A Defending Crusader…

The best defense is to be good and offensive…or something like that.

Archive for the ‘Food for Thought’ Category


Posted by Godefroi on December 3, 2008

Thomas Friedman makes a fine point in this op-ed at NYT.

When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask [yes – GdB]: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?

After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.

Where is the outrage, indeed?

H/T: Headline thingy at Hot Air.


Posted in Food for Thought, Islam, Jihad, News | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Godefroi on November 6, 2008

In the aftermath of the election, a time during which many of his philosophical opponents are already planning for a takeover in 2012, it’s easy to forget that even though President-elect Obama is a radical departure from what this country has historically believed a President should be, he will still occupy the Oval Office, and be subject to all of its attendant worries and responsibilities.

He now shoulders more responsibility than just about anyone else alive.

That’s why, even for those of us who find him rather repugnant, he needs our support.  It’s not really him that we’re supporting, but rather everything that his Office stands for.

So, take a bit of advice from Baldilocks:

When I mentioned this [Obama’s victory] to Dad, a man who is a Bible-believing Methodist pastor and staunch conservative Republican who voted for John McCain as did I, he said this: “Don’t you ever go to bed at night without praying for that man.”

I will not. He–and we–will need it.


H/T Robert at Jihad Watch.

Posted in Food for Thought | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

That’s it

Posted by Godefroi on November 5, 2008

To President-Elect Obama, I say:  Congratulations on your win…you earned bought it well.

To America, this:

“This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.  Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.  He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.  He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.  Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.  He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slavesWhen that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

I just remembered…I called this one, back in February.

Posted in Big Government, Food for Thought, Insanity, Nobama, Politics | 3 Comments »


Posted by Godefroi on October 30, 2008

Courtesy of Randall Hoven at AT.  Too good not to share.

I’ve excerpted – go to the article itself for full details and commentary.

If you look at the data in just that one IRS table, you can debunk virtually every myth that Democrats have been propagating about taxes for at least the last eight years.  (For reference, AGI is adjusted gross income; it is how much you make before deductions.)

Myth 1:  Rich people don’t pay taxes.

Fact:  Yes they do.  And be glad they do.  Those making over $200,000 in 2004, though being only 2.3% of all tax filers, paid 47% of all individual income taxes.

Myth 2:  But that’s only because the rich make so much more money.

Fact:  That same group of tax filers accounted for only 26% of individual income (AGI).  Repeat: they made 26% of the money but paid 47% of the taxes.

Myth 3:  But the rich don’t pay as high a percentage as the rest of us.

Fact:  Those making over $200,000 paid an average of at least 21% in income taxes on average, while those making $30,000 or less (over half of all filers) paid 5% or less.

Myth 4:  Bush’s tax cuts only benefitted the super-rich.

Fact:  Go to that same column labeled “Income Tax as Percent of AGI.”    That column shows average tax rates in 2000 (before Bush’s tax cuts) and 2004 (after the cuts).  Note that the tax went down for every single income group

Myth 5:  We should cut taxes for 95% of the people.

Fact:  If 95% of people do not even pay income taxes, how can you cut their income tax?  Not every one even has to file a tax return.  Of those that did, the lowest 18% paid zero income taxes.  Zero.  By the time you chop off the “rich” (those making over $200,000 in 2004), you have less than 80% to play with.

By the way, when George W. Bush cut taxes, he cut them for 100% of the people who paid them.  (Check the IRS table.)

Myth 6:  The really rich know how to get out of paying taxes; they don’t show up in these tables.

Fact:  Even if true, those who made over $100,000 (that they couldn’t hide) paid 68% of all income taxes while comprising less than 10% of all tax filers. 

Myth 7:  But cutting taxes reduces revenues and therefore increases deficits and our debt load.

Fact:  In 2006, after Bush’s tax cuts were in full effect, the federal government took in 18.4% of Gross Domestic Product.  Now look at averages prior to 2000. 

As the top marginal rate on individual income varied between 28% and 92% over the last 60 years, the amount of federal revenue has consistently hovered around 18% of GDP that whole time.  In fact, revenues were generally less when the top rate was peaking at 91% and 92% (1951-1963).

Myth 8:  The “rich” are somebody else.

