Sunday, November 21, 2004
Exploding Liberal Myths 8: The Nazi Meme
Once again, we're being "treated" to the same tired old cries of Liberal outrage. How dare the stupid people of America not whole-heartedly embrace Liberal ideas and policies? Why, they must all be mind-controlled. They must all be... Nazis! The latest in a long string of Hollywood half-wits to invoke the Nazi meme is Linda Ronstadt, who said of the election, "Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Such diverse personalities as David Hoffman (the Legal Editor of Pravda), Senator (and former Kleagle in the KKK) Bobby "Sheets" Byrd (D-WVa), novelist/priest Andrew Greeley, former Vice-President Al Gore, and multi-billionaire anti-American George Soros (funder of MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups) have all torpedoed their own arguments by invoking Nazi comparisons, as have thousands of other politicians, artists, pundits and garden-variety Liberals.
"Nazi" is a sort of pet insult many Liberals use to taunt Conservatives without understanding what it really means, the same way a three-year-old will endlessly repeat any four-letter words you might happen to drop in front of him or her. The more you say, "don't say that; it's a bad word" the more likely you are to hear it. The Nazi epithet is so over-abused there's even a rule concerning it on the internet, called Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Sooner or later, someone's going to resurrect the Nazis... and whoever does so is generally understood to have lost the argument. Comparing someone to a Nazi involves far more of an emotional appeal than a factual argument, unless the person is, in fact, a card-carrying Nazi. If you're not actually discussing genocide and brutal world domination, the Nazi comparison is just plain offensive. What confuses most people is its frequent application to pretty much anybody to the ideological right of Lenin. In fact, the Nazis were actually Socialists by nature, not capitalists. In a 1927 speech, Hitler said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
The word "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler came to power by turning the unemployed, the working class, and the academic elitists against the rather conservative German republic. In fact, once he achieved power, anyone who questioned his policies was branded a "conservative reactionary" by the State press. In a widely-distributed 1932 pamphlet, Joseph Goebbels addressed the question of Socialism. "We are socialists," he wrote, "because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces."
The Nazi Party platform contained 25 demands, adopted in 1920 and essentially unaltered at the time Hitler took power. Many of those Socialist demands resonate far better with modern-day American Liberals than Conservatives. Consider the following examples:
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
Does this sound more akin to the Liberal belief that the government is responsible for job losses or gains, or the Conservative position that jobs are created by private enterprise (though helped or hindered by current economic policies)? Does it sound like a demand for welfare?
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
This is aimed directly at landlords and large business owners. It hardly seems likely that capitalists and Conservatives would insist that no one receive any money unless they personally earn it by doing the actual work themselves.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
If that doesn't sound like today's standard Liberal hate speech against Halliburton, nothing ever will.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Nationalisation of industries is hardly in line with the Conservative aim of privatisation of industries. It's Liberals, in general, who want to nationalise industries (starting with healthcare).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
Wealth redistribution? Does that sound like a particularly right-wing ideal?
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
Republicans and Conservatives are accused of wanting to halt Medicare and steal Social Security in every election cycle, so this demand for expansion could hardly be a part of any Conservative agenda.
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
Conservatives, who favor more limited government with lower taxes (in order to restrict its growth), would directly oppose a strong central government with unlimited authority (possibly resisting with guns, which German citizens first had to register, then surrender).
Despite the historical facts, Liberals frequently insist on equating Conservatives and Republicans to Nazis. This is only done to stir up feelings of hate, of course. If Democrats want to know why they keep losing elections, it's because they allow the left-wing politics of hatred to be their public face. Until the Democrats relegate Liberals to the minority fringe where they belong, we will continue to see the country slide towards a one-party system, which would be detrimental to us all.
UPDATE: The Belmont Club also rips the Nazi meme apart.
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 7: Fidel Castro, Demigod?
Exploding Liberal Myths 6: A Less Safe Post-Iraq
Exploding Liberal Myths 5: The Moral United Nations
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
Posted at Sunday, November 21, 2004 by CavalierX
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Media vs. the Military: There They Go Again!
Once again (or perhaps "still" would be more accurate), the so-called "mainstream" media is trying to turn public opinion against the US military and the liberation of Iraq. In October 2003, the media tried to use the case of Lt. Colonel West to undermine support for the war in America. The Colonel scared a captured terrorist into giving up information about an ambush that saved the lives of his men. He caused the prisoner no harm, but put his twenty-year career on the line by firing a gun to intimidate the man. In May 2004, CBS and the rest of the Liberal media blew the events at Abu Ghraib prison out of all proportion in order to discredit the Bush administration. Ignoring the facts -- that the military had halted the abuses as soon as they were reported, and was already investigating the soldiers who went beyond their orders and abused prisoners -- CBS (of later forged document infamy) led the charge to smear the President and anyone else they could reach. Though the media enabled our enemies to claim a major propaganda victory in both cases, most Americans were able to look beyond the Liberal mudslinging for the truth before making their own judgments. However, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "there they go again!" As they've done before, the American media is rushing to hand our enemies a propaganda coup they could never hope to attain for themselves.
