to conduct enemy-list audits, it is quite another to diminish and ignore the likes of Al Qaeda and their devotees. The Boston Marathon bombing and the Woolwich beheading spell that out in red, red blood. I leave you with this site discussing the same and linking to an effective Heritage Foundation video on Benghazi: http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13783-plenty-of-spin-from-white-house-on-benghazi-no-real-answers.
Mothers pass Mother’s Day for the first time without their brave sons. Fathers this Father’s Day will have same heart-break all over again. Bravery in the sight of a vicious and hateful foe. If we never learn the complete truth at least we know this one: Americans stood their ground and with their dying breaths gave undying testimony to the freedom of America.
A recently submitted letter to the editor of the Washington Times sums up the frustration quite well. I reproduce it here in full:
Eight months have passed, and three central questions were asked — and they remain unanswered. Why were requests for more security at the facility ignored? Why were the American people told that the attack was caused by an Internet video, despite agreement by the CIA, the State Department and those on the ground in Libya that a terrorist attack took place? When will the killers of four Americans be brought to justice?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/14/justice-for-benghazi-victims-now/#ixzz2THX0SJ3O
Perhaps the most important question for those who suffer is the last.
Here is Gov. Sarah Palin, telling it like it is at CPAC this weekend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VkRw4EOwY2g.
These are the new catch-phrases for those promoting marriage between people of the same gender. Well, the first two are. The third is an exercise in de-euphemizing. Those first two words were recently intoned by the formerly conservative Senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, to justify his wholesale endorsement of sodomy-based marriage. It wasn’t just a statement that he does not oppose such marriage but an endorsement that somehow two men calling themselves married will save the institution of marriage.
Here is his opening line in the editorial he penned shortly after making his announcement (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html):
I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.
Thin gruel for a weak mind. Marriage is just a matter of two people committing to each other for life. Two siblings are now candidates for marriage. Two good friends too. A mother and daughter have been married all this time and no one knew it! In the Senator’s mind (or is it feelings?) marriage is whatever he says it is apparently.
And of course, there is no particular magic to the number two. The Senator has no compunction offering airy statistics to support his equally airy conclusion when he suggests that a declining divorce rate over the past 10 years is proof that homosexuals are better partners in “marriage.” (How about other factors Senator such as the devastating economy or maybe even that people are finally realizing marriage is the original blessing between man and woman as a response to the insanity of those promoting homosexual marriage?) Returning to the magic number 2 Senator, how about looking at actual history, where we see that polygamy has been practiced in various cultures at different times? Given your well-intentioned definition of marriage how can you exclude 3 people from the “joy and stability” of marriage? Pro-sodomy based marriage people like to ignore this argument and dismiss it as the slippery slope that no one is going to fall down, but you Senator claiming the mantle of conservatism how do you respond?
Hot Air’s Allahpundit apparently agrees on some level with the Senator but does not give an explanation here: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/15/rob-portman-ive-changed-my-mind-and-support-gay-marriage-now/. No conservative who cherishes the fundamentals of a healthy society can embrace sodomy-based marriage. No conservative denies the fundamental reality of the complementary nature of man and woman and the unique roles each has in the upbringing of children. But that truth does not stop this Senator from declaring the conservative high ground!
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.
So now conservatives must give up the notion that man is really different from woman, and father from mother! Hear that CPAC? Better conservative minds have now seen the utopia where man and man can lie down together and not be called an abomination but an expression of freedom and, indeed, a picture of married bliss. Amazing that this idea has never been embraced anywhere at anytime, but our real conservative leaders such as the Senator, have come to the underlying truth to all conservative thought: personal license. Yes, the Senator used the word liberty, but it is no more or less than license, that is, liberty without any moral restraint.
Euphemisms? The corruption of the delightful word “gay” to include those who lead a life which is decidely not gay is only first in a string of euphemisms employed to justify the homosexual marriage movement. An accurate word for those who enter into the life of the homosexual is forlorn for they have abandoned the truth of their bodies in the quest of sexual gratification. That quest leads them to darkness, emptiness, disease and death. Forlorn is perhaps too mild a word.
We are becoming Pelinore.
The Knights are still a part of this blog, but the name will change with the change of the good Governor’s career path and the diminishment of vile attacks upon her. Our motto is the same, which is to attack all forms of misogyny, but our name should change to reflect a broader vision. Pelinore, the Knight King of Arthur’s roundtable, is a suitable replacement as it retains our connection to chivalry (which we view as the equivalent of defending woman) but bespeaks a larger interest and role in that odd field known as the minor leagues of conservative blogging. That may be a class of one, but we are proud to occupy that field as the champion of chivalry and conservatism.
Why Pelinore? When this blog was formed, the other reknowned names of the Round Table were already taken, e.g., Galahad, Lancelot. Pelinore is a legendary figure who bests King Arthur at the tournament and even breaks Excalibur. He is wizened with age. He is a King in his own right and one of great battle prowess. His decision to become a Knight of Arthur and submit to Arthur’s kingship shows his humility and willingness to put aside his pride for the good of his country. That is all we seek to do here — protect the fairest lady in the land, our America.
In the spirit of Joe Biden: “Four letters — S A N D Y.”
Imagine a different scenario in which the President did not immediately return to campaigning after his tour of the ravaged areas and his Christie-hug moment. Imagine a President who said something like this: “This country is more important than a particular election. People are hurting all over the North East and in desperate need of help. As commander in chief I am directing the military to provide immediate and overwhelming assistance to those affected.” Then imagine Obama actually spending some time in a command HQ having his top brass etc. carry out these orders.
Now that action would have had the potential to change many peoples’ views about him.
But that is an alternate reality in which the President cares about the North East more than just a given Blue swath of states for his re-election. A reality where he took his job to heart even to the point of possibly risking his re-election. A reality where he, not Mitt Romney, was the happy warrior, confident in the successes of his tenure and in the future. A reality in which he recognized that politics is the art of the possible, and where doing the right thing, even if common wisdom would say otherwise, may even be more beneficial than slavish loyalty to campaign rallies.
That is not our reality.
And so the President who could have pushed back the Romney-tide that is sure to wash over the nation tomorrow, will sit on his hands tomorrow evening watching the election results whilst the North East suffers and probably somewhat grudgingly votes for him again.
Let’s welcome a new direction. Let’s welcome Mitt Romney as the next President.