Surfing through political blogs today, on Easter Sunday, I was struck by how deeply unhinged the political left in this country has become - as evidenced by their hyperbolic vocabulary.
Two articles on DemocraticUnderground.com in particular caught my eye:
1. First an article about the sermon preached at Obama's church today about how to survive a "lynching". About how Rev. Wright has been "lynched" in the press for the last two weeks. (Silly me, I went to church on Easter Sunday to hear a message about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I guess I just don't get it.)
People, can we stop using the word "lynching" unless someone is actually killed with a rope? Rev. Wright was not lynched. He was criticized. He was ridiculed even. But he was not lynched.
How big of a chip do you have to have on your shoulder to equate being criticized with being lynched?
2. an article about how former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was "asassainated".
People, can we stop using the word "asassainated" unless someone is actually killed?
Eliot Spitzer was not assasainated. He was identified - as someone who had potentially committed an illegal offense. He then admitted guilt and resigned. He was most certainly not asassainated.
How big of a persecution complex do you have to have to equate someone being mentioned in the press to them being asassainated? Isn't that a major disservice to the memories of political leaders who were actually killed in the line of duty?
Get a grip, lefties. Ratchet back the hyperbole.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama: the Double-Negative Racist
Weren't we all taught in elementary school not to use double-negatives?
Me, I don't never use them if I don't have to.
Given that, I'm bugged by one particular clause in Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race. It's this clause, regarding his relationship with his race-baiting America-hating pastor:
" I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
No dis-owning. A double negative. Intended to hide what, exactly?
According to webster, "disown" means to repudiate any connection or identification with.
So, the correct grammar translation - if you reduced the double-negative of "no dis-owning" would be to own. Would be to acknowledge a connection or identification with.
Which was obvious in the first place. Barack Obama has a 20 year relationship with the racist America-hating Rev. Wright.
He owns it. And he chooses not to disown it.
It's not illegal. Obama can associate with a racist all day long. It's still a free country, even if he doesn't particularly like it all that much.
He just can't have my vote for President of the United States of America.
And he shouldn't have yours.
Me, I don't never use them if I don't have to.
Given that, I'm bugged by one particular clause in Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race. It's this clause, regarding his relationship with his race-baiting America-hating pastor:
" I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
No dis-owning. A double negative. Intended to hide what, exactly?
According to webster, "disown" means to repudiate any connection or identification with.
So, the correct grammar translation - if you reduced the double-negative of "no dis-owning" would be to own. Would be to acknowledge a connection or identification with.
Which was obvious in the first place. Barack Obama has a 20 year relationship with the racist America-hating Rev. Wright.
He owns it. And he chooses not to disown it.
It's not illegal. Obama can associate with a racist all day long. It's still a free country, even if he doesn't particularly like it all that much.
He just can't have my vote for President of the United States of America.
And he shouldn't have yours.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
BDS and the Big little Lie
Have you ever had an acquaintance who was a pathological liar? How did you distinguish them from the run-of-the-mill fibber?
One sign, I'm sure you will agree, is when you catch them in a little lie that is so insignificant that there was no reason for them to have had to lie about it.
I detected one of those senseless little lies in the Democrat talking points in the last couple of weeks, that makes me seriously concerned about how deeply Bush Derangement Syndrome (and it's corresponding hatred of all things Republican) is entrenched in the Dem leadership.
Some context:
The Big Lies have abounded for years now in the Democrat talking points. They are legion:
- Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections
- Bush lied, kids died
- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and unjustified
- Bush and Cheney mislead everyone about the presence of WMD's in Iraq
- Bush said the use of nuclear weapons by Iraq was "imminent"
All not true, but all repeated so often in the echo chamber of liberal leaders and the Mainstream Media and the left-wing bloggers that they just take them as given facts. You know the old maxim, "If you repeat a lie often enough,..."
As for the Little Lie that belies a pathology on the left: It has to do with their talking points on the train wreck that the Michigan and Florida primaries are causing in the Democratic Primary.
