On deaf ears it falls.
Not ours. Or even the majority of Americans, who stand opposed to amnesty.
But rather on the ears of our betters. Who evidently rely on the self-styled GOP intellectual class and its complex political strategems and 3-D chess games for adopting policy positions. That then lose them election after election after election in what is a predominantly conservative country.
But what the hell. It won’t hurt to listen anyway:
There is a rather supreme irony to the fact that we are a party whose base is made up of fighters, and yet we allow ourselves to be led by a phalanx of cowards and quislings and cynical career opportunists who look out only for themselves. With some vanishing few rare exceptions. Like Senator Sessions and his band of outcasts.
Or, if you prefer, outlaws.
It is a peculiarly delicious circumstance when the outlaws (and yes, I would prefer) are the sole proponents of the rule of law in any meaningful sense. But, there we are.
the problem is that many on the conservative side who are extremely effective don’t get into politics, they are out being productive.
oh lookee here
link
the problem is that many on the conservative side who are extremely effective don’t get into politics, they are out being productive.
It’s likely so, though not to say forgiveably so, since only a little thought reveals that proper politics is required to make productivity possible and improper politics can very well make it impossible. So we can count it as a condign sacrifice when some of our fellows stoop to participate directly in the conduct of the nations’ affairs, such that their own fellow citizens will be better enabled to do their chosen work the more productively and not the less.
The New Deal Witch Hunt
Federal targeting and intimidation of conservatives is nothing new.
Glen Reynolds, the instapundit in pushing an Ann Althouse piece has emitted a classic:
“If you have to have majored in gender studies to spot the sexism, it’s probably not really sexism.”
Works for racism, political bias, and class studies too.
Caroline Glick: Bibi and the True Believers
*** In the face of massive documentary evidence, and facts on the ground, (Egypt has run out of food, and rather than get them some, overthrown president Mohamed Morsi rammed through a totalitarian Islamist constitution), the Obama administration still clings to its ideological belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is a positive, progressive, “largely secular” organization that is devoted to good works for the poor. ***
Clings!?
In this instance, it seems as though Glick has missed a turn, and not just a potential turn to satire, but a turn away from the plain — if nevertheless absurd — truth of the matter, a truth right in front of her face: that it is precisely the incompetence and folly of Morsi and Co. which enables the Obazmites to recognize fellow Progressive travelers!
Without those markers, the Obazmites wouldn’t have clue what to look for in order to understand the Brotherhood as allies. Those markers are the proof required!
For if Morsi and Co. had assiduously sought to tend to the pressing needs of the Egyptians and succeeded in alleviating otherwise unnecessary suffering, they couldn’t be — by definition, by act, by manner, by intention, by right — Progressives. At all.
And the use of the markers by the Obazmite is self-proof in iteration likewise! For the absurd use of the markers is in turnabout a proof of the steadfast Progressivism of the Obazmite, who wouldn’t want any onlookers taking their claims at fidelity to Progressivism at face value, but would want to provide their bona fides properly, right up front.
Ayman Zawahiri, criticizing the Brotherhood, sees more clearly:
*** You have ignored two extremely dangerous matters in the conflict: The first is the creed-based nature of the conflict, and that it is a conflict between infidelity and faith, between surrendering to the rule of Allah, glorified be He, or giving it to someone other than Allah; it is not a conflict between political parties that are bound by the nationalist unity.
The second matter you ignored is the actual nature of the conflict. It is not a conflict between competing nationalist parties, but it is a conflict between Crusaderhood and Zionism on the one side and Islam on the other. ***
“Let there be death!”, says Ayman, “And let the faith of him who alone remains standing on the blood soaked ground be a testament to the truth of the matter.”
On terms like these the Obazmites will never fight Al Qaeda. To twist GHW Bush’s words: “Wouldn’t be Progressive.”
They “fight” a Potemkin war against terrorists, a screen to hide behind while in fact helping those they pretend to war all out war on.
‘Wage” for the first “war”.
(third war) . . . they pretend to wage all out war on.
Whatever the Obazmite foreign policy strategy may be (and here, of course we’re reduced to having to attempt to deduce it, groping in the dark), the one certainty is this: the Obazmite foreign policy strategy has never been to inquire of the American people what they would want, what ends they would seek to achieve (or in the Obazmites’ case, force on our allies, potentially imperiling them with annihilation), but has been primarily a question of keeping the Americans utterly uninformed. We haven’t a clue as to the unified objective otherwise.
FTFH