The latest story in the media spin cycle is the case of a Marine who shot a wounded enemy in Fallujah. According to a videotape and news story by an NBC reporter, the incident took place in a mosque that had been used as a firing position by the enemy. A different group of Marines had killed and wounded the insurgents occupying the mosque the day before. They didn't secure the location at that time, since they were involved in a firefight. Marines of the 3rd battalion, 1st regiment, receiving a report that the enemy had re-occupied the mosque, entered the building. One man among the dead and wounded in the mosque was apparently feigning unconsciousness, and one of the Marines shot him. The fact that the Marine first warned his fellows by saying, "He's faking he's dead!" twice before firing shows that he considered the man to be a danger.
Liberals are quick to pronounce judgment before all the facts are known, falsely labeling the men in the mosque "prisoners," and calling the incident an "atrocity" and an "execution." They won't even wait for the investigation that is already underway to conclude. They accuse the United States of violating the Geneva Convention, although the insurgents were not prisoners and the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. According to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, article 4, part 2, prisoners eligible for protection must have been commanded by a responsible person, worn a distinctive badge or uniform, carried their weapons openly, and fought by the rules of the Geneva conventions themselves. Terrorists must choose e) none of the above. When the reporter informed the Marine that the wounded and dead terrorists were the same men who had been shot the day before and left behind, the Marine said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know." The Left doesn't ask whether the wounded man might have made a sudden motion, or looked as though he might be concealing a weapon or explosive. They refuse to take into account how many terrorists have feigned unconsciousness or surrender in order to lure soldiers close enough to kill. The day before, a booby-trapped dead body had killed another Marine from the very same unit, and the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist in the mosque had himself been shot in the face.
If any members of the US military (especially those in Iraq or Afghanistan) were reading this, I'd say: don't take chances. Your lives are far more important than those of the terrorists you're fighting. If an enemy gives you even the slightest cause for doubt, then shoot first and ask questions later. You are on the scene; I am not. You have been trained under the harshest conditions to recognise and respond to danger as if by instinct; I have not. You only have a split-second in which to react to a possible threat to your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers while under combat conditions; I have all the time in the world, safe at home while you protect me. Without serious cause to doubt it, I trust your judgment. If this man appeared to be a threat in any way whatsoever, then action was justified. We won't win any battles by giving the enemy extra chances to kill our troops. We won't win any wars by letting them send you home, sleeping under a flag.
Monday-morning quarterbacking media pundits and hysterical anti-military Liberals want to convict, condemn, draw and quarter any soldier who doesn't play by some bizarre, fantasy world, white-bread version of the rules, guaranteed to kill more Americans than enemies. I guess they've dropped the veneer of "supporting the troops" they adopted while trying to get John Kerry elected... a man who made his bones in the Democratic party by accusing every soldier in Vietnam of committing atrocities "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Isn't that exactly what the Left is doing to the troops in Iraq today -- accusing them of committing war crimes in order to indict the administration by association?
Come to think of it, didn't Kerry get a Silver Star for shooting a wounded, fleeing enemy in the back, as per his own after-action report... and didn't the Democrats hail him as the greatest war hero since Sergeant York and Audie Murphy only a few short months ago? Things certainly have changed quickly, it seems, now that the election's over.
UPDATE: Please sign the petition to support this Marine, who may have saved the lives of his fellows by his quick action.
UPDATE 2: Buried on the Web and back pages of newspapers, never getting a spot on the nightly newscasts, is the story of a "dead" terrorist who miraculously came to life and shot at the Marines who were clearing a Fallujah street.
Posted at Tuesday, November 16, 2004 by CavalierX
Saturday, November 13, 2004
The Scott Peterson Effect
The verdict is in. Scott Peterson, a fertiliser salesman and part-time philanderer from California, killed his wife, who was eight months pregnant. He tied her body to an anchor made of concrete and dumped it in San Francisco Bay, covering his actions with a story about a fishing trip for which he didn't even have the proper equipment. Despite the twistings and turnings of attorney Mark Geragos (who first gained media attention with his defense of Susan McDougal during the Clinton Whitewater scandal), the jury convicted Peterson of murder.
Why is this significant? Murders happen every day. Peterson was convicted not of one crime, but two. He was convicted of murder in the first degree (premeditated) of his wife, Laci. He was also convicted of murder in the second degree (intentional) of his son, Conner. It turns out that this may be very significant, after all.
- Conner was not yet born.
- You can only murder a human being.
- Conner was murdered, therefore he was a human being.
- A human being has rights.
- Therefore, an unborn child is a human being with rights that should be protected.
I don't look at abortion from a religious standpoint. I've never seen a soul, and -- chances are -- neither have you. I have, however, seen the faces of the unborn as they smile, cry and play, thanks to the "miracle" of modern technology. The main Liberal argument seems to be that it's just a lump of "fetal tissue" right up until that magical moment when it breathes air and is transformed into a child. Not even the most fanatical Liberal will claim that it's not alive before that, just that it's not human life. Well, I was once a lump of tissue just like that. So were you. The DNA of an unborn child is fully human DNA. No one has yet documented any important changes that take place exactly at birth, except that suddenly the child's lungs are filled with air. And that's a pretty poor definition of humanity.
What defines us as human, if not our genetic code? At the moment of conception, a totally unique human genetic identity is created, one that has never existed before and will never exist again. There is no sudden, magical change detectable in the DNA between the moment of conception and the moment of birth. Therefore, a baby is a human life from the moment it's conceived until the moment it dies. And if it's human, it has to have some rights. One of those rights ought to be "not dying for someone else's convenience."
