stupidity

Rave Reviews 5!

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, dishonesty, extremism, fun, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, humor, moonbats, Rave Reviews, stupidity

@font-face { font-family: “Cambria”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

Ladies and gentlemen, after a long, inexcusable hiatus, I’m thrilled to announce that Rave Reviews is back! We’ve got a lot of catching up to do, so sit back and feel the love!
“I bet he’s also one of Tom Krannawitter’s lapdogs…er…lapcats?” – Conimbricenses
“Don’t even pretend like you’re interested in a debate. You’ve already made up your mind…Your and other’s immaturity is the reason why I left the Republican party.” – Eagle
“I stand by my original contention that Sean Hannity is a racist and that Mr. Freiburger’s defense of said racism suggests that he too might harbor the same sentiments…He really is overinflated with his sense of self-importance.” – Priscilla
“Damn Calvin, I never dreamed you could stoop so low. But, unfortunately, I was obviously wrong… you couldn’t be more naïve… silly and asinine… extremely sensitive political correct sensibilities.” – ObamaYoMama
“Behold the ‘Vitriolic Right’ for whom all politics is personal, nasty & vicious.” – John Guardiano
“Holy cow, what a blowhard!… a loudmouth undergrad from a joke of a college with an unread blog who looks like a nerdier Harry Potter.” – anon
“Gee Calvin, you must have taken ‘Attempted Insult Lessons 101’…” – Pat
“Don’t give Calvin a pass on being a class A tool himself.” – Scott Feldstein
“Many of the posters here, especially ‘Calvin,’ should come to the realization that courts don’t give a flaming rat’s ass what you personally think, nor does anyone else in the entire world except you.” – Zorky
“Is this what passes for honest intellectual debate at Hillsdale these days? That’s a sad and surprising revelation if so.” – M. O’Neal
“You surely attempt to sound middle ground on this and fair. But you really aren’t.” – Robert
“I believe Mr. Freiburger writes these pieces so often because he is extremely insecure.” – Mike
“What nonsense!” – tramky
“Nice article, although you misunderstand Christianity.” – @InvisibleAir
“Your hatred of Obama is really off the charts. Where were you when Bush Jr was wrecking the country and the world?” – ganymede
“Yet the Puritan need to control and “perfect” others continues – on the right and the left. Give it up. The world can’t take any more of your good intentions.” – R Sweeney
“Don’t waste your time with Calvin Freiburger. He is the most intellectually dishonest person I have encountered to the right of Karl Marx.” – The Inquisitor
“Even if you aren’t violent, you are fanning the flames, inciting those that may be on the edge. There is more at stake here than whether someone is for or against the issue. There is the rule of law. This misogynistic thinking imitates Sharia law. This is America.” – Naomi Litvin
“Calvin, you are being deliberately obtuse.” – Optimus Maximus
“Your analogous safety-fascist measures all decrease safety… It is precisely the lack of principled commitment to freedom you exemplify that has allowed liberty to recede and tyranny to gain ground in America.” – Tim Starr
“Calvin, it appears you have forgotten what America is all about! Oh no!” – britney12
“‘Conservatives’ like you are no friend to truth.” – headjanitor
“When you can’t answer a question, simply attempt to mock the questioner.” – QSuzy
“You’re obviously a leftist posing as a conservative to meet your own ends, whatever those may be. Either that or you’re a practicing homosexual yourself.” – Trucon
“You can take your totalitarianism and shove it up your a$$ with a d!ld0.” – aspacia
“You definitely have an anger management problem. It seems anyone disagreeing with your interpretation of history ends up with comments about them like the ones above. Grow up!” – kwg1

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, conservatism, dishonesty, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islam, Islamofascism, NewsReal, Robert Spencer, stupidity

Last month, I wrote a couple of posts on NewsReal criticizing the wisdom of one of my co-bloggers’ calls to “eradicate Islam in the West.” In a nutshell: Islam is a violent, totalitarian religion which needs to be aggressively and honestly confronted, but simply “eradicating” it outright would be not only impossible, but calling for such an eradication would confuse and alienate a heck of a lot of people.

