www.adamyoshida.com |
|
|
The online home of Adam Yoshida, the most right-wing person in all of Canada.
Archives
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
American Links 
Bush Cheney McCain Arnold Republican politics election vote President Governor Senator Congressman elections commentary magazine discount national republic review new |
Sunday, November 30, 2003
The Post-American Party
In the past I have often referred to the Democratic Party as the ‘party of treason.’ By this I do not mean that all Democrats are traitors, far from it. Many people are Democrats out of family loyalty, long-time association (such as Georgia Senator Zell Miller, my favourite Democrat), racial solidarity, or general ignorance of political issues. The problem is as such: America’s many loyal Democrats lack a party. The Democratic Party itself is a disloyal institution.
I do mean that as mere rhetoric. The Democratic Party as a whole has become post-American in that, for many Democrats, ideology has come to transcend nationality. What do Howard Dean and his supporters value more: universal health care, or the flag? I suspect that it is the former. There is a certain snobbishness to the creed, Americans are people who drink Budweiser beer, watch NFL games, and shop at Wal Mart. Modern Democrats like to think of themselves as ‘citizens of the world’ and, therefore, regard ‘normal Americans’ with a bit of disdain. Sure, Americans might oppose gay marriage, favor tax cuts, and support the War on Terrorism: but that’s just because they aren’t as enlightened as their social betters. Democrats regard Americans like some people might regard their retarded cousin. With a shrug and a flush of embarrassment. It’s because, deep down, they don’t really believe that people can look after themselves. That’s why they love activist judges so much. Left to decide on their own, the American people would turn down abortion-on-demand, affirmative action, and gay marriage. But Democrats aren’t willing to respect that decision because they don’t believe that the average American is smart enough to decide whether or not their eleven year-old son should receive state-sponsored fisting instruction (let alone decide how best to spend their own money). The loyalty many Democrats feel towards America is conditional: based upon the political structure of the country. You can hear it in the members of the Hollywood elite, who threaten to move to France if Republicans win elections. To them, America is only worth being faithful to as long as America is liberal. Rush Limbaugh didn’t announce that he was going to move to Japan if Bill Clinton was re-elected: he fought him. The problem is this: the Democratic Party loves liberalism more than it loves America. Now, contrary to what some have asserted in the past, this does not mean that I ultimately wish to see a one-party state in America, far from it. Rather, I would like to see the development of a three party system in America, with a Republican majority facing opposition from Libertarians and Paleoconservatives. I think that there’s little question that neo-conservative Republicanism, Libertarianism, and Paleoconservatism are all expansive enough ideologies to command their own party. Moreover, while each of these creeds has some disloyal adherents, for the most part they are belief systems compatible with traditional American values. Each could even claim their own Founding Fathers. Republicans could easily lay claim to Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, Libertarians to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Tom Paine, among others. Paleoconservatives might well, with his strong warnings on the dangers of foreign entanglements and well-known moral rectitude, lay claim to George Washington himself. In any case: Republicanism, Libertarianism, and Paleoconservatism are all, at their base, ideologies with a fundamental basis in Americanism. They were all ‘present at the creation’, so to speak. Modern liberalism, on the other hand, is an alien import. The ideological foundations of the modern left lie in the French Revolution: their ideological father is Karl Marx. Democrats hope for American defeats in the War on Terrorism because it will help their electoral prospects. This is made clear by their constant posturing, by the Intelligence Committee memo, by their rhetoric, and by their pre-war trips to Baghdad to demonstrate their support for Saddam. They do this not so much because they hate America, but because for them ideology transcends America. ‘Progressive’ policies are, so far as they are concerned, far more important than defending the nation. Democrats don’t defend America’s enemies because they want to harm America; they do it because ‘America’ as a concept for them has lost all meaning. It is merely a vessel for ideology. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are merely objects in an ideological pinball game, possibly useful and possibly hazardous. There’s a scene in the movie The American President, where Annette Benning’s character claims that conservatives are people who, “claim to love America, despite the fact that they plainly can’t stand Americans.” But the truth of the matter is, that description fits the left far more than it does the right. One can simply see the horror in the eyes of Democrats who shudder at the thought of living in the same country as people who go to NASCAR races, visit Civil War battlefields on vacation, and go to Church every Sunday. The Democratic Party either needs to rediscover its Americanism or it needs to be destroyed. So long as one major party remains in a state where its fidelity to the nation’s cause can be called into question no political system can be long stable. It’s time for the decent, loyal, and patriotic Democrats of the world to take back their party from the Bill Clinton’s and Howard Dean’s citizens of this world that have made it post-American and post-Patriotic. What a Bargain!
Some Democrat in New Jersey spent $4 million to win a State Senate seat by sixty-three votes.
A Lincolnian Position on Abortion
A Side Note
People have been emailing and asking where I heard about the report to the President. The answer, of course, is Debka. You can find the report here.
Since My Hit Count Has Jumped...
I thought I'd take the chance to encourage people to read my E-Book on Canadian politics, entitled 'The Northern Abyss', which can be found here.
The Canadian Prime Minister-Designate
Has selected as his personal secretary a man who was forced to resign from the Cabinet for forging a signature in order to secure an abortion for a woman he was having an affair with.
Time Accelerated
It seems to me that we are living in an accelerated period of time. In the last five years we’ve been through:
• The second impeachment of a President of the United States. • A three month war with Serbia. • The WTO riots in Seattle. • The internet boom. • The first truly disputed Presidential Election since 1876. • The internet crash. • A serious diplomatic incident with China. • The worst terrorist attack in American history, the most traumatic event since Pearl Harbor. • A war in Afghanistan. • The loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. • A war in Iraq. • The first recall of a Governor of California. • A guerrilla war in Iraq. Under normal conditions, that’s about enough events for an entire decade or for several decades. We’ve been through all of that in just five years. And history isn’t done with us yet, not by a long shot. My God. What terrible, wonderful, frightening, exhilarating times in which we live. Canadian Taxpayers...
Apparently, we blew more than $200,000 for the President of Frog-land to take a two-week long vacation in Quebec. Wonderful.
We Are Winning in Iraq
There is a pattern that has developed in recent American wars. With the onset of battle the media and opposition swiftly jump onside with the President then, when American forces fail to repeat their performance in the Second World War within seven days, they will begin to explain that they support the war, but merely believe that there wasn’t enough ‘planning.’ A week after that, when US forces win, they will jump back onside only to, at the first sign of a reversal, begin referring to a ‘quagmire’ and invoking the grim spectre of Vietnam. I have seen this in all four major US conflicts within the past decade: Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Iraqi Insurrection in which we are now engaged. It is a pathetic pattern, one designed to exploit public feeling rather than to ensure the security of the nation.
We’ve heard all of this before. There’s always a ‘fierce Afghan winter’ just around the corner. Every ambush signals ‘the beginning of the end for the American empire.’ The gloom is recent weeks has been oppressive, with predictions of American defeat seeming to come from all corners. Just a few days ago, in Baghdad, Senator Hillary Clinton stated that defeat was a possibility. A search through the various forums of conservative communication (Fox News, various op-ed pages, the conservative press, and the Blogosphere) finds a group of people increasingly anxious about the prospects for victory in Iraq. But here’s the truth: we are winning in Iraq, we will continue to win in Iraq, and, in the end, the so-called ‘Iraqi resistance’ will be consigned to the same grave of history as Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and the defeated regime of Saddam Hussein. Here is what you have yet to hear reported in the mainstream media. In the few weeks since Coalition forces began to launch major counter-insurgency attacks, beginning with Operation Iron Hammer, over 1100 Iraqi Guerrillas have been captured or killed. This represents one-fifth of the entire strength of the Ba’athist and Islamist forces in the country. These figures, presented to President Bush in a secret briefing during his Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad, do not include the forty-six terrorists killed in a battle on November 30th. In other words, the US armed forces are killing and capturing fifteen of the enemy for each loss of their own: and this figure is distorted by the high number of US personnel killed in aircraft shoot-downs in November, a figure which is not likely to be repeated. In individual combat, the results look more and more like those of the last Sunday in November: forty-six of the enemy killed and eight captured with no losses among our forces. At the present rate, the entire force possessed by the enemy will be destroyed, and the country pacified, in a matter of months. The media has tried to spin the increase in the number of attacks outside of the so-called ‘Sunni Triangle’ as a sign that the enemy is gathering strength. This is exactly the opposite of the truth. The increasing combat efficiency of the Fourth Infantry Division and a lack of support for the resistance among the general population have forced them to seek other ground for operations. The strong progress made towards the development of new governments and economic revitalization in the North and South seriously undermine the ability of the enemy to operate anywhere in the country. The attacks in regions outside of the triangle are occurring for two reasons. First, US forces are increasingly well protection while native Iraqi forces remain soft targets. Second, the progress made in reconstruction seriously threatens the ability of the insurgents to continue to fight; especially as the progress being made raises the possibility that the Iraqi rebels might soon find that their main enemy is a US-backed Iraqi Army. There is a constant cry in the media, from armchair Generals, from various experts, and from politicians of all stripes that there need to be more ‘boots on the ground’ in Iraq. Yet, I fail to see just what purpose that would serve. The Iraqi resistance is not an army in any traditional sense of the word, there are no fixed battlements to man. An increase in American forces in-country would simply leave more targets for suicide bombers and ambushes. It is far better, I think, to risk having too few forces in the country than to risk another Beirut. The Administration has exactly the right strategy for US forces in Iraq. Coalition forces are steadily reducing the strength of the enemy while rapidly building up the native resources with which to confront them. This should be thought of as a Colonial war, like many fought by the British. In these wars, the number of British regulars on the ground was always kept to the absolute minimum, with much of the actual fighting being done by locally recruited forces. Building up a strong Iraqi army would have other advantages as well: recruitment, especially if the recruits were very well-paid, would drain away manpower from the resistance also, a few years down the road, a professional, well-trained, and well-equipped Iraqi Army could prove to be a useful ally in unscheduled future wars. Moronic attacks on the President for his lack of a ‘plan’ for post-war Iraq are gradually being exposed for the baseless trash they always were. The nation is stable: these resistance fighters can delay progress, but they cannot stop it. There is zero chance that Saddam Hussein will ever return, or that some other figure will emerge from the guerrillas to lead the nation. Rather, Coalition pacification efforts are moving smoothly. In the last month the numbers of insurrectionary attacks have dropped by thirty percent. The accompanying increase in the violence and intensity of the attacks is, more than anything else, a sign of their increasing desperation. Frankly, I fail to see how anyone, let alone the Democratic candidates for President, could have done any better. It now appears entirely possible that, by May 1st, 2004: one year after the end of the invasion and the beginning of the occupation, the Ba’athist resistance will have been totally destroyed, leaving only foreign Islamists to contend with in Iraq. Inexorably, this war is being won. It is being won by the gallant courage of the US forces on the ground and by unflinching American leaders who are willing to approach foreign policy like adults. Within a few months (or, at the most, a year) all of this talk of ‘quagmires’ will have disappeared to replaced by the familiar refrain of the whiners who, having done everything to obstruct the war effort, will now claim that credit for victory is due all around. The Vietnam comparisons will be quietly filed away, only to be trotted back out the next time victory takes longer to arrive than the running time of the ‘Roots’ mini-series. It’s a pity really: this should be everyone’s victory. But it isn’t. The leaders of the Democratic Party have done nothing to contribute to victory in this war. But it matters not. History will harshly judge the guilty and assign the credit to the victors. What matters for now is this: we will prevail in Iraq. Saturday, November 29, 2003
I Thought...
That I'd point you towards this, from June.
Indeed
I'm going to have something to say about this later. You'd better believe it.
This was a dumb, dumb, dumb thing for Hillary to do. She should have just gone to Iraq, sat nicely with the troops, and come home. The right isn't going to forget this- 1200 posts that quick is a sign that the base is moblized. Thursday, November 27, 2003
With a Million Free Men More
We face a stark choice in the present war: either the terror ends or America does. People fail to grasp the elemental nature of this war. This is not a war for revenge, though revenge we shall have, this is not a war to advance the cause of freedom, though freedom we shall spread, this is not a war for or against a religion, though religion we need and shall fight. This is a war for national survival in which we are racing against a clock perpetually moving closer to midnight. The only reason the terrorists have yet to kill millions or tens of millions of our citizens is that, for the moment, they lack the weapons with which to match their hate. They cannot be contained or controlled and, therefore, the only option open to us is to work towards the complete and total extermination of the enemy.
Some expected this war to be easy, to be a Clintonite exercise in drive-by cruise missile strikes. It can’t be. It won’t be. Not if we’re going to win. This war will be, in the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, “a long, hard slog.” Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Iraq is a critical front in our War on Terror: but it is far from the only front. All across the world tiny handfuls of American and Coalition warriors are slowly and steadily reducing the forces of the enemy. However, we shall never be victorious in this war until we launch a much wider and more vicious war. This is a fanatic enemy, much like the Japanese of the Second World War. They surrendered only after four years of brutal fighting and two atomic bombs. It is not just al-Qaeda and its allies which must be broken: we must also make the civilians who support them see the folly of their ways. I increasingly wonder if the Moslem world at large will learn the folly of their intransigence only when they have had their own Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This war will not be won by the stationary. Though the war is defensive in nature, it must be offensive in means. To simply await attack is a strategy which invites defeat. We must fight the enemy in their own countries. If necessary we must burn their homes, kill their neighbours, and salt their fields. We do not do this because we desire to cause pain: we do it to avoid the arrival of a day of horror unlike any we have ever known. With a single bomb, in a single second, a single terrorist could kill more Americans than have been killed in every other American war combined. If we allow the continued advance of the enemy, millions will die. But the terrorists do not operate in a vacuum. The terrorists are nothing more than weapons, the soldiers of a cause. We must, as the left so often advocates, attack the roots of the problem. In a recent column Mark Steyn names five regimes that must be overthrown before the war can truly be over: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. I concur with all of these, however I would add to that list: Libya, Cuba and Venezuela. Libya has an active nuclear program and is a sponsor of terrorism. Cuba has a long-standing program for the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, is known to be a state sponsor of terror, and generally, by its presence, offends American honor. Venezuela has direct ties to both al-Qaeda and the former regime of Saddam Hussein. It is seeking to subvert the governments of neighbouring nations. Overall it, due to the size of its economy, must be considered the greatest threat to peace in the Americas. However, these attacks cannot be scattershot. Rather, they must be part of a well-planned and coherent strategy for taking the fight to the enemy. What are we fighting? We’re fighting more than terrorism. We’re fighting Islamism, we’re fighting Communism: in the broadest possible sense, we are fighting totalitarianism. Though the goals of the Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, and Venezuelans may vary wildly in the long term, they all share the same short-term goal: the destruction of American power. Functionally they are all one and the same enemy. There is not an “Iraq War” an “Afghan War” and a (forthcoming) “Second Korean War”. There is only one war. There is only one enemy. We are fighting the anti-American totalitarians in the world, because they are conspiring together to break American power. Whatever the ambitions are of the rulers in Damascus, Pyongyang, or Tehran, the common thread between them is that their ambitions are frustrated by American power. They will keep coming until either they are all destroyed, or until America is destroyed. To put it another way: we are fighting anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism is the common ideology of al-Qaeda, North Korea, Hamas, and virtually every other evil and malevolent group in the world. It is the tie that binds them together into a vast and threatening Axis of Evil, which seeks to destroy the Republic. They seek to destroy America not only because the United States is the global Hegemon, but because it is the only nation capable of holding that position which would seek to thwart their plans. Can anyone see the modern European Union sending forces to assist in the defense of South Korea or Israel? Would China resist the establishment of a series of Communist dictatorships in South America? The terrorists are merely the weapons of the anti-Americans: we need to destroy them, but they will not go away unless we destroy their base of support. In this, they have two bases: the states which threaten America and those people who hate it. Those within the United States who aid the enemy need to be dealt with harshly. The Congress should consider suspending habeas corpus in terrorism-related cases, allowing the President to hold for the duration terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. I realize that this would be illegal per Ex Parte Milligan, but I suspect that the Supreme Court might be, under the right conditions, inclined to revise that ruling. Obviously it will be harder to convince the populations of other Arab nations to abandon their anti-Americanism by such means. However, perhaps a few demonstrations of American resolve would go along way towards convincing people to remain quiet. Al Jazeera, the TV news network, has recently been shown to be complicit in attacks on US forces. Bombing its offices and ‘accidentally’ killing a few of its reporters might well convince people that the United States means business. In the Arab world few things are respected more than strength. There have been many reports that al-Qaeda possesses a small navy which is presently floating around the world’s oceans. Perhaps one of those ships could be located and then obliterated with a tactical nuclear device on the pretext that the ship was believed to contain biological weapons which could have leaked. That, I think, would go a long way towards convincing the world of American resolve. Overall, I propose the following strategy. A constant high intensity campaign of strikes by Special Forces, designed to target terrorists and people who support them. These strikes should include well-publicized air attacks at surprising points around the world, to simply hammer home the truth of America’s global reach. These should be combined with other strikes aimed at convincing the various populations of enemy nations of American resolve and the dangers of confronting Americans. At the same time, a lengthy series of direct attacks and invasions should take place with two principal aims: overthrowing anti-American governments and forcing terrorists to fight on their own soil. These attacks will also allow the establishment of friendly governments who can provide troops for later attacks. For example, if the United States were to invade the Sudan in 2009, it might do so with the assistance of Iraqi troops. Convince the people of the futility of resistance, kill the terrorists, and smash their states. We will fight them in Damascus so that we shall never meet them in Denver. The FTAA in Miami
Read this article regarding the tactics used to supress the anti-FTAA demonstrations in Miami. It sounds to me like they've got exactly the right idea. Stop them without having to actually shoot them. Wonderful stuff.
In Defense of Larry Spencer
Poor Larry Spencer, he’s a decent man trapped in a country where the government is willing to assist in the enforcement of the Shariah, the strict Islamic code of laws, but where people who disapprove of homosexuality are less popular, at least among opinion leaders, than pedophiles. This can hardly be called unexpected: abortion and homosexuality are the twin sacraments of modern liberalism. I am ardently looking forward to the day when those same Moslem activists now being coddled by the left in this country declare that the time has arrived to punish homosexuals as outlined in the Shariah. It will be interesting to discover which is more beloved by the left: the advancement of barbaric cultures and religions in the name of ‘tolerance’ or buggery.