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned; 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception." The three main reasons for choosing abortion are that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities (75%), the women cannot afford a child (66%) and they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (50%). Overlapping reasons aside, three quarters of abortions are performed for reasons of convenience? The introduction of post-coital drugs like Preven (no longer manufactured) and Plan B caused a 43% drop in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. I'd say that's a good start, and a lot more convenient. Plan B, which prevents fertilisation altogether, is unlike the French "morning after" pill RU-486, which prevents a fertilised egg -- a life -- from implantation. Besides, RU-486 seems to come with its own side effects, some of which involve death.
Of course, there is only one absolutely certain contraception method, but few words cause Liberals to roll their eyes and groan as much as "abstinence." God forbid -- to make a weak joke -- that people should have self-control. The idea that people should consider the implications before voluntarily having sex is generally met with scorn by Liberals and characterised as "medieval" by the media. It's easier to pretend that there are no consequences to one's actions.
Sometimes those consequences have faces and names, however. And sometimes they never get the chance to have them. We can hope that the conviction of Scott Peterson, along with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci and Conner's Law, signed in April 2004), will go a long way towards ensuring some real protection for the youngest and most vulnerable members of the human race.
Posted at Saturday, November 13, 2004 by CavalierX
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Posted at Thursday, November 11, 2004 by CavalierX
The Democrats: Evolution in Action
Evolution is the term for the ongoing process by which a species slowly alters to compete better in its environment. In a cold area, for instance, creatures that happen to have a little more fur than others will survive better and live longer. This natural selection allows them to live longer and leave more descendants, some of which will just happen to have a little more fur, and so on. Over millions of years, a species will slowly change, as the original line is bred out of existence, beaten at the survival game by those better suited for it. That hypothetical land may have been warmer in the past, or perhaps population pressure or predators may have driven the animals there from other lands. Competition (for food and other necessities) is what drives evolution. Sometimes evolution of entirely different species has progressed in tandem, as predators became more efficient hunters and prey became more efficient hiders or runners in response... which caused the predators to become still better hunters.
We humans have often purposely induced evolutionary changes, by breeding animals and plants to meet our needs. Cows, sheep, dogs and corn are examples of artificial selection, where our requirements replaced the natural environment as the criteria for success. We've specifically bred dogs for hunting, herding sheep, pulling sleds, killing rats or looking pretty, depending on our needs. We've selected cows for giving far more milk than normal and sheep for producing thick, fluffy wool, until the original versions of both animals are nearly vanished. Corn cannot even reproduce anymore without human intervention. If we can artificially effect such changes in less than ten thousand years, imagine what can occur naturally over the course of tens or hundreds of millions of years, as land masses have moved about the Earth and ice ages have come and gone.
But all members of a species are not identical. Natural variations exist despite the most rigorous breeding programs. Ears of corn are not all alike, nor are all German Shorthair Pointers. More variations exist within a naturally-evolved organism. Fewer variations, of course, would exist in the code of a cloned or genetically modified organism. Should the environment change radically in some way, making it more difficult for most members of a certain species to survive, it's possible that at least some members of that species might have a trait or combination of traits that enables them to live on. Their descendants, of course, would also carry those traits... and eventually, an altered version of that species might even prosper in the changed environment. That's evolution.
Evolution takes place in other areas as well. The business world is a prime example. Businesses, like organisms, compete for the available market. Sometimes they're "eaten" by other businesses. Sometimes they become too specialised and die off when conditions change too quickly. (Buggy whips, anyone?) Political parties also compete with each other to succeed in the current environment, whatever it is. Sometimes they prosper... and sometimes they die out. Do you know any current members of the Whig or Tory parties? Would anyone admit to being a member of the Know-Nothing party today?
The Democrats are finally beginning to realise that they're under evolutionary pressure. For instance, 83% of Americans are Christians of one variety or another, yet the loudest voices in the Democratic party are virulently anti-Christian. While Bill Clinton exhorts Democrats to speak more openly about their faith, Michael Moore – who sat in a box seat with former President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention – mocks the states that voted for Bush in 2004 as "Jesusland" along with most of the far Left. Some complained that Americans had "democratically voted for an extremist Christian regime." Some, like columnist Mark Morford, have lost all pretense of sanity or moderation. "This just in," Morford writes, "millions of moderate Republicans and gay-terrified evangelical Christians and intellectually numbed conservative parents who thought they were doing some sort of good by blindly voting for Dubya and hence protecting their wee ones from swarthy Islamic evildoers who want to steal their kids' Kraft Lunchables and nuke Disneyland all should be emerging from a deep fog of savage denial any minute now." I'm not sure the Left understands who's really in denial here.
9/11 was a catastrophic event that accelerated the changes already taking place in America over the last several decades. The Republicans seem pretty well suited to the political environment, but the Democrats -- a party more or less controlled by the Liberal wing -- are finding it difficult to adapt. Their biggest problem is that instead of being a party with a solid stance and message, standing for what the majority of Americans believe in, the Democrats are a loose alliance of fringe groups and special interests. So many people vote Democratic on single issues -- abortion, for instance, or gay "marriage" -- that if the Democratic party altered its stance on any of these or many other issues, they would lose many of their members. They've backed themselves into a corner by pandering to the far-Left fringe. Though they like to crow that they only lost the 2004 election by a few percent of the popular vote, the fact is that 70% of those who voted for John Kerry were really just voting against President Bush. John Kerry's campaign tried to use camouflage -- sometimes literally, as in the Great Ohio Duck Hunt of 2004 -- to disguise Kerry's Liberalism, to no avail. Without the Bush-hatred, Liberals will have no way to win a majority vote. The Democrats need to recognise that, and stop letting them control the party.
