Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me -
Include your email address
Just in case you weren't sure...
Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com
An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush:
million in just two years
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force....
Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat....
Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature....
Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
Because Bush is to blame... for
Sacred Cow Burgers
Satirical Political Beliefs
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies
Share your wish list with friends and family
Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones
Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion
News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs
The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek
Articles Previously Published at
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On -
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder -
- The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
- More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
My Arse From My Elbow
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
Ten Suggestions for a Sensitive War on Terror
Presidential hopeful John Kerry has been telling the American people that he would fight a "better" war against terror, but not exactly how. At the UNITY 2004 conference for minority journalists, Kerry stated, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." (This was the same conference, by the way, at which the neutral, non-partisan journalists broke out in wild cheers and whistling for Kerry, but heckled Bush as he spoke the very next day. But remember, folks, there's no media bias!)
I wondered just how one would fight a "sensitive" war against the kind of subhuman slime who cut the heads off innocent victims on videotape. Kerry has offered few specifics on his plan for fighting terror, aside from forming a "real coalition" of nations (a massive slight on the British, Italians, Poles, Australians, Japanese, Spanish, and dozens of others who have been with us in both Afghanistan and Iraq, if you ask me). He has said he sees fighting terrorism as "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." On his web site, Kerry's plan for making America safer consists mainly of tracking terrorists once they arrive, "hardening targets," and making sure first responders have what they need to clean up the carnage after the terrorists strike. Apparently, the lack of mess is supposed to discourage them. Nothing about preventing them from coming here in the first place, of course... nothing about letting them know it's not going to be worth the price. Nothing about stopping the nations which support them from doing so, by either diplomatic or military pressure. That sort of thing just isn't done, it seems.
In any case, it looks as though John Kerry needs help coming up with specific ways in which he can fight a more thoughtful and sensitive war on terror. In the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to suggest the following helpful list...
10. Stop calling it a "war." Rename it to the "Protest Against Terror." Protests always get people's attention and let them know that what you're protesting against is wrong.
9. Use softer bullets. Metal bullets hurt the terrorists, and that makes them hate us more.
8. Perhaps President Kerry can invite Osama bin Laden to the White House for a "cuddling party" with Kerry/Edwards. Nothing makes friends faster than a good cuddle.
7. Only go to war if the French and the UN say it's okay. Everyone knows how skillful the French are at dealing with other nations, and the UN has proven time and again its efficacy in dealing with terrorists.
6. Pull the troops out of Iraq within six months, but stay the course and even send more troops. If you have to ask, it's too nuanced for you.
5. Gently but firmly remind the terrorists that he was in Vietnam for four months thirty-five years ago. They won't dare pull anything then.
4. Ensure government owned and operated health care for all Americans, paid for with higher taxes. Terrorists won't bother to attack if they know all Americans have health care; it won't do any good then.
3. Stop eating pork and cover the women. Don't let them read or vote. That will show the terrorists that we understand them and appreciate their culture.
2. Don't call them "terrorists." They feel bad enough about our bullying, abusive foreign policy as it is. Call them "armed peace demonstrators." They'll feel more... peaceful.
1. Don't send soldiers; send social workers. All they really need is love and understanding.
"Armed" with these suggestions, I'm sure John Kerry will be able to convince the terrorists to stop hating us in no time, should he win November's election. As for me... I'll be in the mountains building a bunker.
Posted at Friday, August 13, 2004 by CavalierX
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Dems Question Hurricane Threat?
Florida has been declared a state of emergency and the National Guard put on alert due to a pair of so-called "hurricanes" sources claim are going to hit the state sometime in the near future. Named "Bonnie" and "Charley," the storms are supposedly entering the US from Cuba, a declaration some see as a prelude to a declaration of war against the dicta... er, beloved president-for-life Fidel Castro. Many prominent Democrats see the storm threat as being hyped for political purposes.
"I think there has been an exaggeration," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said when asked whether President Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, have overstated the threat of hurricanes. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Kerry relentlessly reminded reporters, a few curious passers-by, a group of mimes and a janitor that such storms were dealt with in a multilateral, sensitive fashion when he was in Vietnam. "This administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path," Mr. Kerry declaimed. "I will make America safer from hurricanes than they are." Mr. Kerry also stated that he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations," instead of unilaterally declaring a state of emergency in Bush's "go-it-alone" fashion. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards added that while storm security is important, Mr. Bush has ignored other pressing issues. "The President of the United States actually has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," he said, blowing a rather large bubble. Howard Dean, the former front-runner for the Democratic nomination, questioned the timing of the hurricane threats. "This administration knew about this at least three weeks ago," a red-faced, angry Dean raged at reporters. "They could have chosen any date they wanted to reveal this to the public." Suddenly calmer, Dean rolled down his sleeves and said,"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is hurricanes." Added Dean, "I think in some ways, unfortunately, the hurricanes have already won."
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) even suggested the administration was using the fear of hurricanes to aid President Bush's political campaign. "I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration is copying and pasting old hurricane alerts that were later found to be fabricated. This administration has a long track record of using deceptive tactics for political gain," said Wexler. "One cannot help but question whether their aim was to deflect attention from the Kerry-Edwards ticket right after their inaugural week," he said.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, also panned the announcement as "a reminder of the Bush administration's ... politics of fear," adding that the administration "is primarily focused on covering its political behind between now and November." A spokesperson for the think tank added,"Oh, I almost forgot... Bush is Hitler."
Note: yes, this is satire. However, all the quotes, except the very last, were taken from actual news stories about Liberal Democrat reactions to news concerning the war on terror and "hurricane" inserted.
