Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.
–Doris Lessing
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen
–Samuel Adams
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
–George Orwell
Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
–Benjamin Franklin
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
–Edmund Burke
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.
–Thomas Jefferson (the first Democrat)
You see these dictators up on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. They’re afraid of words and thought. … They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words. … A state of society where men may not speak their mind — where children denounce their parents to the police — where a businessman or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinion. Such a state of society cannot long endure if it is continually in contact with the healthy outside world.
–Winston Churchill
The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.
–Will Rogers
A good government is one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned.
–Thomas Jefferson (the first Democrat)
Josef Stalin is alive and well–and roaming the halls of the US Capitol. I have been around the block a few times, and I am also pretty well read on history–I was a history minor in college–but in all my life I have never seen anything as vile or evil to resemble the people running the Congress and the Senate right now. For as long as I have been aware, Congress has been a contentious place, but until now I have never seen–in this country–one party in power put the entire nation in so much jeopardy, solely for the sake of consolidating its tenuous grasp on power.
Day after day, 24×7x365, I watch partisan mouthpieces like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, John Murtha, and Nancy Pelosi parade to the microphones; and every day the mission is the same: character assassination, personal attacks, and non-stop sliming of dedicated public servants whose only crime is that they are members of the Bush Administration.
Take for example the recent effort by Democrat partisans to try their mightiest to set a “perjury trap” for members (any member) of President Bush’s cabinet–not because there was any wrongdoing, but because they want to manufacture wrongdoing, a la Scooter Libby’s poor memory about when he first told reporters about Valerie Plame.
The vitriol, the destructive nature of the incessant attacks against the President and his Cabinet by the rabid Democrat partisans has reached an unprecedented level in my lifetime. The only thing that is a common thread is the visceral hatred of all things Republican and all things Conservative by an extremely hostile majority party and an increasingly hostile media. They talk about “hate crimes”–for example some college student this past week was arrested and charged with a “hate crime” for dunking a Koran in a toilet, while on the other hand the National Endowment for the Arts pays a grant to an artist for placing a crucifix in a jar of piss! (If that isn’t a double standard, what is?). But meanwhile our attention is distracted from the real hate crime going on in this country before the microphones of the House and Senate every single day. Hell, there is more hate: in one 30-minute Keith Olberman newscast; in one instance of the sniveling Chuck Schumer attributing non-existent “crimes” to an Attorney General with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing; in one episode of Dick Durbin comparing American servicemen and women to Soviets operating Gulag labor camps; or in Ted Kennedy comparing the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler–one of the worst mass murderers in history–than there would be if several hundred college students dropping holy books of any and all religions into a toilet.
The whole circus surrounding the Attorney General and the President’s personal lawyer and Chief of Staff is a perfect case in point. For those who did not study their high school civics lessons well, the President of the United States IS the Executive Branch. He hires and fires US Attorneys–Executive Branch employees all–at will; if the President wants to fire a US attorney for ANY reason, including political reasons, personal reasons, or just because the President doesn’t like the tie he wore, it doesn’t matter–the Constitution grants the President complete authority here. No oversight. But the Democrats–for political reasons ONLY–are spending millions of your taxpayer dollars on this Democrat Partisan Investigate-A-Palooza 2008, including “perjury traps” disguised as oversight hearings that forward this ridiculous notion that Presidents cannot hire and fire any Executive Branch employee for any reason whatsoever; or that the President’s personal lawyer can be subpoenaed to tell the entire country every conversation and deliberation that goes into his decision making. We did not elect John Conyers President, we elected George Bush. Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal describes the situation:
Let’s remember how we got here. Democrats latched on to the firings in hopes of building some case that the White House had engaged in cronyism and cover-up. The Justice Department, in the spirit of cooperation, turned over 8,500 documents and made available a parade of officials for public testimony. Mr. Conyers and his counterpart at Senate Judiciary, Patrick Leahy, found nothing. So they then demanded the White House turn over privileged communications and submit high-ranking officials to public questioning. Mr. Bush invoked executive privilege, and Mr. Conyers went to Defcon contempt.
This is a constitutional issue, but you don’t have to be Robert Bork to get your head around it. The Founders created three separate (but equal) branches of government. The Constitution gave each their own powers, while also supplying checks to prevent the branches from encroaching on each other.
Congress gave itself the right to issue criminal contempt citations long ago, and bully for it, but there’s nothing in legal history to suggest that in this case it has the right to apply that power to the president or his subordinates. It’d be one thing if Mr. Conyers had proved beyond doubt that a crime had been committed. He hasn’t. Instead, this is a straightforward battle between Mr. Bush’s claim of executive privilege and Congress’s claim of oversight. Both sides, in theory, have a legitimate case.
So the idea that Congress now gets to win this battle by simply declaring the other side criminal is bizarre. Under that twisted logic, Mr. Bush has just as much right to grant himself a similar power and hold Mr. Conyers in criminal contempt for interfering in executive-branch business. This is not, obviously, a very grown-up way of settling constitutional disputes.
To be plain spoken about it: political correctness is killing this country. And all it is is Stalinism in disguise: they want to silence talk radio, they want to shut down Fox News. And they want America to LOSE the war: no matter what the harm that would befall millions of Iraqis, no matter how much damage it would do to America’s national security, no matter how many armies of new terrorists our withdrawal would engender, no matter what message that would send to our Allies about the trustworthiness of America’s “word”. Why do they want us to lose? For one reason and one reason only: more political power. For a Republican Administration to fail–even if the rest of the good ship America goes down with it–is preferable to the loss on one single House or Senate seat.
The people in Congress KNOW the War in Iraq is going well now–but despite press reports to the contrary, they deny this truth every single day. Instead they assassinate the character and/or motives of who dares report any (gasp!) good news from Iraq or Afghanistan. The truth is: there is no length to which the President could stoop that would satisfy these jackals. The Democrats would rather facilitate making America’s defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy than to sit and do nothing as America succeeds; and trust me they will continue to try and lose this War. And for a party which claims to be a party of the “common man”, what becomes clear is that the only men or women these politicians care about is themselves. And so the drumbeat of hate goes on.