A conservative Canadian Alliance MP from Saskatchewan and a Baptist Minister, Spencer has been fired from his position in the Shadow Cabinet and driven from the Alliance Caucus for saying, in a Vancouver Sun interview, that he believed that it was a mistake for Canada to have repealed its laws forbidding homosexuality, an event which occurred in the 1960’s under the leadership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He also said that he would support any bill recriminalizing homosexuality (but admitted that the possibility of such a bill coming before the House was essentially nil) and that he believed that there would soon be a strong push made to legalize pedophilia and polygamy. Spencer clearly wasn’t announcing that the Canadian Alliance would seek to criminalize homosexuality, he was merely musing that, in an ideal world, it would be nice to do so. He also made it quite clear that he didn’t favor jailing homosexuals, but rather contemplated some other form of punishment. I agree with him: ideally, I think, laws against homosexuality would remain on the books, but only occasionally enforced. The real point of such laws is not to jail homosexuals: something which, after all, costs money. Rather, the point is to demonstrate official disapproval of homosexuality and drive it underground. We shall never be rid of gays altogether: but we can at least shove them back into the closet. I am ashamed, but not surprised, to find that the most likely leader of the future Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, is so beholden to the power of the gays that he immediately resorted to the extreme measure of firing Spencer for what were, in reality, relatively mild comments that a great many Canadians would probably agree with privately. In fact, I strongly suspect that the polls taken with regard to gay marriage and public approval of homosexuality in general are vastly distorted by what has been called the ‘Wilder effect.’ In the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorial elections every poll showed the Democratic candidate, a black man named Douglas Wilder, leading by a far margin. On Election Day he barely won. The same phenomenon occurred in the Louisiana Governor’s election earlier this month, where Republican Bobby Jindal led in the polls but was unexpectedly defeated. Part of what happened in both cases (though in the Jindal case, a poorly-executed response to Democratic attack ads hurt as well) is that, when polled, voters who hold politically incorrect beliefs will tell pollsters one thing and actually vote another way. It is now utterly unfashionable in Canada to oppose the homosexual agenda in any way, shape, or form. People are afraid to express their true opinions on gays to the general public for fear of being branded a ‘homophobe.’ I’ve been called one so many times that I think I will now proudly wear the title. I suspect that, if a group made the case against gay rights in public, the Canadian establishment would cry, scream, and shout while, in ten million homes across the country, people would watch their TV’s and gently nod their heads. When I was in high school, a fellow student started up what was then the only ‘Gay-Straight Alliance’ in the Province of British Columbia. The group, which was lavishly sponsored by the school, then plastered the walls with various pro-gay propaganda. The next few months set off a battle in which I served, in essence, as the leader of the forces opposed to the Alliance. There were two shocking elements in this battle: the scale of the opposition and the eye-opening reaction of the Administrators and the gay-rights activists. Hundreds of students, nearly one-third of a school with two thousand students, signed a petition I circulated in just a few days. One student who wore a shirt which contained a picture of an arrow and the words, “Straight: the only way to go,” was punished and accused of spreading ‘fascist propaganda’ by a Vice-Principal. I myself was called before the school administration and confronted with a series of draft newspaper articles I had written months earlier in which I denounced the Student President, who I felt was accorded privileges not granted to other students and who I believed had attained the Presidency (the student President was not chosen by a direct vote until the next year, when I threatened to swamp the meetings with supporters, elect my entire slate, and essentially abolish the student government). On another occasion, I was called before an inquisition, led by a school employee, in which I was repeatedly attacked for my beliefs. It was then and there I learned the real nature of the gay rights movement and how, unless it is fought, it will achieve all of its aims: and we don’t even know exactly what those are. This does not mean that I wish gays killed or for harm to befall them: far from it. Rather, I simply wish for them to shut up and go away. I am tired of arguing about this issue, an issue which provided my first reason for becoming actively engaged in politics and truly demonstrated to me the dangerous loss of freedom which has occurred in our society. Yet I cannot stop fighting over this issue because I understand the fundamental truth that the spread of homosexuality is merely the forward edge of a wave of degeneracy which threatens to overwhelm our society. Gay people may be nice and kind, on an individual basis: but as a collective group they are a menace who threatens our values and our way of life. What are the goals of the so-called ‘gay rights’ movement? You know who we are, and what we stand for. Who are they? And what do they stand for? Does anyone really believe that, now that gays are allowed to marry, their movement will stop? Where shall it end? What are they taking us towards? The purpose of the gay movement (or, to borrow from the Hon. Mr. Spencer, the gay conspiracy) seems to be a fundamental reordering of society. Their goal isn’t ‘acceptance’- they’ve had that a long time ago. Their goal isn’t ‘equal rights’- there is not a single right that straight people have that gays do not. There are no ‘straights only’ water fountains, no one is being forced to the back of the bus. Their goal is to impose their vision of the world upon us all. Mr. Spencer is vilified for suggesting that there will soon be a pedophile rights movement. But is he so wrong? I wonder. After all, NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), the leading pedophile rights organization in the world, has extensive ties with gay-rights groups. Already pedophiles are speaking about their ‘sexual orientation’ and some people on the American Psychological Association are manoeuvring to have pedophilia removed from the official list of mental disorders. Already books are being written, and printed by serious publishers, seeking to debunk the ‘myth’ that sexual abuse is harmful to children. Just thirty-four years separate us from when homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada and the point where, this very year, opposition to homosexuality was criminalized. One wonders how long it will be before Hollywood is giving Oscars to movies which tell the tale of pedophiles as the victims of a pedophobic society. How long will it be before Lolita is widely interpreted as the tale of a man unfair victimized because of his sexuality? After all, one can already hear, in the voice of Michael Jackson (while holding the hand of the child he apparently molested) the words of the future movement for the rights of child molesters. It’s all about ‘love’ and ‘caring’, etc. You probably don’t believe me, I know: but talk to me again in 2037. What Mr. Spencer said needed to be said: and needs to be said some more. We will never save this country if we surrender to the sodomites at the gates. Stand up or give up: those are the choices now. A Green Mayor of San Fransisco?
That's what the polls are trending towards.
Freerepublic Breaks Story
From what I can see, the news of President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad was first broken on Free Republic. Good for them.
I'm amazed at the whole thing, what a wonderful move. I'll probably have more to say later. Naturally, the folks at Democratic Underground are already claiming it was staged just like the Moon Landings, the Holocaust, and the Battle of Gettysburg. Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Charlie Dean?
I'm really curious. People at DU claim that he was working for the CIA but, in light of the article below, that seems to be utterly unlikely. More likely that he was trying to join or support the Communists than I was fighting them.
Frankly, my suspicion is that Charlie Dean is being buried with full military honors as a way of getting this out of the way and long forgotten. After all, if it came out that Charlie Dean was actually there to support the Communists (only to ironically be killed by them), the Bush team would, without a doubt, be accused of dredging up the story to smear Dean using the memory of his dead brother. After all, it's hardly like most Democratic voters would be turned off by Dean's brother having been a communist. By DAVE HART, The Chapel Hill News CHAPEL HILL -- In 1968, Charlie Dean, one of four brothers of a prominent New England family, supported Richard Nixon in his campaign against Hubert Humphrey because, a colleague said, he believed Nixon's campaign pledge to end the war in Vietnam. When Nixon failed to live up to that promise immediately, Dean bolted. He was a freshm an at UNC-Chapel Hill that year, and, as the conflict in Vietnam ground on, Dean threw himself into the antiwar movement. By the 1972 presidential campaign, he had become a fierce devotee of the Democratic candidate, George McGovern. He served as chairman of the local student McGovern campaign, where he led, by all accounts, an energetic and effective effort. "Charlie was very much against the war, and when Nixon didn't end it, Charlie felt terribly betrayed," said Karen Gray, who served as the financial coordinator of the local McGovern campaign. " Orange County was the only county in the state that went for McGovern, and I think Charlie Dean had a lot to do with that." More than 30 years after Charlie Dean worked in support of a Democrat running for president with an antiwar message, his older brother, Howard Dean, is himself a Democrat running for president with an antiwar message. That Charlie Dean met a mysterious, tragic end halfway around the globe just two years after he led the local McGovern campaign only heightens the juxtaposition. His loss was what Newsweek's Howard Fineman called "the defining crisis" of Howard Dean's life, a blow that may have played a role in nudging Howard toward public service in the first place. "Charlie's death focused his older brother and gave him a sense of mission that he carries with him to this day," Fineman wrote in a July profile. Passion for politics Charlie Dean arrived in Chapel Hill as a freshman in 1968. Gerry Cohen, a Raleigh lawyer who lived in Hinton James dormitory with Dean in 1969 and 1970, said that when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971, Dean became deeply engaged in electoral politics. When McGovern emerged as the Democratic candidate in 1972, Dean moved to the forefront of the local campaign effort. "He had an enormous amount of energy," said Cohen, who credited Dean's Orange County voter registration drives for helping elect Cohen to the Chapel Hill Board of Aldermen in 1973. Cohen now is head of bill drafting in the N.C. General Assembly. Dean was the only paid staffer in the McGovern organization, Gray said. He promptly signed every paycheck back over to the campaign. In the election of 1972, McGovern fell to Nixon in a landslide, losing 49 of the 50 states. Charlie Dean, Gray said, was devastated. "He was very upset, very disillusioned," she said. "He had applied to go into the Peace Corps and do work with them in Nepal, but he'd deferred his entry to work on the campaign. "When it was over and he was so disillusioned, he decided to travel for a while before he went to Nepal. I knew it was cold there, so before he left I made him a hand-embroidered scarf to help keep him warm." She and most of Dean's other friends lost track of him after he left the United States. Evidently he took a freighter to Japan, made his way to Australia and eventually wound up in Laos. In fall 1974, he and an Australian friend were on a boat going up the Mekong River when apparently they were seized by members of the Pathet Lao, the communist government of Laos. "I completely lost track of him after he left until the summer of 1974," Cohen said. "I was working with the Orange County Board of Elections when this application for an absentee ballot arrived from Charlie. It asked that a ballot be sent to Kat mandu, Nepal. So apparently he was on his way to Nepal when he was captured. We sent the ballot, and I wrote a letter and sent it, too. I never received a reply, and the ballot never came back." A friend told Cohen that Charlie Dean was missing, and Cohen wrote to the State Department for information. Early in 1975, he said, he received a reply: According to the best information, Charlie Dean and his companion had been executed by the Pathet Lao in late 1974. Andy Scott's Beating
Andy Scott, a Liberal MP from Fredrickton, was recently beaten up in a fight over gay marriage. While I can't condone the action, I can sure understand the sentiment.
Derbyshire and Sullivan
These two, quite obviously, hate eachother. Here Sullivan takes Derbyshire to task because his wife has immigrated to the United States through him- an option which would not be open to a homosexual partner.
What's his point? The last thing the republic needs is to import homosexuals. My Usenet Posts
Apparently there are a few over-obsessed people out there who have taken it upon themselves to read everything I ever wrote, including stuff posted on the Usenet in the mid-1990's, and are now emailing people known to be associated with me with it. Any reading of the whole body of work will see that many of the comments now being bandied about were either taken out of context or made in an effort to inflame for sport. If I hurt anyone's feelings who didn't deserve it, I apologize. The rest can all go to Hell.
Some questions and answers: Q: Do you think that the 'more intelligent' Japanese should rule China? A: No, when I said that I was attempting to anger a Chinese fellow with whom I was having a running dispute. Also, I said that in 1998. Q: Do you really think that ships carrying illegal immigrants should be sunk? A: I think that, in these dangerous days, any ship moving illegally in North American waters should be liable to be sunk. Also, I would say that illegal immigrants are nothing less than civilian invaders and that, therefore, strong measures should be taken to prevent their entry and to deter them from making the attempt. Sinking, however, is probably extreme. Q: Do you think that toxic waste should be sent to Africa? A: Where feasible, sure. Q: Should we build 500,000 Ton Battleships with twelve 16" guns, 256 VLS Cells, and a half-dozen helicopters? A: No. Q: Is (Star Trek Voyager producer) Jeri Taylor a 'pacifist feminist bitch' responsible for the ruin of Star Trek, as you said in 1996? A: Yes. Q: Are you really selling a used copy of Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom on the Wing Commander newsgroup? A: I was. Q: Do you really believe that Coke is superior to Pepsi, as you said on alt.cola-wars on March 12, 1995? A: I totally disavow those remarks, they were a youthful indiscretion. Seriously- I did say some stupid things on the Usenet, as I continue to occasionally say stupid things. Some of the really dumb things I will, if you present them to me, denounce publicly if you'd like. Oh, and don't even start threatening to 'expose' the things I've said in online games. I repeat- online games. How desperate are you people? Are you going to write an article exposing the things I once did in Ultima Online? Oh yes and, quite obviously, I come from a geek lineage. I even went to a Star Trek Convention in 1994, where I spoke with William Shatner and bought an advance copy of the script to 'All Good Things', the final episode. UPDATE: Howard Dean's Brother
Matt Drudge is reporting that Howard Dean's brother (and the 'friend' who was killed with him) is receiving special treatment.
This is outrageous. No one, no matter who their brother is, should be allowed to jump the queue in this. Especially given that Dean's brother was a civillian, and not employed by the US Government. In fact, given that his brother was an anti-war McGovernite, one must ask a serious question: just what the hell was he doing in Laos in 1974? I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to this question. Ann Coulter's On Fire
Her column this week is great. Some highlights:
"Out of respect for my gay male readers, I'll resist the temptation to characterize this ruling as "shoving gay marriage down our throats." " "This is where gays usually bring up the argument about all the straight couples living in "sham" marriages, but I see no point in dragging the Clintons into this. " Jesse Jackson=Jesus Christ?
Responding to counter-protestors who overwhelmed a rally of his in Chicago, Jesse Jackson compares himself to Christ:
"They lashed out at Dr. King, they lashed out at Nelson Mandela, they lashed out at Jesus, so all of those who fight for change become the object of frustration," Jackson said. Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Keep Him Out
Abdul Rahman Al-Khadr, the brother of a terrorist who murdered an American soldier and the son of a leading al-Qaeda member, has been released from Gitmo and is trying to get back into Canada. But, so far, they aren't letting him back in.
Good. I suppose that, since the US released him, he probably wasn't a member of al-Qaeda, but given his brother and father's associations, I'm sure he's a supporter. Strip him of his citizenship, if possible. He is exactly the sort of person we can have no mercy towards: the al-Qaeda supporter, who has yet to commit any crimes beyond being supportive of al-Qaeda. The guy is apparently waundering about Southern Europe and the Middle East at the moment, so I'm praying that some misfortune befalls him there. I don't know why the US released him- he's got enough links to al-Qaeda to hold- preferably forever. The Northern Abyss
My first book, is now available for download free of charge. Click here to read it.
Below is the press release I'm sending about: Adam Teiichi Yoshida Releases His First Book: ‘The Northern Abyss’ Online November 25, 2003 Adam Teiichi Yoshida, the BC Director of the Freedom Institute and a conservative political activist, has released his first book, entitled The Northern Abyss: Canada and the Struggle for the Future online and free of charge on his website (www.adamyoshida.com). The Northern Abyss is a book about the present state of politics in Canada and outlines Adam Teiichi Yoshida’s vision for the future. Much of it will certainly be shocking to a nation used to political moderation and moderation alone. Adam Teiichi Yoshida, according to one reviewer, “surpasses Rush Limbaugh for zealousness and Ann Coulter for madness” has also been called “nuts” by famed blogger (and former New Republic editor) Andrew Sullivan. Jason Buckley, the Director of Washington Interns Gone Bad has described his web site as the, “most over the top, fanatically insane right wing blog you will ever see.” The author has decided to release the book for free for three reasons: 1) He wishes it to receive the widest possible distribution in the few months before the upcoming Federal Election. 2) No American publishing house would take a book on Canadian politics, and no Canadian publishing house would ever take such a right-wing book. 3) Self-publishing or other alternatives would take months, preventing the release of the book until possibly after the next election. However, just because the book is being released free of charge, that doesn’t mean that Mr. Yoshida will mind if you hit the ‘donate’ button on his website (www.adamyoshida.com) or if you make a donation by helping to spread word of the book. Islamic Canuckistan
When, last year, Pat Buchanan dubbed Canada as ‘Soviet Canuckistan’, he was wrong: if present trends continue we will soon be well on our way to becoming the Islamic Republic of Canuckistan. Thanks to recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, elements of Shariah (Islamic law) will soon be actually enforceable in Canada.