Posted at Thursday, August 12, 2004 by CavalierX
Saturday, August 07, 2004
John Kerry and the Vietnam Sham
Everyone knows by now that John Kerry served for four months on a "swift boat" in Vietnam. Don't say you haven't heard, unless you've spent the last year in a cave. Kerry mentions it several times per minute in every campaign speech he intones. He deflects nearly every question asked of him by holding up his Naval service in 1968 and 1969, especially questions about his plans for national security and defense should he become President. His campaign ads feature pictures of him in uniform. Former servicemen flank him at every campaign stop, some of whom even served with him. When he made his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, he made a show of saluting the audience and "reporting for duty." (Perhaps President Bush should take him at his word, and send him to Iraq.) The "highlight" of the evening was a nine-minute biographical movie directed by Steven Spielberg protege James Moll, and narrated by Morgan Freeman. The bulk of the movie featured -- surprise! -- John Kerry in Vietnam, including footage filmed at the time by Kerry, or at his direction. (No one, of course, seems to have asked who gave him authorisation to use military personnel to shoot his personal home movies if the films were actually shot while in combat. No one has asked who authorised him to take military transport and personnel to visit areas where action had taken place in order to recreate the action for his own purposes, if the films were shot while off duty.)
So... we get it. John Kerry was in Vietnam. What no one can explain is how that alone qualifies him to be President of the United States. No one can explain how spending four months on a patrol boat thirty-five years ago is a better qualification than spending the last three years destroying terrorist training camps, breaking up terror cells in the US and abroad, uncovering a multinational nuclear proliferation ring, forcing belligerent North Korea to the bargaining table, cowing Libya into giving up its WMD programs and terrorist support, and winning two wars against terrorist-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships in the process.
Now a group of Kerry's fellow swift boat veterans has spoken out against him, saying that his service was undeserving of the medals he won in those four months. They claim that he was untrustworthy and manipulative. They call his leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War treasonous, pointing to the lies told about soldiers before Congress in the Winter Soldier investigation. They say that he isn't worthy of being entrusted with the Presidency of the United States, in their opinion. The media, if doing its job, would be asking for proof of their accusations about Kerry's deeds and misdeeds, so the truth can be exposed to public view. When President Bush's Air National Guard service was questioned, the media repeatedly demanded that he provide proof of his service. Instead, the "mainstream" media is obsessed with the group's sources of funding. The media never seems to mention multi-billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis funding MoveOn.org and other anti-Bush political action committees (PACs). Democrats are shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that some Republicans may have contributed money to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I'm not sure I understand their rather one-sided objections. Are the same Democrats equally outraged that Soros and Lewis contributed to the Kerry campaign? Democrats attack the swift boat veterans as liars (though how they know this is unclear). Are they as outraged by the outright lies and manipulations in Michael Moore's hours-long anti-Bush commercial? No... they give Moore a seat in former President Jimmy Carter's skybox at the 2004 Democratic convention.
The reason Kerry showcases his brief Vietnam service is three-fold. First, doing so paints him as a tough combat veteran -- precisely the image a Liberal Democrat needs to cultivate when trying to convince most Americans to vote for him, especially during a war. Second, it insulates him from questions about defending America from our enemies -- President Bush's strength. When the answer to any question is, "I served in Vietnam, so I know what I'm doing," there's nothing a non-veteran can say without appearing to attack his Vietnam service. That's where people like these swift boat veterans, Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry and POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry come in, people who can ask questions about Kerry's Vietnam service and his anti-war activism upon his return. However, doing so plays right into Kerry's third reason for touting his abbreviated Vietnam tour. Talking about Vietnam generates headlines for a media generally devoted to convincing the American people to vote for Kerry.
Personally, I don't care about Kerry's Vietnam service in the context of the Presidential election. I'm grateful that he and more than three million Americans served in that war. If this election was being held to decide who was the better swift boat commander, then John Kerry would win hands-down over George W. Bush... although Bush would probably win an election for best fighter pilot. But it's not about that. This election is to decide who should lead the nation through the troubling and dangerous four years ahead. We're still recovering from the terrible effects of 9/11, a massive recession, the exposure of long-term corporate scandals that further rocked the economy, and the first two major battles of a war that will likely span decades. The 2004 election should be about experience -- recent, relevant experience. "What have you done for us lately?" is the question we should be asking the candidates.
John Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years in the 1990s, so he had access to up-to-date information on al-Qaeda and its activities. What steps did he take to fight terrorism? Why did he propose cutting the military in bill S.1163, just months after the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing? Two years later, why did he propose in bill S.1290 to "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000?" In 1996, why did Kerry propose in bill S.1580 to reduce military funding by $6.5 billion? Why did he vote against funding vital military equipment like the MX missile, the Patriot missile, the Apache helicopter, the Blackhawk helicopter, the B-1 Bomber and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, as his voting record clearly shows? More recently, why did he change his vote to deny our military in Iraq the equipment they needed so desperately? Kerry explained, "I actually voted for the $87 billion... before I voted against it." Partisans excuse his vote switch by saying that he did so only because those eeevil Republicans refused to take money from the citizens to pay for the war. Did the troops suddenly need the body armor any less? Would the bullets kill better if paid for by higher taxes instead of pork barrel reductions? In his nineteen years in the Senate, what vote, what piece of legislation can John Kerry trot out to show us he would make a better President than George Bush? Kerry's answer to questions like these is merely, "I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president." We're back to Vietnam again, although this election is supposedly taking place in 2004.
John Kerry is hiding behind his Vietnam experience to avoid talking about the nineteen years he spent in the Senate voting against defending America, and the media is aiding and abetting him. The more we allow Vietnam to dominate the election discussions, the less we will be able to find out what a vote for Kerry would mean for our future.
Posted at Saturday, August 07, 2004 by CavalierX
Monday, August 02, 2004
Reporting Terrorist Threats: Damned If You Do...