But it goes even further: they want to control what you think and what you can and cannot say. And they have your children’s undivided attention from K-12 and in Colleges too. When it comes to the mush that is put into your children’s heads, it is the PC thought police in the Teacher’s union that not only control it; they control it to such an extent that the schools are going to hell in a handbasket. No,the thought police were not merely a figment of Orwell’s imagination. Orwell was with the Communists when they fought the Spanish Fascists; it was being around these people every day that opened his eyes to what Socialism is really about–and it was being among them which finally caused Orwell to renounce the Commies and write books exposing them for the frauds they were (and still are). Animal Farm is one of the best and most prophetic books ever written; Orwell clearly knew his topic. And the entire book appears to have been written about today’s PC society and the Democrat party specifically.
I could say it is going to get ugly, but when it comes to the Democrats–especially those in Congress and the media–it already is ugly; The ugliest I have ever seen since being alive, and just as ugly as I have read about it being just prior to the Civil War in the 1850’s. The very fact that I feel compelled to write this is an after-effect of the hate-filled Democrats and what they are trying to do to my country.
It is only now as I pass through middle age that I can see why men in those days could bring themselves to leave home and to fight a bloody war to protect what they have; and I can now appreciate the anger they must have felt towards the people who would take all that away. Now, as then, the Union IS worth preserving and fighting for. Our men overseas know that. Most Republicans know it. I suspect even quite a few Democrats can see it. But for the Worst, Slimiest Congress in US History, working in concert with the minority party for the common good is a completely foreign concept. For them it is all black and white–a zero sum game, now. And when a party gets to the place where it cares more what happens to the Party than it does what happens to the Country, it is time for the Party to go.
Cross posted in The Discerning Texan
Said Discerning Texan @ 10:10 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
We have slots opening up now. Rotty is taking a break…Third World County is out, Bear to the Right is too busy right now, etc.
We need more writers…email me at caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com.
Said Cao @ 8:17 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
It’s just becoming mentally exhausting. I missed my posting slot yesterday morning, even with trying to piece together the puzzle around me, near and far. Sort of like a 10 billion piece puzzle, all done in white, dumped on the table (a really big one) in front of you, then considering whether to try to put one piece together with another, the one foot ahead of the other analogy, or to sit back and consider the massive work this is, before making a move.
Anyhow, to try to drop out a few pieces on the table for consideration:
- The Left/our enemy comes forth, proclaiming something has happened and presenting little/no evidence. The right presents evidence and says “And that’s why we say it is this way.” The Left/our enemy proceeds to tell us, not in a conversational voice, but by the use of massive demonstrations, in which they sometimes kill each other to prove how bad we are, and say we are lying.
Strangely, the MSM picks up on the side of the side with no evidence, or worse yet, contrived documents (ala Rathergate) and then proceeds to pick up the chant against the Right.
- Christians can be told they are not welcome to set up booths, movie showings, or distribute reading material on publicly funded campuses, yet foot baths are being installed and prayer rooms are being set aside for use by Islamic students in universities around the country. References to God are removed, cause plays at the holiday seasons to be shut down, yet Saudi funded programs to “educate” our children are welcomed and go so far as to violate not only the fabricated, patented and trademarked “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!,” but also gender discrimination laws. These programs are hailed as models to teach “tolerance.”
- Islamic groups can somehow get law enforcement to override the very basic laws of this nation, specifically the 1st Amendment, by seeking out and using any little annoyance to themselves as a “hate crime.” In addition, the larger picture around the world is that the Islamic culture having migrated into, and regularly interacting with the rest of civilization, seems to have decided there will be no assimilation of them into those cultures of the rest of the world, but, we will all bow to them and not assimilate, but be subjugated by their archaic set of combined laws/religion/politics, with no voice to discuss compromise.
- On the battlefield, almost too much to say. The use of completely out of balance moral equivalence comparisons has become completely ludicrous, particularly since the Abu Gharib story. Since then, we have seen Marines and sailors held, without charges, in military brigs, based on statements from the enemy themselves. Toss in that Border Patrol agents, even of Hispanic descent, are hunted down and convicted by US Attorneys, using statements of a drug dealer, who was allowed, by neglect, to use passes for legal purposes, to transport even more drugs into the country, and he remains a free man today, while two others are in jail for 11 and 12years (because the “guidelines” didn’t give the judge any choice) respectively. Since when is the word of the enemy used to factor into the justice system of the American citizens?
- Congress, using polls when they are seemingly in their favor, has forgotten how to read. There is a large difference in “people are against the war” and “people disapprove with how the war is being run.” With the lowest opinions, I believe, of Congressional behavior, that important deliberative body continues to blame the President for all things they don’t agree with being wrong, then get on planes and conduct top level diplomacy talks. I actually suspect they do it to get foreign donations, following the Clinton-Gore legitimized by lack of legal action to prevent more of it model, but then I might be being a bit too cynical.
- The Left cries out that we shouldn’t use anything related to God as a standard. My big question: So what standard would be used in the place of a foundation from the 10 Commandments? Ah, then we can use the ever shifting whims of mankind. That, of course, would fit the model of the pro-abortion crowd: “Thou shalt not kill, unless, of course, it is the result of hormones in overdrive and a total lack of self control, in which case, go for it!” Michael Moore wants the President impeached for “making things up.” I guess that means he supports the “thou shalt not bear false witness” part of the commandments, or would that link him too closely to the Christians? I suspect he’s against that one being applied to him, after all, he makes a living “making up things.” Might cramp his income flow. This one paragraph is fodder for a lengthy discussion in and of itself. It’s interesting that it has become in style to wish death upon people you don’t like, or make movies about them being assassinated, if they are someone on the Right, and a pass is given when someone from the Left/our enemy actually kills one of “us.” No worries, mate, it’s our fault, merely pay back for the eons of oppression, dating to centuries before the US was even a nation. That veneer on the argument is not often spoken to as the ruse that it is, yet…it prevails in the war of words.
