On Us God & Gun Clingers

With regard to Barack Obama's condescending attack on red-blooded, God-fearing, patriotic Americans, here's Mark Steyn:

[L]arge numbers of Americans tote guns because they're assertive, self-reliant citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. The Second Amendment is philosophically consistent with the First Amendment, for which I've become more grateful since the Canadian Islamic Congress decided to sue me for "hate speech" up north. Both amendments embody the American view that liberty is not the gift of the state, and its defense cannot be outsourced exclusively to the government.

I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: It benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on Earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today's Europe – a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism.

A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent's accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

"Guns and God? Hell, yes," The Orange County Register, April 19, 2008

Get Out And Walk, Barack ...

... the free ride is over.

Obama's getting tough questions thrown at him now. And he, along with his sycophantic followers, don't like it one bit.

Michael Barone:

Barack Obama seemed puzzled. Angrily puzzled. The apostle of hope seemed flummoxed by the audacity of the question. At the April 16 Philadelphia debate, George Stephanopoulos, longtime aide to Democratic politicians, was asking about his longtime association with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers.

Obamaites live-blogging the debate were outraged. The press is not supposed to ask such questions. They are supposed to invite the candidates to expatiate on how generous their health care plans are. Or to allow them to proclaim that "we are the change that we are seeking." Or to once again bash George W. Bush.

Obama fans are upset that ABC News' Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson broke the unwritten rule that you are not supposed to ask Democratic candidates about these things. Associations with unrepentant radicals and comments made to contributors at a San Francisco fund-raiser in a billionaire's mansion are supposed to be kept indoors. Only the face that the candidate wants to place before the public should be seen.

Beliefs that most activist liberals share should be kept under wraps if they are unpopular with most of the voting public. That is how mainstream media have operated for the last generation or more. But not at Philadelphia's Constitution Center on April 16. The rules had changed. And Barack Obama was not well prepared.

"The Rules Change For Obama," Real Clear Politics, April 19, 2008

Quote of the Day

From Norton businessman George "Pedro" Hunnicutt on Southwest Virginia's dependence on the coal industry:

"Coal may not be king, but it is still chairman of the board."

"Coal Region Revamps Its Economy," The Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 20, 2008

Such The Shock

Things aren't as bad as the Democratic candidates for president claim? Who would have guessed?

Pennsylvania's economy belies claims
By Donald Lambro, The Washington Times

Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Democratic candidates for president, portray Pennsylvania as a state in economic decline, despite business analysts who say it is actually in better shape than many other states teetering on the edge of recession.

"So far, unlike most of America, Pennsylvania's economy is still chugging along. Home values aren't dropping, foreclosures aren't spiking and employers aren't laying off workers en masse," senior writer Tami Luhby said in an analysis Tuesday of the state's economy on CNNMoney.com.

Other analysts support her point. (link)

So it turns out that we're clinging to God and guns for reasons other than the economy.

I wonder what those reasons are.

Certainly Barack Obama will never know.

But This Can't Be!

According to all the mainstream media reports, we were bogged down in Basra and that the Iraqi army was waging a miserably incompetent fight against the Mahdi army. But ...

Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force
By James Glanz and Alisaa J. Rubin, The New York Times

Baghdad — Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. (link)

There are problems with both of these sentences, of course. What Iran's stance on this matter is impacts the story how? And why would the Iranian position on the battle for Basra be inserted into the first sentence of the article?

Secondly, why did these reporters (or, more probably, their editors) feel compelled to tell us that the Iraqi army couldn't have done it without major support from the U.S.?

And isn't this the same newspaper that was reporting utter failure in Basra a week ago?

Can these people even be trusted?