No matter what response the Bush Administration concocted to the recent discovery of specific terrorist targets, the Left was bound to condemn it as "wrong." It's an election year, and attacking President Bush is far more important to most Democrats than cooperating to ensure the safety of American citizens. Following the arrest of al-Qaeda operative Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani in Pakistan, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge announced a list of specific buildings that are targeted for al-Qaeda attacks, most likely by truck or car bombs. Extra security has been put in place at the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup in New York City, the World Bank Headquarters and the International Monetary Fund buildings in Washington DC, and Prudential Financial in Newark NJ. Unless an attack actually takes place, the Left will claim this is deliberately causing fear in order to rally support for President Bush. They consider the announcement ridiculous, since no specific date was mentioned for the planned attack. If a terrorist attack does happen, of course, they will claim that not enough was done to prevent it. Why can't the Left be consistent in their views?
When the now-infamous 6 August 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) was declassified, the outrage from the Left was as palpable as it was laughable. The memo, titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," contained not a single specific threat. However, those on the Left continue to use the title of the memo as "proof" that President Bush had ample warning of the 9/11 hijacking, and insist that he should have made the public aware of the imminent danger. During the 9/11 inquisition, Democrats on the Commission attempted to use the memo's title as a blunt instrument with which to bludgeon National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. Unfazed by Richard Ben-Veniste's and Bob Kerrey's unfair attacks and grandstanding, she explained that the memo was merely a historical list of general threats from al-Qaeda. The memo did make a reference to a five-year-old threat to hijack airplanes, but in the "standard" context of using hostages to bargain for the release of prisoners. "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists." The memo did mention New York -- but only stated that federal buildings there were under surveillance. Note that no federal buildings in New York were attacked on 9/11. However, with that magical 20/20 hindsight the Left seems to possess, they can see that these bits and pieces of fragmentary intelligence clearly spelled out a new type of terrorist attack just over a month later. Now, President Bush has informed the public of specific and detailed threats -- and is castigated for it. Where is the consistency?
If the Bush administration keeps a lid on newly-uncovered threats and an attack occurs, the Left will slam the President for not informing the public. If they release what details they have and nothing happens, the Left will claim that there never was a threat. According to the New York Times, "News of the terror threat on Sunday also stirred renewed suggestions from some Democrats that the White House was manipulating terror alerts for Mr. Bush's political gain." Howard Dean, once the favorite for the Democratic Presidential nomination, said during an interview on CNN, "I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism." The biggest shame in this country is how the Left has politicised the struggle to keep Americans safe in order to score political points against President Bush.
Posted at Monday, August 02, 2004 by CavalierX
Monday, July 26, 2004
Another Media Coverup: Berger's Archive Adventures
The "mainstream" news outlets have been fairly busy lately, spinning the story of the investigation into Sandy Berger's adventures in the National Archives. Whether that's because Berger was former President Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor or because he was an advisor to John Kerry's campaign at the time, we may never know. Berger was billed as a "chief foreign policy advisor" to Kerry until he quit, whereupon he was retroactively demoted to an "informal advisor." While researching in the Archives for his appearance before the 9/11 inquisition, Berger stole documents from the secure document viewing room by sneaking them out hidden in his pants and socks (according to what Archive staffers told the FBI), as well as his jacket and briefcase. Not just once, but three times, Berger removed classified papers and took them home.
The National Archives is not like your local library, and the secure reading rooms are supposed to be kept, well, secure. No documents brought into those rooms for viewing may be removed except by Archive staff. Notes taken on those documents may not be removed either. Documents relating to the nation's response to terror attacks contain details on the inner workings of government that must not be seen by anyone not authorised to do so. Berger's actions were not only illegal, but also potentially dangerous.
One of the documents Sandy Berger was reportedly examining was Richard Clarke's after-action report on the Clinton administration's response to the Millennium bombing plot. For those who don't know, a car packed with explosives was stopped on the Canada border on New Year's Eve 1999 by an alert border guard who thought the driver seemed jittery. Ahmed Ressam was on his way to blow up the control tower at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The guard wasn't forewarned to watch for potential terrorists by an alert; she was simply good at her job and extraordinarily lucky. According to Janet Reno, in her testimony before the 9/11 commission, "I think that was just good police work, and it was a lucky break for us." The after-action report was reported to be quite critical of Clinton's lackluster response to this and other terrorist attacks. This and other supposedly secure documents made their way, secreted in Berger's clothing, to his home in Arlington. The FBI began investigating when it was discovered that some documents were missing, and found some of the missing documents in Berger's home, on his desk. Some were missing, and Berger claims that he "inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives" and "accidentally discarded" a few of them. Nobody has been able to explain how one can "inadvertently" stuff papers into one's pants and socks and then, upon discovering them, "accidentally" discard them instead of returning them.
The mainstream media isn't interested in Berger's illegal and potentially disastrous actions, however, nor his repeated breach of security and protocol. Berger excused himself by saying, "I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission." This is entirely believable; the fact that most of what Berger stole were copies of documents can only mean that he took them to share their contents with someone not authorised to view them. Clinton laughed off the breach of national security, saying, "all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers." Is that really good enough? If Berger was the sort of sloppy bumbler who might inadvertently leave classified documents lying about or even destroy them, what was he doing in charge of our national security for so many years? Was his "sloppiness" somehow responsible for letting al-Qaeda go unpunished after bombing the Khobar Towers, bombing the embassies in Dar es Salaam and Kenya, and attacking the USS Cole? Why did he take the documents, and did it have anything to do with his position as a campaign advisor to John Kerry? These questions remain unasked as the Liberal lapdog media, following the Democrat lead, focuses on the timing of the "leak" of the investigation, accepting without question that the Republicans did it to draw attention away from the Democrat convention in Boston. "The timing is very curious, given this has been underway now for this long," said Senate minority leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), and THAT'S the story the press is telling.