I have been predicting a split among the Democrats after losing this election since the beginning of 2004, but only time will tell whether they will split, evolve, and survive... or join the Whigs as historical footnotes. Is there enough "genetic" variation within the Democratic party to allow it to survive? Will moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and maybe even the just-retired John Breaux and Zell Miller form a new, survivable core for the Democrats? Or will the Hillary Clintons, Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis, along with Hollywood halfwits and other elitist Liberals, continue to drag them towards the Left and extinction?
Posted at Thursday, November 11, 2004 by CavalierX
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Ivory Coast: No Blood for Cocoa?
A unilateral invasion without the permission of the United Nations. Thousands of civilian deaths. Mass graves uncovered. A foreign power imposing its will on a xenophobic, restless, resentful populace. Massive protests in the streets against the meddling foreigners, calling their leader a "terrorist" and "enslaver." More troops pouring in, desperately trying to keep order and failing. Widespread fear of a quagmire. Whole segments of the population begging President Bush to help them expel the hated French invaders...
Hang on... what was that last part again?
On 19 September 2002, Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) erupted into civil war. Two separate rebel factions fought each other and the government for control of the African nation, which produces about 43% of the world's cocoa. Both the Popular Ivorian Movement for the Far West (MPIGO) and the Ivory Coast Patriotic Movement (MPCI) attempted to overthrow President Laurent Gbagbo, taking control of the largely Muslim northern part of the country. At least one of the rebel groups (MCPI) may have ties to the neighboring country of Burkina Faso. The rebels claim to be loyal to the country's former leader, General Robert Guei, who seized power in a military coup in 1999 but lost it after the election of 2001, when protest against the rigged election brought the runner-up (Gbagbo) to power. He died on the first day of fighting, but the various insurrections continued. A few hundred French paratroopers entered the country to protect the 19,000 French nationals living there, but soon found themselves battling the rebels. American Special Forces landed as well, but only to evacuate trapped students from an American school. Over 1,000 French troops set up a "buffer zone" to divide the country in half in October 2002, but it had little effect. French troops put down protesters with tear-gas as they chanted "Down with France" and "Chirac the enslaver."
A third major rebel group emerged by January 2003 -- the Movement for Peace and Justice (MJP). They absorbed MPIGO, but continued the fighting. The other main group, the MCPI, signed a cease-fire with the Ivorian government. With the emergence of new rebel groups and political parties, the fractured nation had over ten sides to the war by that time. The French government drew up a peace plan that divided the Ivorian President's power. The Linas-Marcoussis Peace Accord created a new cabinet, which would draw members from various opposition parties and rebel groups, and declared that Gbagbo may not run for office again. When Gbagbo and the leaders of several groups signed the plan, the populace erupted in protest against the French. Carrying signs declaring "Chirac is a terrorist" and declaring that "he is killing democracy in Ivory Coast" while begging the US to help expel the French troops, over 100,000 Ivorians marched for four days in the nation's economic capitol, Abidjan, even bombing the French Embassy. President Gbagbo declared the plan he signed to be "null and void."
Finally, in February 2003, the United Nations quietly passed a resolution agreeing to the deployment of the French troops that had been there for five months already. Remember the huge outcry by American Liberals against the unilateral French invasion of Côte d'Iviore? Don't feel badly -- neither do I. Keep in mind that this was the same time period during which the French (and Liberals) were condemning the 46-nation Coalition of the Willing for the "unilateral" invasion of Iraq. By March 2003, there were over 3,000 French troops attempting to put down the rebellion and protect the peace treaty, to no avail. France continued to send troops, and by July 2003, a shaky peace was declared, protected by the 4,000 French troops in the country by then. But the protests, if not the fighting, continued.
After Ivorian security forces fired on protesters in March 2004, the rebel groups and the main opposition party withdrew from the government in protest themselves, but rejoined the government after two days of talks. 6,000 UN peacekeeping troops were deployed. The country has been relatively quiet since, except for the discovery of mass graves as fighting between rebel factions continues. Now the virulently anti-French protests continue amid escalating violence in Côte d'Ivoire. French troops fought Ivorian soldiers and angry mobs alike, after Ivorian planes killed 9 French soldiers and one American. The French retaliated by destroying the Ivorian planes and helicopters. On 6 November 2004, Reuters reported:
Mob violence erupted in Ivory Coast's national commercial capital, Abidjan, upon France's retaliation, sending thousands of angry loyalists armed with machetes, axes and clubs out into the streets in fiery rampages in search of French targets.
"French go home!" loyalist mobs shouted, as thousands set fire to at least two French schools and tried to storm a French military base, seeking out French civilians as French and Ivory Coast forces briefly traded gunfire.
"Everybody get your Frenchman!" young men screamed to each other, swinging machetes.
How long will it be, I wonder, before the French ask for our help? What should we tell them? Should we say that our own troops are busy fighting in Iraq -- you remember, the place you refused to send troops when we asked for help? Should we remind them that the last time they got in over their heads and asked for American aid was in a place called Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and we'd rather not repeat history? The French loss at Dien Bien Phu led to Vietnam being split in two, and America, having already become invested in the outcome, was almost inexorably drawn into the conflict between North and South. Will we turn our backs on the French in Côte d'Iviore as they continue to do in Iraq, even after the emergence of a democratic government? Jacques Chirac is still trying to cause trouble by snubbing Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Chirac skipped out on greeting him in Brussels to visit dying terrorist Yasser Arafat.
