Tag: seditionists

Blair’s Law in action at the G20.

Blair’s Law™ – The ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force.

…and it’s in full view at the G20 protests in London, where we get this report from The New Ledger’s Roger Bate about the eclectic nature of the protesters.  Because it’s an antiglobo affair, it is of course dominated by the usual Communist and Israel-hating groups – the latter needing somewhere to go, now that the antiwar movement’s lost losing the war – and Bate suggests that the global warming cause may end up being added to the mix.  To which I reply: if only.  That’d be the fastist way to discredit the whole movement.  Still, the dupes-fools-and-knaves contingent is in full force at London, and they think that they smell blood, so they’re energized.

As long as they stay energized over there.  Faux-populist movements are annoying at best, and kind of intolerable at worst.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Lee Stranahan wishes to justify his antiwar position…

…and he thinks that Rush Limbaugh will help him with that.

By now, you’ve probably read Stranahan’s little attempt at self-justification for cheering on the death of American troops (you can read it via Glenn Reynolds, if you must: it’s not worth the direct link to a pro-torture site*) by seeking to associate it to Limbaugh’s often-repeated observation that he wants Obama’s economic plans to fail.

I’d just like to establish this point for the record: no, Stranahan can’t actually do that, and for a very simple reason. Our military personnel have voluntarily given up some of their right to choose their own actions in order to serve the country.  That gives us the collective responsibility to ensure that the choices that we make for them are the right one. It is perfectly acceptable to think that our collective choice was wrong; not so much to work to minimize the chance of it being the right one after all. The antiwar movement chose to do the latter… and those miserable wretches lost anyway, which is why they’re trying to avoid the consequences of their moral failure. Limbaugh and Obama (to use the usual examples), on the other hand, are merely having a policy dispute… and the Right swore no oath signing over our right to choose. We recognize and respect the authority of the President of the United States, but he does not command us in the same way that he commands the troops – and we will not concede the difference.

Particularly when doing so will give cover to people like Stranahan.

Moe Lane

*Repudiated Obama yet, HuffPo? No? Going to support him in 2012? Yes? Then that’s what you are. Deal.

Crossposted to RedState.