They've done this before, remember? In October 2003, a memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee became public. The memo, an annotation to his testimony before the Committee, summarised details of an operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden gathered by various intelligence agencies since the early 1990's. The media, quickly playing down the real story, concentrated on a rather misleading press release from the Department of Defense which stated, "reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate." The statement was "interpreted" by the press, desperately clinging to its "no cooperation" stance, to mean that the memo itself was inaccurate. In November 2003, talk show host Sean Hannity broke the story of a memo from a staffer to Senate Intelligence Committee member Jay Rockefeller. The Rockefeller memo discussed the timing of the investigation into pre-Iraq war intelligence in such a way as to cause the maximum embarrassment to President Bush during his re-election campaign. The memo recommended that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time -- but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year." Another memo revealed the reason for Democratic opposition to Miguel Estrada's appointment to the 6th Circuit Court. "He is dangerous," the memo read, "because he is Latino." Rather than ask how the Democrats could dare to politicise their intelligence investigation for political gain, or question their blatant racism, the media launched a campaign to "out" the leaker.
Once again, the "mainstream" news sources are acting to divert attention from what should be the real story: the Democrats have become so hungry to regain power that they willingly put this country at risk in order to do so.
Posted at Monday, July 26, 2004 by CavalierX
Sunday, July 18, 2004
How Far Left Can the Left Really Go?
Here's a quiz: What political group published this list of reasons they hope George W. Bush will be defeated in the upcoming Presidential election? Read them carefully and see if you can tell.
1. Bush is destroying workers rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals.
2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.
3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.
4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.
5. Bush is curtailing women's rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.
6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.
7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.
8. Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.
9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.
10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.
Just how true is the old phrase, "birds of a feather flock together?" As the Democratic party has drifted further and further left, many have speculated that it was only a matter of time before they became indistinguishable from our old enemies the Communists. Lo and behold, the Communist Party USA has recently published on its web site the above document, "Top Ten Reasons to Defeat Bush." It could just as easily have been taken from the Democratic National Committee's web page, word for word. In fact, the list could double as Kerry supporter talking points. Let's take them one by one.
1. Calling for a government jobs program is as close to Communism as one can get. The WPA was a necessary evil during the full-blown depression America suffered in the early 1930's, when unemployment rates ran as high as thirty percent. It was dismantled as soon as the economy recovered. Making more citizens dependent on the government for income isn't the sort of thing a society based on freedom and capitalism should advocate as a normal matter of course. As for outsourcing jobs, Democrats and Communists pretend not to know that outsourced jobs have been more than balanced by insourced jobs. That's free market capitalism at work. As long as the US provides an environment in which small businesses -- the backbone of our economy -- can thrive, business will be good.
2. Health care for all, a neat euphemism for socialised medicine, only increases one's dependence on the government -- an important pillar of Communism. Socialised medicine is unworkable. Under Great Britain's national health care system, for instance, patients often wait months for heart surgery... unless they have their operation in another country. As for public education, the interests of children would be far better served by holding the system accountable for giving them a real education, instead of processing them through the system like so many head of cattle. What good are functional illiterates with college degrees they can't even read? The No Child Left behind Act will force the system to actually educate children, although school vouchers would put the power to hold school systems accountable directly into the hands of the parents.
3. Democrats and Communists always say that they want to tax "the rich," but they never say how they plan to do so. Since the truly rich -- like Teresa Heinz-Kerry, for instance -- don't have an actual income, raising or lowering the income tax will never affect them in any way. When Democrats and Communists say they plan to raise taxes on the rich, they mean business owners and entrepreneurs -- the people who drive our economy. Raising taxes on their businesses would cause them to cut back on expansion, fire workers, and raise the prices of their goods and services to make up the loss. No one has yet been able to get a Democrat, Communist or Liberal to explain how that will improve the economy... unless large industries are nationalised, owned or at least controlled by the government. The last political party to do that was the National Socialist Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazis.
4. Affirmative Action will never end racism; it only covers it up while making it worse. As long as people are given advantages based on skin color, others will resent it and racism will flourish. It's just the usual Democrat attempt to keep people divided along racial and economic lines so they can promise reforms in exchange for power. The only way to end racism is to stop teaching people that their differences are more important than their similarities, that their character and abilities mean far less than the color of their skin. Racism will continue as long as groups like the NAACP -- now little more than a mouthpiece for the DNC -- undermine powerful black people like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice for purely political motives. Instead of praising their high-level appointments, based on their suitability for the jobs, so-called "civil rights" organisations denigrate them as "sellouts."
5. Many people in this country continue to oppose abortion, despite "mainstream" media's euphemistically calling abortion exercising a "right to choose." A plurality believes it should be legal only under tighter restrictions than currently exist. President Bush has never tried to outlaw abortion, because he doesn't believe "the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions." A clear majority (68%, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken in October 2003) supported the President's bill to make partial-birth abortions illegal. This puts Democrats and Communists in the bizarre position of demanding that the current President be replaced for doing what the people actually wanted him to do. Note that those polls were taken before it was shown that babies in the womb cry, smile, yawn and even play, as ultrasound pictures have since proven. Women who choose to stay home and raise their children are the largest contributors to the gender wage gap. (They could call it exercising their right to choose, but that choice isn't acceptable to the Left.) The only way to legislate it away would be to mandate that all children must be raised in State-run daycare centers... something that would please the Communists no end.
6. Obviously the Democrats and Communists are referring to illegal immigrants. The only "clear path" they should get is one that leads to the nearest border... and the majority of Americans agree. Three fourths of Americans say that the United States should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, according to a January 2004 Gallup poll.