Now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here: no one is (yet) going to start beheading apostates or demanding that all non-Moslems pay a poll tax. But this is still a worrisome development, as it gives force in Canada to the barbarous laws of a heathen faith. While, in theory, this will only be enforceable if both sides previously agree to be subject to the law, one wonders just how many people will be coerced into accepting the dictates of Allah. Supposedly the new Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada) will be designed to handle all ‘commercial and personal disputes’ between Moslems and, under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, the dictators of the arbitrator will not be subject to appeal in the civil courts of Canada. Does this include divorce? We are all well-versed in the status of women under Islam: how can we be certain that these ‘courts’ shall not become a tool of oppression and, if they do so, what chance will we have to check them, given the ‘multicultural’ sensibilities of much of the nation? I am a fan of the separation of Church and State. Now, this does not mean that I believe that it is wrong to have a moment for silent prayer in schools, to display a Manger scene on public property, or mention the name of Christ at a high school graduation. However, it does mean that I am against having the government enforce religious laws upon the people. One should not fall to victim to the misconception that arbitration under Shariah law is something akin to the Indian ‘healing circles’ now being ordered for, among others, people who kill their children. While the entire Indian concept of justice is appallingly stupid and immoral in that it allows criminals to escape judgement for their crimes, it does not carry with it the same level of danger that Shariah does. Shariah is more than a commercial code: it is a blueprint for running a totalitarian society and government. Islamic doctrine instructs Moslems living in foreign lands to live as close to the Shariah as is possible, and always to seek to bring about its full implementation. Giving Islamic law any force under Canadian law will simply whet the appetites of the fanatics who, elsewhere, have brought their homes under the harsh fist of Allah. In Taliban-era Afghanistan, where men without beards were beaten, women forcibly veiled, and the artefacts of other religions desecrated: Shariah was enforced there. In Northern Nigeria, where women who have been raped are sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery: Shariah is practiced there as well. There may well be worthy aspects to the Islamic religion which are not contained in other faiths: I have yet to find any, but I have difficulty believing that the religion of a billion people is totally lacking in redemptive qualities. However, the Shariah is not that feature. It is little more than a prescription for a sand-based totalitarianism. All told, the Shariah code must be considered the worst feature of Islam (except, perhaps, the doctrines of Jihad). Giving it any force at all in Canada is akin to allowing mediation under the laws of Draco. Canadian multiculturalism has taken on a sick stench of racism. Why should we, in the name of ‘tolerance’ give force to a code which is utterly antithetical to the modern values of any civilized society? It seems to me that the multiculturalists are willing to tolerate the totalitarianism of Islam because they feel that Moslems are incapable of aspiring anything better. Why would we wish that anyone, let alone those in our own country, live under such a cruel code? This is not the end: if we give in now it will not be long before, as in Europe, local Moslem communities take it upon themselves to enforce the other aspects of the Shariah. Will we, in the name of ‘multiculturalism’ tolerate ‘honour’ killings? The beheading of Moslems who covert to another religion? It’s time for our leaders to show some backbone: those who live in Canada should live under (and abide) Canadian laws. Monday, November 24, 2003
The Democratic Presidential Primaries
Boston, Massachusetts
July 26, 2004 Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean glared angrily out the hotel window. He didn’t at all like what he was hearing. “What did you say?” he asked his campaign manager, his voice almost a growl. “Governor, you’re not going to be elected President: not this year anyways.” “What the hell are you talking about? We’re only a half-dozen points behind Bush, and we haven’t even gone through the convention yet.” His campaign manager shook his head, “I didn’t say that a Democrat wasn’t going to be elected President: it’s just that you aren’t.” “We’ve got 40% of the pledged delegates!” “On the first ballot, Governor: after that they can vote as they please. Once they do their legal duty and vote for you, they’re going to jump to someone else: Hillary or Gore, take your pick.” Governor Dean sighed inwardly before slamming his fist onto a nearby table, “Get Al Gore on the line,” he said. How could we come to such a scenario? Simple: have the Democratic Primaries produce a divided result, leading to a situation where no individual holds a majority to delegates going into the convention. This, depending upon how well President Bush is doing in the polls at the same time, could mean that the 2004 Democratic National Convention is Massachusetts will be the most exciting in decades. Because of the way that this year’s primaries are scheduled, it is very possible that no clear winner will emerge from the Democratic Primaries, leading to a situation where the nominee is uncertain going into the convention and nearly irresistible pressure will mount on the two most popular non-candidates in the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, to enter the race in order to ‘save the party.’ The Iowa Caucuses are less than two months away. It is clear that Gephardt and Dean are the front-runners in Iowa, with Gephardt having a slight (and apparently growing, if recent polls are to be believed) edge. Let us stipulate that Gephardt manages to win Iowa, but Dean turns in a respectable second-place showing. Edwards and Kerry follow behind- far behind, with Clark and Lieberman even further back. Sharpton, Kucinich, and Mosley-Braun barely even register. A week later, Howard Dean will almost certainly win the New Hampshire Primary. However, given that this has been a foregone conclusion for months, the real questions will be as follows: how will Dick Gephardt do, given his win in Iowa, and will John Kerry perform well enough to remain a serious contender? In any case, I would argue that the importance of the primary in New Hampshire in 2004 will be severely diminished by the seven primaries and caucuses which will be held a week later on February 2nd, when Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina all go to the polls. Polls show Dean trailing badly in the South. He is apparently focusing his time and efforts on the Virginia Primary the following week to prove that he can win in the South- meaning that he has already basically conceded Oklahoma and South Carolina. In fact, of all of the February 2nd Primaries, Dean can only be considered the front-runner in one: tiny Delaware. The most likely result is that February 2nd will produce a split decision: Dean will win at least one, and possibly two or three primaries, and the others will probably be split between two or three candidates: perhaps with Lieberman winning Arizona, Clark winning Oklahoma, Edwards winning South Carolina, Gephardt winning Missouri, and New Mexico and North Dakota being won by one two of the above. Barring a miracle, the February 2nd Primaries will effectively kill the campaign of John Kerry. Meanwhile: Dean’s momentum will have been blunted by a confusing and split election which will receive extensive coverage in the media. The rest of February features primaries and caucuses in Michigan, Washington, Maine, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Idaho, and Utah. Because of the varied geographical and ideological nature of these states, it is again likely that they will split between several different candidates. March 2nd is the decisive day of the Democratic contest. If a nominee does not emerge from the primaries and caucuses in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont: then it is highly unlikely that one will be decided upon entirely by the will of primary voters. If one candidate does perform fairly well on March 2nd (if, say, Dean took the majority of states) but had yet to fall out of reach, it seems likely that, between March 2nd and March 9th, there would be a frantic series of ‘stop Dean’ deals made by the surviving candidates, heading in the voting in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas on the 9th: all states where Dean is unlikely to fare well. By March 10th, the Democratic Party will be left in one of four situations: 1) With a solid nominee, ready to move and fight through the summer and into the general election. 2) With a wounded-front runner, likely to win the nomination but lacking a clear majority and still facing one or more opponents. 3) With two fairly strong candidates (probably Dean and a ‘stop Dean’ candidate) each unable to gain a majority, battering eachother through the later primaries (which are unlikely to be decisive) and into the convention. 4) With a divided field of candidates, none capable of gaining the nomination by their actions alone. Any of the last three scenarios invites, if Bush looks vulnerable, the entry of another prominent Democrat into the race in the interests of rescuing the party from a debacle. Both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are ideally positioned to serve this role. In fact, if one gets into the race, I think that it’s highly likely that both will, as allowing the other to win the nomination (and possibly become President) would foil the ambitions of the other. What should Republicans hope for? I, for one, am divided: I suspect that Howard Dean will, if nominated, be a worthy successor to George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. But I am not certain. The Dean campaign has successfully done two things: used new technology and tapped the feelings of the post-American left. Though I believe it to be beatable, that does not mean that I wish to take any chances. At the same time, the best chance the Democrats might have would be to discard their present field and to find a new nominee who can be rebranded to play the role of the ‘generic Democrat’ acceptable to all factions of the party. Frankly, I suspect that, come July of 2004, Al Gore might play that role even better than Hillary Clinton. In any case, a fresh face, injected into the race with much excitement and fanfare, would be a real danger to the President. The best scenario is a long, bloody, and draining primary battle which ends with Howard Dean emerging as the Democratic nominee. If you think that Republicans are bad-mouthing Dean now, wait until you hear what Dick Gephardt’s people will have to say about him at the end of February 2004. If the Republicans are smart, they will borrow a trick from Gray Davis’ re-election campaign in 2002 and seek to run ads designed to interfere with the Democratic primaries. Ideally, the rigours of the campaign will disgust many of Dean’s more naïve followers while, at the same time, raising his level of stridency. From what I’ve seen, I don’t believe that Governor Doctor Howard Dean is a man who has an easy time taking anything lightly. While it is still possible for the Democrats to pull off a victory in 2004, all signs increasingly point towards next November being a historic disaster for the Democratic Party. This does not mean that we should rest on our laurels and wage a campaign based upon feel-goodism. The greatest mistake of the Reagan campaign in 1984 was how it failed to capitalize upon the opportunity afforded to it. We do not wish to simply temporarily pin the monster that is the Democratic Party: we wish to slash its throat and eviscerate it. Typically Canadian
Canada's first space probe (well- the first Canadian space payload, which is being carried on a Japanese craft) may miss the planet Mars altogether.
My Old Buddy...
Kelvin Chan seems to have put together a very nice blog. I strongly encourage you to take a look- Kelvin's smart and, apparently, a diligent blogger.
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Dean and Gephardt
Dick Gephardt is attacking Howard Dean for 'cutting' various items from the state budget as Governor of Vermont.
This is going to be one strange primary season- Gephardt attacking Dean from the left on the economy and the right on foreign policy, and vice versa for Dean. Very odd indeed. Is it really these two who are going to be fighting it out for the nomination? I think so. Wow, That Was Fast
My latest article is already up on Democratic Underground. That was damned fast. Damned fast. I just posted it on Free Dominion like ten minutes ago, if that. Cool.
Oh- and whoever it is on Democratic Underground, it isn't me. I've never posted more than five messages there without being banned. Reviews
Jason Buckley says that my blog is, "is the funniest, most over the top, fanatically insane right wing blog you will ever see."
Great. Andrew Sullivan also called me "quite nuts" in an email. I seem to be making the right enemies. Excellent. My Long Article
Is far too long to post here. It's up at the Freedom Institute.
An excerpt: The great irony of democracy is that, under most conditions, it cannot be defended by democratic means. Prior to a battle, the US Army does not have a vote on whether or not to attack amongst the soldiers on the front line. Those attempts made to wage war using democratic means have mostly been failures. At one time army volunteer units would elect their own officers. This practice proved to be ineffective at best. The Athenian people would often vote directly on the conduct of warfare, typically making decisions which were shocking in their ineptitude: voting to execute victorious Admirals for not saving drowning sailors, driving Alcibiades to defect to Sparta, and exiling Themistocles, the victor of Salamis. Therefore, in emergency conditions, a nation is best governed by despotic means. In a democracy, it is hoped, this despotism will be short-lived. After the Next Attack
Fundamentally this war in which we are engaged is nothing less than a war for the survival of the United States of America, its Constitution, and its liberties. People fail to understand this critical fact. Do those who are actively seeking to obstruct the war effort really believe that, after the next attack, the American people will turn to a confused liberal opposition? As was stated in a recent article in Harper’s Magazine (hardly a right-leaning publication) if the present policies fail, the people will instead seek out a stronger and even more confident hand.
Imagine this near future: the nuclear destruction of Washington, DC has destroyed most of the government- including the President, the Vice President, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs, and most of the Cabinet and Congress. The new President is some mid-level Cabinet official- perhaps the Secretary of Energy. The first Smallpox cases begin to be reported shortly thereafter. What comes next? First: the new President will have no choice but to, for the time being, declare a nation-wide state of Martial Law. However, much of the regular army is otherwise occupied and a notable percentage of the National Guard and Reserves fail to report for duty, electing to remain with their families. In smaller towns order is often maintained by the Police along with citizens forming ad hoc militia groups: their rule is brutal, but mostly effectual. The available trained forces are, for the time being, required to enforce quarantines and assist in the distribution of Smallpox vaccine. The Cities will descend into chaos, at least at first, with public services being overwhelmed. While many huddle at home, various armed groups will take to the streets. Some will set out to resist the Federal declaration of Martial Law; others will set out to assist in enforcing it, while still others will go looking for Moslems to kill. In the initial chaos of a massive biological attack, Mosques across the nation will be burned and thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands) of Moslems will die in pogroms unlike anything ever seen in American history. In the short-term there will be little that the President can do to stem the chaos. Without Congress, they are essentially powerless. A major pivot point can be found here. Just who is this President? How do they feel about the nature of the law, how comfortable are they with ordering operations in which many could die, and are they willing to grossly violate the law to save the nation? If they aren’t: there’s a very strong possibility that, in the absence of a Congress, they might be overthrown by the military. How could President Donna Shalala deal with such chaos? She couldn’t. My expectation would be that, in such a situation, a more suitable individual might be found and installed through some quasi-legal means. For example, the outgoing President could (at gunpoint even) appoint the selected individual as the Secretary of State- making a recess appointment. The President could then be forced to resign. However it happens, the nation will end up with a strong leader shortly after such an attack. The circumstances will demand it, with any leader who displays weakness being somehow disposed of. In the end, I think, the nation would survive: but with a terrible cost. Not only would millions be dead from the attacks, but the nation would have little choice but to, for a few years at least, turn itself into nothing less than a garrison state. People might think I am suggesting the absurd when I say that terrorists need to be interned: but after the next attack anyone suspected of supporting them in any form will be, that is if they are not first lynched by an angry mob. I say that we should raise military spending to 5% or 7.5%- and am mocked. After the next attack it will hit the levels of the Second World War. The America that responds after the next attack will care little about civilian casualties. Destruction will be rained down upon the terrorists and their supporters. I would not blame this country if, after the next attack, we were to turn the War on Terrorism into an actual War on Islam. After all, if ten million of our own were killed by Islamist fanatics, and tens of millions more forever scarred, all of that blood would call out for more blood. The response to an attack with weapons of mass destruction will resemble Armageddon. Millions will die. That is why there cannot be another attack. We must stop it: and we know how. We need to keep killing the terrorists, we need to conquer their sponsor nations, and we need to arrest and execute the terrorists and terrorist-supporters operating within our own borders. Those operating under the security offered by our more liberal allies need to be assassinated. More resources need to be poured into defense and homeland security. We can stop the next attack: but only if we grasp the mathematics of the situation. Terror will not stop until the terrorists are dead. If the terror does not stop there will be inevitably be an attack with weapons of mass destruction. Either the obstruction and opposition stops, and we work together to exterminate the terrorists, or surely many of us shall die together, vaporized by a light brighter than a thousand suns. I Was Right
Jackson's victim was the same boy from Bashir's film. He also wrote him a number of 'explicit' love letters and nicknamed him 'Rubba' because one of the "games" they played together was dubbed "rubba rubba". Yuck.
I'm looking forward to the day Jackson goes to jail. He feminine looks should go over well with a certain sort of prisoner. I expect that a child molestor like Jackson will not be the most popular man in the jail. Since he can't get the death penalty, I suppose we'll have to settle for a few decades worth of gang-rapes as the next best thing. Saturday, November 22, 2003
The 'After the Next Attack'
Piece should be done tomorrow. My research has given me much more to think about- and a deeper understanding of the necessity of this war.
European Military Development
How European military development moves over the next decade depends heavily upon how European integration functions over the next decade. Absent the creation of a strong and centralized European military command, I see the creation of a pan-European military establishment that is under-equipped, poorly commanded and virtually undeployable due to squabbles among various member states. Moreover, the troops assigned to such a command would probably end up being those deemed undesirable by the individual national militaries. Such a force would be good for little more than patrolling the streets of Croatia with rather less efficiency than shown by UN peacekeeping forces in the last decade.
The only likely alternative I can see is where the EuroForce becomes an essentially Franco-German creature, with the occasional unit from the rest of Europe thrown in for show. Failing that (again: absent a situation where a European force becomes the actual property of the Union, under effective national command) a situation will be created whereby whatever forces exist on paper will not exist in fact. My preference would be the creation of a strong European military force independent of NATO. I wish this for several reasons: 1) An effective European military build-up, independent of NATO, would offer a very good excuse for a US military build-up. I can easily see a situation a decade from now where Congressmen have charts of European strength vis a vis that of the US and warn of ‘falling behind.’ 2) The creation of robust European military forces would allow the United States to abandon its role in the defense of Europe, thereby freeing troops for duty elsewhere. 3) The reignition of European martial spirit would be a hopeful sign that Europe is emerging from its cultural malaise on the use of force and returning to the old values which once made what is now derided as ‘Old Europe’ a force to be reckoned with and would probably lessen the chances of the social collapse which otherwise seems inevitable in Europe. 4) European developments in military technology, along with those by the Chinese, would spur American advances in military technology. I am confident that the United States can win such a race. However, I strongly feel that such a development is unlikely. The reason why Europe (either individual nations or Europe as a whole, excepting Britain) lacks effective military forces is not that it cannot have them, but that it does not desire them. If Europeans were truly moving towards a serious increase in their military forces, then the cultural chasm which has opened between them and Americans would be shrinking. Friday, November 21, 2003
The Most Frightening Thing I've Ever Read
Dark Winter was a staff-level exercise conducted in June, 2001. It revealed the startling vulnerability of the United States to a biological attack. It was reported in the media at the time. I just read the excercise script. You can find it here.
I warn you: this is not for the faint-hearted, it features graphic pictures of Smallpox victims. Just a Short Update
Expect something more on this tommorow or Sunday.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Michael Jackson: Future Advocate for the Rights of Child Molesters
So it finally happened: Michael Jackson in handcuffs and about to answer for his many crimes. It’s about time. I believed that the man was guilty ten years ago and I believe that he is guilty today. In fact, I think we might have some of the proof on tape.
Last night one cable channel re-aired the recent documentary by British filmmaker Martin Bashir, entitled Living With Michael Jackson. In that video, we see Michael sitting (and holding hands) with a young boy identified only as ‘Gavin.’ The scene is distrusting to watch: even moreso now than it was at the time. Though he is only briefly onscreen we learn five important facts about ‘Gavin’ in Bashir’s documentary: he’s twelve years old, he’s been diagnosed with terminal cancer, he’s received assistance in his treatment from Michael, he has a younger brother, and his appearance indicates that he could conceivably be from (or have relatives in) South America. Oh, yes, a sixth fact as well: he spent nights in Michael Jackson’s bed. All of this is important because we have since learned the following about Jackson’s alleged (and so far unnamed) victim: he’s twelve, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he received financial assistance from Michael Jackson, he has a younger brother whom Jackson may have also molested, and according to friends of the boy’s family, he sought to ship them to South America. One is left to wonder many things. This is all very disturbing. I can recall watching Bashir’s documentary last February and thinking to myself, “there is something very wrong here.” I am left to wonder: why did it take until now, nearly ten months later, for this to all come to light? How many other people (such as Jackson’s friends and employees) watched this and did nothing? Questions abound. The full power of the law needs to be brought to bear against Michael Jackson. If it were up to me, I’d have him physically castrated and then hanged. Why has this predator been allowed to roam free for so many years? How many other victims are there? No expense should be sparred in putting this trash where he belongs. Listening to Jackson speak on Bashir’s documentary, I can now hear the distant chorus of the future ‘pedophile rights’ movement that I have long prophesized. Jackson’s words, in which he describes his supposed great love for children, often sound like the self-rationalization of a child molester. They also sound like words lifted from some future university course deriding the prosecution of child abusers as the product of a less-enlightened and bygone age. The mainstreaming of pedophilia has already begun. Leaving aside the issue of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association and its ties to the gay rights movement, there is the far more pressing concern that child sexual abuse is being destigmatized and legitimized by some in the psychiatric profession. In 1998 the APA Bulletin published a report entitled A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Written by Bruce Rind, Phillip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman the report, according to one press account, “claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial.” I’ve read this report myself and, quite frankly, it was so disgusting that I felt like throwing up while reading it. At one point the authors repeatedly deny that Child Sexual Abuse is harmful, claiming at one point that the, “data do(es) not support the assumption of wide-scale psychological harm from CSA.” Later they warn that, “Classifying a behavior as abuse simply because it is generally viewed as immoral or defined as illegal is problematic,” and claim that, “the history of attitudes toward sexuality provides numerous examples,” before going on to suggest that today’s popular hatred of pedophilia is the same as previous denunciations of practices such as masturbation and homosexuality. At another point they suggest that scientific terms must be redefined so that, “a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled (sic) simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term.” Upon the release of the study NAMBLA issued a press release praising the study which, it said, showed that, “the current war on boylovers has no basis in science.” Michael Jackson: future martyr of ‘boylovers’ everywhere? Only time shall tell. Good for the Miami Police
I gather things are getting a little but ugly down in Miami, where a group of leftist protestors are clashing with the police.
Hopefully a few of those scumbag protestors will get what they deserve. Oddly enough, these seem to be far more violent than the 'massive' protests that we were assured would happen during Bush's visit to Britain. I Love It
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Dennis Titi points out that, in theory, gay marriage could be stopped by making it a Federal Crime to issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex.
