Posse Incitatus

Memorial Day 2012

My obsession this spring has been the spacious grounds of the recently upgraded ranch.  Weeding, mowing, pest eradication and minor landscaping have dominated my thoughts and intruded into my dreams.  Between that and a hectic work schedule, the onset of Memorial Day came almost as a surprise.  Tempus fugit and all that.

Taking a quiet moment to contemplate Memorial Day this year, I cannot help but feel a sense of loss and bitterness.  Long-time readers know that we have taken it as our honored duty to keep the memory alive of one of our friends - Capt. Sean Grimes - who fell in Iraq seven years ago this spring.

Looking at the disorderly way in which our forces were withdrawn - and the similar sense of urgency in leaving Afghanistan to its fate - it is hard not be bitter about what our military has sacrificed and what our leaders have thrown away.

War is an extension of policy by other means, as Clausewitz pointed out almost 200 years ago, and a rational person can admit that there are times when there is no other recourse than to its dreadful call.

But what if that policy is hopelessly muddled, willfully blind, or cynically driven?

Afghanistan and Iraq were both wars of necessity.  Afghanistan had sheltered our enemies and on Sept. 11, 2001, we saw just how deadly they could be.  Iraq was an ongoing strategic threat, tying down our forces and constantly attacking our aircraft (though without much effect).  Both required a military solution.

Both went well at first, but then bogged down into a foggy counterinsurgency.  We gained the upper hand and did so for comparatively little loss of life - far less than Korea, or Vietnam.  But then a new administration came in, one devoid of strategic vision and looking only to the next opinion poll.  And so we are in retreat.

What did the sacrifice of Sean and his comrades achieve?  What is his legacy?  They gave up all the tomorrows - for what?

A free Iraq?  A modern Afghanistan?

Both teeter on the brink.  And then there is Libya, which has spawned at least one civil war (in Mali) and may itself break up.

At this point, we cannot know.  I believe that Sean died in the opening round - the overture, if you will - of the clash of civilizations between the West and radical Islam.  His actions as a healer proved to those who would listen that there is a better way than one of Islamofascist hate - a path of forgiveness and compassion, of hope and eventual prosperity.

In a larger sense, his sacrifice transcends the political.  Like all of our fallen warriors, he was called to serve, and died for his nation.  It is the ultimate expression of selflessness.  Whatever happens in Iraq, he did not die in vain so long as we honor him, and uphold Freedom.

In hoc signo vinces

It is easy to get caught up (and burned out) by the ceaseless banter of the political blogosphere.  Now augmented with Twitter feeds, the partisan operatives have never had more ways to waste their time and annoy the rest of us trying to get on with our lives.

However, despite (or perhaps because of) this unending white noise, the commentariat is missing underlying trends that are in fact breaking through the fog of partisan warfare.

I speak of course of the coming Catholic storm that is about to fall on the Obama reelection campaign.

It is easy for lapsed or hypocritical Catholics (like Nancy Pelosi) to downplay the effect of the HHS mandate that religious organizations be compelled to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.  For many of the political insiders, birth-control is a no-brainer and among the hipster crowd, treating condoms like priest repellent is an old and pathetic joke.

What they miss is not just the substance of the debate – religious freedom – but also the betrayal of Catholic leaders that led up to it.  The Bishops wanted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.  They met with him, were charmed by him, and wanted him to do well.  Indeed, they love the notion of universal health care and more social spending – this is why so many Catholics ignore the Democrats’ total dedication to abortion and instead focus on the “social justice” component of their platform to justify their vote.

But the mask has fallen.  Obama and his allies have revealed that they cannot be trusted.  They have no use for the Church, even as an ally.  The state must rule all, and if private charities go away, well so much the better.

It is now a matter of survival.

Though it has gotten little attention, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has released a letter that reads much like an ultimatum.

While some observers have noted the call for a “Fortnight of Freedom” from June 21 to July 4, the key phrase seems to me to be this one:

It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.

It is essential to understand the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law. Conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law for reasons of conscience—conscription being the most well-known example. An unjust law is "no law at all." It cannot be obeyed, and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal. [Emphasis added]

 

Civil disobedience is nothing new – the activist left has made a cottage industry of it.  The difference is when the normally non-demonstrative population engages in it.

It should be noted that if Obamacare is overturned in June, much of this storm may blow over – but the damage has already been done.  The reprieve will not have come from an administration seeking to right its wrongs but from a court that defied it.

While the Obama campaign strategists may think they are being clever trying to pit women vs men, young vs old and secular against religious, they are actually diminishing their coalition and enraging their former allies.  The issue now is the very survival of the Catholic Church itself – and indeed all religious organizations. 