7. Regulated private industry is actually the best guarantor of conservation of natural resources, as long as the laws are enforced. Unlike Liberals, Democrats and Communists, corporations plan for long-term use of natural resources, the same way a farmer plans to harvest his fields year after year. Locking sections of the country behind glass will never serve "the public good." Consider the terrible California fires of 2003. They spread so quickly and so far because the forest was unregulated and unharvested due to environmentalism gone wild. Dead trees were never removed and undergrowth never cleared. The animals that would have performed that function ceased to inhabit California decades ago; humans are responsible for taking on the job of forest maintenance. Instead, due to environmentalism, we have been forced to abandon that responsibility in the name of "preservation." American industry already has the most restrictive pollution controls in the world. According to the CIA World Factbook 2003, there are very few countries without environmental problems, most of them far worse than can be found in the US.
8. By removing a brutal totalitarian dictator who supported international terrorism and replacing him with a democracy, President Bush hopes to attack terrorism at its very heart. Congress approved the liberation of Iraq when they voted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law, otherwise it could never have taken place. What kind of people argue against freeing people from brutal oppression? At one time, it was believed by some that Liberals actually stood for freedom from oppression, but their support for Communism and totalitarian dictatorships has finally uncovered the lie. As for the United Nations, it's doubtful that another such corrupt, self-serving, amoral gathering of international villains could be assembled outside of a James Bond film.
9. No one has yet been able to find a single case of a single American citizen's civil liberties being impacted by the PATRIOT Act. (Before you scream, "Jose Padilla," be aware that he is being held under the 1942 case ex parte Quirin, not the PATRIOT Act.) No one's free speech has been taken away, no one has been herded into death camps, no one has lost the right to own a gun. Whoops... that's one civil right the Left actually does want to remove from American citizens.
10. The proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage was done in a perfectly legal manner, and was defeated fairly in the Senate. Preventing runaway courts from forcing a redefinition of marriage down the throats of a people that neither want nor need it is not discrimination, it's protecting the rights of the majority from being abused by a tiny minority. Marriage has deep roots in religion, biology and millennia of tradition; gay "marriage" is an attempt to force a change in a society by legislation when the people clearly want no such thing. According to a CBS poll taken in February 2004, the public "seems to have become even less receptive toward gay marriage in the past seven months. Although a majority has always opposed gay marriage, last July, 40% said they would favor allowing homosexual couples to legally marry, as did 34% in December. That figure is now 30%." Why do Democrats and Communists continue to push the issue? It divides people, creates tension, and distracts voters from the booming economy and successful prosecution of the war on terror. The Left believes that fomenting tension and division will convince Americans to vote for John Kerry, though there's no logical reason to do so.
And if the American citizens suffer from a damaged economy, lose ground in the fight against terrorism and take a severe blow to their self-confidence as Kerry raises taxes and moves the war on terrorism into the courtroom, then so be it, right? As long as the Democrats -- and by association, the Communists -- win.
Posted at Sunday, July 18, 2004 by CavalierX
Saturday, July 10, 2004
For his running mate in the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry would have been wise to pick Dick Gephardt. A solid, respected, experienced man who appeals to voters on both sides of the aisle, Gephardt would have brought with him a great deal of union support (the rank-and-file, not the fat-cat union bosses who think they have Democratic politicians in their pockets while the politicians think the same about them). He might have picked Governor Tom Vilsack, with his years of experience in the executive branch of government. Either one would likely have brought with him at least one midwestern state, where the votes just might decide this election. Instead, Kerry chose to cast his lot with a slick-talking trial lawyer who couldn't even carry his home state in the Democratic primary elections.
What does Kerry think Edwards might bring to his campaign? Does he think the soft Carolina drawl and smug good looks will remind voters of Bill Clinton? So many pundits are cooing over Edwards' appeal to women that female voters should be insulted. Democrats seem to think of them of as nothing more than walking hormone factories with the inexplicable ability to vote. Women, it is believed, will vote for the "prettiest" candidate without doing all that nasty thinking about his policies or experience. Contrary to Democrat opinion, women do think. Just like men, they're thinking, "Is this man really ready to be Vice-President of the United States?"
During the Democratic primaries, Kerry attacked Edwards for not being experienced enough to run for office. Asked by a young woman at an event in Des Moines why she should vote for him instead of Edwards, Kerry said, "When I came home from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then yet or not, I'm totally not sure. I don't know." John Edwards' entire political career consists of less than one term as a junior Senator. He decided not to seek reelection, possibly due to voter dissatisfaction over his abysmal attendance record. Edwards missed 32% of the votes in 2003 (90% in September alone), while Kerry missed a whopping 60% during the course of the year. (Note that President Bush is expected to be President 100% of the time while campaigning, vacationing or even sleeping.) During his short time in the Senate, Edwards introduced precisely zero bills that made the passage into law. That's it -- that's his entire political resume. His appeal on the campaign consists of a smooth line of patter, a wide smile and "better hair."
When asked by a reporter how John Edwards stacked up against current Vice President Dick Cheney, President Bush snapped right back, "Dick Cheney can be President. Next." Think about that for a second.
What is the job, the real job, of the Vice President? Besides presiding over the Senate -- a sure cure for insomnia -- his or her job is to be ready to step in and take over the country in the event of the President's death or incapacitation. In the best of times, that's an awesome and heavy responsibility to bear. In wartime, the most likely scenario for such a change would be the assassination of the President, with America in a state of chaos. In the kind of fight we face today, the Vice President may need to take over and run the United States smoothly in the midst of economic and social upheaval and fear the likes of which have never been seen before. The slightest mistake could cause a crash -- economic or otherwise -- from which the country would take decades to recover. What would an inexperienced politician like John Edwards do when faced with sole responsibility for America at war during a new terrorist attack, perhaps with weapons of mass destruction, with the President and thousands or tens of thousands of Americans dead in their own homes or places of business, and with no way to tell when or where the next strike will hit? What good will his smile and slick talk do any of us then? Who's he going to sue?