The main problem what this is this: some damned liberal judge somewhere would issue one anyways, and then the lavender Mafia would have a martyr to make hay over. Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Unpatriotic Underground
On September 11th, as the nation mourned and convulsed with rage, people in the Palestinian territories danced in the streets. So, apparently, did the posters at Democratic Underground, a far-left website that has gained increasing notoriety in recent months. It took exactly forty-seven minutes for one of the posters on Democratic Underground, an individual going under the handle of ‘Mel’ to announce (without being rebuked), “I wouldn't put it past the juanta (sic) to set this up.” Numerous other posters quickly expressed similar sentiments, even before the Twin Towers actually fell.
Just how extreme is Democratic Underground? Much of the attention which has come to the site recently has been the result of a widely-publicized message in which exclaimed, “I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq,” adding that American soldiers, “need to die.” This was mentioned both on the Rush Limbaugh show and in a piece by former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan carried in the Sunday Times of London. Conspiracy theories abound at DU where, among other things, a substantial majority of posters believe that the plane crash that killed Senator Paul Wellstone in October 2002 was, “(p)lanned and Executed by the Bush Adminstration (sic) or by someone who wanted to see Wellstone dead.” Similarly, other posters claim that Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan was murdered in order to help the election prospects of John Ashcroft. Another popular theory on DU is that Republicans are engaged in a massive conspiracy to rig elections through the use of electronic or ‘black box’ voting. They contend that Diebold Election Systems, a major producer of voting machines, has been secretly rigging elections, apparently as a part of a massive plot involving thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of people. DU is often described as being the left-wing version of Free Republic, a popular conservative web site set up by Jim Robinson, a resident of Fresno, California. However, whereas Free Republic has been branded as a ‘hate group’ by Fresno’s Human Rights Commission and attacked as the “lunatic fringe” in the San Francisco Gate, outside of the conservative press little attention has been paid to the excesses of Democratic Underground. When, during the 1990’s, conservatives speculated that Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster has been murdered, they were generally ridiculed. Accusations of a much larger number of Clinton-related murders (the Clinton ‘death list’) were similarly laughed at. Conservative writers, such as Byron York, actively sought to discredit far-our theories. However, the mainstream media appears to have never seriously examined many of the ideas now widely-held by the far left, nor has any respectable left-wing writer or intellectual sought to challenge them. DU is run by a man named David Allen, the President of a web design firm known as Online Workshop Design based in Washington, DC. Mr. Allen hold’s a Bachelor’s Degree from Yale and has worked on Senate campaigns in Michigan, Oregon, and Delaware. Information on the site claims that it was founded on January 20, 2001 to protest the inauguration of George W. Bush- but a search of public records reveals that the domain for the site was actually registered on December 5, 2000: six days before Al Gore conceded that year’s disputed Presidential Election. As of the middle of November, Democratic Underground claimed to have roughly 34,000 ‘registered users.’ The term, however, is deceptive because the total counts individuals who have registered accounts that have been banned from posting on the message boards. For example, this reporter has (by his own count) been banned from posting on DU six times. The exact nature of the links between Democratic Underground and the Democratic Party are unknown. While, obviously, it is allowed use of the party name- and linked to by numerous party web sites, there is no readily apparent direct link between the party and the site. DU is organized as a Limited Liability Corporation. No one knows what the future holds for Democratic Underground however, for the time being, it appears as though the popularity of the site has plateaued. Its traffic rank, as measured by the Alexa internet ratings, seems unable to place it any higher than the top five thousand sites on the internet, as compared to Free Republic, which ranks among the top one thousand. Perhaps many have been turned off by the puritanical attitudes of the moderators of the site, which instantly ban any users who express thoughts out-of-step with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Those who advocate voting for a third party, for example, are now banned. Democratic Underground? Hardly. Welcome to ‘unpatriotic underground.’ Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Update (Re: DU/Wellstone)
Check out this poll from Democratic Underground. Apparently a majority of respondents are convinced that the Bush Administration murdered Senator Paul Wellstone.
These people are nuts. But then, bear in mind, a lot of them form the activist base of the Democratic Party. When arguing with these people on Iraq never forget: yes, they are really crazy. How Crazy are Democrats?
Very. Just read Democratic Underground to get a good idea. Apparently, a large percentage of the people there are convinced that:
1) The US Government staged the 9-11 attacks. 2) The Republican Party is engaged in a massive conspiracy to steal elections through electronic voting. 3) Republicans murdered Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan. Yep, sure. We ought to send these people some tinfoil. Howard Dean's Brother...
You'd think having your brother executed by Communists would turn one against the left, but not Howard Dean, so sir.
In any case- there's something odd about this whole thing. Why the hell would you travel to Laos as a 'tourist' in 1974? Some have suggested that he might have been going there to work for the Peace Corps, but I see no evidence of that. All odd, very odd. I see that Charlie Dean was a full-time campaign worker for McGovern. I wonder just how far-left his politics were. I wonder if anyone knows anything about the background of the Australian captured with him. ‘It is high noon, thank God’
After months of waiting the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has finally ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The 4-3 decision in the case essentially ordered the State Legislature to, within six months, pass laws allowing full-blown gay marriage. While I utterly deplore and despise this disgusting decision, I cannot help but feel something of a sense of relief. To paraphrase William Lloyd Garrison, in handing down this decision the court has simply told what time of day it is. It is high noon, thank God.
For two decades the opponents of gay ‘rights’ have been constantly on the defensive, losing the battle step by step. The American people have largely stood on the sidelines of this battle, because the media has successfully distorted the agenda of the gay ‘rights’ mafia, obscuring the fundamental truth that their ultimate goal is the utter annihilation of the existing moral order in our society. Gays have been sold to the public as a sad minority, desperately afraid of being murdered in the streets rather than as a tiny, subversive, clique whose final objective is the destruction of the Christian religion, the weakening of the American Republic, and the imposition of a new and fundamentally alien lifestyle upon the American people. But now is the time to take the fight back to the enemy. They have overplayed their hand: poll after poll, vote after vote, have shown us that a majority of the American people, even in many of the nation’s most liberal and pro-gay states, strongly disapprove of gay marriage. In the majority of states, most of the people disapprove of ‘civil unions’ as well. And, I might add, the polls which show the nation split over ‘civil unions’ tend to be push polls, with wording concentrating on the best-sounding points of the case for unions, asking about whether people should be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital and such. This cannot be hidden as a measure for the ‘protection’ of homosexuals, as so many other steps have. The case simply cannot be framed in such a way as to allow the advocates of the bastardization of marriage to play upon the natural empathy of a majority of the public. Any case for gay marriage rests upon the fundamental presumption that homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality: an opinion that is limited to a minority of the American people. After the Supreme Court struck down all of the nation’s sodomy laws earlier this year in Lawrence v. Texas, the public’s level of support for homosexuality dropped. In fact, polls from that period showed that the public was split upon even the issue of whether homosexual relations should be legal. Even these numbers, I think, were probably understated due to the well-known fact that people who hold opinions deemed to be ‘bigoted’ will (as was seen recently in the Louisiana Governor’s race) tell pollsters what they believe to be politically correct, while privately thinking something else altogether. Amid the chaos of this battle, we can work to roll back the gains made by homosexuals in recent decades. If our political leaders have the moral courage and fortitude to lead, we can fight for the Federal Marriage Amendment- defending Marriage, under the Constitution of the United States, as the union of one man and one woman. This would be a historic and demoralizing defeat for the gay lobby- codifying in the Constitution the fact, accepted by all persons of strong moral character, that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality and that homosexuals are morally inferior to heterosexuals. Don’t get me wrong: I do not advocate violence against gays. Despite their moral failings, they are guaranteed the same basic rights as all other people- but not one inch more! No exceptions, no modifications, no accommodations. We owe homosexuals our compassion in the same way we owe our compassion to those who fall victim to other vices. We may care for the sinner, but we must forever deplore the sin. Gay marriage advocates claim that so long as their affection for buggery is not actively endorsed by the law, they will be second-class citizens. Perhaps that is so. Active gays should be second-class citizens for the same reasons that alcoholics and drug addicts are treated as second-class citizens: they are consumed by and defined by their own moral failings. The real agenda of the gay rights mafia having been exposed, there shall not fail to be a wave of revulsion amongst the majority of the American people. If patriotic politicians are prepared to capitalize upon it, this might well be our great chance. All of the nine Democratic Presidential candidates are now placed in a tough spot: announce their opposition to gay marriage, and alienate the base, or pander to the gays and hand the general election to the Republicans. It is high time for ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ to shut up once more. Monday, November 17, 2003
People From Another Galaxy
One of the things that makes it difficult to even get through the day for a conservative is the constant need to engage in endless arguments over things which, basically, are common sense. Are not men simply men? Are not women simply women? The answer, if you ask any person with half a brain, is “yes.” The answer if you ask a liberal or University Professor is, typically, “it’s more complicated than that.”
A few years ago I read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by a man named Lennard J. Davis, an English Professor at SUNY-Binghamton. Titled ‘Gaining a Daughter: A Father’s Transgendered Tale’, the article described Davis’ acceptance of his son’s status as a ‘transgendered’ individual. The contents of the article were so bizarre that, when I was done, I shook my head and said to myself, “these people aren’t from the same planet as I.” Most hilarious is a section in which the Professor (still not quite free of his latent transophobia) attempts to argue against his son’s new ‘lifestyle’ using academic jargon, asking him, “If women are oppressed and femininity is a construct, why should you essentially reinforce or parody the feminine? Isn't that giving in to patriarchy? Reinforcing the gender binary?” Initially Professor Davis is concerned with his nineteen year-old son’s announcement that he’s ‘transgendered’, noting that he and his wife had, “been willing to accept virtually any behavior from our children -- from their experimentation with marijuana to having their sexual partners sleep over at our house,” but that even they, despite considering themselves to be, “progressive academics”, thought that this was going a little far. Don’t worry of course: at the end the good Professor manages to free himself of his deep-seated prejudice against men who wear fishnet stockings and accept his new ‘daughter.’ The tale, I think, is meant to be uplifting. In fashionable circles, I have little doubt that it would be universally accept as such. Increasingly I expect that I shall soon find myself in jail for ‘hate crimes.’ Some people like to claim that the modern left has no moral standards. This simply isn’t correct: they simply lack morals as we traditionally have known them. They see nothing wrong with people actively supporting the enemy of a country in wartime, but a lot of them would have no problem with putting people in jail merely for voicing criticism of homosexuality. The evil partner in a disintegrating marriage is no longer the adulterer, but rather the remaining spouse, who seeks to restrict the sexual freedom of the exiting partner. Smoking is wrong and should be universally banned, but heroin should be given to addicts for free by the state. Their moral code is strangely totalitarian. I have been accused of being a Hitler-in-waiting for suggesting that people who actively voice support for the enemy in wartime should be jailed and that people who actually join the enemy should be executed. Yet many of the same people who scream themselves blue about the ‘suppression of dissent’ advocate (and in some nations have actually passed) laws which would put people in prison for publicly expressing their opposition to buggery. We are taught that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy but, I wonder if it is so true in this case. Where is this ‘sexual revolution’ leading? We know who we are, and what we stand for: but who are they and what do they stand for? In the space of a few decades we have gone from arguing that, “it isn’t fair to jail homosexuals for their private conduct,” to, “we have to tolerate gays,” to, “being gay is just as good as being straight,” to… I don’t know exactly where we stand today. Who, forty years ago, would have predicted that homosexuality would have the place in our society that it has today? Where shall we be in another forty years? Where are they taking us? The laws passed for the supposed protection of homosexuals can be (and are) used as a means of control over the majority. Gradually, over a period of several generations, all dissenting opinions on homosexuality will be stamped out. After all, my generation is the most pro-gay in history and will remain so until the generation below us comes of age. What shall their attitudes be like? It will not be long, I think, before ‘homophobia’ is declared to be a mental illness and those accused of it are forcibly incarcerated and re-educated by the state. Take a look at the case of J. Michael Bailey, a Professor at Northwestern University. He (and, it seems, everyone he knows) are presently the subject of a gay-rights Jihad which includes, among other things, a ‘hate crimes’ investigation being conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center. What is his crime? He wrote a book, entitled ‘The Man Who Would be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism’ in which he had the audacity to suggest that some individuals who have had sex-change operations remain fundamentally male. This, it claims, is somehow ‘dehumanising’ a catch-all term used to denouncing anything disapproved of by the gay-rights mafia. Now it is important to note that Professor Bailey isn’t even a conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination (not that it would make the attacks against him right). His book was reviewed favourably by ‘Out Magazine’, ‘Lavender Magazine’ and the UK Guardian, among many others. The Guardian even went so far as to describe it as, “highly sympathetic to gay and transsexual men.” It would be a mistake to suggest that the attacks upon the Professor as the work of a kook fringe. After all- they’re being spearheaded by the SPLC, a thoroughly mainstream (if disagreeable) group. Rather, they are symptomatic of a new culture which brooks no dissent, even as it advocates things which the average person would rightly find bizarre and disgusting. Transsexualism might well be real: but that hardly makes it right. It’s time that we talk plainly of homosexuality and its many variants, because the proponents of homosexuality are, in essence, making war upon the normal and decent people of the world. Sometimes I Just Cry...
Read this and shake your head.
Read This Article
If you wish to understand the Middle East conflict and the present waves of anti-Americanism around the world, this article by Natan Sharansky (a genuine hero, I might add) is a must read.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Watch Out for that Bulldozer!
Rachel Corrie, the American-born traitor from Olympia, Washington, died because, for some inscrutable reason, she believed that the large armoured bulldozer speeding towards her would not hit her. In a way, she’s the perfect metaphor for the rest of her comrades among the American left: they simply sit there, convinced that the bulldozer won’t crush them (until it does). Then they (or their successors) blame everyone else for what went wrong.
There will, I think, be another major terrorist attack: and probably sooner rather than later. The Democrats are setting things up to make sure that President Bush won’t gain support as a result of the next attack as he did the last. They mean to blame him for it. One can hear it in the speeches of many senior Democrats: they’re paying lip service to the cause of ‘homeland security’, not because they care about it, but because they want to generate soundbytes which will make them sound prophetic after the next attack. If there is another terrorist attack upon American soil, it will be as much the fault of the left as the fault of al-Qaeda. The left is playing a dangerous political game with America’s security. They are endangering the terror war with their cheap political tactics: their obstructionism, their politicization of all elements of the war, and their constant use of rhetoric designed to appeal to the dumbest of the dumb (read: ‘leftist activists’). The problem is as such: the left doesn’t believe that the threat is real or, if they believe it real, they think that it’s the fault of Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush, rather than those who initiated this war. They’re lying prostrate before the bulldozer, certain that their spiritual harmony with the Earth grants them immunity from death by crushing. But, when the crushing does come, they’ll know just who to blame. During the course of this war the left has behaved like a bratty toddler in a shopping mall- kicking, crying, screaming and running about. They are not quite powerful enough to stop us altogether, but they can slow things down and make life difficult for everyone. We can’t simply kill them, as they are our brethren, but we can (and should) give them a hell of a spanking. We cannot wage war if we must constantly be on guard against a stab in the back! 9-11 would not have happened had the right measures been taken to forestall it during the eight years that Bill Clinton sat in the White House and did little more than cast doubt upon the official definition of the word ‘is.’ There is blood upon his hands. There is blood upon the hands of every single security official in that Administration who, for eight whole years, did nothing to prepare for the threatening storm. Now that the grown-ups are in charge, the same crowd that failed so miserably, along with its supporters, is deliberately seeking to sabotage our war against the terror masters for their own political ends. The best thing that could happen, from the point of view of the Democrats, would be for there to be a Democrat in the White House. The best thing that could happen, from the point of view of the terrorists, would be for there to be a Democrat in the White House. Their interests are one and the same and, as a result, they are (largely unknowingly) working in concert. Every move by the Democrats and the domestic left in opposition to the war is every bit as damaging (and perhaps more so) as a suicide bombing by al-Qaeda. Objectively, the left and the terrorists are on the same side in this war. Objectively, the distinctions between ‘terrorist’ and ‘Democrat’ are simply beginning to erode. Both have the same short-term goal: the destruction of America’s power in the world: they would simply part company at that point. One is simply more violent than the other: both are equally vile. That is an astounding thing to say, to be sure: but then the Democrats have been working astoundingly hard to demonstrate that their reputation as the ‘party of treason’ is well-deserved. The bulldozer is coming. As soon as the Islamists acquire the weapons with which to match their hate they will use them: and millions will die. And then those who prevented the necessary measures from being taken will point their fingers and others, and they will be joined by their many Quislings in the media. It really is enough to make one wish that there were many, many more among the left just like Rachel Corrie. A Test
From Out the Azure Main
President Bush’s trip to the United Kingdom may well turn out to be a disaster. But it need not be. If the President allows the day to be carried by the shrill crowds in the streets, the massive mobs of stupid and unwashed clods that will (without any doubt) receive fawning coverage from the world media, then things will end badly. If, on the other hand, he decides to meet them head-on and again make the case for the war, he could gain a big boost from the trip.
The President cannot back down in the face of the idiot brigades anymore than he can back down in the face of terror. Those people on the streets of London (and the streets of so many other cities) are the moral equivalent of the terrorists. They are their fifth column within the West- the weapon with which Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ultimately plan to win this war. They deserve to share in the fate of the terrorists. I deeply regret that it is not possible for them to do so at the present time. In virtually any other major war throughout history the leaders of that group would be in jail and their followers would be drunkenly expressing their discontent in a dark basement somewhere. We cannot have a situation where the President (after witnessing massive and, perhaps, riotous protests) says something like, “well, I have my opinion and they have theirs.” He needs to come out and say, “I have my opinion, and I am right. They have their opinions. They are wrong. They are on the side of evil.” In essence, the only positive thing that the President can do on this London trip is engage in a direct confrontation with the protestors. In fact, it might be to our great benefit if Bush were to actively seek to provoke them to action. He could deliver a speech saying something like this: “We’ve seen a lot of protests here in Britain. What these folks here don’t understand is the nature of the enemies that we’re fighting. They killed three thousand Americans on 9-11 and they only reason they haven’t killed more is that they lack the weapons with which to match their hate. We know that Saddam was linked to terror. The Ba’athist remnant forces that we are fighting in Iraq are actively allied with al-Qaeda. We’ve discovered in Iraq mass graves that contain the bodies of 300,000 people murdered by the former regime. We went to war in Kosovo, a war I supported by the way, over the massacre of a few thousand. “These people out here on the streets: rioting, looting, smashing, screaming: they’re on the side of terror. Not long after September 11th, I warned that nations of the world that they were either with us, or they were with the terrorists. The same goes for the people of this world. Those people, on the streets, they have made their choice clear. “There is a strange moral disease that is spreading in this world. It comes from a loss of confidence in ourselves. We are engaged in a great war to defend ourselves from terror. We know who we are and what we stand for. Who are these people? And what do they stand for? The worse the protestors act, the better things will turn out. Let the Nine Dwarfs step out and voice support- claim that the protestors are a demonstration of something that President Bush has done wrong. Let them be identified with the protestors. A skilful public relations campaign is needed to merge the enemy in the minds of the American people. If the protests are sufficiently violent and the President stands properly opposed, the images will not fail to create in the minds of many people an indelible link between the protestors and the terrorists. This will be especially true if the conservative elements of the media can work hard at playing up the worst excesses of the protests. Sufficiently blur the lines between the terrorists and the protestors and between the protestors and the Democratic Presidential candidates and, in the minds of many people, they all will become simply the different faces of the same enemy. The Democrats know this- it could force some of the more moderate candidates to disavow the sort of people rioting in London. The results of this could be ideal- denouncing the protestors would hurt the chances of the more moderate candidates for the nomination and play into the hands of Howard Dean, who is the favored candidate of the protestor left. And, of course, being associated too closely with the hordes of the unwashed is a bonus for no candidate. This is all only possible. But it will only happen if the President (and his advisors) have the courage to tell the truth. Of Course I Am...