The clouds are gathering, and Catholics across the nation are looking for the break in the pall - like the one the Roman Emperor Constantine saw at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.

This battle decided not just the fate of the Empire, but also whether it would be Christian or Pagan.

It is said that on the eve of the battle, Constantine had a dream, in which he saw the clouds part and a cross appeared in the heavens with these words:  In hoc signo vinces - in this sign you will conquer. Accordingly, he ordered his legions to repaint their shields with the Chi-Rho - the Monogram of Christ.

Constantine was victorious, and under his patronage, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire. 

Curiously, the battle will have its 1,800th anniversary on October 28, 2012. 

Friend of the Working Girl

Modern American women are often torn between whether they should work outside the home or stay home and raise their kids.  There are good reasons for either path and many of these depend greatly upon the circumstances.

Having made their choice, many women often doubt if they have made the correct one.  They either think of the career they might have had or the time they missed with their children.

In either case, do not question their decisions.  No matter which way you lean personally, you are guaranteed to piss them off.  Just stay away from the whole discussion.  You cannot win.

Oh, and even dumber – don’t stake out a public position.  That’s just suicidal.

Kudos to the Dems for wading into that quagmire.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer more deserving bunch of people.

 

Hutaree case collapses - surprising no one

The Posse has been remiss in providing updates on the strange case of the Hutaree Militia.

Readers will recall that more than a year ago we had regular digests detailing how flimsy this case appeared to be and how badly the Justice Dept. was managing things.

To quote Darth Vader, now their failure is complete:  most of the accused were acquitted and the remaining two got minor gun charges.

It is not surprising that this case ends with a whimper rather than a bang – follow-through has never been a strength for this administration – but it is interesting how little media interest this whole sordid episode has excited.

Consider:  If the case against the Hutaree was in fact correct, then a bunch of extremely dangerous terrorists just evaded law-enforcement and are now free to resume their nefarious work – and they now have had government-agent supplied bomb-making training. 

Of course, there is also the possibility that these were loud-mouthed but otherwise harmless individuals who were targeted in order to distract attention from other gun-related investigations – like the brilliant Operation Fast and Furious, which no one seems to authorized.  It just happened, like a thunderstorm or earthquake.

 

The Zimmerman Distraction

Having watched the ongoing circus that is the Zimmerman Distraction for a few days, I think that there are two three items driving the publicity:

1.  The Obama Administration badly needs to fire up African-American voters.  A modern-day lynching is essential to keeping high turnout going into the fall election.

2.  If Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the racial hustlers are to remain solvent, they need some incidents to feed off of - regardless if whether they fit the template.  Times are hard for these guys.  With so many interracial couples and a black man in the White House, it's just not as credible to claim that there are Klansmen behind every shrub.

3.  The MSM always loves a good race-riot story and this fits with their worldview, which hasn't changed since 1972.

Unfortunately for these groups, things are not likely to work out as they imagine.  For one thing, Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic.  This, combined with Obama's nascent war on the Catholic Church, is likely to drive a deep wedge between the Latino and Black communities. 

This is of course the problem with playing tribal politics - eventually you create too many enemies.  But that's all the Dems know, so that's what they are doing.

THE REAL TRAGEDY:  While protest marches spring up across the country, we should note that Detroit is still a hellhole, Flint is a debacle and an entire generation of black children are trapped in decaying schools where - despite the expenditure of huge sums of money - they will get almost no education.  A few lucky ones will escape, but for the rest it is either the welfare dole or prison.

I have said it before, and I will say it again:  If one set out to utterly ruin a people, one could not easily exceed what the Democrats have achieved in Chicago, Detroit and the other urban nightmares.

But it does not do to dwell on this, because people might wonder who was responsible, so let's get all worked up over a shooting in Florida.

The Fruits of the "Fish Doctrine"

After a few days away from the ranch, I am pleased to see my beloved Spartans still in the Big Dance and the hated Skunk Bears bounced early by a MAC team from Ohio.

While I was away, a fellow with the unlikely name of Stanley Fish outlined the new set of rules for discourse:  Liberals can do anything they want because they are good while conservatives must always be abused because they are bad.

Much of the commentary in reaction to this has focused on how it reveals the hollow core at the center of the left, but to truly appreciate the implications we must (as usual) turn to the Belmont Club:

It is not correct to argue that ideology excuses everything; and provided that you mean well all is permissible. It doesn’t work that way. The Universe has an uncanny way of keeping score. You can run from consequences, but ultimately you can never hide.

 Indeed, but there is more to it than that.  There are to implications to the “Fish Doctrine” that I have not yet seen mentioned.