- The very irony that a left wing “plant” in the US Army wrote about sick and twisted things that he claims soldiers did, all the while we find out he is engaged/married to a staff member of the magazine that published his report, that is now being vigorously investigated, and no credible evidence can be found to support his claims as he characterized them. His own writings show he has had, before this event, a rather active imagination. Never fear on this issue either. Be certain the soldiers (and sailors and airman and Marines) will get a stern talking to about doing right what they have been doing right all along, taking needless hours to sit troops who run combat missions daily and making them suffer through lectures as a result of this idiot, let alone the extra scrutiny they will come under, as commanders are pressured to shift focus from running combat operations and training to making sure no one writes fantasy and portray it to the MSM as truth. It was the “lefty” who was harboring thoughts of committing wartime atrocities, worse than done at the Iraqi prison, done all with the idea of making those who prosecute the war to look like war criminals.
- Democrat politicians say the loss over over 3000 US troops is too much and we should abandon the field, even if the consequence is far more death, specifically of those not trained to fight and die for a country. They bemoan the fact that so many innocent lives have been lost to a military that seems to indiscriminately bomb and fire into houses and buildings, yet, so long as it looks good for their side at the ballot box come next election, the human cost is somehow palatable all of a sudden. I wonder: Why are the Iraqis sufficient lambs for the slaughter, while the Democrats carp about the “genocide” in Darfur?
- In the initial period of this Congress, the cries went up to “talk to Iran.” Today, the Appointed by the President, approved by the Senate Secretary of State is in Egypt, and asked for help from Iran and other Arab nations to help stabilize Iraq’s situation. The countries said “no.” Why not? It’s the same as the video of Baghdad Bob saying the Americans aren’t in the capitol, while the M-1 Abrams tanks speed across the camera’s field of view behind the myopic spokesman. Picture this: The foreground is filled with Secretary Rice’s face, her lips moving, offering conciliatory comments, and requesting (yep, that’s a good tactic), while in the background, the Democrats are on a projection screen, howling for withdrawal, after demanding “we” speak to them, and all the all the audience can do is be distracted by the more important message: “Wait them out. Form now ’til January 2009 is but the blink of an eye in the journey to subjugate the rest of the planet.” Thanks, Democrats. You now have defacto control of the foreign policy, and the unintended consequences aren’t looking too good. So, just why should anyone listen to and consider seriously any words coming from our leadership, duly appointed to interact with other countries? Yes, you’re right, on the Left, they shouldn’t, because you’re in where it’s none of your charter, but yes, it’s your business. It’s beyond the water’s edge you have gone, much to the detriment of all of us, but more importantly, also in the case of many other human beings.
- Internally, the “hate crimes” laws have become a bludgeon to be used by Muslims (regardless of citizenship) against US citizens when a collection of printed letters on pages ends up in the toilet. Sorry, I object. Many symbols held dear by US citizens of all backgrounds, at one time or another have been subject ot being used by the opposing point of view holders to express themselves. Many of those expression have been uniformly looked upon as objectionable, yet when the absolute standard of The Constitution is applied, we comprehend we must allow it to happen. Back to the foundations: The direction from above, in the first major rule set (the one “we” want to dispose of) said not to worship idols. When a group of those in the US determine some inanimate object is dishonored and therefore worthy of charging someone with felony charges, all it does is once more illuminate the lack of a desire to assimilate into the culture, but to demand we accept any subtle slur or annoyance that comes your way. This goes for several other groups, who can’t manage to figure out how to mentally process a string of bad words spoken in their direction. Time to come to grips with reality and life in general.
And, then top it off with John Edwards declaring (actually, via his wife), that he is more of a woman than Hillary Clinton (who suddenly dumps the Mao jacket for a dress that shows off some of her womanhood). Talk about the theater of the bizarre…and to think, it’s ours, because we voted it that way.
Anyhow, the world is in turmoil, with 1.5 billion people, through direct action, including cutting off heads and shooting teachers and nurses, or lack of action, thereby endorsing the acts of those associated with them, forcing an ancient way of life upon the rest of the 4.5 billion people. Somehow, they have been able to use democratic, evolved, Western ideals when it suits their need, and will use brutality and autocracy, all in the same campaign to take over. How have we come to loathe ourselves, and the progress we have made, that we would bow to a theocratic world view and point fingers at ourselves? Strange times, indeed.
Anyhow, once more into the breech we go, as does my stream of consciousness for the day.
Said xformed @ 4:04 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
|
Said Cao @ 7:21 am Comments (11) | Permalink
|
Said Cao @ 7:13 am Comments (0) | Permalink
|
Said Cao @ 5:02 am Comments (2) | Permalink
Rick Moran has already touched on the ‘Scott Thomas’ fiasco - Hot Air is doing a good job of covering the latest developments. Meanwhile, Hollywierd has taken it to the next level with a whole flotilla of flicks due out next year explaining in great details how horrible things are in Iraq. Hmmmm….is something happening in 2008 ?
Incidentally, proving once again that Liberals have no sense of self-awareness, note how often the NYT article uses some version of the phrase ‘impetus for immediacy’. So they’ve spent four years ignoring the defining struggle of our times, but now they’ve finally took their head out of the sand, we’re supposed to admire their quick reactions ?
More to the point though, consider how all the this exposes the absurd double-dipping in the Liberal position. On the one hand, we have Scott Thomas’s corpse-desecrating, wounded-mocking savages cruising round stalking dogs in their Bradleys, on the other there’s Hollywood’s lachrymose portrayals of soldiers as innocent babes in the woods being sacrificed by the BushChimpler.