The question is, can we turn our backs on the Ivorians if they need our help? On the other hand, can we deal with more anti-war protesters in the streets of New York, this time chanting "No Blood For Cocoa?"
UPDATE: Buy yourself or your favorite Français a No Blood for Chocolate! T-shirt. Thanks to DowneastBlog for the link.
UPDATE 2: Little Green Footballs has links to videos of French soldiers firing into a crowd of unarmed civilians protesting their presence. This won't be seen on the mainstream news anytime soon.
Posted at Sunday, November 07, 2004 by CavalierX
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Election 2004: A Look Backwards and Forwards
There's a certain temptation to be smug about President Bush's re-election, a tendency to gloat over his electoral and popular majority. That sort of thing is fine when you win a game of checkers or get the larger "half" of the wishbone, but there's a bigger picture here. The fact is that we're still at war with people who are literally dying to kill us, soldiers and civilians alike. Our economy, though growing strongly, could still be vulnerable to the effects of a terror attack. And Liberal Democrats, though suffering major losses in this election, are still in positions of influence, which they've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to abuse in order to get their way. There's still an awful lot of serious work for America to do. On the other hand, watching Jon Stewart doing his ineffective best to savage a victorious President Bush on The Daily Show, I found myself laughing at Stewart, not with him. Is it childish to yell, "You lost! Boo-yah!" at the TV? Maybe so, but I did it anyway. So much for dignity and grace. After two years of enduring the most bilious, vicious, hate-driven anti-Bush rhetoric imaginable, wild, hysterical accusations and just plain childish temper tantrums from Liberals, I think just one "boo-yah" is in order.
In fact, the election of 2004 was a resounding triumph for President Bush. The way the Left (especially the "mainstream" media) was spinning things, it's a miracle he got even got votes from his parents. Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted to the media bias on Washington DC talk show "Inside Washington" in July 2004. "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points." If the media was truly as unbiased as they pretend to be, President Bush might have won the popular vote with between 58% and 66%, instead of 51%.
Re-election was a vindication of Bush's first term as President and an acceptance of his policies, generally speaking. It was a recognition that we are at war, and that only a candidate deeply committed to proactively fighting this war should be standing for election only three years after 9/11. 86% of voters who cited terrorism as their main concern voted for Bush. It was a triumph for the "Bush Doctrine" of confronting the obvious enemies before they attack us, tax cuts as a spur to the economy, and much-scorned "traditional values." Moral values were cited as the number one concern by 22% of the voters, and 79% of them voted for Bush.
What drove some voters to the polls in record numbers, some who otherwise might not have voted, was the sleeper issue of gay "marriage." Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all had measures banning same-sex marriages on the ballot. The proposals were soundly endorsed in every single state -- even socially Liberal Oregon. Bush carried nine of those states. The other big moral question at stake was abortion. Is there anyone in America who doesn't already know President Bush's stance on the issue, especially the horrific practice of partial birth abortion? It may have been moral issues alone which brought record numbers of voters to the polls in those states -- especially in Ohio. Let that be a lesson to Republicans in the future -- run on the moral issues (on which most Americans agree), not away from them.
The election was also a victory for the Second Amendment. As noted by NRO columnist Dave Kopel, the Senate gained three gun rights advocates overall, and many pro-gun state governors gained or retained seats. It's inconceivable that President Bush would allow the United Nations to force anti-gun policies on us, which they have been trying to do for years. A President Kerry (and I can't tell you how glad I am to be writing those words in purely hypothetical terms today) might have accepted them as part of what he called "rejoining the community of nations" when the UN holds its 2006 conference on small arms in NYC.
The 2004 election was also a repudiation of not only Liberal "values," but methods as well. It was as much a rejection of Michael Moore's faked-up "documentaries" and Hollywood's limousine Liberals as anything else. It was a rebuke to foreigners who think they have the right to tell us how to vote. It was a cold slap in the face to billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis, John Sperling and others. Together they poured millions of dollars into anti-Bush groups like MoveOn.org and ACT in an attempt to control public opinion. I honestly believe that a backlash against "Operation Clark County" also drove some Ohio voters into President Bush's camp, and possibly some in other states as well. For those who missed it, the Guardian (a left-wing UK newspaper) gave the addresses of over 11,000 Clark County residents to its readers. The purpose was to let them personally inform the poor, benighted, ignorant Ohio Colonials that they should vote for Kerry. It's funny, when you think about how much the Left attacks Americans for interfering in the politics of other countries. From aging rock-and-rollers to vituperative hi-hop and rap "artists" to entertainers who think the sixties never ended, the Left relied on "star power" to bring in young voters... and it failed. They don't realise that young people (like most people) who engage in politics are far more likely to vote because they care about the issues than because Moby and Janeane Garofalo and Bruce Springsteen tell them to. If the Democratic candidate had actually stood for anything, he could have brought in votes. One would have to be truly naive not to see that beyond the bang and flash, Kerry was little more than an empty suit. Note to young voters: yes, the Democrats pandered to you that way because they thought you were naive, not to mention stupid and easily fooled. Remember that, in the future.
So where do the Democrats go from here? If they want to continue to be a political party of consequence, they'll divest themselves of the far-Left lunatic fringe instead of trying to embrace it. First the Liberals controlling the party will turn on John Kerry and John Edwards, like Komodo dragons eating their young. Then they'll attack the "old style" moderate Democrats, claiming that they're too much like Republicans to draw votes. Howard Dean, once the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, claimed that he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." The Democrats have been losing ground since the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, due to the far Left. Moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman have been slowly shunted aside, while Conservative Democrats like Zell Miller are about as hated as Jesse Helms. The only way the most Liberal Senator even had a chance in this election was with the active backing of the media, the super-rich and the entertainment industry... and he still lost.
If the Democrats continue to drift to the Left, they'll hit the rocks of irrelevance. That would be unfortunate, since (as all capitalists know) competition is what really drives improvement. If only one party is capable of appealing to the entire country -- as opposed to primarily New York City and Los Angeles -- then the default monopoly will lead to stagnation.
UPDATE: The hate and self-delusion continue to flow from the Left. And flow, and flow, and flow... and flow some Moore. Bush's re-election is the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted at Thursday, November 04, 2004 by CavalierX
Monday, November 01, 2004
John Kerry is stumping on the "massive" job losses under President Bush. Bush's tax cuts and pro-business policies have shepherded the economy through a recession, 9/11 and the discovery of corporate scandals that went on all through the 1990's. Yet Kerry blames Bush for the "lack of jobs." Therefore, every American who has a job should vote for Bush. Unemployed people, you should vote for Kerry. That's fair, isn't it?
Kerry claims Bush is not fighting terrorism (which Kerry sees as a matter of law enforcement and legal niceties) in the right way. However, the 9/11 Commission reported that the reason we haven't been attacked again was because of Bush's aggressive pursuit of the terrorists and those who harbor them. So, every American who hasn't been injured or killed in a terrorist attack on American soil in the last three years, please vote for President Bush. Those who have been, go ahead and vote for Kerry (the dead usually go Democrat anyway, along with illegal aliens).
The Senator from Massachusetts wants to raise taxes on those who make $200,000 a year or more in income. President Bush has cut everyone's taxes and will do so again. Everyone who wants to pay lower taxes, or hopes to make over $200,000 a year someday, should vote for Bush. Those who want to pay higher taxes, or plan to remain in a lower tax bracket for life, vote for Kerry.
Kerry's economic plan is to soak the business class for as much as he can squeeze. That can't be good for the market. Anyone who has a penny invested in the stock market, has an IRA or 401K, or owns a part share in any business (or plans to do any of these things) should vote for Bush. The rest of you, vote for Kerry.
Home ownership is at record levels already, and is likely to rise as Bush promotes what he calls an "ownership society." Current or future homeowners should vote for Bush. Anyone satisfied with living in the basements of homeowners might as well vote Kerry.
Married couples with children, who want schools to be accountable to the parents (and want the right to send their children to a different school if they choose) should vote for Bush. Those who engage in uncommitted relationships with multiple partners, believe in using abortion to take care of any "accidents," and agree with forcing parents to send their children to the local public school (unless they can afford a private school) should vote for Kerry.
Anyone who believes that religion is not shameful or disgraceful should vote for Bush. Those who agree with the ACLU's attacks on Judeo-Christian religious beliefs -- like banning Christmas -- should probably vote Kerry, whose votes agreed with the ACLU nearly 3 to 1.
Anyone who actually plans to "marry" someone of the same sex should vote for John Kerry. Those who have no such intention, or who don't think that throwing away the core institution of our society would be a fun experiment, should vote for President Bush.
Some people are influenced by the opinions of others. Those Americans who agree with the opinions of people like Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Jacques Chirac, Kofi Annan, Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, terrorist chiefs in Iraq, George Soros, Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand should vote for Kerry. Those who have more trust in people like Tony Blair, Sylvio Berlusconi, John Howard, Junichiro Koizumi, Vladimir Putin, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mel Gibson should vote for Bush.
The Communist Party USA has endorsed John Kerry for President. Any American who believes in Communism should probably vote for Kerry. On the other hand, any American who owns things he or she doesn't absolutely need to survive (such as a car or house) or has money in the bank is a capitalist pig, and should probably vote for Bush.
Osama bin Laden has released a videotape in which he warns that any state which casts its electoral votes for President Bush will be in danger of attack. Those who want to appease terrorists, go on and vote for Kerry. Americans who want to poke a terrorist in the eye with a sharp stick (metaphorically speaking), vote for Bush.
All Americans who believe that America is a decent country that gives its best to the world, fighting to advance freedom and liberty, should vote for President Bush. Those of you with a "blame America first" view of this country as a looming cancer on an otherwise pleasant world should vote for John Kerry, if you vote at all.
If the American people followed these guidelines, President Bush would get at least 85% of the popular vote.
Posted at Monday, November 01, 2004 by CavalierX
Sunday, October 31, 2004
The War on Terror: Chess or Checkers?