I first heard it a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida was on Fox News Sunday. She started off her discussion by arguing that it was not the fault of the Democratic Party in Florida, that the "Republican-lead Legislature" had forced the Party to move it's primary date forward and thus lose all of it's delegates.
"Wait a minute", host Chris Wallace said. "Wasn't it a Democrat who put forward the legislation?"
"Well yes, but...."
"And did any Democrat vote No on the legislation?"
"Well no, but..." And she went on to continue to blame the Republican majority for the calamity.
Heard it again on Fox when Great Van Sustern was interviewing ex-President Bill Clinton. He repeated the same talking points, saying that the "Democratic Party was 100% innocent in this problems" and that the "Republican-lead legislature" had put them in this jam.
Okay, this is a silly and stupid lie. But, apparently one that the Dems think is important enough to keep repeating as their talking points. Listen for it on the networks this week as they continue to try to sort out a solution for Florida and Michigan.
It's the little and unnecessary lie that provides the clue as to degree of pathological their lying has become.
One sign, I'm sure you will agree, is when you catch them in a little lie that is so insignificant that there was no reason for them to have had to lie about it.
I detected one of those senseless little lies in the Democrat talking points in the last couple of weeks, that makes me seriously concerned about how deeply Bush Derangement Syndrome (and it's corresponding hatred of all things Republican) is entrenched in the Dem leadership.
Some context:
The Big Lies have abounded for years now in the Democrat talking points. They are legion:
- Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections
- Bush lied, kids died
- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and unjustified
- Bush and Cheney mislead everyone about the presence of WMD's in Iraq
- Bush said the use of nuclear weapons by Iraq was "imminent"
All not true, but all repeated so often in the echo chamber of liberal leaders and the Mainstream Media and the left-wing bloggers that they just take them as given facts. You know the old maxim, "If you repeat a lie often enough,..."
As for the Little Lie that belies a pathology on the left: It has to do with their talking points on the train wreck that the Michigan and Florida primaries are causing in the Democratic Primary.
I first heard it a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida was on Fox News Sunday. She started off her discussion by arguing that it was not the fault of the Democratic Party in Florida, that the "Republican-lead Legislature" had forced the Party to move it's primary date forward and thus lose all of it's delegates.
"Wait a minute", host Chris Wallace said. "Wasn't it a Democrat who put forward the legislation?"
"Well yes, but...."
"And did any Democrat vote No on the legislation?"
"Well no, but..." And she went on to continue to blame the Republican majority for the calamity.
Heard it again on Fox when Great Van Sustern was interviewing ex-President Bill Clinton. He repeated the same talking points, saying that the "Democratic Party was 100% innocent in this problems" and that the "Republican-lead legislature" had put them in this jam.
Okay, this is a silly and stupid lie. But, apparently one that the Dems think is important enough to keep repeating as their talking points. Listen for it on the networks this week as they continue to try to sort out a solution for Florida and Michigan.
It's the little and unnecessary lie that provides the clue as to degree of pathological their lying has become.
Obama's "Speech": the Duality
So, by now I've read and listened to and re-read again Barack Obama's milestone speech on race relations in America - given in the context of needing to answer for his close association with his pastor, a racist America-hater. (It reads much better than it was delivered.)
So, did I think it was a brilliantly written and totally unique speech addressing such a serious topic as the perfecting of the American Union? A speech that addressed racial divisions in America in a serious and at times uplifting manner in a way that no public figure has in nearly 40 years?
Or, did I think it was a too-clever dodge. A way of changing the topic and excusing his way out of hot water to keep his hard won lead in a high-stakes presidential campaign?
Both, actually.
I read the speech first, and was moved- not completely to tears, but just short. It is brilliantly crafted. The man can write. Who doesn't want to believe in us making progress together, in the face of past strife, toward a more perfect Union? It was, in places, quite inspiring. I give the Senator considerable credit for that.