Dissapointed that Bobby Jindal lost in Louisiana. But, frankly, the truth is that he came close- in a state which almost elected David Duke Governor and Senator just a decade ago. The woman who won is pro-life and anti-gun control- and she has a Cajun name, which undoubtedly helped her. The lesson here is as such: a conservative, pro-life Democrat can win in Louisiana. That's not a surprise. A conservative, pro-life Democrat can win in Louisiana and a liberal, pro-abortion Republican can win in California.
And, of course, Louisiana is a little behind the rest of the South. It's the French influence, I think- any area where the French have had great control tends to be 50% slower and dumber than an area once ruled by Britain. Jindal is also another victim of 'Mediscare' tactics by the Democrats. He also fell into the same trap as far too many Republicans- he played too nice. He promised not to go negative and kept his promise, even when Blanco attacked him. That was a stupid move on his part. Nice guys finish last in politics. Republicans need to remember that at primary time: a strong, mean Republican who can tear the Democrats throats out and use every dirty tactic in the book is worth ten times a nice, meek, Republican with fancy degrees. People might denounce Jesse Helms for his 1990 'white hands' ad. But he won election to the Senate five times in a state which was often competitive. Friday, November 14, 2003
Fighting for Conservative Principles
The Conservatives cannot make the same mistake as Reform and allow the media to goad them into abandoning their principles. Rather, they must articulate a specific, conservative, and detailed platform which, nonetheless, can be boiled down to a few basic points: crime, political reform, and national pride.
1) Get Tough on Criminals: People in this country have a certain sense of despair when it comes to crime. They are resigned to living in fear, to seeing criminals let free to make new victims, to seeing justice denied. No one, in all of history, ever lost an election because they were too tough on crime. The only people who oppose ‘get tough’ measures are the liberal elites and media. Propose some of the following: • Abolish mandatory release- allow parole only when a criminal has shown actual reform, made restitution for their crime, and displays genuine remorse. • Double the lengths of the maximum and minimum sentences for all crimes. Everyone knows that criminal sentences are far too short. • Repeal the law which requires judges to consider all other alternatives before sending someone to prison. • Reinstate capital punishment. Use the cases of Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, and Robert Pickton to illustrate the need. Ask, “Why do these men deserve to live, at the expense of the people no less?” • Allow for consecutive sentencing (IE- when someone is convicted of two crimes carrying a twenty year sentence each, they will actually serve forty years, rather than serving both twenty year sentences at the same time). • Pass a law which makes fifteen years the minimum sentence for a first time child sex offender and which makes a life sentence mandatory for repeat offenders. Emphasize this repeatedly, thereby forcing the Liberals to defend the ‘rights’ of child molesters. • Adopt a ‘three strikes law’ under which anyone convicted of three felonies is given a life sentence. • Create a ‘protective care’ law which allows parents or courts to forcibly commit substance abusing minors to treatment. Hit the crime issue again and again. Either force the Liberals to shift and become tougher on crime, which leaves an opening for the NDP, or force them to reveal themselves to the public as the party of criminality. 2) Reform the System: Everyone knows that the Canadian political system is deeply corrupt, anti-democratic, and nearly totally unaccountable. The Conservatives should prevent a clear and simple plan for reform: • Create an elected Senate. If some Provinces will not consent to changing the Constitution to provide for such a body, the Prime Minister should simply appoint to the Senate those who win elections conducted within individual Provinces as an interim measure. Once several Provinces found themselves represented by elected and effective Senators, I expect that the people of the non-consenting Provinces would demand the same. The idea of an elected Senate is a popular one. • Allow for citizen-initiated referendums. Sometimes it is necessary for the people to have the ability to make laws. While the Canadian Alliance was mocked for this position in the last election, the idea is fundamentally sound, a fact demonstrated by the heavy use of initiatives in large areas of the United States and Europe. • Require the confirmation of all appointments made by the Prime Minister (with the exception of his own personal staff appointments) by the Senate. • Drastically reduce the number of Ministries and Government agencies. Especially seek to junk largely unaccountable arms-length entities in order to make government more fully accountable to the people. 3) Reclaim and Redefine ‘Canadianess’: One of the major reasons for the success of the Liberal Party is that they have successfully managed to define, “being Canadian” as “being a leftist.” The pillars of modern Canadian identity seem to be: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Medicare, and anti-Americanism. With the right sort of advertising, the Conservative Party could reach back into the past and lay claim to an older sort of Canada, the one that existed before Pierre Trudeau and the collapse of the British Empire destroyed it. • Bring back the Red Ensign and fly it alongside the Maple Leaf at party events. Seek to use it whenever possible, with the goal of eliciting attacks from the left who will seek to denounce the Canada that represents. When attacked on the use of the Ensign, respond indignantly and passionately. • Reach back into Canadian history, especially the settling of this country, and attempt to portray ‘self-reliance’ as a core Canadian value. Say things like, “we cannot take care of eachother if we first do not learn to take care of ourselves.” Use this line to attack the various institutions which have been used to manufacture the present Canadian identity. • Promise to abolish the CBC and all restrictions on foreign media. Use Canada’s many international media stars and declare that, “all over the world we can see that, when Canadians compete, they perform brilliantly.” Argue that the restrictions hurt Canada by isolating it from international media markets and have turned Canada itself into a media backwater. By restricting freedom, we are sending some of our best talent abroad. • Argue that, “Canada has been its best when Canada has been a robust defender of freedom.” Not only should Canada increase its military budget, and stand alongside Britain, Australia, and America- but it should also become an active humanitarian interventionist. Point to the experience of Rwanda, where a few thousand troops might have saved a few hundred thousand lives. Argue that, for Canada’s humanitarian words to be taken seriously in the world they must be matched by force. Propose a foreign policy wherein, while the United States fights major wars, Canada’s well-trained and equipped legions are dispatched to save lives and restore freedom all over the world. In countless dark corners, a few armed men could make all the difference in the world. Point to the example of Sierra Leone, where a relative handful of British troops ended a bloody Civil War. Conservatives will not win if we again wither under Liberal attacks. The future does not belong to the strong alone: it also belongs to the vigilant, the active, the brave. The Liberals may have the money and the media, but we can have the people if only we can find the will to fight for these things in which we believe. Keep it Up
A British 'anti-capitialist' is nearing the terminal phase of a hunger strike he launched to protest his arrest for carrying various weapons at a protest. His brother is flying to Greece to get him to stop. I say: keep it up.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Martin Can Lose
Repeat after me: Paul Martin is not unbeatable, Paul Martin need is not invincible, Paul Martin is not a manifestation of our Lord and Saviour. Tomorrow, Paul Martin formally becomes the Prime Minister-elect. At an unspecified (but near) time in the future, he will officially take office. All that has passed before this point has been but a prelude: Martin has been publicly venerated for so long that even he has probably forgotten just exactly what it is like to live in reality.
Martin, we are told, is a smart businessman who managed to balance Canada’s budget. Martin is a ‘compassionate’ politician, in favor of additional spending on health care, infrastructure, international aid, aid to cities and… well, pretty much everything. Martin is a social progressive, fully in line with the social doctrines of the day. Martin is a devout Catholic, and uncomfortable with some of the positions taken by Chrétien of late. In his Administration, supposedly, all of these will be reconciled. If he believes his own press, he is probably preparing to be canonized the day after he takes office. He cannot possibly meet the expectations that have been set for him. After the media tarring and feathering of Stockwell Day, all that will be expected of the Conservative Party leader during the next election by the general public will be that he keep drooling to a minimum and not fall over too often. Martin, on the other hand, will be expected to walk on water, convert water into wine, and personally heal the sick with his touch. The result will be as such: Martin will end up looking like less than was promised and the Conservative Party leader will be widely hailed for being much better than anticipated. Given the right conditions, this could mean that Paul Martin will be transformed into John Turner II. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, I know. Everyone knows that Paul Martin will win the next election in a walk. Everyone knows that Paul Martin’s combination of social liberalism and economic ‘conservatism’ is perfectly in tune with the ‘values’ of the Canadian people. Everyone knows that the public will never turn to a truly conservative alternative, as they view Liberal corruption as the lesser of two evils. But, for a moment, let us forget about what we know and look at the facts on the ground. How does the ascension of Paul Martin really change the dynamics of the present government? What will Prime Minister Martin do differently than Prime Minister Chrétien? We do not know exactly what Martin will do since, for the most part, he has not felt that telling us would be a worthy use of his time. However, it can be expected that one of the first acts of Martin’s government will be to reward his many supporters who have followed him for many years as though he were the Messiah. There will be no end to the corruption and the scandals of the Chrétien years because Martin’s people, as Chrétien’s were, have the attitude and bearing that befits the Mandarins of a one-party state. Whatever policy changes occur will be largely cosmetic, not fundamental. Perhaps we shall see a modest boost in defense spending, some superficial attempts at ‘Parliamentary reform’, and a few other minor adjustments. But in no area is a reversal of course likely to be total. Martin desires better relations with the United States, but Chrétien’s anti-Americanism was only a small part of the problem. Moreover, Martin will be vulnerable from the left. The Federal NDP is resurgent: in the last year both Vancouver and Toronto have elected NDP-affiliated Mayors and polls show the NDP within striking distance of regaining its status of the 1980’s. Jack Layton has smartly focused the party’s resources on winning urban ridings. The NDP, which until recently has often seemed as though it stepped out of a Trade Union conference circa 1932, seems to have finally come to terms with that fact that the vast majority of the public will never vote for them on their economic agenda. Instead, the Federal NDP has three potent cards to play: drugs, homosexuality, and anti-Americanism. Laugh as you might about the idea of the Marijuana Party, but recall that it got 3.2% of the vote in the last Provincial Election in British Columbia. The NDP will have to walk a fine line: but it can be walked. For the NDP to outpace expectations it must be neither a party of the ‘Third Way’ nor a party of the Svend Robinsonite activist left. Facing off against the Martin Liberals, the NDP must become the party of the people who buy Michael Moore’s books and read the ‘alternative’ weekly newspapers that most cities have. The Canadian people want change. Many of them are hoping to get it in the form of Paul Martin. But, if he fails, he will be beatable. Not only will he lose support to the left, but he will also find himself facing a united right, one desperate for victory. I am not certain that Martin will lose, far from it. But it is possible. It’s time for all of us to stop pretending that God has ordained that he govern us until at least 2008. Wednesday, November 12, 2003
A Wonderful Speech
John Ellis has posted General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's wonderful farewell speech. Read it, appreciate it, love it.
The London Danger
There is real danger in the London visit scheduled next week for President Bush. The insistence by London’s Mayor, ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone that protestors be allowed into the heart of the city has created a situation whereby thousands of lives might be placed into danger. And, while the deaths of anti-war and Islamist protestors would not exactly reduce me to tears, it does create an unacceptable danger.
What am I talking about? Simple: mass anti-war protests present the perfect opportunity for al-Qaeda to create their unique brand of chaos. At a large-scale anti-war protest you have several things: 1) Masses of people, easily worked into frenzy mode, operating in close proximity and often confined spaces. 2) Large numbers of armed police. 3) An opportunity to move about groups of people who might otherwise elicit unwanted scrutiny. Not only is this true when moving about the city, but it is also true when travelling. I expect that someone entering Britain for the purposes of joining the protest is less likely to be subject to a close investigation than a similar traveller under ordinary circumstances, lest customs officials find themselves accused of ‘discrimination.’ Think about it for a second. All al-Qaeda would need are a dozen or so armed individuals, with only minimal training and a few weapons. At best, a few of them ought to have advanced weapons training. They would then be inserted into the march, mostly at the points where trouble is due to occur. Perhaps they could even be used to initiate a scuffle. Amid the protest, one of them could open fire on the police, attempting to elicit a response. As the police respond to the first shot (presumably with gas, rather than live ammunition) other terrorists could target their weapons upon the police, while a few others could roll or throw grenades into the crowd. Due to the confusion, I have no doubt that some of the protests would seek to engage the police. Others would run in the confusion. If the attack were initiated at the right location, the protestors might find themselves bottlenecked, resulting in many being trampled in the ensuing melee. Under serious fire, the police might even be compelled to open fire with live ammunition. Imagine what happens when one hundred thousand (or many more) people stampede under the threat of grenades and gunfire. It would be chaotic and ugly. The death toll would be massive, at least in the hundreds and, quite possibly, into the thousands. Moreover, it would all be televised live as it unfolded. Now, you might ask, wouldn’t this have the effect of turning anti-war protestors against the terrorists? The answer is: no, of course not. Who do you think would be blamed, al-Qaeda? Perish the thought. Tony Blair would be blamed for providing insufficient security and, most of all; George W. Bush would be blamed for daring to come to London. In fact, a large segment of the left would probably believe that the entire thing has been set up and ordered by President Bush. One of the worst effects of the internet has been to unify the left-wing fringe around a core of ideas which sounds as if they are borrowed from Lyndon Larouche (such as the idea that supposedly Republicans are rigging elections all over the country via electronic voting machines). The prevailing mood after an attack such as this would not be anger at al-Qaeda. A good lesson for al-Qaeda is this: the fifth columnists in the West hate the United States in general (and George W. Bush in particular) far more than they hate Osama Bin Laden. Anything that they do is more likely to be blamed upon the Bush Administration than it is upon them. The people in the protests are on the cutting edge of Western cultural evolution: they are people whose nerves have been broken and whose primary desire is to surrender rather than fight for their heritage. The Limits of Dissent
Paul Douglas Revak, a Western Washington University student who plotted bomb attacks against Coast Guard and Army National Guard stations has pled guilty to reduced charges and will probably be out of prison before Christmas. His lawyer claims that he was merely, “expressing his frustration with the Administration.” The whole case calls to mind what Ann Coulter said about John Walker Lindh- that he should have been executed to send a message to liberals that yes, there are consequences to treason.
During the Revolutionary War, suspected Tories were tarred and feathered and British collaborators were executed. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, threw secessionists in jail and, eventually, arrested Copperhead ‘Peace Democrats’. In the First World War the Congress passed the Sedition Act, threw those opposed to the war in jail, and banned the shipment of anti-war materials through the mails. In the Second World War all Japanese-Americans were interned along with those Germans and Italians believed to be sympathetic to the cause of their parent nations. I do not bring up these examples to warn against the loss of civil liberties today, but rather to point out that we have lost too few. Republics cannot allow the same freedoms in war as they would in peace. Inter armes silent leges- in times of war the law falls silent. Not my words: Cicero’s. The left in this nation has forgotten the difference between ‘dissent’ and treason. While, in the past, people have objected to America’s other wars have done so largely silently and alone, today’s ‘dissenters’ presume that they have a democratic right to seek to undermine a war effort, even going so far as to collaborate with the enemies of their own nation. They view Jane Fonda’s 1972 trip to North Vietnam, during which she mocked American Prisoners of War and broadcast enemy propaganda, as simply a legitimate act of political expression. It wasn’t: it was treason in the clearest sense of the word. It would have been utterly proper and just if, upon her return, Jane Fonda had been arrested, tried, convicted, and hanged. In fact, it would be proper if it were to occur tomorrow: there is no statute of limitations on treason. In every other major war in human history, war opponents have been booed, beaten, jailed and, depending upon their actions, executed. It should be so in this war as well. Paul Revak shouldn’t have been allowed to go free with a few months of jail time. He should have been put to death- not only to punish him for his sins, but also to send the right sort of message to those who share his ideas: yes, you too can be executed. But it is more than simply worrying about a few crazies who might join al-Qaeda, build bombs, or fly to some far-off land to broadcast enemy propaganda. The greatest threat is posed by the massed ranks of the so-called anti-war movement which, together with elements of the left, constitutes the real fifth column within this country. Islamic terrorists preparing terrorist attacks aren’t fifth columnists: to be a ‘fifth column’ there must be a presumption of loyalty. The Islamists, even those who are sleeper agents, are more akin to enemy special forces than anything else. Those opposed to the war constitute a disloyal element serving the goals of the enemies of freedom. They must be harshly dealt with. The idea that a government ought to permit an active anti-war movement during a war for national survival is new, dating mostly from the Vietnam era, when traitors successfully cloaked their machinations in the rhetoric of freedom as a means of subversion. No nation can be expected to successfully wage a war when it has ten million enemies clustered within its own borders: working to destroy public morale, undermine confidence in leadership, question the reasons of war and take other actions which can be spun as ‘innocent’ but which, in all reality, are pro-enemy. Any crackdown upon traitors should begin with the trial and execution of those who have committed overt acts of treason: John Walker Lindh being the primary example, but also including Jose Padilla, James Yee, Paul Revak, Ahmad al Halabi, Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, and probably about a dozen others. It should be followed up upon by the passage of laws (along the lines of the Sedition Act of the First World War) which will allow for the detention of potential subversives. It doesn’t even matter so much if the laws aren’t quite Constitutional- the both the World War One Sedition Act and Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus were eventually ruled so- with sufficient will it can be arranged so that no final decision will be made until after the war. Anti-war publications and journalists should be harassed and, where possible, shut down with their employees jailed. The internet will be harder to handle, but not impossible. With a few million dollars, the blind eye of law enforcement and the right people, the treasonous elements on the internet could be quickly expunged through a combination of sabotage, hacking, infiltration, and denial of service attacks. IP tracing and other tools could be used to uncover the identity of anti-war individuals who could then be made subject to harassment: either official or unofficial. This is a war: we don’t have time to argue with the agents of the enemy, to reason with them and we certainly have no reason whatsoever to compromise them or consider the validity of even a single syllable that they utter. “If you so restrict freedom,” some will say, “then the terrorists will have won.” That is nonsense, the terrorists will only win when we lose the will to defend our society. The terrorists win when we let their advocates roam free. The terrorists win when we let the words of their friends give them comfort. The terrorists don’t win when we put their lovers in jail. Tuesday, November 11, 2003
The Other Charles Scandal?