Fact:  Not if the person saying that is a Congressperson.  A rank-and-file Congressperson makes $169,300 per year in 2008 in salary alone.  Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker, makes $217,400.  Even if they and their spouses make no other income, they are still in the top 5% and are all above Joe Biden’s threshold of $150,000.  In fact, of 435 Congressmen, 123 of them made $1 million or more in 2003 (that is income, not net worth)

Myth 9:  The Communist Manifesto’s second plank is, “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

Fact:  That’s not a myth.

Clear enough?

Posted in Deception, Food for Thought, Nobama, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Friend in Need

Posted by Godefroi on October 29, 2008

A fellow defender of the Realm and her Faithful, the One and Only Emperor Misha, has been hit hard.

Let us True Believers teach the Obambots the true meaning of redistribution…that is, the VOLUNTARY kind (oddly enough, the subject of his previous post…hmmmmm).

You can help by going here, or more directly here or here.

Thank you, and God Bless.

Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. — 2 Corinthians 9:6-7

Posted in Christianity, Food for Thought, Generic Stuff | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Promises to keep

Posted by Godefroi on October 27, 2008

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1

There’s a certain Senator running for President…you may have heard of him.

He has already made this pledge, or one similar:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

U.S. Constitution, Article VI

But can he be trusted to hold to this oath?  An article at Hot Air raises the question, based on his previous statements.

the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution

As can easily be seen by the context in the linked commentary, this is a complaint by Mr. Obama.  He is LAMENTING that the court has kept within the boundaries of the Consitution…the same Constitution that he has already sworn to support, and expects to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend”.  How can he promise to preserve that which he doesn’t truly support?;

Jeff Goldstein summarizes:

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Now THAT’s Marxism you can believe in!

Posted in Big Government, Deception, Food for Thought, Nobama, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Something to think about

Posted by Godefroi on October 27, 2008

Ideas in themselves are timeless. They are not tied to individuals, much less to a people. They rest in a people, it is true, and affect their attitudes. Ideas, people say, are in the clouds. When someone comes along who can put in words what everyone feels in their hearts, each feels: “Yes! That is what I have always wanted and hoped for.” That is what happens the first time one hears one of Obama’s major speeches. I have met people who had attended an Obama meeting for the first time, and at the end they said: “This man put in words everything I have been searching for for years. For the first time, someone gave form to what I want.” Others are lost in confusion, but suddenly someone stands up and puts it in words. Goethe’s words become reality: “Lost in silent misery, God gave someone to express my suffering.”

So true, so true.  It explains so much of his sucess…the media fawning; the swooning, adoring fans at his rallies; the vehemence with which his supporters defend and praise him.

There’s just one, small thing.

Who provided this quotation, this perfect analysis of his popularity?

Well, that would be…wait for it.

J. Goebbels, in Erkenntnis und Propaganda.

That’s right folks.  The true quote actually contains:

That is what happens the first time one hears one of Hitlers major speeches. I have met people who had attended a Hitler meeting for the first time, and at the end they said: “This man put in words everything I have been searching for for years.

Just something to bear in mind.

Posted in Food for Thought, Nobama, Politics | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

On Poverty

Posted by Godefroi on October 20, 2008

Once upon a time, not so long ago, I was living in poverty…or so the U.S. government would have us believe.

When I was first married, and had one child…when both of us worked part-time for minimum wage…we were supposedly poor.  We had food assistance and WIC.  We also had two cars (albeit old ones), a home (we rented a mobile home), food to eat, clothes to wear, a TV, a microwave, dishwasher, cable TV, and central air.  Most of this was propped up by creative use of student loans (living expenses, you see).

Since then, I’ve traveled some, both within the U.S, and Mexico, Cuba, a few other countries.

I’ve now seen what true poverty is – and I’ve never seen the like inside the United States of America.

The current hot topic is the crash of the financial system, and the accompanying enormous loss of wealth that has recently occurred.  Many people have seen most of their savings lost, the value of their home plummet, their job disappear, perhaps even the loss of their home.

But is that poverty?

Influenced by a fellow blogger whom I admire (H/T Solomon), I’ve been reading a book called “Cairo to Damascus”.  In it is a description of true poverty.  Have a look (my emphasis).