On the negative side, the speech did not adequately explain the Senator's 20 year relationship with the Reverend. In fact, it uses very trite liberal techniques for excusing bad behavior:
Moral Relativism: Rev. Wright's years of bad racial incitement from the pulpit is no different than Geraldine Ferraro's one comment in an interview last week. Just the same. So, no problem. The only problem is that this is ridiculous on it's face.
Everyone Does It: While Reverend Wright "contains within him the contradictions ? the good and the bad ? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. " but:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
In other words, sure he's a ranting racist but you should really hear my cracker granny.
Nice move, jackass, throwing your grandmother under the train to save your own guilty skin. Absolutely no class in that move.
One important disconnect to me was Senator Obama's continuous use of the phrases "black community" and "white community". Here's the problem: I don't live in one of those communities. Yes, I'm white - but I don't live in the "white community". I live in a city. I work at a job. I go to a church. None of those do I describe as "unashamedly white", as Obama's church describes itself as "unashamedly black". I don't ever use racial terms like that. No one I associate with does either. But clearly Senator Obama, and his wife, and his associates immerse themselves in those racial terms. They are the exclusionists, not me, and this speech just solidified that observation to me.
The speech was well written, important, and may well convince some that this issue is over. But, for me the bottom line is this:
1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, built on his vision of "Black Liberation Theology", is a seething cauldron of racial hatred and animosity to America at large.
2. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.
3. In all likelihood, Senator Obama chose to join this particular church for the exact same reason that all of us choose a church - because we are in general agreement with it's doctrine.
Obama has not adequately put this issue behind him, and his candidacy is in serious trouble. My prediction is that he will be soundly defeated in the next primary state, Pennsylvania. And then the Democrat party Superdelegates will have to decide whether to take him down or not. I wouldn't take bets at this point that he comes out of the process as the nominee.
So, did I think it was a brilliantly written and totally unique speech addressing such a serious topic as the perfecting of the American Union? A speech that addressed racial divisions in America in a serious and at times uplifting manner in a way that no public figure has in nearly 40 years?
Or, did I think it was a too-clever dodge. A way of changing the topic and excusing his way out of hot water to keep his hard won lead in a high-stakes presidential campaign?
Both, actually.
I read the speech first, and was moved- not completely to tears, but just short. It is brilliantly crafted. The man can write. Who doesn't want to believe in us making progress together, in the face of past strife, toward a more perfect Union? It was, in places, quite inspiring. I give the Senator considerable credit for that.
On the negative side, the speech did not adequately explain the Senator's 20 year relationship with the Reverend. In fact, it uses very trite liberal techniques for excusing bad behavior:
Moral Relativism: Rev. Wright's years of bad racial incitement from the pulpit is no different than Geraldine Ferraro's one comment in an interview last week. Just the same. So, no problem. The only problem is that this is ridiculous on it's face.
Everyone Does It: While Reverend Wright "contains within him the contradictions ? the good and the bad ? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. " but:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
In other words, sure he's a ranting racist but you should really hear my cracker granny.
Nice move, jackass, throwing your grandmother under the train to save your own guilty skin. Absolutely no class in that move.
One important disconnect to me was Senator Obama's continuous use of the phrases "black community" and "white community". Here's the problem: I don't live in one of those communities. Yes, I'm white - but I don't live in the "white community". I live in a city. I work at a job. I go to a church. None of those do I describe as "unashamedly white", as Obama's church describes itself as "unashamedly black". I don't ever use racial terms like that. No one I associate with does either. But clearly Senator Obama, and his wife, and his associates immerse themselves in those racial terms. They are the exclusionists, not me, and this speech just solidified that observation to me.
The speech was well written, important, and may well convince some that this issue is over. But, for me the bottom line is this:
1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, built on his vision of "Black Liberation Theology", is a seething cauldron of racial hatred and animosity to America at large.
2. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.
3. In all likelihood, Senator Obama chose to join this particular church for the exact same reason that all of us choose a church - because we are in general agreement with it's doctrine.