Is Prince Charles also a convert to Islam? There are rumours and it was reported upon in the Middle East Quarterly (a reputable magazine) in 1997. The gay Moslem King?
Democrat Economics
How many times have we all heard a Democratic politician or talking head whine that this is, “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover”? It’s a bizarre reference, seeing as it seems likely that only a small percentage of the American people (and, therefore, an even smaller percentage of likely Democratic voters) know who Herbert Hoover was or what the economy was like when he was the President. It’s a little bit like Osama Bin Laden whining about the, “tragedy of Andalusia,” which is a reference to when the Moors were finally driven from Spain in 1492. I fully expect that whoever is the Democratic nominee for President will attack President Bush for having, “the worst foreign policy since James Madison,” as well as for his opposition to the free coinage of silver.
The left, using a phrase stolen from George HW Bush, attacked Ronald Reagan’s plans for the economy as ‘Voodoo economics’ because they flew in the face of conventional wisdom. However, say what you will about Reagan’s plans, they had a certain logic and consistency. Returning money from the Federal Government to the people, including ‘tax cuts for the rich’ would stimulate economic activity which, ultimately, would lead to increased prosperity for the people as well as increased revenues for the government as the GDP grew at a speedier rate. I tried to come up with a similar pejorative for Democratic economic policies, but initially failed to come up with one simply because the economic policies being proposed by the Democratic Party make no rational sense. Rather, they are a series of carefully focus-grouped answers with only dubious connections to eachother. Dick Gephardt has said that the three priorities of his administration will be, “jobs, jobs, and jobs” (yes, I would have thought that ‘winning the war’ might have popped up in there as well but, alas…). All major Democrats are on the same kick, attacking the supposedly catastrophic unemployment rate of 6%. The problem with this is as such: the Democrats also want to impose upon the United States a European-style welfare state, featuring Universal Health Care and the taxes to support it. As a result of Europe’s socialism, nearly every nation in Europe has a notably higher rate of unemployment than the United States. In France, where the government has passed laws which prevent anyone from working more than thirty-five hours a week, the unemployment rate stands at 9.6%. In Germany it’s 9.7%. These, I might add, are not short-term blips, but rather evidence of what everyone knows: generous social welfare benefits create a disincentive to work. In Canada with an economy broadly similar to that of the United States, but a more extensive welfare state, has an unemployment rate of 7.6%. Interestingly enough, this can even be found within the United States. The states with the highest rates of unemployment are not ‘poor’ states in the South. Rather, the pack is led by Oregon which, in September, featured a European-style unemployment rate of 8%, followed by Alaska (which, while far from liberal, offers substantial cash handouts) at 7.8% and Washington State, which has a 7.6% rate. Why should Oregon have twice as much unemployment as Kansas? Why should Washington have more than double the rate of Virginia? Are Washington and Oregon poor, impoverished, dust-bowl states? Now, liberals will claim that unemployment is so low in places like South Dakota (3.4%), Virginia (3.7%), Wyoming (4.0%), and Nebraska (4.0%) because ‘mean-spirited’ welfare policies in those places force the unemployed to take whatever jobs become available in order to survive. This is true. It is also at odds with the rest of their argument. You can’t ‘create jobs’ by advocating polices which require a permanent acceptance of high rates of unemployment. Liberals, of course, will try to claim the mantle of the ‘Clinton record’ on the economy to prove their capability as stewards of the economy. What they omit is the fact that the only reason the economy prospered during the Clinton reign is that Bill Clinton didn’t really do anything at all to the economy during his time in office because he spent most of his time fighting scandals that he brought upon himself and a Republican Congress which was elected mostly because of popular disdain for him. Clinton inadvertently had the good sense to leave the management of the economy to the people, rather than bureaucrats in the Department of Labor. The Democrats aren’t advocates of ‘voodoo economics’, that much is for sure: all Ronald Reagan did was end the biggest recession since the Great Depression (an actual one, mind you, not one invented and then articulated with the same force as the Reverend Jesse Jackson claiming that a strike by Piano Tuners in Bethesda, MD is ‘the new Selma), launch a decade of growth, and lay the foundation for the boom of the 1990’s. These policies are the result of dazed, deranged, and delusional minds. Thankfully, we have one word which encompasses all three of the above. Welcome to the world of Democratic Economics. Sunday, November 09, 2003
The Case Against Howard Dean
In 1978 Howard Dean stopped being an Episcopalian. What motivated this change? Was he compelled to move by some great theological disagreement? Did he have a spiritual awakening? No: he had a fight with the local Episcopal Church over a bike path. That is the kind of man Howard Dean is. That is where his priorities lie.
The greatest lie that we will hear about Howard Dean in the coming months is this: he’s a fiscal conservative. The basis of this statement is as such: he mostly balanced Vermont’s budget when he was the Governor there. Of course, what that fails to mention is that Vermont is one of the most affluent states in the nation. Oh, and it has high taxes- really high. Dean promises to establish a form of quasi-universal health care at a cost of $88.3 billion. It would probably be fair to suggest that, as the plan calls for providing full insurance for all people up until the age of twenty five, as well as for those with incomes up to 185% of the poverty line. He also promises a variety of tax credits. Oh yes, and he promised to coerce companies which don’t provide health insurance to their employees. In other words, the cost is really $88.3 billion (his estimate) plus whatever it costs to consumers in money that is, in essence, indirectly taxed through the use of the power of the state. And, of course, it should be remembered that most Federal entitlement programs usually end up costing about ten times what they’re expected to cost. Dean brags that his plan costs 1/3 what a similar plan proposed by Dick Gephardt costs and covers more people. This would be true, were Dr. Governor Howard Dean also a wizard. I’m going to hazard a guess and suggest that the Dean plan was devised by former Enron energy traders, a plausible assumption given that the campaign seems to be run by unemployed tech workers who are resolved to remain unemployed until Howard Dean is elected President after which, presumably, he will send them back in time to 1998, where they will again find gullible individuals who will invest billions of dollars in companies that sell designer toilet paper online. The real question about Howard Dean is this: just how much will he raise taxes? He claims that he won’t. Except, of course, for ‘repealing’ the Bush Tax Cuts a move which, apparently, will raise taxes on everyone without counting as a tax increase. After the Bush tax cuts are repealed, Dean will probably get to work on repealing the Reagan Tax Cuts, the JFK tax cuts, and attempt to reinstate the temporary income tax repealed by the Congress after the Civil War. He also promises to ‘invest in job creation’, a promise made by every Democratic candidate for President in the last seventy years which lacks any real meaning. How exactly does Dean plan to ‘invest’? Does he plan to deal with the unprecedented challenges posed by America’s staggering 6.0% unemployment rate by drafting the vast armies of the unemployed into quasi-military units and making them work? Something tells me that such a move would be unpopular with the Democratic base, where the idea that recipients of government largesse is despised as much, or more than, smoking and hunting. Recently, Dean told a Florida gathering that Southerners have to stop basing their votes on, “race, God, guns, and gays.” There’s a good reason for him to say this, as no intelligent Southerner would trust him on any of these issues. While Dean may have scored well with the NRA a decade ago, his support today comes from liberal Democratic activists who despise guns when they are used for the defense of the average person (though they have fewer objections when those guns are for their own defense). The gay issue in particular will be a killer for Dean. If he’s the nominee, the President will probably only confront him on the issue obliquely. However, he’ll have plenty of operatives on the ground that will do the work on this issue for him. We’ll make it very certain that the public knows just who Howard Dean is and just what is likely to come in the way of gay ‘rights’ if he is President. Endless accommodation to the “LGBT community” might win you votes in San Francisco, but it isn’t going to be a big selling point in the heartland. Moral Americans still understand the threat posed to the nation by the gay rights movement. We might be willing to allow homosexuals to live out their sad lives in private, but we will never consent to allowing the destruction of the sacrament of marriage. If, in the next year, a court attempts to judicially impose gay marriage upon the United States, the election will be effectively over. Dean says that he doesn’t support full gay marriage- but he does support Civil Unions and a whole raft of their gay-pandering legislation. That will be more than enough. Ironically, Dean’s greatest weakness is the reason he is the probable Democratic nominee. The Democratic base hates the war in Iraq, in part out of an extension of their hatred for President Bush. In a Presidential race, Dean will be beaten black and blue over this issue. Democrats are still seething about attack ads which they claim questioned the patriotism of triple amputee Max Cleland and led to him losing his Senate seat in Georgia. Those ads are mild compared to what will be hurled at Dean in the coming year. He is on the wrong side of history in Iraq. As time goes on, the security situation in the nation is going to claim fewer American lives. The US is rushing to bring an Iraqi security force online. This is a critical point. There is no good reason why the US Army’s best should serve as a garrison force any longer than is necessary. This is why it is absurd to argue for more troops for the occupation of Iraq. By November 2004 the US forces engaged in occupation duty in Iraq will have been drawn down to a low level, perhaps just a single division. They will be replaced by US-backed Iraqi troops, who will suffer in the guerrilla war and steadily beat down the resistance. Those who panicked over the war will look weak, nervous, and unfit to lead. Dean will then either have to abandon a core position or become harsher and more strident. By this time too, it might be added, US forces will probably have moved on to the next target, leaving Dean to either argue about old news, or oppose the next war from an ever weaker position. This is the panic season. It happens in every war. It is happening in Iraq right now. The field is in motion and we are unsure of our past moves. Don’t worry. It is as it always is: if we keep our resolve and fight on, Howard Dean’s name will stand in history alongside that of Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and George McGovern. The Other Side of Maher Arar
I’m sick to death of watching everyone shed tears over the supposed injustice done on Maher Arar, the Syrian-Canadian dual citizen who was deported to Syria by the United States, held there for a year, and tortured. I grant you that it is possible that Mr. Arar may be a victim of an injustice. But I don’t really believe that to be the case. In all the weeping over Arar’s ordeal, we have forgotten the main question: was he a member or supporter of al-Qaeda?
This question has never been answered. All we have is Arar’s denial which, quite frankly, I do not believe. Arar fits the profile of a terrorist. He’s young, Moslem, Western-educated, and from an engineering background. A known member of al-Qaeda witnessed Arar’s signature on the lease of his Ottawa apartment. How many Canadian Moslems travel through the United States each year? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? One hundred thousand? Whatever the number is, it is large. How many of these Moslems have been sent to the Middle East because of their suspected links to terror? One: Maher Arar. This man wasn’t captured as a result of a random whim, if the United States (and seemingly the Canadian government as well) went through this much trouble, they must have had a good reason to do so. I’m also suspicious of the circumstances of which Arar was nabbed. He was captured on his way back from a family vacation to Tunisia, a known hot-bed of al-Qaeda activity. He had left his family behind in Tunisia, travelling back alone. It was some time before his wife and children came back to Canada. I am left to wonder: just what was he coming back here for, and was his family even supposed to come back? The United States isn’t operating blindly in this war. I’ve long-advocated that they need to detain and intern all of those suspected not only of being al-Qaeda members, but also those who are supporters or sympathetic to it or its aims. It has not done this. The al-Qaeda members being detained are active, many of them have trained in terrorist camps, and all of them are dangerous. For the US Government to take extraordinary action as it did here, something must have been up. Maher Arar claims that he didn’t even know the al-Qaeda member who witnessed his lease. He says that he was just the brother of a friend, who was sent over to perform the delicate task of watching a stroke of a pen and making one of his own shortly thereafter. I find this to be an unlikely story. In Syria, Arar signed a confession in which he admitted to attending an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, a confession he has since recanted. But has Arar ever been to Afghanistan or Pakistan? Where was he at the times he specified in his confession? These questions need to be asked, but are not because our media is more interested in milking this story to score anti-American points. Why was Arar in Tunisia? It’s been reported that he was there for a family vacation, but I wonder. Is Tunisia exactly a vacation hot spot? Where did he visit in Tunisia? What exactly as Arar’s views on the War? What does he have to say about Osama Bin Laden? One of the reasons why Arar said that he could not be sent back to Syria is that a relative of his was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a major Islamist organization which served as a predecessor to al-Qaeda. I wonder, how close was Arar to that relative, and did he have links to the Muslim Brotherhood? Before we cry of Maher Arar, we need to know the truth about him. If he was an al-Qaeda member or supporter, I don’t really care what happened to him. My only regret in that case would be that he is still alive, my only question: why is he now free? Don’t try and tell me that he’s obviously innocent because the Syrians let him go and the Canadians have let him roam free. It’s equally possible that he was only a minor member of al-Qaeda and the Syrians decided to let him go because keeping him wasn’t worth the trouble while the Canadian government has let him go because it has a decidedly unserious attitude towards terror. I could be wrong. Maher Arar could be a perfectly nice guy who despises al-Qaeda. I don’t believe that, but it is possible. If that is the case, he is more a victim of his co-religionists, who are seeking to murder tens of millions of innocents than he is of the American government, which is trying to defend them. But we won’t learn the real truth about Arar until the media abandons its illusion that every member of a minority group crying about injustice has had one done to them. Maher Arar might whine that, because of this, he will always be under a cloud of suspicion. He’s right: I am suspicious of him. There is more to this than you’ll hear from Amnesty International or on the CBC. The Latest Warning
Provided to us via our friends at the Northeast Intelligence Network:
"A final warning to all of the Muslims in three sites inside the United States - Washington - New York - Los Angeles... The hit from al Qaeda is inevitable.... the complete readiness for zero day God willing depart immediately... Encoded Message (?): All of the goals are open and the hour is 36 and 25 and 36, east of, west of, oblique, took place By Allah in the name of and the praise Allah, and by God's blessing, ا, oh Allah pray you and greeted on Mohammad, ش, oh Allah aim the throw of the Al-Qaeda 97, ن, oh Allah repay the throw of the Al-Qaeda 67, ط, oh Allah repay the throw of the Al-Qaeda 87, ن, oh Allah he flooded the enemies with the waters and the volcanoes, to, oh Allah explode the cells of their heads oh Allah explode their eyes, ن, 988888 oh Allah Amin is my receipt and greeted on Mohammad a governor Mohammad, د, ن،" ________________________________________________________________________________________ The last part, obviously, may simply be nonsense, or it may be coded. The whole 'Governor Mohammad" stuff is somewhat unsettling. Osama Bin Laden has, recently, started signing his name Osama Bin Mohammad Bin Laden for no obvious reason. However, the prophicies about the Mahdi state that he will "share the name of the Prophet." Just a thought. It Isn't Over
I’ve gotten about a dozen emails overnight from people who are ‘amazed’ that I ‘called’ the attack which occurred in Saudi Arabia.
Two things- I’m not the only one who saw this coming- hence the alerts in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and, indeed, within the United States itself. Second, this isn’t over. Al-Qaeda could blow up a dozen Saudis daily for a decade and it wouldn’t have the effect of a single major attack upon the United States. They’re still coming. The only way to stop them is to kill them. God defend America. Friday, November 07, 2003
The Next Queen of England?
I do not know if the rumours about the private life of the Prince of Wales are true. At this time I cannot even really establish just what exactly is being spread about. The basic story seems to unfold as such: Prince Charles was caught engaging in homosexual sex acts with Michael Fawcett, a long-time servant, by George Smith, another Royal Servant who has accused Fawcett of raping him. These allegations are captured on a tape held by the late Princess Diana which has now fallen into the hands of her former Butler Paul Burrell. That, I might add, is about the best-case scenario, as the innuendo in the British press has been suggesting that some of what has yet to come out (so to speak) is much worse. Whether this is factual, or another example of the everyday lies of much of the British media, I cannot really say.
The Mail on Sunday was going to print these allegations until they were placed under an injunction by British courts. While the injunction has temporarily stopped the printing of the story by the British press, it has not stopped it from appearing in some Continental newspapers. If anything, the press around the injunction and a subsequent bizarrely vague denial issued by Charles’ office has only increased interest in the matter. Now, I do not know if these allegations are true. From the serious efforts being made to suppress them, combined with the extremely generous payments made to Mr. Fawcett by the Prince after his departure from Royal service earlier this year, I at least consider them to be credible. Though some will point of Charles’ long-running affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles as proof of his heterosexuality, most pictures I have seen of Camilla lead me towards an opposite conclusion. In any case, there are countless examples of gay men who have had wives, children, and even affairs with other women. The question that we must ask is this: if Charles is gay, what does this mean for the Monarchy? Now, before you tell me to mind my own business, I might remind all of you that I am a Canadian citizen and therefore a King Charles would be my King is well. I might also add that I have hitherto been a Monarchist, and opposed all efforts at severing Canada’s ties with the Crown on the wholly sensible grounds that any Canadian-devised institution to replace the Monarchy would be substantially worse than what we already have. Already, some are saying “so what if Charles is gay?” I can begin to see a nightmare scenario forming in the back of my mind. What would happen if he were to publicly declare himself bi-sexual? It would become another, terribly confusing, front in the culture wars. The British Crown, of course, is an institution whose support is mostly conservative and whose opposition is mainly left-wing. I fear that, amid the confusion, a gay Prince Charles could retain his position and, perhaps, even enhance his prestige. Imagine all the fun that the gay ‘rights’ lobby could have were the King of England gay! It should be noted that Charles, if he is gay, would not be the first homosexual English King. Edward II, the son of the great Edward I (perhaps the greatest of all English Monarchs) nearly bankrupted England, was overthrown by his wife, and was executed in a fashion much too unpleasant to describe here but which was in keeping with the demands of his preference. But I digress. What purpose has the Monarchy if it is not to serve as an example to the nation? The present lot seems to be morally diseased. I have no idea what sort of man William is or what sort of King he would be, but I shudder at the thought of the playboy King of England attending Hollywood parties and dating Hillary Duff. I do not deny that William would be a very popular King: that is exactly my problem with him: the King is supposed to be a father-figure to the nation, not a face on People magazine. I am beginning to think that, in any case, we ought to ditch this whole rotten lot and start anew. Does this mean I wish to abolish the Monarchy? No, far from it. But perhaps it is time to have done with the Germanic usurpers of the throne (that is a joke, mostly) and to pass the Crown on down the line of the British Royalty to someone more deserving. There must, somewhere, be a Duke or something with a sterling record of military service that could rise to restore the honour of the realm. Perhaps it would be the best if Charles were to step aside in any case. He is, by this point, far too tainted to ever have any moral authority as King, much less as the nominal head of the Church of England. While I have no objection to most of the reign of Elizabeth II, Britain really does not need another Queen. Thursday, November 06, 2003
Preparing for a Strike?
I realize that Pravda isn't a credible source but I've read elsewhere of an increased level of US air activity. I wonder what's going on.
Red Alert
It is my belief that there is a very high probability that, within the next two weeks, one or more major terrorist attacks will be attempted against American targets. I base this prediction based upon two factors: first, there has been a drastic increase in terrorist ‘chatter’ on al-Qaeda affiliated sites in the recent weeks and months, including a news Bin Laden message which apparently contained coded instructions to his followers. The second, and in many ways more important reason why I fear a severe attack in the coming days has to do with the peculiar theology of the Moslem religion.
According to Islamic theology, a leader called the ‘Mahdi’ is supposed to rise during a time where Moslems are oppressed all over the world. He will fight these oppressors and create a single, unified, Islamic world state. The Mahdi is, in other words, the Islamic version of the second coming of Christ. This legend is widely believed among Moslems at all the corners of the Earth. There is a reason why this is suddenly relevant. According to Islamic literature, the Mahdi will rise at a time when both a solar and a lunar eclipse occur during Ramadan. That will occur this year and it will not happen again for, at an absolute minimum, several hundred years. The Lunar Eclipse will fall on November 9th, the Solar Eclipse on November 23rd. During that time, therefore, a massive upsurge in terrorist activity must be anticipated. But it could be much worse than that. Islamist messages have warned Moslems to leave New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC. Moreover, they have warned of terrorist attacks when the “Moon turns read�, an event which will fall this Saturday- November 8th here and November 9th in the Middle East. Interestingly enough, using the method by which the non-American world records dates, November 9th, would also be 9-11. Islamic prophecy matters not because of its validity, but because of the esteem in which it is held in the Moslem world. Imagine how Christians would behave if events led them to believe that the second coming of Christ had occurred. Now imagine how much of the Moslem would will act if they believe that their divine leader has come. The worst possible scenario would be one or more major terrorist attacks falling on the 9th of November, followed by some sort of worldwide appearance by the ‘Mahdi.’ Now, I am far from certain that this individual will actually be Bin Laden, for I am not entirely certain that Bin Laden is still alive. Rather, it could be his son or another individual altogether. Al-Qaeda could release a video in which it accounted the martyrdom of Osama Bin Laden and then follow it up with a message from the Mahdi, calling for all Moslems to rise up and launch a worldwide Jihad. I realize that this all sounds far-fetched and bizarre. It sounds that way to me too. Since this war began, I have begun to regard the enemies of America as entirely foreign it the truest sense of that word. Their ideas and way of thinking seem as distant to me as those of Klingons in Star Trek. I have a hard time believing that, in the year 2003, we have to worry about the possibility of fighting a Holy War against the hundreds of millions of screaming followers of a man who claims to be a prophet of Allah but, alas, here we are. What would one or more successful terrorist attacks, combined with the rise of a ‘Mahdi’ bring to the world? Al-Qaeda’s warnings promise that America will be ‘split into three parts’ and, these days, I wonder if they are so wrong. On one side will be those who actively side with the enemy, Islamists and their fellow travellers, who will be in the minority but who, especially if roused to action by religious fervour, could be particularly deadly and dangerous. On another will be the nihilists, the defeatists, the appeasers, and the traitors. It will be that group of people who have concluded that there is nothing left worth dying for in this world and that, therefore, the nation should simply submit to the enemy to avoid conflict. Finally, there will be us and, upon us, the battle shall turn. Will we be faithful to our cause, however deadly the enemy proves to be? I hope that it shall be so, though I am far from certain that it will be. We will need to be prepared to fight against all enemies, terrorists and traitors alike, and we will need to shed our illusions about the nature of this war. If the Moslem extremists are so bent upon a Holy War, let them have one. If they wish to fight ‘Crusaders’, then let’s give them a Crusade to fight. We will not win this war by irresolution and inaction. Victory will be ours when we accept the simple mathematics of the situation. Islamism cannot be reasoned with or contained; it can only be destroyed altogether. Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Donations
To support Col. West's Defense, mail cheques to:
Allen West Defense Fund c/o Angela West 6823 Coleman Drive Ft. Hood, TX 76544 I'm going to send $20 tommorow, and I'm poor. A Petition
I have created a petition to support Colonel West, it can be found here: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?colwest for updates on this story and the petition, please visit www.adamyoshida.com
A Hero of the War
Too many in America and, indeed, in the world as a whole seem to have forgotten the realities of war. Speaking to military cadets a few decades after the end of the Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman reminded them that, “war is all hell.� Several decades of antiseptic combat and, in particular, a decade of Clinton-style ‘warmaking’ have caused far too many Americans to believe that war is a combination between a video game and an episode of Law and Order, where individuals getting hurt is a sign than something is going wrong and the ultimate goal of war is to ‘bring the enemy to justice.’
As an extension of this mentality we expect our soldiers to act like policemen and so, it would seem, do some of their commanders. US Army Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West is under threat of Court Martial for his actions in Iraq. Already he has been removed from his command, an action which will probably end his career. What is his crime? Did his incompetence cost the lives of his men? Did he lose a battle? No: far from it. Col. West is a distinguished officer, a holder of a Bronze Star. His actions in the incident in question probably saved the lives of some of his men. His only supposed ‘crime’ is that he ‘assaulted’ an Iraqi prisoner by firing a pistol in his general direction. Soldiers cannot operate with the same restraints as FBI Agents. War is different than law enforcement. There is less room for regard for the rights of others. In some cases, there is no room for the lives of others. It is said that for many years afterwards Bill Clinton would regularly recall the name of the sole Iraqi killed in the reprisal raids he ordered in 1993 after it was revealed that Iraq had tried to assassinate former President George HW Bush. Some on the left take this as a sign of his humanity and compassion. I take it as a sign of his stupidity, weakness, and cowardice. Iraqis who served the former regime invited their own demise. Moreover, had Clinton responded effectively to the attempted assassination of a President it is virtually certain that he would have killed at least some of the people who continue to organize resistance today. War is the application of organized violence to serve a political ends. Of course people die in war: that is to be expected. We should not apologize for the fact or seek to evade it. If anything, we should encourage it. There is no room for sentimentality or weakness in combat. Let us review the incident in question in some more detail. An Iraqi policeman with knowledge of an upcoming attack on American forces was captured. Despite hours of interrogation he refused to say anything. When West was summoned to the scene, with an attack imminent, he threatened the Iraqi with death if he refused to answer. The Iraqi, believing that an American would not be allowed to do such a thing, continued to refuse to answer. West and another man then took the Iraqi outside and West fired his pistol over the man’s head. The Iraqi then provided information which foiled an attack. As a result of these actions, the Army sought to cashier Colonel West, demanding that he resign just a few weeks ahead of his 20th year of service and surrender any further benefits. When he refused to accept any deal, they charged him with aggravated assault. This is an outrage. Those of you who read my work regularly know that I wouldn’t have cared even if Colonel West had shot the man to compel his obedience, but the fact is that he didn’t. He didn’t hurt or kill anyone. In fact, he saved the lives of his men. Such actions ought not be condemned, but praised. Forget disciplining Lieutenant Colonel West, he should be promoted and given a medal for his quick thinking and courage. I realize that Colonel West has said that he doesn’t wish to be lauded for his actions and he feels that the honor belongs to his men, but that is simply the characteristic modesty of a true hero. Besides, given the disgraceful way that the Colonel has been treated to date, promotion and decoration is the least that he is owed. This is a real war and we need real men to lead us. By all accounts, Colonel West is just the sort of man. Aggressive, tough, and unwilling to buckle under pressure. He and others like him are the real heroes and military leaders that we need. In every major American war the combat leaders at the end of the war have been almost totally different from those at the beginning. Who was George Patton in 1940? Who was William Sherman in 1860? Who was Nathan Bedford Forrest before his war? Great fighters seem to rise from obscurity when the country calls. When Patton died in 1945, his wife Beatrice declared, “He will come again, when a solider is needed.� We are in the process of finding our Patton. We are putting together the team of soldiers who will win us the war. We have found warriors in General Peter J. Schoomaker, the new Army Chief of Staff, in Lieutenant General William Boykin, the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in Major General Jim Mattis, who commanded the Marine contingent in Afghanistan and the 1st Marine Division on the march to Baghdad, and in countless others who have risen to high positions during the past year because of their exceptional skill and fierceness. I mention these names because two of them (Schoomaker and Boykin) would never have ended up in their present positions were it not for the war. Schoomaker was actually called back from retirement to lead the Army and Boykin was personally promoted by Secretary Rumsfeld. They are the leaders of a new Armed Forces that will win the war. Now I am not saying that Colonel West is a Patton, or even a future Army Chief of Staff. I am incapable of making such a judgement. However, it would be a travesty to deprive the Republic of his services at a time such as this. We need officers who know how to fight the enemy, not ones who got an A+ in charm school. Tuesday, November 04, 2003
DD-Day: Friday, November 7th
As things stand, unless Hillary Clinton gets into the race, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is the probably Democratic candidate for the office of President of the United States. He has developed a strong, grassroots, campaign which has earned him the near-unanimous support of the treasonous wing of the Democratic Party.
Howard Dean is a dangerous man. He claims to be a ‘fiscal conservative’ yet he wants to raise taxes and nationalize America’s health care system. He is opposed to the war in Iraq and, it seems, to the War on Terrorism in general. His election would send a message to the world that it is ‘open season’ on America. Worse than Dean himself, however, is his supporters. I believe that Howard Dean hates America. I know that his supporters do. When Governor Dean issued a tepid statement denouncing the attack on a US Chinook Helicopter in Iraq that killed sixteen Americans (bizarrely promising to ‘hunt down’ the perpetrators, showing a dangerous Clintonian attitude towards terrorism), one of his supporters declared that he was, “deeply troubled� by Dean’s message of support for America’s troops and hoped that it would be a, “one-time lapse.� Other Dean supporters on other forums have openly expressed the view that more American troops should be killed in order to ensure the success of the Democratic Party. Now, Howard Dean has shown himself to be a coward as well. He has to decide whether or not to accept Federal Matching funds for his campaign. He has raised enough money that he need not do so and, from a utilitarian perspective, it would be best for him to abandon the limits. The problem is that Dean is a strong supporter of strict campaign finance laws. Therefore, he has asked his supporters to vote on the issue, thereby ducking a tough decision. What would President Dean when the United States came under attack from Islamists- hold a national referendum on whether to retaliate? More than that, Dean’s online contingent of supporters is utterly obnoxious. They believe themselves to be the kings of the internet world and they believe that their ‘grassroots’ campaign is supposedly unique. I think that it’s time that they learn just what we conservatives can do. Any of you who spend a lot of time on internet political sites know that Dean’s people are everywhere. They constantly invade conservative web sites to post pro-Dean propaganda. It’s time to give them a taste of their own medicine. Therefore, I am launching a follow-up to the highly successful ‘Operation Electronic Storm’, which managed to overwhelm several anti-war organizations with e-mail last February. I am declaring this Friday to be ‘Defeat Dean Day’ or DD-Day. It’s time that we send a message to Howard Dean and his band of disloyal supporters. Here’s what I want you to do: 1) Immediately go to the following site: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=emailSignup And register as a supporter of Howard Dean. Use a real e-mail address, because you’ll need to get email from them for a few days. 2) When you are given instructions on the method of voting for whether or not Dean should accept matching funds vote ‘no’ on the matter. 3) And, finally, here’s the fun part: this Friday I want you to visit Howard Dean’s campaign blogger, located at: www.blogforamerica.com and post ten messages which are either anti-Howard Dean or pro-George W. Bush. A typical Dean blogger entry draws a few hundred comments. Let’s overwhelm each entry with a thousand comments. Post more than ten if you’d like. Let’s put them on the defensive for once, make them devote resources to dealing with obnoxious intruders. Imagine if ten thousand Freepers decided to visit the site that day, and each posted twenty comments. It is particularly good that we do this now, as it might disrupt the voting process to some extent. Let’s let ‘er rip. Sincerely, Adam Teiichi Yoshida www.adamyoshida.com The European Enemy
A few months ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman announced that France was not only no longer am ally of the United States, but actually becoming an enemy. I would go much farther. Not only are the French an enemy of the United States, but so are the Germans, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Norwegians, and all of the other states of Europe which have adopted the anti-American line in recent years. In the address he made to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20th, 2001 President Bush bluntly informed the world that they were either with us or with the terrorists. Europe has made its choice.
This was not hard to predict. Even before September 11th it was clear that the United States and Europe as a whole were no longer allies in any meaningful sense of the word. After 9-11, Europe’s anti-Americanism and cowardice was simply brought into focus. Even the famous Le Monde article headlined, ‘We are All Americans’ contained various snippets of America-bashing and equivocation. A recent poll conducted by the European Commission shows that, all across Europe, the besieged State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is considered the greatest threat to peace in the world. The United States, of course, did not trail all that far behind. Based on the widespread anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (or, I’m sorry ‘anti-Zionism’) in modern Europe, those politicians there who are only mildly anti-American are being brave. The European political class, cowardly weasels that they are, are not the problem here: the European people are. Europe’s leaders are not defying their people in their anti-Americanism, they are embracing them. Here and there in Europe there are spots of pro-American sentiment. In Britain and various nations which formerly lived under Soviet tyranny, for example. However, it should be expected that these pockets will soon be smothered by the noxious gases of European unity. In Britain, for example, 60% of the people polled named Israel as the primary threat to world peace. Those numbers are strong enough to suggest that, were the Palestinians to succeed in their aim of driving the Jewish state into the sea, there would be more cheers than weeping from the Continent. The Germans (and the other nations of Europe, who were mostly willing collaborators) seem to be counting upon the Moslems to finish the job that they could not. Already there are reports of hundred of Europeans streaming into Iraq to fight against Americans. For the moment they’re mostly Moslems, but I wonder how long it will be before we find regular Frenchmen there, along with their weapons. Now, I know, you might say, ‘that will only make the war easier’. But, alas, the French shall probably bring their sturdier German cousins along. I would predict war between America and Europe, if only I could think of an area where they are likely to fight. The best I can come up with is American troops being deployed to Eastern Europe to defend some European state which seeks to free itself of the European superstate and even that is a far-fetched solution. However, at this point a US-European rivalry, a Cold War if you will, seems an absolute certainty. Already Europe’s passive resistance of American foreign policy is becoming increasingly active. It is very clear that the majority of Europeans simply do not like the United States and wishes it to lose in Iraq. A large percentage of Europeans, at least of those whom I have spoken to, would like to see the United States dismantled and broken up into several different nations. What the United States must do now is immediately reverse its policies which have heretofore supported European unity and the European Union. The continued existence of the European Union is a threat to the United States of America and, therefore, all measures must be taken to destroy it. Twin policies of coaxing and coercion are called for today. The United States must offer European states reasons to work against unity while, at the same time, placing pressure upon states which seem immune to bribery. The CIA should be directed to seek to bolster the support of all political parties known for their opposition to the European design. The greatest flaw in the European design has been the mass influx into Europe of immigrants who have yet to be integrated into society. Today it is joked that France is the most democratic country in the Moslem world. In another fifty years, if present trends continue, that statement could well be true. This unchecked movement of foreign elements within Europe is provoking strong nationalist reactions in many nations. Anti-immigration politicians like Haider of Austria and Le Pen of France still tend to be anti-American, but they’re the sort of anti-Americans we can deal with. We’ve seen their types before and, in any case, if allowed to have their way, I suspect that they will quickly reignite the old nationalist rivalries of Europe. These politicians, as disagreeable as some of their policies are, are the best chance for the defeat of a United Europe. America must also make sure to address the matter of Britain carefully. While I do not so much mind if Le Pen’s thugs ignite riots which cause Paris to burn, I would very much mind were the same to happen in London. Support for the British National Party and its ilk is not the solution. After all, Britain is America’s oldest friend and closest ally and so, I hope, shall it always be. Every effort must be made to preserve the freedom of that dear Island. The best possible measure towards this end will be to coax the United Kingdom into an even closer relationship with the United States, perhaps even featuring a Free Trade agreement. The strategy is simple: strike the centre while nibbling at the periphery. As an increased nationalist reaction in the core nations of the Union causes turmoil, move to peel away nations on the outside: Britain, Ireland, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states. No individual European nation is strong enough to pose a serious threat to the United States. By themselves the French are, at worst, a nuisance. It is united that Europe becomes a menace. They must not be allowed to hang together, for that would prevent us from hanging them separately as needed. The Memo in Question
Provided via Newsmax.com:
"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows: "1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. "For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. "The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.] "2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. "In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. "The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.] "3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once. "The best time to do so will probably be next year, either: "A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or: "B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence. "In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information. "SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war. "The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.] Traitors in High Places
Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Sean Hannity has revealed the existence of a plot among the Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to use their power and their access to classified information to undermine the war effort and attack the President. This isn’t ‘just politics’, this isn’t an everyday thing. The purpose of the Intelligence Committee is to oversee America’s various intelligence services and to ensure that they are working for the defense of the American people. How can they achieve this aim if some members of the Committee are working in an effective alliance with the enemies of America? For an individual, or group of individuals, to use privileged information to attack the leadership of their country in wartime and, thereby, to give courage to the enemies of their country, is criminal. It is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the explicit definition of treason set out in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The memo, written in typical bureaucratic-speak, is somewhat difficult to peruse. Let me perhaps provide a more detailed explanation. The memo explains that, “intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq.� What this really means, translated, is that ‘Democratic victories are more important than American ones.’ This encapsulated the Democratic viewpoint- military and intelligence issues, the safety of America’s fighting men and women, always comes after politics. Nor is this merely distasteful politicizing of a national security issue. It is possibly criminal. The memo, while it never makes any explicit reference to the leaking of classified information, refers to, “new disclosures,� and identifying, “solid leads.� ‘Disclosures’ of what? ‘Solid leads’ from where? If the material is heretofore undisclosed and yet to be uncovered, where is it going to come from? The only conclusion which can be drawn is that these Democratic members are planning to skirt the lines of illegality and to abuse their access to classified information to wage partisan warfare. In essence, the author of the memo is suggesting that the Democratic Senators should use the information which they are privileged with by virtue of their membership on the Committee to attack the Administration. Because it would be illegal to do so directly- by simply saying what they know- they mean to do it indirectly, by stretching the limits of the system. There will be those who will accuse those who are upset about this memo of overreacting, or attempting to create a scandal where there is none. In fact, nothing can be farther from the truth; this is simply another example of how the left has forgotten the difference between dissent and treason. It is yet another example of how Democrats have accepted the idea that hoping for the defeat of your own country in war is as legitimate (and perhaps a morally superior one at that) a political position as praying for victory. In a republic there is a place for those who oppose the aims of an individual leader or who oppose an individual policy. There is a proud tradition of dissent in America, one which there remains no reason to question. The problem with ‘dissent’ is that it is too often used as a cloak for disloyalty. There is no place in any country for those who would consort with the enemies of a nation, work to bring about a military defeat, or who otherwise seek to use their power to bring about the destruction of the country to whom they owe loyalty. They may do this because they have an ideological affinity with the enemy (as was the case during Vietnam, where leftists favored communists because they felt that they shared their ultimate aims. Or, they may do it because they are so desperate to acquire power for themselves that they are willing to condemn their fellow countrymen to danger and death for the sake of office. Disagreement is legitimate. Working to bring about the victory of the enemy is treasonous. The Intelligence Committee is meant to be a part of the national security apparatus, not a political creature. It is meant to exercise a portion of the governing activities of Congress, not the political side of things. This is like Democrat members of the Armed Forces deliberately throwing battles in order to help elect a few more Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Of course, those soldiers who happen to be Democrats would never do such a thing, because they remain patriots. The same cannot be said for those Democratic Senators and staffers who would contemplate the use of classified information, thereby endangering the United States, as part of a purely political effort. Whoever wrote or signed this memorandum is unfit to serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. More than that, they are unfit to serve in the United States Senate at all. While whoever did this ought to resign, that would require them to have a sense of honor. Therefore it might even be best that the decent, honest, and patriotic members of the Senate get out their copy of the Constitution and read Article One, Section Five, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.� Monday, November 03, 2003
More on Those Fires
The following was translated from an al-Qaeda affiliated website by the good people at the Northeast Intelligence Network:
The Battle of Badr and Other Operations in Ramadan !!! 30 October 2003--The In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful. My noble friend, peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you. The praise of Allah in the first and the praise of Allah in the others and the praise of Allah to the Doomsday and after. It was mentioned in a previous message that ( Alsfiani ) will drive the army of two million smiling at the separate Battle of Badr in Ramadan Allah willing. What has actually started is a large operation beginning at the start of Ramadan against the top spies at the Red Crescent building that the invaders use as a center for the collection of the information under the guise of offering the human service. What has taken place with Allah's support and his favor are 40 successful operations within 24 hours… and with the help of Allah we have made their land a hell of fire at the feet of the invaders. God willing he sees what is in your heart with the blessing of this virtuous month from men that given their souls to the omnipotent and single Allah… and the news will come to you from here and there despite the beaten media secrecy from the cowards in power with a hopeful outlook !!! They have smuggled their veteran ruler (Bremer) to Washington with the increase in hostilities and he met with Powell saying that they did not expect that the resistance would be this great!!! You will see in the eyes of your mother soon, God willing what the true meaning of the Jihad and Mujahid and the jihad support soon !!! Watch with disbelief and with Allah's wrath the Jihad is everywhere…the fires devour them in their own land leaving 17 casualties and the destruction of 700 houses and 2000 hectare of the forests and the fires have entered actually part of the city before an hour of now… and oh Allah Zaid and bless and show us their awesome Jihad works and ability. Amen. Sunday, November 02, 2003
The Lies of Columbine
I finally succumbed to pressure and watched Michael Moore’s alleged documentary Bowling for Columbine a few nights ago. I didn’t pay for it, mind you; I simply borrowed a copy from a brainwashed dolt I know who owns one. Even that simple act made my skin crawl. I wanted to see the movie because, over the last year, I’ve spent countless hours arguing with people who were genially non-political when they went in to see it and came out as anti-American fools armed with a collection of quasi-facts. I’d read in full the accounts of all of the various lies and distortions contained in the film, but one must actually see this movie to fully comprehend its awfulness. Not that I’m telling you to pay for it, of course, the last thing we need is to give Michael Moore more money (for all of his supposed connection with (non)’working people’ he is doing very well for himself, thank you very much). But it shouldn’t be long before it begins airing on Cable and, in Canada and Europe, before it becomes a mandatory part of the school curriculum. And, if you do get a chance to see it, I recommend that you take a look, for this movie manages to do something truly rare and special in that it actually contains more lies than it does words.
I don’t think that it is necessary for me to rehash some of the more famous lies and distortions in Bowling for Columbine: the staged ‘gun in bank’ scene, the cut up speeches by Charlton Heston, the nuclear missile plant that wasn’t, the falsified Willie Horton ad, and all of the rest of it. If you don’t, I recommend that you visit the excellent accounting put together by David Hardy (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html) which blows the lid off many of the worst lies in the movie. I also hear that Michael Moore is muttering about suing people who claim that his movie is false for libel. He claims that, “every fact in the film is true.� This would be a true statement if the film contained any facts. Even the title of the film is based upon a lie: the two Columbine killers didn’t even go bowling the morning of the shootings, as the movie states. Frankly, as a paid-up member of the NRA, I think that I ought to be suing Michael Moore for libel for insinuating that the NRA and Ku Klux Klan are the same organization when, in all reality, the NRA was founded by former Union Officers (hardly the sort of people sympathetic to die-hard ex-Confederates) and choose former Union soldiers for eight of its first ten Presidents. But then, I’m not nearly as litigious as Michael Moore, who is also reportedly making noises about suing a filmmaker making a documentary entitled Michael Moore Hates America (and I recommend that you view the trailer for what looks like a great movie: http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/secrettrailer.html), a statement which has the great twin advantages of being both factual and true. In fact Michael Moore Hates America would be a very good title for Bowling for Columbine, given that the film lacks any other coherent theme. Initially the film begins as a seeming attack on gun owners and private gun ownership, then it radically shifts and proclaims that a ‘culture of fear’ is responsible for violence in America. All of this is narrated in a very ominous tone by Mr. Moore, who connives to create the impression that pretty much everything is evil. I can easily picture, “before our interview, Mr. Heston awoke, showered, and had breakfast,� as though that was somehow suspicious. The overall narrative of the film seems to press towards the conclusion which most people I know have taken away from it: Americans are irredeemably evil. Moore also abuses his subjects, I think, hiding from many of them the true nature of his film. James Nichols, for example, clearly assumes that Moore is on his side when he is interviewed. Moore manages to score and interview with Charlton Heston by telling him that he’s a member of the NRA. Michael Moore hates America so much, in fact, that he appears to actually take Serbian propaganda broadcasts to use in his movie. In the section which deals with the day of Columbine shootings, Moore goes on about how April 20, 1999 was also the heaviest day of bombing in the Kosovo War. He then shows some generic pictures of bombing as a foreign-accented voice reads off a list of the supposed damage caused by American bombing, including the destruction of a hospital and an elementary school. While I cannot identify the exact source of the broadcast, it is fairly clear that it did not originate with any reputable Western news source. Other portions of the film rely upon the wonderful art of commission. For example, in discussing one school shooting in which a six year old boy shot a six year old girl, Moore mentions that the boy found the gun he used at his uncles house, where he was staying because his mother had been evicted from her home. What he neglects to mention in the film is that the boy’s uncle was a drug dealer, who had acquired the (stolen) gun by trading some drugs for it. At another point he shows a B-52 on display and says, with evident disgust in his voice, that the plaque “proudly proclaims that it killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve.� Not quite: it mentions that the B-52 in question shot down a North Vietnamese MiG in battle. The film is propaganda of the basest sort. It is a Triumph of the Will for the left, slickly produced and devoid of any rational thought. It is also very clearly made for individuals with little or no background in politics- just the sort of high school and college aged kids who you’ll find at a typical anti-war protest. Many of the ‘facts’ contained in the film are refuted by simple common sense or simple research. For example, at one point in the film Moore claims that no one in Toronto, Canada’s largest city, locks their doors. This is patently absurd. I’m from Vancouver, another of Canada’s largest cities, and I don’t know a single person who doesn’t lock their doors. I don’t know anyone from Toronto that doesn’t lock their door either. In fact, far from being a crime-free utopia, Canada actually has higher crime rates (with the exception of gunshot murders) than the United States. Vancouver, in fact, has the second highest rate of property crime in North America, behind only Miami. Most of his observations about Canada, in fact, are garnered in tiny Sarnia, Ontario. He makes all of his political observations about Canada based upon a single on-camera interview, with the mayor of little Sarnia. Michael Moore is a liar, a fraud, and a cheat. He is exposed as such by his own words. Read the real truth about the man so that, the next time some half-wit starts prattling on about his ‘brilliance’, you can cut them down with cold, hard, facts. The Burden of Iraq
A counter-insurgency war is never pretty. As I pointed out months ago, America has successfully fought just such a war before- in the Philippines, after the Spanish-American War. America has also fought such a war unsuccessfully, in Vietnam. In order to win this war in Iraq, America must take lessons from both, as well as lessons from other groups which have faced off against clandestine armies of darkness. Winning this war will require malice towards some and charity towards others.
Lesson One: No Sanctuary The first lesson must be taken from Vietnam. One of the primary advantages of the communist forces there was that they enjoyed protected sanctuaries: in North Vietnam which was never invaded and parts of which were not heavily bombed until the end of the war, in Laos and Cambodia, which were not violated for most of the conflict, and in the Soviet Union and Communist China, from which weapons were shipped to North Vietnam with impunity. Without these areas, protected entirely by a lack of political will, the Communists could never have won that war. We must not allow a repeat of this situation in Iraq. It is clear that, to some extent, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are acting as terrorist sanctuaries. Saudi Arabia is providing money which assists the resistance, Iran is providing weapons and some men, and Syria is providing men and war material. In addition, according to recent reports, hundreds of Moslem fighters are flowing into Iraq from Europe and, most certainly, from all over the world. In the big picture, this inflow of foreign fighters is actually a good thing. Every French Islamist who makes his way to Baghdad is one who cannot attempt to ignite his shoes on a transatlantic flight. However, in dealing with these individuals a principle should be established: each and every single foreign Islamist who enters Iraq to join the war will die in Iraq, either in battle or by a post-battle execution. Let a shallow grave in the Mesopotamian sands be the only mercy accorded to these so-called ‘people.’ Let these foreign terrorists come to Iraq by the tens of thousands and, by God, they shall die in Iraq by the tens of thousands. If a million come, great: we’ll slaughter them all. However, that being said, the flow from foreign nations must be stopped. This is because it brings more than just terrorists to be killed; it also brings the money and weapons with which they kill Americans. There is no point in seeking to close off this flow by diplomatic means. However, the approach for dealing with each nation involved will have to be different. There is no particular reason to go to war with Saudi Arabia: what assistance coming to Iraq from the Saudis seems to flow from non-governmental sources, so it follows that those are what must be dealt with, either by the Saudis or by the United States. The President should sign a finding authorizing the assassination of anyone involved in any way with funding or arming the Iraqi resistance. Small groups of intelligence officers should be set loose, with order to kill anyone aiding the resistance in Iraq in any way, from the bank tellers who process cheques on their behalf to the Mullahs who preach in their favor. A few random car bombings and daylight shootings would go far to convince the average Saudi that aiding the enemies of America is a poor idea. After all, without their underlings, all of the resolve of the various Islamist Saudi Princes is valueless. An invasion of Iran is not militarily feasible at the present time, as it would require larger forces than can be committed so long as operations are ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan and reserve forces must be held in case of adverse developments on the Korean peninsula. However, that does not preclude an extended and tough bombing campaign, combined with the use of Special Forces and billions of dollars with which to subvert the Islamic Republic. Dropping ten thousand bombs on Iran might be enough to convince the already-restive populace that it is time for a change of regime, especially if such operations were accompanied by the extensive use of Special Forces. A single US Division might even be deployed to launch an incursion into Western Iran and secure the border between it and Iraq. Were the battle to not go well, eventually other forces could be gathered and staged for an all-out invasion. However, in the interim, the reduction of Iranian capabilities will have to do. After all, Iraq was not invaded in 1991, and the people raised them. Had those uprisings had even minimal US military assistance, the regime of Saddam would probably have cracked then. It is not an ideal solution, but it will have to do, given the pinch caused by post-Cold War military cuts which have yet to be made fully right. Syria can be, and ought to be, dealt with by the means of a direct invasion. Syria has consistently worked to undermine American efforts in Iraq and, at present, is the main anti-Israeli antagonist in the region. Were Syria to be invaded and its own Ba’athist regime overthrown, the support for foreign fighters in Iraq would be drastically reduced. The difficulty of occupying Syria in addition to Iraq could be avoided by finding a Syrian capable of serving as a capable, pro-American military strongman. While we would like to spread democracy to the whole of the Middle East, politics must be the art of the possible. Lesson Two: No Mercy for the Guilty The second lesson is a universal one. However strong the temptation is, a nation fighting a guerrilla war must not resort to a policy of wholesale reprisals against civilians. Ordering ten random executions for each dead solider is not only immoral, it is counterproductive unless one is willing both to sustain massive losses and to exterminate the entire civilian population of an area if necessary. However, a policy of mercy towards the innocent must be tempered by a resolve to act against the guilty. Those found to be actively aiding the resistance should be executed after a perfunctory trial and executed in public in order to provide a pointed example of what happens to those who side against America. Similarly, there can be some justification for the use of collective punishment in areas where support for the enemy is overwhelming. For example, if the owner of a farm feeds a group of Fedayeen, the buildings on his land should be burned to the ground, the farmer evicted, and his land parcelled out to his (presumably more pro-Coalition) neighbours. If the man or his sons are so angered that they then join the resistance themselves then they, of course, may be killed. Similarly, a town which consistently provides shelter for foreign fighters, after being repeatedly given a chance to mend its ways, may be razed and destroyed, but only after the pro-coalition residents are provided for. The key to an effective policy of collective punishment is to be judicious in its application. When a policy is too random, or cuts across too broad a segment of society, it loses its point. Rather, punishment should be very closely linked to opposition to America. Those who support America have nothing to fear from it. Those who oppose it should lose their homes, their property, and eventually their lives. The facts of this situation should be communicated very clearly to the people on the ground. There is a certain lack of harshness in American policy in Iraq. Crowds should not be allowed to gather to celebrate resistance victories- rather they should be dispersed, with live ammunition if necessary. The threatened court martial of an Army Colonel who prevented a terror attack by firing his pistol over an Iraqi captive is emblematic of the problem. The Colonel ought not be punished for such an action: he may have saved the lives of many of his men. Rather, he should be decorated for his quick thinking and resolve. Lesson Three: Do Not Forget the Enemy in the Rear American forces won every single major engagement of the Vietnam War. In many battles, American servicemen killed fifty communists for every loss of their own. Yet still, the United States lost that war. Why? Simple: the most dangerous enemy during the Vietnam War was not the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese Army, but rather the fifth column of malcontents and traitors who defeated the forces of freedom with a perfidious stab in the back. While I am too young to recall the Vietnam War first hand, I have studied that conflict for my entire life. Through that study I have come to a single conclusion as to the causes of defeat: yes, there were many flaws with the way that the war was waged in a military sense. Bizarre rules of engagement hampered the Armed Forces. Stupid military personnel policies rotated experienced combat forces out of theatre. Too many critical targets were idiotically placed off limits. However, even with all of those flaws, America and its South Vietnamese allies would have won that war had not a large number of Americans actively worked for the victory of the enemy. A cabal, most of whose leaders were drawn from those individuals who had gained the most from America, and which drew its foot soldiers from those who had the most to gain, waged war against America just as surely as Ho Chi Minh and General Giap did. The greatest factor in the Communist victory in Vietnam was the treason of the American left. When Ann Coulter said that we needed to execute John Walker Lindh in order to set an example for liberals, who would otherwise become outright traitors, she was exactly right. When people like Jane Fonda were allowed to travel to North Vietnam to broadcast enemy propaganda with impunity, it gave a signal to the world that the rules had changed. As a result of Vietnam, it became acceptable, even fashionable, to give aid and comfort to enemies with whom America was at war. Had the right thing occurred and, upon her return from North Vietnam, Hanoi Jane Fonda was hanged by the neck until she was dead it would have sent a powerful message to the gathering forces of the ‘new left’: treason, as defined by the Constitution, remains treason and shall be punished as such. Going to an enemy capital to provide moral support to a dictator who is at war with America is not an act of political ‘dissent’, it is an act of treason and should be punished as such. It is not acceptable that elected American lawmakers should travel to enemy nations to plead on behalf of their leaders. Any member undertaking such a journey ought to have been expelled from Congress and jailed. Vietnam was lost because we did an excellent job of fighting the enemy abroad and totally failed at fighting the enemy within. Those anti-war protestors from ANSWER and similar groups are not harmless political cranks: they are soldiers of the enemy and deserve to be treated as such. Now, this does not mean that every protestor deserves to be beaten and jailed (though, I think, each and every single one of them deserves a brutal and painful ass-kicking). Simply disagreeing with the war is not treason. Treason is when one crosses the line from disagreement to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. A crowd shouting “no war�, as disgusting and disagreeable as the thought is, is not committing treason. One shouting, “Death to America, Long live the Iraqi resistance!� however, is doing just that. There are, of course, many grey areas here but, on the whole, I would suggest that it is better to err on the side of punishing too many people than it is to err on the side of punishing too few. History, of course, often judges harshly those who are over-zealous in defense of their nation but the pain truth is that in many cases there are only people about to write history because of those who were over-zealous. A Battle to the End: Though the Coalition could be doing better in Iraq, it is unquestionable that, at the present time, it is still winning the battle there. In fact, as President Bush stated on May 1st, major combat operations are over. This does not mean that there will not be more fighting, it simply means that there are no more active elements of the regular Iraqi armed forces. The purpose of the President’s speech then was to celebrate one of the most stunning military victories in history, not to declare that there would be no more fighting whatsoever. In his May 1st speech the President reminded the American people that, “we have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.� So long as Americans are prepared to defend their country against all of its enemies, there is no force in creation which is capable of stopping them. Episcopal Church Split?
A source is telling me that there has been a formal split in the American Episcopal Church as a result of the convirmation of a gay Bishop in New Hampshire.
*Update: Rather, there are the beginnings of a split. Good for the Anglicans, I say. A Leftist Terrorist
The man who the FBI has arrested for attempting to sabatoge a number of power lines in western states, is a member of the Green Party and anti-war protestor.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Assasination Attempt?
During an appearance by President Bush in Mississippi, an unknown car penetrated the security perimeter and rammed the building after its tires were shot out.
If this is the case- the perpetrator is domestic, they ought to get the death penalty. As well- the left, who has so raised the level of rhetoric against President Bush must take some of the blame. After all, in eight years no one ever even tried to kill President Clinton. |