The first is that it ultimately demoralizes and therefore undermines the cause that adopts it.  Liberals like feeling good about themselves – and being revealed to be amoral hypocrites causes those good feelings to go away.  While it is true that the DC-Beltway liberal establishment has always had a Machiavellian core, the vast majority of the liberal base actually does believe in what it espouses. 

For those people to learn that their leaders are simply playing them and willing to throw anyone under the bus for the pursuit of greater power is to finally wake up and realize that the Easter Bunny isn’t coming and never came.

Some will defect to conservatism in outrage, but the more likely reaction is apathy and withdrawal from the political scene – something the Obama campaign is already seeing.

The second - and more severe - consequence is that by announcing that adherence to liberalism carries with it the forgiveness of all sins, liberalism will find itself attracting those with the most sins to forgive.

The left is now the avenue for those who crave power to gain it, and the ongoing advertisement that one can get away with giving full vent to the hatred within.  Anyone with anger issues or a need to settle scores is open to apply.

The fruits of this are already on display with the Occupy movement, and the media is dutifully airbrushing away the rapes, assaults and other crimes.

The end result of this second effect is to permanently alienate the vital center.  While it may hearten the liberal cadre to know they can get away with anything, ultimately the brand will suffer irreparable damage.

There is an old saying that liberals want conservatives to shut up while conservatives want liberals to keep talking.  This is one of those instances.

How to torture language (and logic)

In the response to my post on how liberals hate religious minorities, commenter Marcus Aurelius offers this specimen of the latest Dem talking points:

Yup. Giving people access to birth control is all about controlling them. That's how it works. Heaven forbid that people should have access to affordable birth control. The gov't isn't making you use it, it's just making sure that it's covered under your employer's health care plan. You don't have to be employed. Or even employed with a health care plan.

I emphasized the key words because they are essential to understand the way in which liberals are torturing both language and logic to make their case.

Let there be no mistake - this is not about access to birth control, it is about compelling religious minorities to pay for it under pain of law.

If you want birth control, there is nothing to stop you from getting it.  Given that contractives are both cheap and easily obtainable, there is no logical reason to compel third parties to pay for it - unless you are trying to drive home a point.

Indeed, Planned Parenthood's core mission is supposedly to provide free birth control.  What else do they do with the millions of dollars they recieve each and every year?  (Answer:  kill babies, but I digress.)

Note the language of the second sentence:  "The gov't isn't making you use it, it's just making sure that it's covered under your employer's health care plan."

But it is making you pay for it, even though you may find it morally abhorrent.  Using the exact same logic, the government could compel Jews and Muslims to purchase pork so long as they aren't made to eat it.  And actually, the case for compulsory purchase of pork is better since hunger can kill you, wherease lack of sex won't (though millions of teenage men have sworn to the contrary).

Moreover, what if both employer and employee don't want this coverage?  What compelling state interest is at stake by making Catholic Charities pay to provide The Pill to blue-haired ladies? 

The argument that this is about access is therefore a false one.  Every study undertaken in the last two decades has found that the number of people who want birth control and somehow can't get it is statistically meaningless.  For those that somehow can't afford it (can't come up with $30 a month?  Seriously?) there are numerous charities out there.

What this mandate is really about is power and control.

Also, while I too prefer the notion of simply refraining from making babies, it's really not an option for some people. It's bizarre to wrap one's mind around, but sometimes people have sex without enthusiastic consent, in order to gain something else. But hey, so long as it's not your problem, right?

You're right, it is not my problem. Nor is it an issue of national importance - certainly not one that requires federal government intervention.

The core issue at stake is the abuse of power.  A government that can order people to purchase things against their will can also order their use.  That is the supreme irony of the liberal argument.

(Edited for some typos)

 

Liberals to religious minorities: Shut up and do what we say

One of the strangest arguments in defense of the Obama Administration’s demand that Catholic institutions buy birth control is the notion that since most Catholics privately use birth control, it’s okay to make the Church’s charitable arms pay for it.

Comment threads all over the InterTubes are littered with the assertion that “98% of Catholics use birth control,” so this makes the administration’s diktat perfectly okay.

But what about the liberal concern for minorities?

For a bunch of folks who are ostensibly all about diversity, the modern left sure does love itself some authoritarian conformity, doesn’t it?

Old and Busted:  Respect the cultures and beliefs of minorities, especially if they are small.

New Hotness:  Conform to the majority, cultist freaks!

The whole point of the Constitution was to limit the power of government and protect the rights of individuals.  The Bill of Rights extended these protections even more, seeking to prevent the “tyranny of the majority” from oppressing the minority.

For the Obama Administration, thought, the fact that a minority is being oppressed is a feature, not a bug.  In this bearded-Spock world, the new mantra is “the wants of the many (voters) far outweigh the rights of the few, or the one.”  (Yes, I said “wants” because birth control is a want, not a need.  You don’t need free pills to not have children, you simply have to refrain from the act of conceiving them.)