Obama has not adequately put this issue behind him, and his candidacy is in serious trouble. My prediction is that he will be soundly defeated in the next primary state, Pennsylvania. And then the Democrat party Superdelegates will have to decide whether to take him down or not. I wouldn't take bets at this point that he comes out of the process as the nominee.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Let's just MoveOn.org
Thank you Democrats, for re-introducing the phrase "let's just move on" back into the political lexicon. (/sacrcsm off)
For those of you younguns out there who don't remember the juicy scandal-filled Clinton years, this was a common phrase back in the 90's. In fact, so many Clinton surrogates who were trotted out to defend Slick Willie tried to change the subject by saying "There is nothing to see here. Let's just move on" that an actual left-wing attack group (MoveOn.org) was the spin-off result. (Yes, that's the same wonderful lefty group that brought us the "General Betraeus" ad in the New York Times last year.)
I swear, I about fell out of my chair this weekend when - right on cue - Democratic strategist Bob Beckel - called out on Fox News to defend Barack whose-middle-name-can-never-be-spoken Obama's close association with racist America-hater Jeremiah Wright", said:
"Can we just move on here and get back to discussing Iraq and health care?"
Sorry, we're not moving on for a while here. Barry X has some explaining to do.
For those of you younguns out there who don't remember the juicy scandal-filled Clinton years, this was a common phrase back in the 90's. In fact, so many Clinton surrogates who were trotted out to defend Slick Willie tried to change the subject by saying "There is nothing to see here. Let's just move on" that an actual left-wing attack group (MoveOn.org) was the spin-off result. (Yes, that's the same wonderful lefty group that brought us the "General Betraeus" ad in the New York Times last year.)
I swear, I about fell out of my chair this weekend when - right on cue - Democratic strategist Bob Beckel - called out on Fox News to defend Barack whose-middle-name-can-never-be-spoken Obama's close association with racist America-hater Jeremiah Wright", said:
"Can we just move on here and get back to discussing Iraq and health care?"
Sorry, we're not moving on for a while here. Barry X has some explaining to do.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
It's the Membership, Stupid
Does Presidential candidate Barack Whose-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama, and his pride-deficient wife Michelle, like America?
It's a reasonable question. Color me jingoistic, but I actually consider it a core qualification for running for the office of President of the United States of America that you actually like America. It may not be worded that literally in the Constitution - right there with being a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old - but, still...
It's a fair question, when you match up the Obama's actions and words with the radicalized America-hating rantings of B.H. Obama's close friend, advisor, and "mentor" Rev. Wright. (go see the "God Damn America" video, if it's still up).
The Rev. Wright has established his 35 year ministry in Obama's church in Chicago on, among other things, African nationalism, black victimization, white oppression, and "black liberation theology". That last one being a marxist, leftist, and highly-separationist worldview. Many of us following Obama for the past year are well aware of the nature of Obama's church. But seeing the string of video excerpts from his controversial sermons is still chilling.
Obama responded this weekend to the damaging videos by condemning the statements "on those videos" and by removing Rev. Wright from his campaign team. Obama categorically stated that none of the statements were made in his presence, while he was physically "in the pew". Obama is, of course, lying blatantly. It is inconceivable that none of this incendiary rhetoric was used in the sermons that Obama sat through in 20 years of membership at Trinity. He is not being truthful.
The MSM is predictably either ignoring the story entirely, as 2 of the 3 networks are doing, or try to shift our attention question by dually raising the moral equivalence argument and the guilt by association argument:
Moral equivalence being: why sure this looks bad, but what about John McCain getting endorsements from controversial pastors John Hagee and Rob Parsley?
gba being: why sure the Rev. Wright's statements are radical and undefendable, but we don't believe in guilt-by-association so you can't tie Obama to Wright.
The glaring flaw in these two arguments is the qualitative distinctiveness - and they must not teach distinctions in J-school - of the Obama / Wright relationship by virtue of Obama's 20-year membership in Wright's church. IT'S THE MEMBERSHIP, STUPID!