For that matter, what life experience makes John Kerry think he's capable of running any country, much less the United States of America? What experience does he have at running anything at all? Was he the mayor of even a small town? Has he been governor of even a small state? How about a list of the companies he has personally run as CEO? Has he managed a professional baseball team, or even coached Little League? Has he even been a board member of the local PTA? Kerry's entire list of qualifications (besides being in a war thirty years ago for a few months) consists of taking up one side of every issue, then the other, then maybe switching back to the first. Neither Kerry nor Edwards is qualified to run a hot-dog cart, much less the most powerful country on Earth. It would be equivalent to installing someone whose boating experience is limited to white-water rafting as Captain of the Queen Mary 2. Without a truly great first officer to balance the Captain's inexperience, that ship is destined to end up on the rocks, even without terrorists in the engine room. A Governor like Tom Vilsack might have provided the experience necessary to balance John Kerry's lack of executive credentials, but John Edwards can not do so.
This is wartime, and a new kind of war to boot. This is no time for on-the-job training in the White House. We just can't afford it.
Posted at Saturday, July 10, 2004 by CavalierX
Monday, July 05, 2004
Are You Too Stupid to Vote Properly?
According to some Democratic lawmakers, you aren't capable of voting this year without a United Nations monitor making sure you get it right. Eleven prominent Democrats, elected members of the House of Representatives, have sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, begging him to send UN monitors to oversee the 2004 election. Texas representative Eddie Bernice Johnson led the latest effort to subvert the sovereignty of the United States and place us under the control of the increasingly-corrupt United Nations. Besides Johnson, the letter was also signed by Julia Carson of Indiana, Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Corrine Brown of Florida, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, Danny K. Davis of Illinois and Michael M. Honda of California.
Let me get this straight. A group of Democrats want to bring some people from countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, China and Cuba -- people that have never seen a democratic election in their lifetimes -- to sit in judgment on our elections? What kind of voodoo politics is that? The last time a foreign body had any direct influence over the political process of this country, the situation was corrected by a war for our freedom from British rule. Are these so-called Americans so willing to surrender that hard-won right of self-determination now, and to such a shamelessly scandal-ridden group of anti-American dictatorships and terrorist sympathisers? We may as well dissolve the Union now and save ourselves the pain of watching it done for us.
Generations of Americans have fought, and many have died, to preserve this independent nation as a single sovereign entity, free of outside control. Those men would be appalled who declared "for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Where is the honor in those Democrats who can't admit that Al Gore lost the election fair and square according to the existing laws, four years after the fact?
That's what this election and this kind of partisanship is all about, in the end -- the bitter, unquenchable anger of Democrats who tried and failed to overthrow the election process when Al Gore lost the 2000 election. After calling President Bush to concede the election, Gore decided that he still wanted to win after all, and demanded a recount. As per Florida law, a machine recount was taken, and Gore still lost. Unfazed by and unwilling to accept his loss, unable to consider the good of the country more important than his own wounded pride and unfulfilled ambition, Gore sued the State of Florida to demand a manual recount. When the Florida Supreme Court allowed it... Gore still lost, even when the absentee votes of the military -- people whose votes deserve to be counted if anyone's are -- were throw out. After the recount was officially certified the second time and the deadline for recounts was reached, the Florida electors cast their votes. At that point, the election was over. In an act of almost unbelievable hubris, Gore demanded another manual recount, and the FSU allowed it again. Gore still lost. Never mind that the entire country was in an uproar over this subversion of the democratic process. Never mind that the pride and anger of Democrats was interrupting the smooth transfer of power as mandated by the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court decided that more recounts would be unproductive, and would be in violation of the Constitution. They decided that the three-times-verified election results would stand. Though the Democrats have resented that decision for nearly four years, it's important to remember that in the case of an unclear Presidential vote result (which this wasn't), Congress would have the right to decide. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that "if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President." (The Twelfth Amendment shortened the list to the three highest.) George W. Bush would still have won in any case.
This latest attempt to brand the 2000 election as somehow "wrong" is an offshoot of Rep. Johnson's own unfounded attempt to claim that black voters were deliberately disenfranchised due to their color. According to the 17 August 2001 dissenting statement by members of the US Commission on Civil Rights, "Dr. John Lott, an economist at Yale Law School, was unable to find a consistent, statistical significant relationship between the share of voters who were African Americans and the ballot spoilage rate." In fact, the only people that weren't allowed to vote by Florida law were convicted felons. While there were problems with the 1998-mandated purge of convicted felons from the state's voting rolls, there was ample time for anyone who had been convicted, served their time and been released to ensure that their restored voting rights were properly recorded. As usual, personal responsibility is never an issue with Democrats. The problems with the voting rolls actually went both ways -- over 6,500 convicted felons who had no right to vote were allowed to do so anyway. The Democrats don't seem at all concerned with votes that were illegally cast for Gore, however. They also didn't seem concerned with the fact that the "mainstream" news outlets declared the Florida vote for Gore an hour early. 187,000 registered voters in Florida's heavily-Republican panhandle -- in the Central time zone -- did not vote. A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates indicated not only that two-thirds of them would have voted for George W. Bush, but that "the early and incorrect news network announcements declaring Al Gore the winner in Florida may have influenced thousands of last-minute voters." The Democrats are not concerned, as they pretend to be, for the rights of all voters... only those who might have voted for Gore. It's the ultimate in partisanship.