One of my most persistent critics was a commenter using the name “ObamaYoMoma,” whose arguments were as verbose as they were insipid. In a nutshell: The West needs to be totally purged of Islam because it’s not really a religion anyway and therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply to it.

Those interested can check out the sordid, stupid saga at the links above. Suffice to say, no amount of semantic gymnastics about what is or isn’t a religion can erase the fact that we have a First Amendment, and that according to just about every accepted definition of the term “religion” we have, Islam qualifies. And if you really think you’ll find enough public support, enough of a congressional majority, and elect a president who would support criminalizing an entire religion, plus find so much as a single court in the land who would stand for it…well, let me know how much luck you have.

This week, OYM popped up again on another of my posts, regurgitating the same idiocy. He wouldn’t define exactly what “banning” Islam would entail, nor did he answer my question about whether or not the First Amendment places any limits on what we can justly do to bring about Islam’s “eradication.” Instead, he smugly asserted that I don’t know what Islam is, and that I am “blinded by PC multiculturalism like John Gardiano” (wonder if he knows just how well John and I get along, or that John misrepresented my position on Islam).

Inasmuch as I made perfectly clear where I stand on Islam in each of the very posts OYM commented on, it’s hard to see him as much more than a liar or a buffoon. But to end this skirmish on a semi-productive note, let’s see what Robert Spencer, who OYM claims to be a disciple of, has to say on the subject:

The implications of what I’m saying are very bad. There’s no way to sugarcoat them. But there are precedents. And there are useful ways forward — if we have the courage to face this problem as it truly is.

This is a problem within Islamic teaching, within core Islamic teaching, founded on the Quran. As such, wherever there are Islamic communities, there will be terrorism and efforts to impose elements of Islamic law through peaceful means, to assert the precedence of Islamic law over the laws of the state in which the Muslims happen to be residing. That will always happen.

Now, in 1945, the McArthur government — the occupational government in Japan — issued an edict saying that Shinto (the religion of the Japanese that had fueled Japanese imperial militarism in World War II) would have no interference from the United States’ occupying forces as an expression of individual piety, as the religion of any Japanese citizen. No interference whatsoever from the government. However, Shinto would have no role in the government or in the schools.

The distinction was made — it was imposed from without — that Shinto would have no way to express the political militarism that had led to World War II in the first place.

Now, the United States, Great Britain, Europe, are all facing a very similar problem, with growing Muslim communities asserting political and societal notions that are at variance with our ideas of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.

But of course we’re nowhere near that, because we can’t even admit that there are such initiatives going on from the Islamic communities as such.

And so as long as this unrealism persists, then the cognitive dissonance will continue to grow. And as long as the cognitive dissonance continues to grow, so also will the assertiveness and beligerence of the Islamic communities in the West, because they will see that we are not able and not willing to take the decisive steps necessary to do anything serious to stop them.

This is how we should treat Islam (or any religion, for that matter): firm, honest, and uncompromising toward its elements that are incompatible with liberty, but also thoughtful, responsible, and acknowledging legitimate religious rights. Thankfully, nobody with any real power or influence seems to be parroting OYM’s nonsense.

Scott’s At It Again

Calvin Freiburger Abraham Lincoln, blogosphere, civil war, dishonesty, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, slavery, stupidity, Wisconsin

Scott Feldstein says that”Being for slavery during the Civil War was a conservative position.” I shed a little light on his historical illiteracy after that comment, to which – surprise! – I got a lazy response that doesn’t even try to mount a meaningful defense of his false characterization of both history and American conservatism.

I guess we shouldn’t expect any better from the guy who thinks you should be able to kill a human being with a heartbeat, a fully-formed brain, and the capacity to feel pain “for any reason at all.”

(For more on the Civil War, click here.)

Does Nikki Haley Want Affirmative Action for Political Parties?

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, Democrats, GOP, moderates, Nikki Haley, Republican Party, RINOs, stupidity

One of the Right’s latest rising stars is Nikki Haley, Republican candidate for governor of South Carolina. There’s certainly a lot to like about her, but before getting their hopes up too high, her fans should note something she recently said on “Hannity”:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZu2GaGeu

I don’t want a House full of Republicans, I don’t want a House full of Democrats. It’s the mix that makes it work.