So which is it ? Sociopaths or victims ? Answer: what ever serves the Left best. Ditto, don’t bother asking a Lib why, if murder and mayhem are so common in Iraq, they don’t just report them straight, rather than hire fantasist dullards like ‘Scott Thomas’ to cobble together extracts from ‘5000 Great War Movie Clichés’.
Still, even all the above is letting the Left off the hook. There are wider issues here. Liberals are obsessed with the idea that even the most horrific examples of medieval savagery can be explained by reference to ‘root causes’. Similarly, they profess to live in fear of stirring up the ‘Arab Street’. Well, OK, Libs: you win. We’ll concede that there’s a whole bunch of otherwise perfectly peaceful Muslims driven to violence by the evils of America. Next question: are these ‘peaceful Muslims’ more or less likely to turn violent when faced with approximately 2500 movies depicting US troops as unhinged savages ?
After all, these people have spent years refusing to confront Islamic terrorism head on, supposedly for fear of provoking ‘Islamophobia‘. Indeed - in the exception that proves the rule - the makers and cast members of ‘24‘ had to carry out public acts of penance after their show got dangerously close to suggesting that there may be Islamic terrorists out there. Meanwhile, Hollywood makes movies that qualify for the Bin Laden Seal of Approval with nary a second thought.
So, let’s check the scorecard here: dramas based on stuff that actually happens are verboten, but hysterical fantasises featuring troops as homicidal killing machines are cutting edge art ?
If only. That’s the final thing, of course. It’s all so trite. Troops as slaughterbots ? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
OK, Libs, go produce your squalid little movies , but just shut up about how outré you all are. At this point, I feel the need to quote from an excellent review of a movie that explains soldiers and their motivations far better than any number of these dreary productions:
I’ve no doubt critics (I don’t read them until I post my own review) are calling 300 old-fashioned, and worse. But they’re wrong. After forty years of liberal rule in Hollywood it is nihilism that’s old-fashioned. It is moral relativism that is tired. It is political correctness, the always-noble people of color, the always-evil white guy, and the metrosexual that is cliched. A film with a clear divide between good and evil is something new. A film that celebrates patriotism, heroism, sacrifice, freedom, and honor is something revolutionary. In 1955 300 would be old-fashioned. In 2007 it makes a counter-culture statement as strong as Easy Rider in its day.
Said DJ @ 11:51 am Comments (0) | Permalink
According to discover the networks, ACORN has been around for quite a while. It’s been “implicated in numerous reports of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams during the 2004 election”, and “maintains close ties to organized labor.” It’s a private company that gets money from a number of foundations, including money from Ben & Jerry of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. They are the “Largest radical group in America, with 175,000 dues-paying member families, and more than 850 chapters in 70 US cities”.
|
Said Cao @ 4:11 am Comments (0) | Permalink
Once more, evidence of contrast. Contrast you say? Yep. How one religion does evangelism and the other, and why, with some possible hyperbole, or premonition, of some potential outcomes.
Taliban evangelism: By force of arms, take hostages, kill some/all of them if demands for fellow Islamic extremists are not released from prison, and some countries troops are not pulled out of Afghanistan. Done in the name of their god, in actuality, merely a strategic military maneuver in the interaction of peoples and an opportunity to take control of the wealth generated by the work of others.
South Korean/Protestant evangelism: Send young, unarmed, non-military, trained professional nurses and teachers, at the expense not of the taxpayers, but of private individuals who contribute voluntarily, to provide health care and teach English to the Afghan people. I’m sure, along the way, if asked by those they assist why they are coming to a far country to help people in need that they don’t know, they would gracefully present the Gospel, telling about a man who directed them to be kind and help others, wherever they find them, done without demand, or compulsion. Done in the name of their God, in actuality, a much larger strategic operation to eliminate suffering and provide opportunity to those less fortunate while they experience life here and now and an opportunity to share wealth, be it financially or the outcome of financial and social conditions in other countries that enable people so inclined to share with others in need.
Somehow I’m grateful to Al Gore for popularizing the term (I won’t say “invented,” for inventing word groups pales in comparison to inventing the Internet) an “Inconvenient Truth.” So, to Rosie and her like minded followers, it seems Christian Evangelists aren’t worse than the “Islamic Fundamentalists.”
Amazing how one religion rose when one man shared a vision of treating all people with humanity and compassion with 12 men, that, without taking up arms, changed the world. Contrast that with how another, when one man shared his vision of dominating all others not sharing his views, took his followers into the desert to kill and steal from those who would not bend their knees to his god, while demeaning women and those not of Arab descent, so as to have the top political and social standing among people of all the world, which is now changing the World is ways unimagined.
Now, as the liberals/Democrats push an agenda of political correctness and absolute equality, it is ironic that they support the actions of the followers of Allah, that comes with not only the message, but the practice, of subjugation and tyranny under the rule of men, literally, when the message of Jesus is actually in line with what they say they want.
As the conservatives/Republicans stand on a foundation of a moral code derived from Moses and Jesus, which honors peaceful relationships among all peoples, they are accused of trying to dominate the world, steal resources from others for their own gain, and killing in the name of their God, for no other reason than to take it all from others.
Considered complicit in this endeavor, as being worse than Islamic Extremists, are those who would leave their job/business for weeks to months to years at a time, along with the creature comforts they are used to to travel to far flung, poverty stricken places in Africa, the former Soviet Bloc, China, North Korea, South and Central America, and many other places, armed with shovels, carpenter’s tools, medical supplies, food and amateur and professional skills of building, farming, health care, business practices and the Bible.
