Obama: Israel is a "Constant Sore"

I guess that "BO" should stick to the script:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.

Hurrah, the Death Penalty is Back!

Georgia today had the honour of being the first state to execute a criminal following the Supreme Court's lifting of a temporary death penalty moratorium. I realize that some here have religious or ideological objections to capital punishment but, I suspect it goes without saying that I am not among those individuals.

Indeed, I am for the death penalty not only on practical grounds ("no dead criminal re-offends") but on philosophical grounds as well. The refusal to use the death penalty to punish criminals - a tool used by pretty much all known human societies since the beginning of time - is a sure sign of civilizational decadence and decline. The death penalty isn't merely about the offender and the victim - it is the recognition that there exist absolute and unforgivable offenses which are not merely against human law, but against natural law as well.

No one will miss this sub-human trash:

Lynd, 53, was sentenced to die for kidnapping and shooting his live-in girlfriend, Ginger Moore, three times in the face and head two decades ago. After he buried Moore's body in a shallow grave near a south Georgia farm, authorities said Lynd fled to Ohio, where he shot and killed another woman who had stopped along the side of the road to help him.

When we kill a criminal such as this, we reaffirm our own belief in humanity and civilization. Killing someone like this is a way of expressing our own self-confidence - it is a way of saying, "yes, we are certain enough of ourselves and our collective morality that we are going to write you out of the human race." It is the judgement of civilization that such people should die.

The real pity is that we can't use the death penalty for more offenses. Look, for example, to the case of Josef Fritzl in Austria. It is regrettable that Europe has abolished the death penalty - and that the death penalty has been more-or-less abolished for crimes other than murder in the United States because, quite frankly, I can think of few creatures who deserved to die more than this... thing... does. Killing him would be a collective reaffirmation of our own humanity.

Now, of course, there are many - and I'm sure many here - who aren't comfortable with such power being in the hands of the state. I thoroughly disagree here. Given that the death penalty would - even if I was allowed to extend it to rapists, child molesters, and some other criminals - be fairly narrowly applied. It is a power which will only touch upon the vilest things which walk the Earth. The use of the death penalty - as authorized by the will of a jury of one's peers - is one of the narrow powers that the state ought to have.

After all, the state - at least in a libertarian state - is a repository for those functions - contracts, law enforcement, national defense, international relations - which cannot (or should not) be exercised on an individual level. If you assume that, in the state of nature, mobs would simply kill rapists, child molesters, murderers, and the like then it is fair to say that the obligation of the state to carry out this function is implicit in the social contract.

Deport This Man, Today

Naeem Muhammad Khan has a Facebook account. He lives in Toronto. He is unemployed. He’s also an avid Jihadist who arrived in this country less than two years ago.

Why is he still here?

While this nation is at war, he posts a banner on his Facebook page encouraging support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He says that Osama Bin Laden is a “hero.” He says that the reason that he’s here is because he’s free here to preach the Jihadist creed in a way that he wouldn’t be in most of the Moslem world.

Why is he still here?

The man is of no value to this country. Given that he is unemployed, he is a drain on the Treasury. He is worthless. He is scum. If we were a culture with the self-confidence to do what is morally right we would… Well, I’ll stop there – lest I draw the scrutiny of the self-appointed defenders of the “rights” of our murderous enemies.

If you want to know why I have so little regard for this nation’s government, even under the present Administration, take a look at this man. A nation so degraded, so enervated, that it cannot properly dispose of as odious a “man” as this isn’t worthy of respect. A nation whose people so happily accept such a state of affairs is, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “prepared for a master – and deserves one.”

So, I’m issuing a challenge to the Immigration Minister, Diane Finley. One that I am hoping that others will pick up and echo: deport this man, today.

I realize that government doesn’t normally move at that pace. But, of course, if can – if the appropriate fire is lit. I am calling on the Immigration Minister – and for that matter the Prime Minister – to make people jump. Go. Arrest this man. Put him on a plane. Send him back to Pakistan. There are other courses of action which would also be morally right and emotionally satisfying, but this one happens to be legal, so I’ll settle for that.

Prove me wrong. Show me that this is still a country. Tell the world that this is something more than an international flop-house for terrorists, criminals, the shiftless, and other assorted miscreants. Honour those who do come here to make better lives by removing from their presence – as well as ours – such a wretched creature.