The Founding Fathers did discuss the importance of moderation and counterbalancing forces in government, to keep radical changes from being implemented too easily, but I don’t think quotas for each party is quite what they had in mind, especially when one of those parties doesn’t simply disagree on certain policies, but stands directly opposed to the core principles upon which America was founded.

If the war against radical Islam must be won, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who stands for defeat. If unborn babies have a right to life, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who stands for their murder. If Americans have a right to choose what to do with their own money, bear arms to protect themselves, or any number of other things, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who would thwart those rights.

Besides, the Republican Party is so divided on both principle and strategy that they hardly need Democrats to keep them on their toes. Nikki Haley may turn out to be a great governor, but that’s one status quo we shouldn’t expect her to upend.

A Word of Advice to the Non-Insane Paulites (if You Exist)

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, conspiracy theories, extremism, foreign policy, Islamofascism, neoconservatism, Rand Paul, Republican Party, Ron Paul, scandal, stupidity

I’ve been in lots and lots of arguments about Ron Paul over the past several months, in which serious doubts as to the congressman’s credibility have been raised.  In response, I’ve been treated to all sorts of inane lectures of varying literacy on non-interventionism, blowback, history, progressivism, the Constitution, and, of course, those darn Jews.

What I’m almost never treated to are serious attempts to refute the facts backing up my claims (despite the fact that Paulites are pretty adamant that I’m “slandering” their prophet).  For instance, when I argue that Paul presents a biased, misleading view of the Founders’ foreign policy views, they don’t bother to explain why my read of the evidence is incorrect, or put forth new evidence that would change the picture.  When I reveal that Ron and Rand misrepresent the facts surrounding Iran (as well as other facts about the War on Terror), they’re similarly silent on the details.

Here’s a tip: If you guys wanna be taken seriously as anything other than blind cultists, evangelizing with pre-scripted talking points isn’t gonna cut it; you have to honestly consider and respond to what people actually say about your guy.  When you try to change the topic, you’re not making dents in anything but your own credibility.

Why Let Reality Get in the Way of a Good Meme?

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, blogosphere, bureaucracy, Congressional Budget Office, Democrats, dishonesty, global warming, healthcare, liberalism, science, stupidity

When we last left Self-Defeating Left-Wing Zealot Scott, he was making an ethically-challenged fool of himself over abortion.  This evening, while browsing Boots & Sabers (which I really need to get back in the habit of reading more often – sorry Owen!), I came across the following comment from our pal:

Many conservatives eschew expert opinion in the first place, so what’s the big deal?  Everything from CBO reports to scientific opinion—it just doesn’t matter because you can’t trust those eggheads.  Me, I’m a big fan of learning.  I like to acknowledge someone else’s expertise and learn from it.

Again, the only proper response is:

For good measure, background behind his bull about the CBO can be found here & here, and about “scientific opinion” here.

“American Right to Life’s” Misguided Pro-Life Profiles (UPDATED)

Calvin Freiburger abortion, activism, conservatism, Constitution, extremism, judicial branch, strategy, stupidity, Supreme Court

I recently came across a website called Pro-Life Profiles (hat tip: Lisa Graas), which evaluates the pro-life credentials of various center-right figures, from GOP candidates to conservative activists.  The first thing that’s important to note about the site is that it’s a project of American Right to Life.  ARTL proclaims itself the “personhood wing of the pro-life movement,” but according to the National Right to Life Committee, ARTL is a scam that does little more than raise funds from people who confuse them with the more well-known NRLC.  Who’s right?  I can’t say for sure, but I’m inclined to trust NRLC (despite some disagreements with them) based on my familiarity with all the work they undertake on behalf of the pro-life movement, whereas I know of ARTL doing no such work.  (UPDATE: In the comments, ARTL spokesman Bob Enyart claims the ARTL that ran afoul of NRLC was a different, now-defunct organization.) I report, you decided.