While in the field, doing what they can to alleviate the suffering of their fellow human beings, not knowing those people when they left their comfortable homes, but finding new friends, light years apart in life circumstances, while they do what they do, along with sharing a story of someone who cares for their life now, and hereafter. Along the way, these people return to their neighborhoods, jobs/businesses and churches, changed forever, carrying within them greater tolerance of others, a vastly greater appreciation for what they have in their developed countries, and generally, having also left behind prejudicial thoughts they harbored for years, learned, some consciously, some not, while growing up in a society embraced in wealth and opportunity.
They are also enriched by “connecting” to those fellow travelers on this “blue marble,” learning of customs, history, world views very different than what they lived with, and they bring back the first person stories to the rest of us. In their wake, they have buildings built, houses refurbished, people with minor and serious medical conditions either fixed, or on the way to healing. IN addition, some are left with changed lives and a heart to replicate the gifts they have received. Some bring home orphaned children, left to rot in effective warehouses of the state, untended as humans worthy of basic societal comforts of love and medical care. These children would have been left to rot in a “socialized medicine” system, living in filth and sensory deprivation. Question (rhetorical, I know): Did these facilities get highlighted in “Sicko” as examples of the shining successes of those who would let “The Government” control each and every aspect of our health care?
Now, not to follow the methodology of Al Gore on cherry picking a few climatological events and then support my case, the list of human deprivation and lack of economic means is well documented and much easier to understand, for economics is strictly the invention and domain of humans, and has nothing to do with the natural environment that is encompassed not just in the habitat of the Snail Darter, Spotted Owls and Blue Whales, but the length and breadth of the entire Universe and the forces that immutably control what happens.
As I ponder the topic, while I type, the current rhetoric from the left has more the character of a tiered society, where an elite class of enlightened are empowered to make sweeping decisions that govern the totality of our lives (what we eat, what we think, what words we can use, what habits to adopt or cease, what schools we can attend based on the color of our skin, how much money we can make and how much to give to what causes, where we can live, where we can’t, what car to drive, what choice of business to engage in, how much we are rewarded for our labor, etc.), while many, who have the audacity to freely think and openly ask questions, are suppressed, publicly ridiculed and then sanctioned officially for “hating” or, maybe worse, “intolerance” by an intolerant of criticism ruling or legislated specially protected class. Sounds to me, but maybe I’m just a poor country boy from the farm not quite understanding how to get along in the “Big City,” like the methods and philosophies of the Koran and the sayings of Mohammad are the model for the left wing/Democrat crowd.
At one point in modern times, we saw this in Nazi Germany, with the “Master Race.” It was preceded and followed by Communism, in Russia and China and North Vietnam and Korea, and then Cambodia with horrific numbers of the intolerant and potentially (read thinking) intolerant individuals being eliminated directly or by first being used as implements of creating wealth for the “State” before dying in a mine or a freezing factory in Siberia.
Oh, yes, this is still happening in China today, and you can get your savings at the locally sited “Big Box” store near you! There are letters from Chinese Christian pastors who make Christmas lights, for sale in Wal-Mart and other stores, in prisons in China. Why are they in prison? Because they believe the moral standard of their religion is more primary in their life philosophy than following the rules and regulations of man that say they must deny those beliefs.
The clearly stated goal of Islam, by the writings/visions of the accepted leading figure, is to establish a World wide “Caliphate” with one religious belief, one political world view and with men (the specific gender in this case) being in charge, with a completely homogeneous blend of politics and religion, absolutely with no “wall of separation of church and state.” Disagreement is not frowned upon, it is punished by any person claiming to be a follower of the belief system, using any loose connection to any verse or saying they choose to use to justify their actions and the murder of any non-believer is, quite simply, not a murder at all. Not only is there a strong requirement to implement a uniform, dictated structure, there is an allowance for anarchy to maintain adherence to the cause. This certainly indicates a flawed system, which has a “safety valve” arrangement to supplement to overall process.
I say let’s start by passing a “hate crimes” bill, which includes using “hateful” words (read: anything the leftists/Democrats object to in speech or print). From there, we can re-institute a policy in direct contradiction to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the “Fairness Doctrine” to silence, or get the thinkers to out themselves by showing vocal or in print opposition, first causing the lawyerly way out by closing down the radio stations and later have them charged and convicted, financially punished and then made felons to remove their voices from the voting booths. After that, they can move to eliminate any form of non-public education, initially creating a plan to get children out of the home at 4 years old for government mandated pre-school, followed by outlawing home schooling and later private schools. This allows the government to then control educational curriculum via the allocation of dollars, ala the “No Child Left Behind” model, which, was actually Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) bill, signed by President Bush to get the accommodation model instilled in the new, bi-partisan friendly Republican presidency. Once there, many other “baby steps” can be used by the patient adherents to continue to march towards a planned end game of having it all their way. Summary: Silence opposition and use that to cut off/control to too late to be re-educated masses, then begin the education of the next generation by using the “It Takes a Village” model to mold the minds while they are susceptible to manipulation. Have processes in place to segregate “natural thinkers” that might arise and challenge “The Word” as brought to you by a real life replication of the Borg from Star Trek science fiction. Who says life doesn’t imitate art?
Unlike the Democrats, the Islamic voices clearly state their intentions for the what they want as the end result. The left/Democrats lack the courage to concisely put forth their position, they choose to work in the background, hoping they will stay under the radar of society until too many of their pieces are positioned on the board to be able to avoid a functional checkmate in the condition that they desire. In that case, I have to at least applaud the enemy without that cleanly “telegraphs” exactly the plan they have. The problem is how so many refuse to believe that to be true, and then will quickly discount and communications from our Government speaking this directly, and, in the same sentence dismiss the Islamic extremist voice and though they don’t mean a word of what they say.
Gee….who’s the “fascist” faction now?
So, to recap: In the name of Allah, they want control over all, regardless of the effect on others. In the name of Jesus, they are looking to help make life a more tolerable circumstance for those who are in need, regardless of what it may cost those carrying out this compassionate behavior.