Yusef said after a while, “I would like to show you a bit of the real Egypt – something that most journalists never see.  Will you come with me?  The place is not far from here.”

I agreed.  Walking, we say many sights common to Cairo.  In the first instance it was a barefooted girl perhaps ten years old, dressed in rags.  Her individual toes were invisible because of grime that had caked all over her – it had even worked its way into her matted hair.  Her face haunted me.  There were black blotches on it – and only as she came nearer did I realize that these were masses of flies feeding on festering open sores.  She was holding aloft what seemed to be a doll.  Then we saw that the doll was actually an infant – perhaps one or two years old, probably alive, although we could not see it breathing, or hear it cry as babies do when roughly handled.  The tiny infant was in tatters, one mass of filth from head to toe.  Its closed lids were slits of raw, inflamed skin, the usual result of trachoma.  The girl was now squealing in a shrill voice, hopping from one pedestrian to another, begging.

“Is the baby dead or alive?” I asked Yusef.

He shrugged his shoulders.  “Only Allah knows.  If it is not dead, it will die before long.  The garbage wagons pick up many of them every morning

At Aishash el Tourgoman thousands of agonized men, women, and children stared at me in living death.  Their hovels were built of earth, or of rotted wood creaking on tottering foundations.  They were dark caves, and the earthen floor was lined with dried dung.  People slept here, with no blanked under or over them.  The odor of death and disease was everywhere…There were no windowpanes, no curtains, no doors, and no electricity.  Children huddled about their mothers, too sick of too feeble to play.  Scrawny chickens, dogs, cats moved in and out of hovels, feeding and dropping around the family.  On a dungheap with a donkey standing as immobile as death itself, dwarfed and diseased children moved about.

One would be very hard-pressed to find any one person living like this (if you can call it living) in the United States, let alone thousands of them.  Yet there is one candidate for POTUS, along with many of the hacks in his party, who would have you believe that you are poor, and that he and the government are your salvation from your situation.

America, you are not poor.  You are wealthy beyond the wildest imaginings of the millions of truly poor in the world.

So rather than complain that you won’t be able to flip your house for a fast profit; that you’ll have to shut off the cable and maybe the cell phone to make your house payment; that you might have to live in rental for a while…give thanks for what you DO have.  There are MANY who have NOTHING.

One further point on the promise of government saving you from poverty…

Once upon a time, quite long ago, there was a war widow who was suffering deprivation due to the loss of her husband.  There was a petition in the U.S. Congress to set aside some money to help her and those like her.

This was back when people still knew, and cared, what the Constitution contained.

One congressman stood before the assembly, and reminded them thusly (my epmhasis):

“We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money.” (David S. Crockett, U.S. House of Representatives, 1828…yes, THE Davy Crockett)

Being so reminded, the appropriation request was denied.  The poor widow was turned away.  Mr. Crockett then supported this widow with his own money.

Ladies and gentlemen, there has not been a relevant change in the Constitution since 1828.  Congress still has no right to appropriate your money to give it away to the needy.  But you, individually, still have the right, obligation, and privilege of doing it yourself.

Be blessed, and grateful, and generous.

To take them [the words ‘general welfare” – GdB] in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. — James Madison

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” — Thomas Jefferson

Posted in Big Government, Food for Thought, History | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Godefroi on October 17, 2008

Hey Barry – wanted to let you in on a little secret:

In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that “Republican deregulation” is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

But one essential fact was missing from the senator’s narrative: While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector

Just thought I’d let you know.

You can find out more at the WSJ.

Nod:  No Quarter

Posted in Food for Thought, Nobama, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Godefroi on October 8, 2008

Shamelessly stolen from one of the comments at Hot Air.

To sum up the consensus of many of my Dem friends about the Obama-Ayers connection:  So?

Ok…but what if…what if…

[What] if McCain associated with and launched his political career from the house of an abortion bomber who was freed due to a legal technicality and said ‘I don’t regret targeting the abortion mills, I wish we did more’?

I’m going to have to use that during our next political discussion.

Posted in Food for Thought, Nobama | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

No-bama, ad nauseum

Posted by Godefroi on September 23, 2008

Another point to consider when casting ballots in 42 days, brought to us by Hot Air.