Their website seems entirely devoted to tearing down other pro-lifers as traitors to the cause (or at least insufficiently devoted), and that’s the exclusive mission of Pro-Life Profiles.  Admittedly, they have found several legitimate reasons for criticizing politicians such as George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and even Sarah Palin, and they’re correct to stress that the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement must be full, nationwide legal protection for the unborn as full human beings.  Unfortunately, in their zeal to reach the ultimate goal, they make profoundly wrong moral and practical arguments against various valuable, common-sense pro-life policies.

For instance, in criticizing Concerned Women for America and its president, Wendy Wright, ARTL argues that pro-lifers should not support laws that require obtaining parental notification/consent, or require being shown ultrasounds, before obtaining an abortion.  They claim that it’s immoral to support any law that tacitly accepts abortion’s legality, and that such laws are somehow counterproductive to the goal of legal protection for the unborn.  Among their arguments (many of them are vapid & repetitive, and life is short, so I’m only going to address the highlights):

ARTL: They don’t actually reduce abortions, and in fact may increase abortions.

ME: Simply ask yourself: does having to inform or get permission from your parents to get an abortion, does that make seeking an abortion easier or harder?  If a women sees an ultrasound showing that unborn babies aren’t simply a lump of tissue, is she more or less likely to go through with it?  Though these laws won’t prevent abortions in all cases, it should be obvious which direction they move things in.  In particular, does ARTL mean to deny the enormous power of ultrasounds to change people’s hearts and minds?

ARTL: It’s immoral to support any law whose end result still permits abortions to take place.

ME: You’re not giving abortion tacit approval by voting for something less than outright prohibition if outright prohibition is not an option available to you.  If it pushes the law in the right direction, and if it saves lives, it’s not only moral, but necessary.  Strategy is not an either-or proposition; you have to pursue every available avenue.

ARTL: “Thirty years of evidence also shows that the regulation strategy has failed to move the federal judiciary, which is mostly Republican and overwhelmingly pro-choice, toward the right-to-life position.”

ME: This is just stupid—who ever said they’re supposed to move the judiciary?  Reducing abortions legislatively and getting good judges on the bench are both important goals, but one has nothing to do with another.  Again, it’s not either-or.

ARTL: Such regulations “call upon our own judges to uphold laws that regulate killing the innocent, and thus turn conservative judges increasingly against the personhood of the unborn.”

ME: Their link claims that “Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children.” I don’t know what cases/remarks they’re referring to, but in Scalia’s case I suspect he was simply noting that, as a judge, he does not have the authority to criminalize abortion.  And unfortunately, he’s right: judges are not policymakers, and even the language of the 14th Amendment discusses “born” citizens, making any judicial abortion ban shaky Constitutional ground.  That’s why pro-lifers should fight for the Human Life Amendment.

ARTL: These laws “will keep abortion ‘legal’ if abortion is wickedly ‘returned to the states.”

ME: “Wickedly” returned to the states?  Short of a constitutional amendment, you can’t make much legislative headway until you return it to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade (and popular support for state abortion bans will certainly come before enough support to pass a national constitutional amendment).  Because abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the states have the right to determine abortion policy.  Reverse Roe, and abortion automatically becomes illegal in those states whose pre-Roe abortion bans remain in effect, and the rest of the states get a fighting chance.  Pro-choice politicians would no longer be able to hide behind the Supreme Court.  This scenario is bad why?

It’s absurd to think parental notification laws would prevent full abortion bans.  Even if they did give tacit approval to the principle of choice (which they don’t), they’re mere legislative acts, and can be superseded by new legislative acts with a simple majority vote.

Absent in ARTL’s analysis is any recognition of Constitutional originalism, separation of powers, or judicial restraint.  Understandably-frustrating though it may be at times, the Founders placed clear limits on how political goals—even noble and essential ones—may be pursued.  In their view, how much should the pro-life movement respect the rule of law? If they think the ends justify the means, and that the Right should embrace judicial activism, they should come out and say so.  But before that, they’d do well to brush up on how past leaders reconciled human rights and constitutionalism, and think twice before condemning the rest of us as traitors to the unborn.