THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

Sage McLaughlin’s remarks on comedy are pertinent.  I might add an observation or two.  One way of explaining why comedy hasn’t been funny since, let’s say, Lenny Bruce is that at about the heyday of Lenny Bruce comedy began to be politicized, just like everything else.  It’s a short step from Lenny Bruce to the Smothers Brothers and from Tommy and Dickie Smothers to Howard Hesseman and George Carlin.

(more…)

DIANA writes:

William McRaven, the head of Special Ops, says that women can make great Navy SEALS.

I “googled” McRaven, and found that he is struggling with budget cuts. So let’s assume the powers that be are telling him: toe the line or your forces get chopped. Or YOU get chopped.

 I don’t care. It’s a shameful, dishonest and dishonorable thing for him to say.

(more…)

IN THIS previous entry, Sage McLaughlin analyses the subversive influence of all those funny, clever, sarcastic people on television.

“Sometimes humor can be crafted in the service of objective truths…,” he writes.  “Just as often it is made in the service of lies.”

(more…)

DANIEL S. writes:

While American liberals celebrate the lifting of a ban of women serving in combat roles in the U.S. military, as well as news that the Boy Scouts of America are considering lifting their ban of homosexuals among its membership and troop leadership, and that there is a bipartisan consensus in the Senate to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, the Catholic patriarch of Egypt has come out decrying the alienation and persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Now there might not seem to be any sort of obvious relationship between domestic events in America and those in Egypt, except that the same politicians and media outlets that have eagerly embraced the Revolution in America are the same that have condemned the Christians of Egypt to perpetual violence, repression, and persecution. (more…)

SEE the outstanding comments that have been added to this entry on efforts by Poland and Russia to ban public promotion of homosexuality and to this discussion of the despicable decision by the Pentagon to allow women in combat.

In the entry on public homosexuality, Proph responds to a reader’s claim that bans on things such as “gay pride parades” are totalitarian:

(more…)

THE comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate yesterday would immediately legalize most illegal aliens. See this summary at NumbersUSA. Ann Manetas writes:

It’s hard to imagine a more wide-sweeping amnesty than the proposal the Gang of Eight [senators] has outlined. AgJOBS and the DREAM Act would be effective immediately. While other illegal aliens would have to get in line behind those waiting legally for a green card, they will eventually receive a green card. Legal status, jobs and other benefits will be available almost immediately. Virtually every illegal alien in the United States would benefit from Amnesty 2.0.

(more…)

  I WAS away from home yesterday. I will be posting the many comments I received in response to recent entries shortly.

DANIEL S. writes:

In Poland the legislative body voted down draft legislation that would allow for the legal recognition of homosexual civil unions. This means of course that Poland will come under even more pressure from the American government and Soros-funded NGOs to jettison its Catholic tradition and accept “human rights” and the open society to usher in the reign of abortion on demand, homosexuality, and other sacred cows of cultural Marxism and American liberalism.

The Russian Duma has been even more proactive in opposing the homosexual agenda. They took their first legislative steps toward banning homosexual propaganda and public expressions of support for homosexual “rights.” Expect the media in America and Europe to ratchet up their efforts to demonize Vladimir Putin as a ruthless, reactionary autocrat who stands in the way of democracy and human rights.

(more…)

  HERE'S YET another of the many unexamined consequences of the planned entry of women into combat -- one of the dumbest and most despicable ideas ever proposed by the American government. Ryan Smith, who served in Iraq as a Marine infantrymen, writes in the Wall Street Journal that placing men and women together in war conditions will cause shame and embarrassment. Of course you don't have to be a veteran to know this. Anyone who has watched a few war movies with his common sense intact knows how ridiculous and unnatural it would be to have men and women live in battlefield conditions together or to expect women to relieve themselves on the battlefield as easily as men do. Smith writes: Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex. Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of…

TEXANNE writes:

While searching the Internet for coverage of the Walk for Life, I found this inauguration photo.

The Obamas’ iconic fists brought back memories of the protests that overwhelmed my college campus — and the nation at large — during the cultural upheaval of 1968-69.

(more…)

AT VFR, Henry McCulloch writes:

I have had many years to think about what role women should have in the armed forces. I was a Marine infantry officer and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot in an active capacity for over 16 years. Now, mercifully, I am completely separated from the U.S. armed forces.

During my active service and in the years since it ended, I have seen women over-preferred and over-promoted at every step. Inevitably their presence in any numbers is burdensome to the force and detrimental to combat readiness—even when serving only in support units. No matter what promises about high standards Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey may make, standards will be lowered until enough women qualify that this great social experiment can be declared a success. But the truth will be otherwise and, should the U.S. armed forces have to fight a serious adversary that does not engage in this nonsense, very quickly obvious. Men, and some of these ladies, will pay for this social engineering with their lives.

In the 1970s, I saw the service academies thrown open to women, and male cadets and midshipmen at all three academies ordered not to tell the press anything about the blatant dual standards that prevailed thenceforth—despite command assurances to the public that no standards were being relaxed to accommodate women. (more…)

AS I SAID in the previous post, there are so many unexamined consequences of the Obama administration’s decision to place women in combat — a decision that has been in the works for many years and that is the logical extension of the radical equality embraced by most Americans — that one barely knows where to begin. But here is perhaps the most serious consequence: Children will lose their mothers in war.

Not only will more young children stand at military airports waving their mothers tearful and uncomprehending goodbyes, but more children will receive the news that their mothers have died violent deaths. Some will learn that their mothers were raped or dismembered.

It is a great hardship for a child to lose a father in war. But when he loses a father who has fought for his country, he at least gains a hero. A heroic, absent father can give strength. A heroic, absent mother weakens. No normal child will be comforted by a mother’s medals. Every child wants a mother who is a loving presence. The idea of a mother as a warrior is an unthinkable abomination. Given the high rate of illegitimacy, women soldiers will not always have husbands, which means that some children will lose their only parent in combat.

The woman soldier represents perhaps the supreme offense against the values of maternity. Thus, leaving aside the fact that some mothers will be killed, the approval of military aggression in women will further damage these values in general, turning women who will never see combat into poor, unfit mothers.

In hailing the novelty of sending mothers to war, Obama has advanced by one giant leap his ongoing war against the young and civilization itself. A country with women soldiers will create children who feel betrayed. A country with women soldiers will create feral, dehumanized children.

(more…)

  HENRY McCULLOCH writes: Sometimes a picture does say it best. Here is a photograph of Gen. Martin Dempsey and Leon Panetta shaking hands after consummating the feminist conquest of the U.S. armed forces. Note who has been carefully selected to oversee the two old white men as they do their duty; there is nothing coincidental about photo-ops such as these. 'Nuff said.

  WESLEY PRUDEN blames Pentagon careerists whose primary objective is not military.