I guess if you’re Rosie and Co, and want your ideas, and yours alone, to determine society’s path, yes, it is the Christians who are worse than the Islamic Extremists, simply because that life view would require you to be tolerant of your fellow humans, thereby disallowing your selfish ambitions for power and control over the lives of others…Wow! a “Blinding Flash of the Obvious” (BFO for short)! Now I get it: In Rosie’s world view, she has a point.
History, the real and unmodified version, once more, an inconvenient guide to the reality of what’s going on…
Said xformed @ 11:39 am Comments (0) | Permalink
|
Said Cao @ 3:54 am Comments (0) | Permalink
|
Said Cao @ 5:43 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Hi, Kender here…..I know I don’t haunt these pages as often as I once did, but still consider this home. I have just been out wandering but hey….heelloooo, Kender? Ok then. Listen, not to steal time away from Rick Moran’s wonderful post below this one, (be sure to scroll down and read it, then comment) but I am here with a big request.
I just got this email from a dear friend of mine:
Said Kender @ 5:25 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Franklin Foer, Editor of The New Republic is still trying desperately to confirm many of the details of bad behavior by US troops in Iraq related in the Scott Thomas stories. He really needn’t worry that much; blogs appear to be doing his work for him:
This information is from an anonymous soldier who served in the area described by Thomas. It partially confirms one of the more gruesome stories in the Thomas diaries - that of a soldier wearing the skull of a dead child that was unearthed by a mass grave:
There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied. While I was not there personally, and can not confirm or deny and actions taken by Soldiers that day, I can tell you that no Soldier put a human skull under his helmet and wore it around. The Army Combat Helmet (ACH) is form fitted to the head. Unlike the old Kevlar helmets, the ACH does not have a gap between the helmet and the liner, only pads. It would have been impossible for him to have placed and human skull, of any size, between his helmet and his head. Further more, no leader would have tolerated this type of behavior. This type of behavior is strictly forbidden in the U.S. Army and would have made the individual involved subject to UCMJ actions.
Not a “mass grave” as described by Thomas (the article said that Thomas and his mates “speculated” that it could have been a mass grave) but rather an unmarked children’s cemetery that the army then moved to another location. A difference worth quibbling about? Not to my mind. That much we can confirm about the story.
What about the soldier walking around wearing a part of a child’s skull? This may be a little more problematic for TNR as the soldier makes clear above. Is it possible some goof put the piece of bone on his head and paraded around for a few minutes or longer? This is possible. But spending an entire day with the skullbone underneath his helmet would seem to be an impossibility.
Score one for the blogs. And chalk up an embellishment to the author.
In the end, that’s what I think this story is going to be about; a real combat soldier who is serving in Iraq with a gift for writing and who didn’t mind spicing up his memoirs with some exaggerations and embellishments to the truth. The Bradley driver who targeted dogs with his vehicle will probably end up being someone who decided it was suicide to slow down in a combat zone to avoid hitting a dog or two. Did he joke about keeping track of how many dogs he ran over while trying to ease the tension you might find on a combat patrol? Other incidents related by Thomas may be composites of several different events that actually happened but for the sake of his “narrative,” he chose to combine various elements in order to make a seamless whole.
An excellent technique - if you’re writing fact-based fiction. Unfortunately for The New Republic, this isn’t the case.
The problem for Foer and TNR is that they presented this fellow Thomas as writing the unvarnished truth about his experiences in Iraq. In this case, embellishment of the facts surrounding any of the incidents mentioned is the same as lying. Publishing what they purport to be “journalism” as opposed to a story based on fact, TNR was obligated to vet carefully anything that appeared in those articles before the fact. The idea that Foer is just now getting around to that little detail is astonishing - especially after the Stephen Glass fiasco.
I’m not sure why but Matthew Yglesias doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with this:
. . but amidst The Weekly Standard’s huffing and puffing about how “Scott Thomas” couldn’t possibly have come across a mass grave in a particular area of operations where he allegedly said he came across one (crucially, he didn’t actually say that), they inadvertently corroborated the story. Thomas said he and other soldiers found a bunch of skeletons during the construction of a combat outpost. One of the article’s detractors concedes that “There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport” and then gets very insistent that it was no mass grave. The article, however, just said they found a bunch of bones and then speculated idly that it might have been a mass grave. Well, turns out it was a children’s cemetary.
Meanwhile, the case that nobody could possibly have driven around in his Bradley Fighting Vehicle killing dogs seems to essentially come down to the fact that “This would violate standard operating procedure (SOP) and make the convoy more susceptible to attack.” I don’t, however, think anyone ever argued that killing dogs was SOP, the claim was that it happened. Surely the Standard is prepared to concede that SOP, though standard, is sometimes violated.
First, why must Yglesias do his own bit of exaggerating here? The Standard didn’t “inadvertently” corroborate the information about the children’s cemetery. That’s absurd. Is Yglesias saying that Goldfarb is such a dolt he forgot to exclude exculpatory evidence that would prove Thomas correct? Evidently yes. No mention of debunking the child’s skullbone on the head of the soldier story by Yglesias. Looks like he “inadvertently” left that out.
As for the Bradley deliberately targeting dogs, it is evident that Yglesias is a little behind the information curve. Several vets who have driven or a currently driving Bradleys point out the impossibility of targeting anything given the location of the hatch as well as the range of vision afforded the driver. This would seem to supersede Yglesias’ contention that judging the veracity of the incident came down to a question of SOP.
Another “inadvertent” omission by Yglesias? I guess so. I think Matthew would probably fit in wonderfully at The New Republic.
Debunking or confirming specific incidents related by Scott Thomas is important but at the same time, we mustn’t lose sight of the overall picture of the military being painted by the left recently; and that is, the US army is chock full of kooks, crazies, gun nuts, latent serial killers, rapists, psychologically disturbed, violence prone killers who are careening around Iraq firing indiscriminately at civilians, killing kids for sport, and hating their hosts with a genocidal passion.