Not that I believe that they will. As I have said before, this country is too far-gone for that. Even under this, supposedly right-wing government, we don’t have the guts to face down the left. Even if they did summon the courage to do something, he’d probably win in some damned court and be back here in a few years with $25 Million and an apology.

Speaking of odious individuals with a Facebook page, have you ever wondered what happened to Abdulkareem Khadr, the member of the famed Khadr al-Qaeda family who was badly wounded in a shoot-out with Pakistani forces where his father, a senior member of al-Qaeda, was killed?

Yes, for the record, the man I linked to is one and the same. I corresponded with him briefly in the past, before he, if I were to guess, probably Googled my name and guessed that my intentions towards him were other-than-benign. This member of the self-proclaimed al-Qaeda family, wounded while on the other side of the war that we are fighting, would seem to have spent the last few years enjoying the full benefits of my tax dollars – recovering his health through our health care system. He attends Birchmount Park Collegiate in Toronto, where he is scheduled to graduate in a few months. I’ll note that it’s a public school, as well. Given his family’s unique background and that his father is dead, one wonders how they support themselves. It wouldn’t be shocking to find that the boy is a leech on the taxpaying public in a third way as well.

He would seem to have friends. One supposes that they’re ignorant or – given his notoriety it seems difficult to believe that they would be – they, like to many people in this country, view being on the other side as simply another lifestyle choice. I thought about going up and down the list and asking the people if they know that they’re linked with Canada’s al-Qaeda family but, in the end, that would seem to be an empty exercise. In all probability those people are lost just as this country is lost.

If no one in this country could rouse themselves to act against him – and the rest of his family – than Khan is probably perfectly safe. One more step towards all of our graves.

As I have said before, leftism is AIDS for civilization. All of that touchy-feely nonsense, all of those false doctrines – none of them is fatal in and of themselves. Socialism is difficult to counter because, on the surface, the proposals are not directly harmful. But, like HIV/AIDS, leftism attacks the immune system and wrecked the ability of the body to defend itself from what, under normal circumstances, would be minor irritants.

Can this country be saved? Not, I think, without a drastic change. If our leaders – if our Conservative leaders – cannot rise to such a simple and obvious challenge, than how shall we ever save ourselves? We’ll just continue our long process of bleeding out under the Liberals being alternated with the tourniquet of the Conservatives.

Indeed, we lack even the hope of other endangered lands – such as France – that we might, in an hour of supreme emergency, turn back to other, darker traditions. We are already too weak and divided for that. Instead, our hopes must rest upon events – that some event or individual will bring about an awakening in this country which may once again give us the hope of brighter days.

McCain: 313, Obama: 230

I’ve updated my chart with a raft of new polls. We end up with the lead changing in just two states – New York and New Mexico. New York, of course, was probably to be expected.

The new batch of polls – including the Massachusetts one I already discussed – provide further proof of the emerging trend that I was talking about earlier. Namely – Obama appears to be doing better-than-expected in affluent and mostly-white states. I don’t think (barring a national landslide) that McCain will take from him many of the states that a “moderate” Republican might have expected to put into play – states in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest. He might lose a state or two in the Southwest as well.

However, Obama continues to show a fascinating degree of weakness in the Rust Belt, the Mid-Atlantic States, and even in parts of New England. Interestingly, he’s also weak in the areas where the Democrats have gone looking for gains in recent years – in the Border States and the Upper South. There’s absolutely no chance, looking at the polls, that he’ll take Virginia, West Virginia, or Tennessee – all states that the Democrats have considered to be targets or possible targets in recent races.

As I’ve said in the past, I think that Obama is going to lose by a fairly big margin – and I think that the media is going to miss it for a long, long time. His problem, one amplified by the debate last night, is that he’s culturally alien to the great silent majority of Americans.

In places with a lot of “educated” (scare quotes used advisedly) voters, a man named Barack Hussein Obama who seems more a citizen of the world than of America might well be seen as transgressive and innovative. But, in the rest of the country, he – and his increasingly cult-like followers – look like Visigoths.

And, yes, there’s probably a racial factor here. That’s regrettable, but it’s also reality. The truth – pointed out during the early primaries but carried over to today, is that Obama seems to do well in two kinds of areas:

a) Places with a large black population (a factor which doesn’t matter nearly so much in a General Election since the black vote is already a bloc vote there).

b) Places which have very few black people.

Mixed places – like the big coastal and industrial states – seem to be troublesome for Obama.

Looking at the numbers – and seeing no fundamental shift from 2004 – we’re faced with a fixed reality. The Democrats have to win Ohio and every single other state that they won in 2004 in order to win in 2008. If they lose Michigan, which seems quite possible, then they have to win Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada – and hold every single other state they won in 2004. The math is much more problematic for the Democrats than for the Republicans at this point.

Right now Obama is underperforming in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, California, and Pennsylvania. He’s actually losing the latter. A Democrat who loses even one of those states cannot possibly win a Presidential election at this point in history.

The shape of the battlefield for the Democrats is very grim. The “50 State Strategy” that the nutroots and Howard Dean forced on the DNC is plainly a bust. There’s no chance of the Democrats winning even a single state that Bush carried by more than a few points in 2004. All of those resources that were thrown into Deep Red states have been wasted. Florida is off the table. Many of the other target states from 2004 and 2000 – Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina – are off the table. They have been reduced to a single path to victory – win Ohio and hold everything else. Anything else is going to end in their defeat.

McCain, on the other hand, has many paths of victory. At a minimum, he can win by winning every Bush state except for Ohio – but winning New Hampshire. Or Michigan. Or Pennsylvania. Or New Jersey. Or New York. Or Massachusetts. Or California. The last three are less realistic, but possible at this point in time.

When you consider what lies ahead for the Democrats, it’s perhaps even worse for them than it sounds.

If Hillary wins Pennsylvania big – and every sign points to yet on that score now – there’s no way she’s getting out before the convention. The Barone scenario, where she wins the popular vote, now appears quite possible. They’re going to spend all of their money and time up until then shredding eachother.

I don’t think that Hillary will win the nomination. But, I do think that she’s going to destroy Obama. One disclosure after another thrown at him for months. Racial and gender animosities pitched to new levels of fury.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be thinking about a third candidate. Not, I should add, that I think that a third candidate – foisted on a reluctant party at the last minute – would have more than a 25% chance of winning. But, I think that the Democrats have to begin considering what a broad national GOP victory – with a strong performance in a number of deep blue states – means for their Congressional delegations.

Could McCain Win Massachusetts?

Over at RealClearPolitics Anil Adyanthaya poses a question that I’ve been musing on – can John McCain win Massachusetts in November? Polling and other indicators suggest that the answer to the question is yes, he can.

A new poll out from SurveyUSA shows the race as Obama 48, McCain 46. I don’t think that this is an outlier. The last poll featured them tied 47-47. As well, the Clinton-McCain numbers show Clinton ahead by a sizable margin.

How do we explain this? Massachusetts, after all, is among the deepest of deep blue states. Hell, it was the only state to vote for McGovern.

Part of it, of course, is probably McCain’s appeal to independents. Part of it might well also be a gradual shift in the states. Bush performed better there in 2004, especially given Kerry’s home-field advantage, than most people thought he would. The GOP did well in a special election there last year.

And it’s not an impossible place for Republicans. It elected mostly Republican Governors over the last two decades – and Reagan won it twice.

Indeed, look at the Governor’s office for a reason for this. In 2006 the Democrats elected a black man full of hopeful words and not much else. He’s proven to be a disaster in office – with a negative approval rating. Perhaps that makes residents of the Bay State immune to Obama’s peculiar charms.

There’s another thing to think about. If John McCain can win Massachusetts – or even win close to 50% of the vote, he might well knock down John Kerry who, even in this very liberal states, has never been a popular Senator and who will probably be facing Jim Ogonowski, who ran that strong House race I mentioned earlier.

The State of the Race: The Culture War (April 13, 2008)

I’ve begun a new chart – which I intend to maintain for the rest of the Election.

As I’ve been saying in the past, I don’t think that the national polls and the state polls are really in synch this year. I think that, on the ground level, we’re beginning to see signs of the Dukakis transformation which Obama is undergoing.

So, what I’ve done, is to track and consolidate the single most recent poll from every single state. The only entity that I’m missing is the District of Columbia which, in any case, is going to vote for Obama.

You can find the chart here. I’ll be updating it regularly – and providing new commentary on it.