As it always was in reality, terrorism is now understood to be the dominant issue of the 2004 campaign. The Left tried to make gay "marriage," fake 1970's memos and flu shots seem more important, but most of us have always known that when our lives are at risk, no single issue can match the significance of national security. Our safety shouldn't BE reduced to a campaign issue, but because the Democrats are desperate for a way to attack the President, it is. Just days before the election, Osama bin Laden reared his ugly head to read what sounded like Democrat talking points as penned by Michael Moore. Liberals, of course, voiced their affected outrage that he is still alive after three years, although they're happy enough to use his continued existence as a political bat to swing at President Bush's knees. Ask them how long it took to track down the Unabomber, though, and get a blank stare. It was 18 years from the first of Ted Kaczynski's 16 bomb attacks on 25 May 1978 until his arrest on 3 April 1996. Similarly, it was 7 years between Eric Rudolph's 1996 Olympic bomb attack in Atlanta and his arrest in 2003. Both of those men were living right here in the US, not in a hostile country half a world away, yet it took years to bring them to justice.
What's really important is the way bin Laden's message has changed. Pay attention to such statements as "Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security." Isn't that a far cry from the threats and exhortations he made in February 2003, a month before the Coalition entered Iraq to remove Saddam? In that message, he spoke directly to the terrorists in Iraq (whom the Left insists were not there), telling them that American soldiers were cowards. "Our mujahedeen brothers in Iraq," he said to them, "don't worry about American lies concerning their power and their smart bombs and laser ones." Bin Laden spoke of establishing "the rule of Allah on Earth" and urged his followers to "fight ye against the friends of Satan" in 2003. Now, he begs for a truce, hoping for a badly-needed breathing space in which to regroup, rebuild and recruit. We must not give him that reprieve, especially now that he wants it badly enough to ask.
The War on Terror is not a rhetorical device, as some on the Left have called it for political purposes. Terrorism has certainly never been a "nuisance," either... at least not to the thousands of unsuspecting innocents who have died in terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists over the last quarter-century. It's also not a manhunt for some sort of comic book Super Terrorist. Killing bin Laden or any other single person will not stop global terrorism from being used as a tool by the leaders of rogue nations. It's the only way to fight their more powerful enemies -- like us -- indirectly and without culpability. Not even killing or capturing every member of al-Qaeda would do so, though al-Qaeda's purpose is to coordinate terrorist groups around the world (hence their name, which means "the base"). Other terrorists would fill that void, whatever they call their particular group. The global reach of terrorism is a function of countries working with these groups, and it is they who must ultimately be confronted. They must be convinced to give up their support of terrorism, either through diplomacy (as in Pakistan and Libya) or by force (as in Afghanistan and Iraq). Which path will Syria and Iran choose? The ball is in their courts.
And in the most important way, it's in ours as well. Soon we will choose the way in which we fight terrorism in the future. That's exactly what this election comes down to. John Kerry's dogged reliance on international agreements and law enforcement methods would be a return to the same ineffective methods of dealing with terror we employed all through the 1990's. While ignoring the nations sponsoring terrorism, we wasted our efforts in arresting and prosecuting individual terrorists as though they were common criminals... as though they were no more than the "nuisance," John Kerry claimed they once were. No terrorist attack was ever deterred by the fear of arrest or prosecution. In fact, very few terrorist attacks were prevented by purely law enforcement methods at all. If that method of dealing with terrorism were effective, 9/11 would never have happened.
Although Kerry insists that he would hunt down terrorists "whatever it takes," he believes the War on Terror is limited to al-Qaeda alone, particularly Osama bin Laden. His statements that President Bush "took his eye off the ball" and that Iraq was "a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- al Qaeda" tell us that he would change the way we fight this war. Kerry continues this line of rhetoric despite the fact that General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, flatly refutes it. According to General Franks, "President Bush never 'took his eye off the ball' when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq." Franks also stated, "According to Mr. Kerry, we 'outsourced' the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality." Oddly enough, Kerry praised the strategy of using indigenous troops more familiar with the terrain at the time. In December 2001, Kerry said, "I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on right track," and, "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." Kerry also said, "Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, [with] Saddam Hussein."
It's clear that Afghanistan and Iraq were the first parts of an overall strategy to confront nations that sponsor global terror, a strategy that John Kerry would not energetically pursue. Iran is the primary sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Once both Afghanistan and Iraq are firmly under the control of their own people, our allies will surround Iran. If Iran continues to harbor and sponsor terrorists and build nuclear weapons, we will only need to blockade the Straits of Hormuz -- their main transportation route for oil exports -- for their economy to be in danger of collapse. The only cure for terrorism is democratic reform, and Iran is already on the verge of a democratic revolution. Once Iran gives up its sponsorship of global terror and pursuit of banned weapons, North Korea will have lost all of its main customers for illegal weapons and partners in proliferating nuclear knowledge -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Iran. With no outlet for its only exports, North Korea's economy will also face collapse, unless they fully dismantle their nuclear weapons programs.
That's the path President Bush has put us on -- a path that will lead to a safer world in the long run, though it will not be easy or quick. He told us so right from the beginning, if you were listening. On 20 September 2001, President Bush told the nation:
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated... We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
President Bush is fighting terror with a long-term comprehensive strategy, like a game of chess. John Kerry is planning to fight terrorism like a game of checkers -- make a move, see how your opponent responds, react to his move. Kerry would fight a defensive war, concentrating on reactive strategies like searching incoming ships and increasing funding to those who would respond to the carnage of an attack. While those are good ideas in any case, no amount of money or manpower can possibly search all incoming ships, nor patrol every inch of our huge borders. No matter how high we build the walls around our country, it would only take one clever or lucky terrorist to debase all the defenses we can create. The only effective way to fight terrorism is to convince the nations that support it to stop. Or else.