I have no doubt that war turns men into beasts, that no amount of training can prepare young men for the horror of combat, and that the stress of numerous deployments has taken its toll on the psychological health of many in the military.
But articles like those written by Scott Thomas and the 7500 word screed appearing this month in The Nation make no effort to avoid generalizing the behavior of the few into what amounts to an indictment of the entire US military.
That’s their intent, of course. Being anti-war has its perks, not the least of which is the right to talk out one side of your mouth claiming support for the troops while dishing dirt on the military out of the other side. And inadvertently or not, the effect is to tar the entire military serving in Iraq with the crimes of the few.
The article in The Nation is astonishing for its detailed recitation of some brutal atrocities as well as the casual - perhaps inhuman is a better word - manner in which the death of civilians was treated by the military. The graphic descriptions of war crimes come from 50 ex-military people who served in Iraq between 2003-2005.
Many of these young men are undergoing psychological treatment for the things they did as well as incidents they witnessed first hand. For them, as well as no doubt thousands of others who the experts say will need counseling when their tours are over, let us wish them well and hope that they can recover and adjust to living among civilians.
Does the fact that many of those interviewed for the article - if not the overwhelming majority - come from anti-war groups or were recommended by them cast doubt on their stories? We don’t know. Wherever possible, The Nation included press reports that confirmed the soldiers’ stories. But that fact raises other questions of media contamination as well as the simple, human penchant for remembering things differently from the way they actually occurred. And then there is the experience we in the United States have had with these types of forums, specifically the Viet Nam era “Winter Soldier” confabs. To avoid the worst errors made by the organizers of that anti-military get together - it turns out many of the testimonials of atrocities were given by people either never in the military or who couldn’t possibly have witnessed what they were describing - The Nation was careful in only interviewing genuine ex-servicemen. Whether they served in areas that would have put them in a position to actually witness the events they describe is up to the reader to decide.
The problem for The Nation is the same one facing The New Republic; how do you vet stories in a combat zone, months or years after the fact? Given the anti-war agenda of both publications as well as their reputation for advocacy journalism, questions should always be raised about their sources and methods. And despite arguments by the left to the contrary - that even if partly true, the stories confirm a “larger truth” about Iraq and the military - the standards for publication should be at least as strict as those used when publishing any other news story in those magazines.
Where is the truth in all of this? In the eye of the beholder, naturally. Subjective vs. objective truth will always fight it out when issues that enjoin the passions of the people are discussed and debated. It might be helpful if we remember however, that smearing the reputations of honorable people for political profit reserves a special level in hell for the practitioners - something both publications might want to keep in mind when printing stories about the United States military.
Said Rick Moran @ 10:17 am Comments (5) | Permalink
The Democrats would have you believe that our only real enemies are in Afghanistan; that the Islamists in Iraq are only fighting in a “Civil War” for control of that country; however, nothing could be further from the truth. First of all the jihadists go wherever the the Americans are. Sure, the Taliban was originally based in Afghanistan–but Al Qaeda is a worldwide organization of cells. Bin Laden has always maintained that the United States, while outwardly strong, was “the weak horse”; he stated many times that the Vietnam experience proved that when the going got tough, the US no longer had the stomach to outlast a determined enemy.
The chance to kill Americans while possibly tipping the scales against a democracy taking root in the capital of the ancient caliphate–Iraq–proved to be irresistible to thousands of AQ jihadists from all over the Middle East and Central Asia. Iran–no friend of the Sunni in a broader sense–nevertheless was happy to provide funding for Al Qaeda’s activities (this has been proven by subsequent Intelligence). Iran also provide advanced weaponry and training to Al Qaeda. It is easy to see why: the worst nightmare of the mullahs is a thriving, successful Shiite-dominated democracy on its doorstep–this would be constant reminder to Iranian dissidents within (whose numbers are legion…) that there is a far preferable alternative to the repressive mullahcracy. And if Iran’s funding of Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army brigades is successful in prompting weak-kneed Democrat Appeasers to pull our forces out of Iraq, at that point Iran would be in a position to send its elite Qods forces into Southern Iraq and secure 1/3 of the worlds oil supply for the world’s #1 state sponsor of terror. And while Americans would never undertake wholesale genocidal slaughter as a tactic to put down an insurrection, the Iranians have shown time and time again that they would have no qualms whatsoever in killing indiscriminately to achieve its aims. If the US pulls out, the slaughter would be nothing short of horrific.
In a timely column, Steve Huntley finds that the Democrats’ stated reasons for leaving Iraq not only do not have merit; indeed such a course of action could seriously backfire in other ways:
The Iraq war critics seized upon a new intelligence report that al-Qaida has been rejuvenated by the Iraq war as proof that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. OK, that should be good for a few minutes of bashing President Bush, but it doesn’t change the reality that al-Qaida is in Iraq and is our enemy.
Here’s another thought: What would be the reaction of the quit-Iraq advocates should al-Qaida in Iraq’s fingerprints be found in a terrorist attack in America?
This is not an idle question. After all, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week also said Osama bin Laden’s organization will “probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland.” Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission has said another attack on America by Islamist terrorists is inevitable, and a new threat assessment a week ago from the National Counterterrorism Center suggested al-Qaida is working to renew attacks on America. Now we’re told al-Qaida in Iraq could be the agent for it.
No doubt, even as the bodies were being recovered, the wounded treated and survivors consoled, the implacable Bush haters would blame his policies for an attack by al-Qaida in Iraq. But what would be the view of the majority of Americans who have been telling pollsters that it’s time for America to withdraw the troops from Iraq?
It seems reasonable to conclude in the aftermath of another mega-attack that Americans would come to agree with bin Laden and al-Qaida that the central front in the war between America and Islamist terrorism is in Iraq, despite the serious challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If so, they might decide that defeating al-Qaida requires more troops, not fewer, and not just in Iraq but Afghanistan as well. And support for the much-maligned Patriot Act would grow.
There is another glaring flaw in the Democrats’ stated plan–which would withdraw troops to safer areas, supposedly to be used only against “Al Qaeda”. First of all, if an IED explodes or a firefight begins, how are US forces supposed to call “time out” to check to see if the forces are Al Qaeda–do the Democrat appeasers actually believe that AQ members all carry membership cards? Secondly, Al Qaeda is a loosely affiliated network of terrorists who go by many names–or no names. These “franchises” do have a common goal–Jihad, Sharia Law–but that goal is almost indistinguishable from any other fundamentalist Islamist on Planet Earth.
Many Islamist fundamentalist terrorist groups are not members of Al Qaeda or associated with its command structure. This includes the Iranian Qods forces we’ve already found in Iraq trying to kill Americans, and it also includes Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. All of these groups live and die for world jihad; all of these groups would dearly love to kill as many American infidels as possible; they hide behind elementary schools when they launch missiles into Israel; they massacre elementary students in Russia; they murder filmmakers in Holland; they blow up buses and cars in London and Glasgow; they blow up trains full of Hindus in India. They kidnap British sailors and American citizens in Tehran. They used a car bomb in Beirut when they killed hundreds of US Marines in Lebanon. None of these necessarily Al Qaeda–in fact many were not.
Yet the “Al Qaeda Football Club” happens to be the only franchise in a league of Islamist sociopathic enemies that the Democrats want to allow Americans to shoot at… It is sort of like pretending you could have won World War II if you had only fought the Italians. Of course–as stupid as it sounds–that is precisely the course todays Democrats would have prescribed were they in place instead of FDR. Hell the Germans would probably have a statue of Reid and Pelosi as heroes of the Thousand Year Reich. If the current set of Democrats had been in office during World War II, we would be speaking a hybrid of German and Japanese right now. Of that I have no doubt.
So here is a likely scenario for the talking heads who ask the lame softball questions to the Democrat candidates who are being considered for the job of most powerful military commander on Earth: you are a Marine in a convoy just trying to get from Baghdad Airport to his post-Democrat Surrender “safe” area, and suddenly your convoy comes under fire by masked jihadists carrying grenade launchers. So at what point in the exchange of fire with these terrorists do we call “cease fire” just because we think the jihadists trying to blow us up might be from religious zealot hate-groups other than Al Qaeda? Do we just roll out the white flag and hand these monsters a daisy?
The real travesty is that we are asked to take seriously people whose solutions are not only not serious; they are contrived with purely political gain in mind, with nothing else considered. Not the strategic interests of the United States. Not the safety of its people (the myth that Democrats gave a damn about our safety went out the window with the John Doe Amendment…). Not the extent to which their “solutions” would empower our darkest most powerful enemies.
Scott Johnson has some things to say about the Democrats’ latest betrayal:
“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police,” said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. “I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity.”
Neither do we, and certainly the actions of the six imams last November qualified as suspicious. While at the gate, according to police reports and witnesses, the six made anti-American comments and provocatively chanted “Allah, Allah, Allah.” On the plane, they asked for seat-belt extenders with heavy metal buckles, even though none was obviously in need of them, and then dropped them at their feet.
Last time we checked, there was no tenet of Islam that required them to leave their assigned seats shortly before takeoff, a violation of federal rules, and occupy the exit and entry rows of a jet aircraft, a pattern associated with the 9/11 attacks. All six moved — two to front-row first class, two in the middle on an exit row and two in the rear of the cabin.
Was it racism to report these actions? Stereotyping? Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute notes: “A stereotype in this instance is nothing more than a compilation of facts about who has attacked American interests in the past and who, given what we know, is most likely to do so in the future.”
The editorial stops short of asking why the Democrats are blocking the John Doe legislation. Recall that the legislation arises in the context of the case of the flying imams. Recall also that the case of the flying imams is a production brought to us by CAIR, the Islamist front group that holds itself out as a civil rights organization. The attorney representing the flying imams in their lawsuit in Minnesota federal district court is an officer of CAIR’s New York chapter.
The Democrats’ opposition to the John Doe legislation is consistent with the alliance between radical Islam and the American left. It is an alliance that one can see embodied in the person of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim congressman. Ellison had spoken at the conference of the flying imams in suburban Minneapolis over the weekend before the incident giving rise to the case. If the case of the flying imams ever gets off the ground, one incidental benefit would be the illumination that the discovery process might shed on the imams’ weekend deliberations.
These Democrats; these reprehensible and hypocritical men and women are betraying the institutions they represent, they are betraying their country, they are wanting to send us careening towards nanny-state bankruptcy, and they are endangering our lives–yours and mine–by appeasing our enemies. And they are doing these things out of their own quest for more power for themselves and more power over our lives–and only for that reason. It is all about power, no matter what. No matter how many of us die as a result. No matter how many millions die in an Iraqi Genocide should we leave. No matter how strong the Islamists get or if Iran is giving them nukes to kill us with. At least they will be in office when we start dying. This is the only thing on their radar screen. Is that right? Do they deserve to be rewarded for this? Are we going to sit by and allow them to be re-elected again by a clueless electorate. Friends, this is it. This is our Delaware River. This is our Battle of Britain. This is our Tokyo Bay–or else it is our Hiroshima. What happens now is up to us.
The battle in Iraq is being fought–and won or lost–right here at home. If you are reading this, you can also go to a site and give money–until it hurts–to Republicans for winning this War. What if your money was the difference between defeat and victory–next year AND in Iraq? If you knew that was so, how would it change your behavior? We need to think about it like this, because it is so urgent and so consequential.
Let’s get started. Time is short…
Cross posted at The Discerning Texan
Said Discerning Texan @ 8:51 am Comments (2) | Permalink
|
Said Cao @ 7:42 pm Comments (3) | Permalink