If you have ever joined a church, as I have - particularly an evangelical Protestant church, as I have - then you understand the particular nature of this association and why it is so important in this story. When you join a church you act in a willful, volitional, affirmative way to associate yourself with the teachings of that church - which is often significantly embodied personally in the Pastor. When you sit under a pastor's preaching - whose job it is to influence you deeply in thought and deed - your worldview is affected.
So, if you sit under a pastor's leadership, teaching, and preaching for twenty years you are announcing a strong influential association. And if you sit under the leadership, teaching, and preaching of a virulently racist America-hating anti-semite for 20 years, then you have some explaining to do.
So, when you review Michelle Obama's puzzling proclamation recently - that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America - in light of her placing herself and her children under the influence of a radicalized America-hating firebreather and it makes perfect sense.
And, when you review Barack Hussein Obama's pointed refusal to wear a flag pin on his lapel or place his hand over his heart during the national anthem in the light of his 20-year association with his vulgar America-hating mentor it makes perfect sense.
So, here's what we know. We know that the spiritual leader of Barack and Michelle Obama's church is a radical, marxist, racist, vulgar, America-hater. We know that while Barack disavows a few particular statements that Rev. Wright made on the shock videos, he doesn't consider his church to be "particularly controversial". And we know that both Obamas seem to have a puzzling lack of pride in the country.
Barack Obama, you are entitled to attend any church - and associate yourself with any radical - you prefer. No question. It's a free country.
You are just not entitled to my vote for President of the United States of America.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Clinton's Consigliere Returns to the News
You know of course, that I was an avid conspiracy theorist in the Clinton years of the 90's. Loved 'em. Followed 'em. Ate 'em up.
One of my favorite players in the various Clinton scandals was an extemely shadowy character named Bruce Lindsey. A longtime Clinton friend and advisor. Always there with Bubba, but just out of sight of the cameras. His ever present card playing partner on Air Force One (Hearts, as I recall) and, I always believed, his "fixer" in the scandal department. Bill Clinton's consigliere - the role of adviser made popular in the Godfather movies.
I haven't thought of him since BC left office with his last day scandal of issuing a slew of pardons to unsavory characters. Many probably arranged by Lindsey for the appropriate payments. Just my opinion.
But, he's back. What possible Bill Clinton scandals are still to erupt? Well, two come to mind:
1. Mr. ex-President Clinton has been busy since he left office raking in donations from unsavory characters overseas. Certainly in an improper manner, I believe, for an ex-President. Very probably in an illegal manner, given that Hillary is using joint-checking-account money to fund her campaign. How much money from China and Dubai is Hillary allowed to spend in a presidential election cycle - that would be none. But is she? Hard to tell, because a lot of the money is funnelled through the Clinton Library Foundation - which refused to release it's donor list.
2. Recent requests for Presidential papers related to the pardon scandal have been rebuffed by - guess who - the Clinton Library Foundation, which has refused to releas 1000 of documents that have notes on them as to how the pardon decisions were made. Isn't that nice to have a gatekeeper to shield the ex-President from scrutiny.
Hmmm, the Clinton Library Foundation seems to have become the new scandal central for our intrepid and scandalous ex-President.
And who, if you even need to ask, is the current Director of the Clinton Library Foundation?
That would be the re-emergent fixer, Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Hmmm.
One of my favorite players in the various Clinton scandals was an extemely shadowy character named Bruce Lindsey. A longtime Clinton friend and advisor. Always there with Bubba, but just out of sight of the cameras. His ever present card playing partner on Air Force One (Hearts, as I recall) and, I always believed, his "fixer" in the scandal department. Bill Clinton's consigliere - the role of adviser made popular in the Godfather movies.
I haven't thought of him since BC left office with his last day scandal of issuing a slew of pardons to unsavory characters. Many probably arranged by Lindsey for the appropriate payments. Just my opinion.
But, he's back. What possible Bill Clinton scandals are still to erupt? Well, two come to mind:
1. Mr. ex-President Clinton has been busy since he left office raking in donations from unsavory characters overseas. Certainly in an improper manner, I believe, for an ex-President. Very probably in an illegal manner, given that Hillary is using joint-checking-account money to fund her campaign. How much money from China and Dubai is Hillary allowed to spend in a presidential election cycle - that would be none. But is she? Hard to tell, because a lot of the money is funnelled through the Clinton Library Foundation - which refused to release it's donor list.