I think that there are several reasons Obama and his minions are pushing this.

The first is that they love the power of telling other people what to do.  That’s just a given.

The second is that they particularly like sticking it to the Catholic Church.

The third is that they get to sing the virtues of Population Control, something the left has never given up on and is once again touting as the Solution To All The World’s Problems.

For the dedicated liberal, it’s still 1972 and the Population Bomb is going to go off any minute now.  The fact that affluent American women don’t receive cases of The Pill for free is now the Greatest Injustice Evah.  What, you might have to pay $30 out of pocket for some form of birth control?  Patriarchal oppression!

Seriously, that’s the way these people think.

If you think about it, it is the perfect inversion of the old “Keep Your Laws Off My Body” argument.  For the new liberals, the federal government should control everything about your body.  It was never about individual freedom, it was about power and control.

Further proof – if any was needed - that liberals are really authoritarians at heart.

The recovery that wasn't

The stock market is up, Europe seems to have stabilized and unemployment is falling.  Obama's campaign staff is feelin' good and the recovery is underway.

Or is it?

One thing I learned from my college economics classes is that you can twist just about any number to get a positive score from it.  Unemployment is easily  manipulated and if one delves into the internals of the latest "good news," one finds that the truth is far less encouraging:  In absolute terms, less people are working than in the month previous.

That's right, there are less jobs than there were a month ago, and the number has been steadily falling, despite the seeming improvement in the unemployment rate.

How can this be?  Simple:  The feds are shrinking the labor force.

Unemployment is a measure of the people willing and able to work who can't find jobs.  What the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been doing for the past few months is simply shrinking this pool, declaring that people who have been out of work long enough aren't looking any more.

This turns the whole measurement on its head and renders it worthless.  As the deeply pessimistic but insightful Zero Hedge has pointed out, if BLS decides enough unemployed have left the work force, we could be at zero unemployment in no time.

The truth is that the economy is not really improving.  The housing market has yet to hit bottom and the full crushing weight of Obamacare has yet to be felt in all its job-killing glory.

When the Greek default hits Europe full force, the drop in trade may well cause another full-scale recession - except that we've now added three trillion more dollars to our national debt and have already cut interest rates to zero.

This is the nightmare of many economists.  The Fed and the Obama administration are staring at empty ammunition boxes - they have nothing else to try.  Pumping vast amounts of money did not restart the engine and flooding the market with dollars hasn't done anything except build the beginnings of a tidal wave of inflation.  Food, utilities, gas - all are up sharply.

Here again, though, the federal government can goose the numbers to argue that "core inflation" is nonexistent. 

The reality is otherwise, and this is where the administration's spin fails.  People know that their groceries cost more and that gas is more expensive.  They look around them and they don't see their friends and family finding work.

There is an irony to all this cheerleading optimism, and I well remember how George W. Bush was hammered for his "jobless recovery" in 2004.  Now we actually have a "recovery" with less jobs than when it started - millions less.

Gingrich resurgent

As the almost total absence of my posts on the GOP primary demonstrates, I have little interest in the three-ring circus that has been playing out for almost a year.

One thing is clear:  Newt Gingrich has struck a nerve.  He also annoys a lot of Republicans who are convinced that his high negatives and long-ago political baggage render him ineligible for the nomination.

To this people, I have one word:  Hillary.

I seem to recall her being an incredibly unpopular figure, polarizing, grating, tainted with corruption and denounced by both right and left as a Machiavellian manipulator with ice-water in her veins.

Yet somehow, she became a viable candidate in 2008 - so much so that it was only the Democrats' bizarre "super delegate" system that allowed Obama to achieve the nomination.  He could win caucuses, but not primarly elections.

How could the woman who brought us the missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and a dozen other egregious insults now be considered not only viable but - in many circles - preferable to the current president?

It boggles the mind.

GIngrich has far less baggage in that regard.  He is familiar, but comfortably retro as well - a divisive figure with more lines and perhaps a little more wisdom than when he was last in the public eye.

He has a reputation for saying stupid things - which I am sure the man who brought us 57 states and Navy Corpsemen will not really want to bring up.

I carry no water for Gingrich, as I've noted before.  I simply wish to point out that public opinion is fluid and often flows contrary to expectations and what the media wants.  The fact that Gingrich is already being roasted alive (gotta love the ex-wife being trotted out) and somehow is still in the race shows that all the baggage he's carrying may not be all that heavy.

It also shows that in a campaign certain to be nasty, the guy with the thick skin who can dish it out as well as take it has the edge.