So, what does this chart tell us today? I wouldn’t pay attention to the top-line numbers. Yes, McCain’s ahead 339-204, but those numbers (on both sides) are built on some interesting polls. For example, according to the most recent state polling, Obama is winning North Dakota and McCain is winning New York. I don’t think that either outcome is very likely. Indeed, the March 6th SurveyUSA polls which are the most recent for a number of the states less likely to be contested seem somewhat dubious to me. Also, it’s worth noting that I’ve decided to award ties to whichever party won in 2004.

But, here’s what the polls tell us.

First of all – they all but rule out the “transformational election” scenario for Obama. Obama’s chances of winning depend upon a narrow band of states. In order to win, Obama has to win at least eighteen Electoral Votes that Bush won in 2004 – and to hold on to every single state that John Kerry won. This is going to be an extremely difficult task.

The standard scenario for the Democrats is to hold the Kerry states and then to win Ohio. But this scenario is harder than it appears from the outside. Obama has led McCain in just one Ohio poll in two months – and then by a single point. There’s a reason why Obama was thumped by Clinton there, after all.

Looking across the map, Ohio appears to be the only large state which Obama has a chance of winning away from the Republicans. While polls in North Carolina are tied at the moment, McCain has held a lead there in most other polls. The current poll is likely influenced by the heavy one-sided Obama advertising barrage in the state which is tied to the upcoming primary. The effect will fade.

Beyond that, the Red States where Obama looks like he can win are all smaller: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and the like. But he would have to win all three of those states and hold on to every other Kerry vote in order to win (by a single electoral vote).

The problem is that Obama tends to perform best in regions of the country where he’s already going to win (the most progressive parts of New England, the Northwest, and mostly-white Deep Red states where Democrats tend to be affluent and upscale). In contrast, the area where he is underperforming is in what might be called “Old America.” Current polls have McCain winning in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. They have him within the margin of error in New Jersey and, of all places, Massachusetts.

McCain is winning by very large margins in Red States which the Democrats have long believed to be potential battlegrounds – Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Missouri.

Ignore the exact numbers. They’re probably not very relevant. Instead, look at the broader picture that they paint – and what they suggest about Obama’s recent “small towns” comments.

Obama performs better than expected in places which might be described as culturally “modern.” In many ways, he’s well-suited to somewhere like Nevada – a place which is multi-cultural in a friendly and harmless sort of way. But, these numbers – and the states which he is losing – point towards a persistent level of opposition to Obama among working class “Reagan Democrats” in the Rust Belt and Mid-Atlantic states. This is an important trend to note because the sorts of people who are being swept up in it are the sort of people who the media ignores or patronizes. They’re also the people who Obama just insulted.

I believe that this reinforces what I said yesterday: when you have polls showing the Republican in the lead in New York (and one which showed him tied in Massachusetts) the Democrats have a very serious problem. I believe that Obama is going to lose, that he is going to lose big, and that the media is going to miss it – possibly until the very last moment due to the Pauline Kael syndrome (“I can’t believe it! I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon”). When it’s over, they’ll blame it on American racism.

The core problem that Obama has – and the one which has been amplified by Wright and the “Small Town” fiasco – is that he is culturally alien to traditionalist Americans. I don’t think that it’s a racial thing. Instead, it has far more to do with his name, his upbringing, and the spreading sense that he – in his beliefs and values – is somewhat un-American. In a Los Angeles nightclub, a Chicago City Council meeting, or New York City Boardroom Obama belongs. But, in the rest of America, they have no idea what a “Community Organizer” does or why service as one should be considered as a virtue. In the rest of America, they have no idea why a Vice-President for “Community Affairs” of a hospital should be paid a third of a million dollars a year, as Michelle Obama was. In elite communities they hear “God Damn America” and make excuses for it. In the rest of the country, they see something threatening, menacing.

Indeed, the end result is going to surprise a lot of people – since most Republican pundits and experts come from the same elite communities as the Democrats do and, deep down, they often share many of their post-national assumptions and values. Like the Democrats, a lot of them condescend to the rest of the country.

World Peace Journey Ends in Brutal Murder

This story illustrates pretty well the fundamental dangers posed by the basic stupidity and naivete of the left.

In short - European woman goes on a journey with the explicit purpose of demonstrating the goodness of mankind and is promptly murdered. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Ok. Ok. It's still a little funny. I'm pretty sure we're looking at a Darwin Award winner here.