The question is, "or else what?" Which candidate has shown that he would use force if necessary to stop rogue nations that support terrorism, even without the approval of France? Our security must come first to our President. Bush would trade our global popularity for safety. Kerry would trade safety for our global popularity. Given the choice, I'd prefer to be safe and unpopular.
Posted at Sunday, October 31, 2004 by CavalierX
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Will the "October Surprise" Explosives Blow Up In Kerry's Face?
On 25 October 2004,the New York Times ran a front-page story: "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq." The Times warned readers that "380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations." They didn't even mention that more than 400,000 tons of explosives and munitions have been secured by Coalition forces in Iraq. Other so-called "mainstream" media outlets joined this seeming devastating attack on President Bush. Senator Kerry seized on the accusation that the President was responsible for "losing" 380 tons of dangerous HMX and RDX explosives, which the Times was quick to point out "could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings."
And it's missing! And it's all Bush's fault! Desperate for any attack on the President that might stick, the Kerry campaign rushed out a press release attacking him. "[T]his administration failed to guard those stockpiles – where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. Today we learned that these explosives are missing, unaccounted for and could be in the hands of terrorists," the Kerry team trumpeted. "Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops and our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings." Kerry went on to accuse President Bush of "unbelievable incompetence" over the missing explosives, using the theme in speeches and even a TV ad... all produced within hours. Kerry doesn't seem to realise that he's actually accusing the troops of incompetence by this attack... not that he would stop it if he did.
Suddenly, these missing weapons are the centerpiece of Kerry's attack strategy, as reported by -- what else? -- the New York Times. "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign," the Times announced in a brilliant example of the media making, not reporting, the news. Kerry continued his attack in campaign speeches. "This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration. The incredible incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk and put our country at greater risk than we ought to be." John Edwards came out of whatever spider-hole he's been hiding in the last few weeks to say, "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country." The Times story continued, "Mr. Kerry's surrogates, from his adviser Joe Lockhart to Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of state, were deployed on the airwaves to repeat the case, describing in detail how many car bombs, larger explosions or nuclear triggers could be fabricated from the high explosives." Nuclear triggers? But I thought Saddam had nothing capable of being used to make WMDs! Somehow, I must have been mishearing every Liberal on Earth for the last year and a half. Suddenly they're claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of dangerous materials that could be used by terrorists to attack America, possibly with nuclear weapons! It's the biggest flip-flop in history!
The rest of the story gets even more entertaining, as the plot thickens.
According to the LA Times, the CBS show "60 Minutes" was planning to run the missing explosives story on Sunday 31 October, less than two days before the election. 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager said, "our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it." This "news" story was planned to break hours before the election, specifically in order to influence the vote. But that's not all! According to the New York Sun, Mohammed El Baradei, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was the person who focused attention on the missing explosives by addressing the issue in a letter to the UN Security Council last week. It's almost impossible to imagine that Mr. El Baradei would be unaware of the impact of an accusation made a week before such a tight election. The Bush administration has already stated that they would not support him for another term as head of the IAEA, which he announced he was seeking just a week before sending the letter. Even a four-year-old child could connect the dots between El Baradei and the UN, the NY Times and CBS, and John Kerry -- who has made his intentions to center his foreign policy (should he be elected) around increasing the power of the UN abundantly clear.
However, like the last CBS story intended to destroy President Bush -- the now-infamous National Guard story based on forged documents -- this one turns out to be false as well. The explosives that Kerry, the media and the UN accuse President Bush of losing were already gone when US troops first arrived on the scene. Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the IAEA, reported that the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa were tagged and sealed on 15 March, five days before the war began. Elements of the 3rd Infantry Division arrived on 4 April, nearly three weeks after the bunkers were sealed. The troops checked out the site and found conventional weapons, but no high explosives, Army officials told NBC News. CBS News reported a fairly thorough search of the al-Qaqaa site by the 3rd ID, which found "thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare." No report mentioned finding UN-tagged explosives. They left the next day.
Six days later, the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne arrived, with an embedded NBC reporter named Lai Ling Jew, and also saw no sign of the IAEA-marked explosives during a 24-hour stay, although no more than a cursory patrol of the site was conducted. After that, the dozens of trucks needed to move 380 tons of explosives would have been noticeable on roads full of Coalition vehicles, to say the least. It would have taken truck convoys... like those the Iraq Survey Group confirmed were moving into Syria right before the war in Iraq began. Hmm.
If this is really the best line the Democrats can come up with, they need another four years of practice.
UPDATE: 27 Oct 2004 - It appears that not only were the explosives from al-Qaqaa moved into Syria before the war began, but they were "almost certainly" moved by the Russian military, according to John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security.
UPDATE: 28 Oct 2004 - Kerry adviser Mike McCurry said, "From some of the Pentagon reporting today, there is a window that’s available there where either just prior to or just after the invasion, there could have been an opportunity for either Saddam to move the weapons or for something happening after that facility had been abandoned. And that is up to the administration to best determine how to answer that question when that happened." This whole sorry episode would be a joke, if it wasn't an attempt to hijack the White House through lies..
UPDATE: 29 Oct 2004 - Now, what could these trucks be doing at Al-Qaaqa two days before the Coalition entered Iraq? Meals on Wheels?
Posted at Tuesday, October 26, 2004 by CavalierX