As Civil Rights Commissioners Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh stated in 2001, "[b]y basing its conclusion on allegations that seem driven by partisan interests and that lack factual basis, the majority on the Commission has needlessly fostered public distrust, alienation and manifest cynicism." Frankly, that sounds near-prophetic in retrospect. What have the Democrats done for the last four years except foster public distrust, alienation and manifest cynicism? It could almost be the party's motto.
And now, in their bitter rage and drive for power, Democrats -- some of them, at any rate -- want to turn over the most basic right of all Americans to the management of foreign countries. What purpose would be served by submitting our rights to those who have no motive to further American interests -- quite the opposite, in fact? Distrust, Alienation and Cynicism, to be sure.
Posted at Monday, July 05, 2004 by CavalierX
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
The Left's dogmatic insistence that the answer to all of America's foreign policy questions lie within the hallowed halls of the United Nations continues to bewilder the clear-thinking. The persistent belief that the UN is somehow the world's "moral compass" is due more to hopes and dreams than fact and reason. The UN's record of incompetence and corruption is truly mind-boggling, and it seems to grow every day.
The most well-known moral failure of the UN in recent memory took place in Rwanda, in 1994. UN peacekeeping troops did nothing to prevent Rwandans from being slaughtered in a spasm of "racial cleansing." The UN did worse than nothing -- Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered to withdraw UN troops as the killing began. Soldiers and civilians of the Hutu majority killed more than 500,000 minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in 100 days; an estimated 800,000 were murdered altogether. According to UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy, "Ten years later, the children of Rwanda are still suffering the consequences of a conflict caused entirely by adults… For them, the genocide is not just a historical event, but an inescapable part of daily life today and tomorrow." Now the UN is repeating its Rwanda apathy in the Sudan, where Arab militia are murdering the inhabitants of Darfur (the western province) by the thousands. The Sudanese government -- dominated by the country's Arab minority -- denies that any ethnic-related violence is taking place against members of the Zaghawa, Fur and Masalit tribes. Vice President Ali Osman Taha accused the West of fabricating the situation. A statement from Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, estimated that "[i]f we get relief in, we could lose a third of a million. If we do not, it could be a million." The government of Sudan is obstructing the flow of aid to the people of Darfur. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he "cannot call the killing a genocide even though there have been massive violations of international humanitarian law." Apparently the phrase that became the UN's motto after Rwanda, "Never Again," meant "Until Next Time."
The UN's failures are not limited to inaction in the face of genocide. The UN's mismanagement -- to the point of complete bungling -- of the Balkans is appalling. After more than five years, the region is still in chaos. "The vagueness of the national status of Kosovo is a strain on people. Various nationalistic movements see this kind of a situation as insulting," said Harri Holkeri, the chief U.N. envoy in Kosovo. Racial violence is still a constant threat. Refugees still live in camps, afraid to return home. The people are so unhappy with the conditions there that they voted their former dictator Slobodan Milosevic a seat in Parliament, even as he sits in jail in The Hague.
As far as morals are concerned, the UN certainly has no right to claim the high ground. Sexual predators thinly disguised as UNHCR aid workers took advantage of their positions of power in West African nations to demand sex from children as the price of aid for their families. The BBC reported in 2002 that workers in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea had been exploiting those people who came to them for help. Now the sexual abuse in return for protection and food has moved to the Congo, where the 4,000 UN peacekeepers stationed in Bunia have fathered an unknown number of illegitimate children on unmarried girls. The head of the UN in Bunia, Dominique McAdams, said that she "requested evidence and proof on this matter, but I have not received anything from anyone." In the late 1990's, UN police in Bosnia were running a sex slave/forced prostitution ring. When it was discovered and reported by American policewoman Kathryn Bolkovac, she was fired from DynCorp, the company the UN had worked through to hire her.
The UN is also the seat of world-class fraud and corruption. The massive oil-for-food/oil voucher scandal (often nicknamed "UNSCAM" or "oil-for-fraud") is only just beginning to make a dent in the "mainstream" news. Powerful and influential figures in UN member states, especially France and Russia, received millions of dollars in discounted oil vouchers, which could be sold on the open market. The list of 270 recipients (which covers just the year 1999) includes politicians, religious figures, and heads of corporations, many of whom figured prominently in the opposition to the liberation of Iraq. One name that stands out on the list is that of UN Undersecretary General Benon Sevan, head of the oil-for-food program that was set up in 1996 to guarantee that humanitarian aid reached the Iraqi people through the UN's sanctions. The UN itself oversaw each transaction, and took a 2.2% administrative fee, amounting to $1.2 billion over the years. Under UN mismanagement, deliberate or not, Saddam Hussein managed to siphon off over $10 billion with which to buy palaces, illegal weapons, and the United Nations.
Workers at the UN are well aware of the corruption surrounding them, but accept it as the only way to advance their careers. Deloitte Consulting LLC recently released the findings of the United Nations Organizational Integrity Survey 2004, which compiled responses of UN staff to a variety of questions concerning morals, integrity and organisational corruption. Of some 18,000 UN workers worldwide, about a third responded to the questions. The incredible results included such insights as, "Staff members feel unprotected when reporting violations of codes of conduct," by 46% unfavorable to 12% favorable responses. 65% of UN staff reported that they have observed breaches of ethical conduct. Only 15% agree that breaches are reported and 17% agree that they are investigated. 44% believe reporting violations is "career limiting." I have a feeling that Ms. Bolkovac would have agreed.
So this is the repository of moral superiority in the Western world, the organisation that Liberals feel uses its power more responsibly than the US. Even without debating the insanity of putting Libya in charge of the Human Rights Commission or Iraq in charge of the 2003 Conference on Disarmament (as was scheduled before Iraq was liberated a few months before), the UN is no more than the ultimate old-boy network of bribery and dishonesty. Sexual abuse, underhanded scandals, fraud, mass corruption and ethical breaches of all kinds permeate the United Nations while it pretends to hold a position of moral ascendancy. Putting the United States under its control, as many on the Left would do, would be just like having Bill Clinton back in the White House. Permanently.