Despite moves from Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Elizabeth Dole, and John McCain to get more regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress took no action [in 2005].  Why?  Fannie and Freddie had already co-opted Chris Dodd with over $130,000 in campaign contributions over 20 years, and over $120,000 to Barack Obama over less than four years.  Hillary Clinton  took tens of thousands in eight years, and Chuck Schumer also opposed any new regulation on markets that Congress had forced open.

We can play blame games for the next several months and years, but what would be the point?  In this case, there is a point, and it couldn’t be more clear or important.  We have two candidates running for President who would bring much different styles to executive authority over regulatory responsibility.  Barack Obama and his allies took the money and stayed on the sidelines rather than take proactive action to resolve the credit crisis.  McCain and his co-sponsors of this bill had the right idea and instincts, but could not get any cooperation from Clinton, Schumer, or Obama.

Does this mean that Obama gets the entire blame for the financial crisis?  Of course not; it’s shared among many people who failed to act, and some who acted poorly to create the problem in the first place by mandating loans to ill-qualified lenders and then allowed those loans to form the basis of widely-traded securities.  McCain doesn’t become the sole protagonist in this morality play, either.  However, this demonstrates the qualities of both judgment and leadership of both men — and those two qualities are critical for determining which man should be running the executive branch for the next four years.

Posted in Food for Thought, Nobama, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Burdens on Society

Posted by Godefroi on September 21, 2008

I recently discovered Cassy Fiano, a very happy discovery.  Except for one thing…the first post I find on her site is discussion and rebuttal of another commentary by one Nick Provenzo. 

It appears to be Mr. Provenzo’s contention that Trig Palin should not have been allowed to live.  That is, since Trig is afflicted with Down Syndrome, Trig will be a drain on her family, and thereby society at large.  The RIGHT choice would have been abortion.

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.

For one, aside from this being CLASSIC communist thought, this is the same line of thinking that allows the U.S. Federal Government to have so much unconstitutional power in our affairs, under the umbrella of the interstate commerce clause (i.e., basically anything you do COULD be construed as having a possible effect on interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated by the feds).  So by extension, since your decisions to have children effect society in general, you SHOULD consider the potential negative effects of a child with a disability on everyone else.  The choice is yours of course, but the correct choice is abortion.  Got that?  Your individual right is not as important as the well-being of the collective.

…In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent’s personal desire to create new life.

News to Mr. Provenzo.  Having a child is not a CHOICE.  It is the natural expected biological consequence of copulation.  It makes much more sense that to intervene against the course of nature for one’s benefit is the ‘profoundly selfish choice”.

And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics.

Eugenic: relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring.  Mr. Provenzo, killing a child with a genetic disability falls perfectly under the definition of eugenic.  It’s not a slur, it’s the English language. 

Also, the logic in parts of his argument are faulty.  He states twice that since it is only right to eliminate an unhealthy unborn child, it’s also only right to eliminate a perfectly healthy one.  This makes no sense at all.  By that thinking, since it’s lawful to kill deer in my state, it’s OK to kill ALL the deer.  What?

I have a question.  Notice the scrupulous adherence to the term “fetus” in the article.  What is a fetus?  More to the point, what exactly is a fetus that is being carried by a human female?  Well, it’s a fetus.  Duh.  OK…what KIND of fetus is it?  Is it a dog fetus?  A giraffe fetus?  A kangaroo fetus?  Hello?  That’s right, it’s a HUMAN fetus.  HUMAN.  I don’t see ANYWHERE a constitutional right for one human to arbitrarily end the life of another human.

The founders of this nation wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Notice which comes first?  LIFE.  The right to LIFE takes precedence over liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Finally, only the willfully blind don’t see the logical extension (to borrow Mr. Provenzo’s proclivity) to the argument put forth in the article.  It’s even grander proposals to better the collective, like this:

…in her latest interview, given to the Church of Scotland’s magazine Life and Work, Lady Warnock goes further by claiming that dementia sufferers should consider ending their lives through euthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and public services.[…]

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

There’s really no difference in the two arguments.  And they both boil down to this:  either you have worth simply because you’re human, or you don’t.

Posted in Food for Thought, Generic Stuff, Insanity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »