Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

On May 20, 2009, John Bolton wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled "Get Ready for Another North Korean Nuke Test" in which he noted that the complacency of the Obama administration about North Korea's nuclear ambitions (and Iran's) was misplaced:

"The curtain is about to rise again on the long-running nuclear tragicomedy, "North Korea Outwits the United States." Despite Kim Jong Il's explicit threats of another nuclear test, U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth said last week that the Obama administration is "relatively relaxed" and that "there is not a sense of crisis." They're certainly smiling in Pyongyang."

As usual, the Left lashed out at Bolton, who may be third after George Bush and Dick Cheney in being portrayed as crazy and paranoid. Bolton has been derided as "the neocon's neocon" who "laps up the hosannas of fellow knuckle-draggers."

Allison Kilkenny at Huffington Post applied the left-wing attack on Bolton specifically as to Bolton's North Korea position, in a post titled, Update: John Bolton Still Crazy:

You have to hand it to the Wall Street Journal. At a time when the newspaper industry is desperately trying to remind America it's important and relevant, the WSJ has carved out a nice little niche for itself as a halfway house for discredited political figures. I think it's really humane of them. Their most recent charity case is John Bolton, America's former ambassador to the United Nations....

Today, Bolton chose to growl at the old, but reliable, enemy of North Korea. This is a particularly vintage move when one considers North Korea already tried to strike fear into the hearts of Americans last month when they tested a missile that fizzled and fell into the ocean 1,300 miles off the east coast of Japan. Bolton's stance is pretty brave because his frenzied ideology flies in the face of scholarly counsel.

It turns out that Ms. Kilkenny's post proved just who still is crazy, and it's not Bolton. Please read all of Ms. Kilkenny's anti-Bolton diatribe. It is a lesson in why we cannot, cannot, cannot, trust the Left with our national security.

Don't take my word for it, read today's headlines:

North Korea declares it conducted nuclear test
Outrage over N Korea nuclear test
North Korea Announces 2nd Test of Nuclear Device

Which gets me to Iran. Here is what the Left is saying about the Iranian threat, the same psycho-political babble as Kilkenny, as in this guest-post, Break Out The NeoCon Fainting Couch, at Attackerman. The author argues that since Iran's religious leaders have said nuclear weapons are bad, Iran's military and intelligence leaders could not possibly want nuclear weapons:

The Supreme Leader [of Iran] can not get up and preach against the morality of nuclear weapons and call them "un-Islamic" and then wink and nod to his followers and have everything work out fine. One of the consequences of a theistic society is that the citizens follow the leader's spiritual teachings for better or for worse. So how would they even find someone to work on a program that they have been taught will guarantee them a corner of Hell?

Let's hope that the North Korean nuclear test is a wake up call for the Obama administration on Iran. So that we are not in a position of demanding another apology from left-wing bloggers when Iran detonates its nuclear device, or announces that it has constructed a device based on the North Korean testing.

UPDATE: Don Surber has a good round-up: Lefties on North Korea. And so does Troglopundit: If John Bolton writes a column predicting that I win a hundred million dollars, I’ll split it with him

UPDATE No. 2: There will be no apology. Quite the contrary, you should not believe your lying eyes when you read Kilkenny's original post quoted above, at least if you read the new post North Korea’s Unsurprising Actions:

I apparently have to clarify an important point. No one should be entirely surprised that North Korea has detonated a bomb. Kim Jong Il launches a missile or detonates a bomb whenever he wants attention or aid from the United States. He tested a bomb back in 2006, and also launched a missile in April. The detonation of this latest bomb does not somehow de-crazy the rest of John Bolton’s Wall Street Journal column from last week in which he orders Obama to “put down Kim Jong Il’s script.” Whatever that means. One presumes he means to “get tough.” Whatever that means.

-----------------------------------------------

Related Post: Playing The Nork Card

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook. Join the group Telling Dick Cheney To Keep Talking.

In an earlier post, I noted how one Huffington Post blogger, Allison Kilkenny, had called John Bolton "crazy" just five days ago for warning that North Korea was on the verge of another nuclear test. I wondered whether there would be an apology in light of the North Korean's nuclear test last night, and the answer is no apology.

Talk about crazy, how about this entry from Kilkenny's Twitter today, in which she worried about whether the term Norks (which appears to be used recently mostly by conservative bloggers as short-hand for North Koreans) is "considered offensive or racist."

I should have known, the North Koreans explode a nuclear device, and the Left is worried about political correctness:

Defining the term "Norks" as "offensive" or "racist" would be a game changer. Tag conservative bloggers and columnists who used the term "Norks" as racists, and shut down debate. I wonder where she learned that trick.

---------------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook. Join the group Telling Dick Cheney To Keep Talking.

The Creepshow which has become Palin Derangement Syndrome is so enthralling to watch.

The Black Bracelet crowd cannot figure out if Palin is Anatoly Karpov or some strange combination of Raymond Shaw and Barbi Benton.

Act I, Palin as Chess Grandmaster (h/t HotAir), via HuffPo blogger Joan Williams:

Palin is a brilliant strategist.... Sarah Palin is playing chess. I don't know what game the Administration is playing, but they just walked right into her carefully laid trap. Palin, the strategist, is amazing to watch. Her brilliance is her ability to tap in to the class conflicts that drive American politics these days. Obama, whom I have supported since Iowa, just doesn't get it.

Act II, Palin as Sexy Puppet, via former HuffPo blogger, now True/Slant blogger (the HuffPo crowd must not have been liberal enough for her), the oft-cited Allison Kilkenny (strike-through in original):

Palin entered the political world as a Serious Contender because the right rich men got erections in her presence deemed it appropriate. There’s nothing democratic about that. The American people never said she was the best woman for the job. Palin simply found the people with the right access (wealthy, white men,) and coasted her way into a position where she was almost one heart attack away from the presidency of the most powerful country on the planet.

Act III is coming to a psychiatrist's couch near you, very soon.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Anti-Palin Faux-troversy of the Day: The Black Bracelet
Palin Causes Left and Right To Lose Reading Ability
Palin Exposes Misogyny In The Democratic Base, Again

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Allison Kilkenny at HuffPo (September 24, 2009 11:34 AM) on the right-wing inspired killing of Bill Sparkman:

By utilizing the branding "Fed," the killers were clearly trying to make a political statement, namely "Obama: Stay Out."

Worst call since the criticism of John Bolton for warning that the North Koreans were planning a nuclear test, just days before the North Koreans conducted a nuclear test:

Bolton's stance is pretty brave because his frenzied ideology flies in the face of scholarly counsel.

I think she is a counter-indicator. Someone let me know what she thinks the stock market will do tomorrow.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

I really wish I had more time to devote to this today, but I don't, so I'll be quick.

The hysteria, pushed by HuffPo Blogger Alison Kilkenny, over the "threat" by the Catholic Archdiocese charities to terminate services to the poor in D.C., is a typical case of over-simplification and an excuse for Catholic-bashing.

The Catholic charities want to be .... Catholic. Or so they say. I don't know enough about Catholicism to say that the public positions of the Archdiocese are necessary to being Catholic, but the Archdiocese feels it is so. Normally, we let people interpret and apply their own religion.

That is not popular at HuffPo. But there is this little, itty bitty thing called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Damn, that thing can be a pain when there is a social agenda at stake:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ....

D.C. is on the verge of passing an ordinance which requires that entities doing business in the city follow laws related to gay rights and gay marriage which the Archdiocese asserts are contrary to Catholicism. Since the Archdiocese enters into contracts with the city to provide services, and receives some payment for the services (although not enough to cover the full cost of the services), the Archdiocese would have to abide by the ordinance.

So the Catholic charities, faced with choice of doing business in the city providing services for the poor or changing its religion, asked for clear cut exceptions to the law, similar to what has been done in states such as New Hampshire, to protect its freedom of religion:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Contrary to reports, the Catholic charities are not threatening to withhold all services to the poor, only those which would be subject to the ordinance.

The D.C. council doesn't want to change the ordinance. Fine. That is a fair and appropriate public policy dispute. Politicians can be politicians, and can set state policies. The problem for the city is that the Archiocese adds value to the contracts, meaning they provide services above and beyond what they get from the city.

But don't then complain that the Catholic charities take their services elsewhere, and don't hold the poor hostage to your politics. Fund those services from government money if you don't like the way Catholic charities do their Catholicism.

The legal issues involved are far from simple, although you wouldn't know it from reading the left-wing blogs which are howling with delight over this controversy:

Linda C. McClain, a law professor at Boston University who is studying the same-sex marriage debate nationwide, said the outcome of the standoff between the District and the Church could have far-reaching implications for other states.

"This case really pits the commitment to religious freedom against the importance of anti-discrimination," McClain said. "The courts have been pretty clear that you can't force a religious organization to express a message it doesn't agree with. . . . But it's a tougher case to say you won't be able to provide services to the poor because of this."

What is simple, is that even people unpopular in left-wing circles get the protection of the First Amendment, and get to provide services to the poor as they please consistent with their own view of their religion. Even Catholics.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Did Dems Already Dodge Gay Activist Boycott?
Will The Left Apologize To Bolton?
Playing The Nork Card

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. Sure as I was certain that Bush would be blamed for the Balloon Boy hoax, so too I've been waiting for someone to make the connection between the Iraq war resolution and the health care vote.

To the rescue, Alison Kilkenny, who compares the list of those who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, with the list of those who voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment, and draws the conclusion that rich white southern men hate poor women:

Many of the Democrats who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment will surely boast they did so because they are the sentinels of human life. Of course, these Democrats are only concerned with protecting certain types of life.

In preparation for such pharisaic claims, I compared the list of 64 Democrats with the roll call for HJ Res 114, the bill that authorized the United States Armed Forces to invade Iraq.

19 of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment also authorized the United States to invade Iraq (one representative, Ortiz, chose not to vote, which in a time of war, is just as bad as voting "aye.") ....

All of these representatives are male, and with the exception of Sanford Bishop and Solomon Ortiz, they're white, and ten are from southern states. None of them are poor. This is the kind of unrepresentative, elite club that gets to vote on sending our soldiers to possibly die after killing many innocent people in distance lands, and this Rich Boys' Club also occasionally votes to steal rights from poor women.

At least she didn't blame John Bolton.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Balloon Boy Derangement Syndrome
Will The Left Apologize To Bolton?
Playing The Nork Card

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook