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 med |