Exploding Liberal Myths 11: Home Spying Hogwash
Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name Game
Exploding Liberal Myths 9: The Separation of Church and State
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Exploding Liberal Myths 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 4: Runaway Global Warming
Exploding Liberal Myths 3: Outsourcing Woes
Exploding Liberal Myths 2: The Eeevil PATRIOT Act
Exploding Liberal Myths 1: Nigerian Uranium
UPDATE (28 June 04): The Washington Post is finally reporting on the Sudan situation. Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) recently visited a refugee camp. Perhaps they can get some help to those people before it's too late.
Posted at Saturday, June 26, 2004 by CavalierX
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Paul Johnson and the Nature of the Enemy
How we Americans react to the horrible murder of Paul Johnson by al-Qaeda extremists will tell us a great deal about ourselves. We need to discover whether we are truly determined to stop terrorists or merely appease them, pushing the real fight down the road for another generation. The most common reaction was disbelief, but anyone who was surprised simply doesn't understand the enemy. Why is it such a shock that murderous extremists would kill one man, when they glory in committing mass murder nearly every day? Did anyone really think that prayer vigils and news footage of neighbors lighting candles would stop the terrorists from killing an "infidel"? It's about time we wake up and face the nature of this enemy. We cannot negotiate with them. We cannot bribe them. We cannot appeal to their better nature -- if they have such a thing, they already believe they're acting in accordance with it.
Terrorists firmly believe that God has instructed them to kill us all, en masse or one by one if need be. That's their grand scheme, their master plan, and everything they do works toward that end. Nothing can talk them out of that belief or weaken the resolve that springs from it. Exposing them to Western society only heightens their loathing of it, even as they partake of its freedoms. Their beliefs are rooted in a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, which contains passages such as:
Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah - whether he is slain or gets victory - soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
- Sura 4.74
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
- Sura 9.5
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in battle), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them).
- Sura 47.4
The Saudi ruling family has turned a blind eye to the rise of the fanatical Wahhabi sect (an 18th century fundamentalist movement of the Sunni form of Islam) for far too long. Worse -- in return for the forbearance of terrorist groups, the Saudis have actively assisted and funded them. That truce cost the Saudis dearly, according to testimony by Dr. Alex Alexiev before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism in June 2003. "Between 1975 and 1987, the Saudis admit to having spent $48 billion or $4 billion per year on "overseas development aid," a figure which by the end of 2002 grew to over $70 billion (281 billion Saudi rials)," Alexiev stated. "The Saudi money is spent according to a carefully designed plan to enhance Wahhabi influence and control at the expense of mainstream Muslims. In Muslim countries, much of the aid goes to fund religious madrassas that teach little more than hatred of the infidels, while producing barely literate Jihadi cadres. There are now tens of thousands of these madrassas run by the Wahhabis' Deobandi allies in South Asia and also throughout Southeastern Asia. In Pakistan alone, foreign funding of these madrassas, most of which comes from Saudi Arabia, is estimated at no less than $350 million per year." After 9/11, President Pervez Musharraf vowed to reform Pakistan's madrassa schools, but his efforts have had little effect so far.
So what form should our response to these terrible murders of American citizens take? Most Liberals and Democrats favor what they call a "nuanced" approach -- trying to come to an agreement with groups like al-Qaeda. Find out what they want and give it to them. Certainly the terrorists will make demands, but -- as always -- return to the attack after gaining the concessions they request. Ask Israel for examples of the futility of negotiating with terrorists. Trying to reason Islamofascist fanatics out of their beliefs is like trying to reason a mad dog out of its rabies -- it only gives the dog another chance to bite. There's no "nuance" to a knife -- it cuts you, or it doesn't. There's no "nuance" to death, either. One minute Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and now Paul Johnson were alive, and the next they were dead, beheaded by Muslim extremists who believe they were told by God to "smite at their necks."
Killing or arresting the individuals who commit these atrocities won't be enough. We need to go to the source. One thing we can do is shut down the madrassas right here in the US, stop the funding flowing to them from so-called "charities," and pressure our allies to do the same. At one such school, the Islamic Saudi Academy in Northern Virginia, students "file into their Islamic studies class, where the textbooks tell them the Day of Judgment can't come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews." At another, "[m]aps of the Middle East hang on classroom walls, but Israel is missing." Nationally, there are estimated to be 200 to 600 of these schools, with at least 30,000 students. Thousands of others attend Islamic weekend schools, according to Valerie Strauss and Emily Wax of the Washington Post. (Yes, even Washington Post stories can contain facts, buried as they are in prose overly sympathetic to the beleaguered students of jihad schools. Their story, written less than six months after 9/11, made it a point to report that "students in class also talk about the taunts they face outside the school gates -- being called 'terrorist' and 'bomber' -- and ask whether Osama bin Laden is simply the victim of such prejudice." It took less than six months to Blame America First.) We need to pressure the Saudi ruling family to stop the financing of terrorist groups from within their country. The bargain they had made with al-Qaeda is obviously over; the royal family must decide whether they want to be counted among our friends or our enemies. Saudi Arabia has been moving inexorably toward civil war since King Fahd's 1995 stroke left the government too weakened to contain the frustration among the citizens; now is the time to gain these concessions from them.
We have the ability to stop terrorism at its source, but do we have the will? The upcoming Presidential election will be a referendum on the war against terrorism more than anything else. Do we want to have a "nuanced" conversation with the kind of people who behead innocents on camera for their religion, or do we want to stop the "barbaric people" and "extremist thugs" that President Bush understands them to be? We'll find out in just a few short months.
Posted at Saturday, June 19, 2004 by CavalierX