2. Recent requests for Presidential papers related to the pardon scandal have been rebuffed by - guess who - the Clinton Library Foundation, which has refused to releas 1000 of documents that have notes on them as to how the pardon decisions were made. Isn't that nice to have a gatekeeper to shield the ex-President from scrutiny.
Hmmm, the Clinton Library Foundation seems to have become the new scandal central for our intrepid and scandalous ex-President.
And who, if you even need to ask, is the current Director of the Clinton Library Foundation?
That would be the re-emergent fixer, Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Hmmm.
Democrats Unhinged on Waterboarding
The press reported today that President George W. Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation outlawing, among other things, the use of waterboarding by the CIA as an interrogation technique.
Democrats in Congress have argued that the CIA should be limited to the interrogation techniques that the military is limited to in the Army Field Manual, that "torture is a black mark against the United States" (Nancy Pelosi), and that our ability to lead the world depends on morality, not military might (Pelosi again).
President Bush argued in response that the CIA should have a separate and lawful intelligence program, given their different operational needs than the military, and that the use of these programs has saved lives. An argument, in fact echoed by former CIA director George Tenet in his excellent book about the events and aftermath of 9/11.
I have two main thoughts here:
1. Thank God for President Bush who, even in the face of years of withering and unrelenting assaults on his efforts to defend this nation, still stands firm in the committment to fight this war aggressively. He stands firmly on the wall, battling Islamist Jihadists with all the tools at his disposal.
2. This argument over waterboarding in particular highlights why the Democrat leadership is unsuited for leadership in wartime. They are, in my opinion, over their painting our nation as torturers for using this technique against exactly three high-value Al-Qaida terrorists leaders in the timeframe where it was likely that we would be facing another attack on American soil.
Folks, you need to get a grip here. If you are of the opinion that it was eggregious for the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed in 2003, to get information about other planned Al-Qaida operations against America, you are unhinged.
Do you understand who Khalid Sheik Muhammed is? Really. There is no one on the planet more responsible for the atrocity that was 9/11 than KSM. Not even Osama bin Laden. OBL gave approval and funding for the operation, true. But KSM conceived it, planned it, and was responsible for the execution of 9/11. He and Ramzi Yousef planned how to use airliners to attack targets and kill Americans. He oversaw the selection and training of the attackers. He was the operational commander. And I'm going to feel sorry for the CIA making him uncomfortable in his interrogation?
KSM was captured in Pakistan by the CIA in March of 2003, by daring CIA field officers in an operation in a foreign country carrying great risk. They subjected KSM to interrogation, believing rightly that there were other operations in the planning stage that would kill thousands of Americans if not uncovered and stopped. They needed that information to stop it. We, as Americans, needed for them to get that information. Did they torture and maim KSM, as we understand the term torture? Did they cripple him or dismember him or burn him with irons or hang him and beating him (all techniques found in the Al-Qaida torture manual)?
No, they did not. They "waterboarded" him for a total of two minutes and 30 seconds. No permanent harm, no disfigurement. And KSM spilled his guts. And operations were uncovered and stopped. And thousands of lives were saved. As testified to by CIA officials like George Tenet.
Now, if you want to believe that that 2 1/2 minutes of discomfort that KSM was subjected to by the CIA was unallowable by a civilized nation, even one at war with barbarians who would plan 9/11 and who routinely behead infidels, then I would categorically state that you are in fact unhinged.
Had President Bush, as leader of this nation, failed to, in the wake of 9/11, use all of the tools at his disposal to interrogate captured Al-Qaida leadership and uncover and stop other planned operations against America that would have injured and killed thousands - I would have argued for his impeachment. The fact that he did what he did and ordered what he ordered earns him my gratitude.
But then again, I'm not an unhinged Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. May she never have the primary responsibility for the defense of this nation.
Democrats in Congress have argued that the CIA should be limited to the interrogation techniques that the military is limited to in the Army Field Manual, that "torture is a black mark against the United States" (Nancy Pelosi), and that our ability to lead the world depends on morality, not military might (Pelosi again).
President Bush argued in response that the CIA should have a separate and lawful intelligence program, given their different operational needs than the military, and that the use of these programs has saved lives. An argument, in fact echoed by former CIA director George Tenet in his excellent book about the events and aftermath of 9/11.
I have two main thoughts here:
1. Thank God for President Bush who, even in the face of years of withering and unrelenting assaults on his efforts to defend this nation, still stands firm in the committment to fight this war aggressively. He stands firmly on the wall, battling Islamist Jihadists with all the tools at his disposal.
2. This argument over waterboarding in particular highlights why the Democrat leadership is unsuited for leadership in wartime. They are, in my opinion, over their painting our nation as torturers for using this technique against exactly three high-value Al-Qaida terrorists leaders in the timeframe where it was likely that we would be facing another attack on American soil.
Folks, you need to get a grip here. If you are of the opinion that it was eggregious for the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed in 2003, to get information about other planned Al-Qaida operations against America, you are unhinged.
Do you understand who Khalid Sheik Muhammed is? Really. There is no one on the planet more responsible for the atrocity that was 9/11 than KSM. Not even Osama bin Laden. OBL gave approval and funding for the operation, true. But KSM conceived it, planned it, and was responsible for the execution of 9/11. He and Ramzi Yousef planned how to use airliners to attack targets and kill Americans. He oversaw the selection and training of the attackers. He was the operational commander. And I'm going to feel sorry for the CIA making him uncomfortable in his interrogation?
KSM was captured in Pakistan by the CIA in March of 2003, by daring CIA field officers in an operation in a foreign country carrying great risk. They subjected KSM to interrogation, believing rightly that there were other operations in the planning stage that would kill thousands of Americans if not uncovered and stopped. They needed that information to stop it. We, as Americans, needed for them to get that information. Did they torture and maim KSM, as we understand the term torture? Did they cripple him or dismember him or burn him with irons or hang him and beating him (all techniques found in the Al-Qaida torture manual)?
No, they did not. They "waterboarded" him for a total of two minutes and 30 seconds. No permanent harm, no disfigurement. And KSM spilled his guts. And operations were uncovered and stopped. And thousands of lives were saved. As testified to by CIA officials like George Tenet.
Now, if you want to believe that that 2 1/2 minutes of discomfort that KSM was subjected to by the CIA was unallowable by a civilized nation, even one at war with barbarians who would plan 9/11 and who routinely behead infidels, then I would categorically state that you are in fact unhinged.
Had President Bush, as leader of this nation, failed to, in the wake of 9/11, use all of the tools at his disposal to interrogate captured Al-Qaida leadership and uncover and stop other planned operations against America that would have injured and killed thousands - I would have argued for his impeachment. The fact that he did what he did and ordered what he ordered earns him my gratitude.
But then again, I'm not an unhinged Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. May she never have the primary responsibility for the defense of this nation.
Times Square Bombing Shoud Give Democrats Pause
In the wake of the eggregious bombing of the military recruitment center in Times Square in New York this week, Democrats should pause and consider their complicity.
The Democrat leadership and their allies in the media and blogosphere, in their blind hatred of all things George W. Bush and their quest to regain the power of the presidency, have been effectively trashing the military for going on at least three years now.
Pelosi, Reid, and company have been beating the drums of anti-war, and in doing so have repeatedly made the case that:
- our military are killers and occupiers. (Constantly trumpeting the worst case stories of Haditha, and inflating the number of war casualties)
- our military are torturers. (Abu Gahraib, Gitmo, waterboarding)
- our Commander-in-Chief is a rogue criminal who makes war unjustly
- the military recruiters are predators, preying on inner city youth who have no other financial options
In peddling these stories every day, they inspire people to hatred of the United States. Just read some of the leftwing forums. I do. They are chock full of vitriol and hate. Not just for President Bush (who they unaffectionately call "chimpy") and his administration, but for the military. They emphatically do not support the troops.
If you want a concrete example of the Left's complicity in anti-military activity, just look at the actions of the Berkley California city council last month. The council is one of the best examples of the left having control of the levers of power and using it to agitate against the military in the form of recruitment centers. The council voted to kick the U.S. military recruitment center out of town, sending a letter saying they were "uninvited and unwelcome". They also stripped them of parking spaces outside the center and designated them for use by anti-war loonies Code Pink - who they encouraged to do all they could to disrupt the activities of the military recruiters.
I have two things to say about that:
1. Democrat politicians are complicit in encouraging antipathy toward military recruiters, and are complicit in the bombing of the recruitment center in Times Square.
2. In my opinion, Berekely California should be stripped of all federal dollars, and left undefended by the military in the event of an attack. Screw them. Let Code Pink defend them.
The Democrat leadership and their allies in the media and blogosphere, in their blind hatred of all things George W. Bush and their quest to regain the power of the presidency, have been effectively trashing the military for going on at least three years now.
Pelosi, Reid, and company have been beating the drums of anti-war, and in doing so have repeatedly made the case that:
- our military are killers and occupiers. (Constantly trumpeting the worst case stories of Haditha, and inflating the number of war casualties)
- our military are torturers. (Abu Gahraib, Gitmo, waterboarding)
- our Commander-in-Chief is a rogue criminal who makes war unjustly
- the military recruiters are predators, preying on inner city youth who have no other financial options
In peddling these stories every day, they inspire people to hatred of the United States. Just read some of the leftwing forums. I do. They are chock full of vitriol and hate. Not just for President Bush (who they unaffectionately call "chimpy") and his administration, but for the military. They emphatically do not support the troops.
If you want a concrete example of the Left's complicity in anti-military activity, just look at the actions of the Berkley California city council last month. The council is one of the best examples of the left having control of the levers of power and using it to agitate against the military in the form of recruitment centers. The council voted to kick the U.S. military recruitment center out of town, sending a letter saying they were "uninvited and unwelcome". They also stripped them of parking spaces outside the center and designated them for use by anti-war loonies Code Pink - who they encouraged to do all they could to disrupt the activities of the military recruiters.
I have two things to say about that:
1. Democrat politicians are complicit in encouraging antipathy toward military recruiters, and are complicit in the bombing of the recruitment center in Times Square.
2. In my opinion, Berekely California should be stripped of all federal dollars, and left undefended by the military in the event of an attack. Screw them. Let Code Pink defend them.
How to Bungle a Nomination Process
This has, without doubt, been the most interesting presidential election cycle of my lifetime. Wow. Absolutely nothing is going as predicted by the pundits or pollsters. Bad for them. Good for us.
One of the most interesting aspects has been the seminar being put on by the Democratic Party on how to screw up a nomination process. It's a total mess on that side of the nominating aisle - not that I object to that.
Here are three Democrat peculiarities that have contributed to the train crash:
1. An emphasis on the Caucus.
Does anyone really understand the caucus process? Or know why it is used so much on the Democrat side? What I've observed so far is that the caucus system severely limits the number of people that can participate in the process. How many people are willing to show up for two hours at night and vote out in public in front of their neighbors? It's undemocratic for one, sacrificing the secret vote of the ballot booth.
Look at Wyoming, for example. The Republicans had their primary a long time ago and had a good simple vote. Now the Democrats are doing it with a caucus and, if Fox New's scroll is correct, have about 10,000 people total in the whole state participating. They're going to award 12 delegates to the convention based on the votes of 10,000 people in a whole state? That's screwed up.
Don't even get me started on Texas, where the Democrats had both a primary and a caucus and everyone could vote twice in one day. Do you think this gives anyone confidence in the process? No.
2. Proportional awarding of delegates:
The Dems do it. The Republicans don't - preferring a winner take all system. The result? The Republicans have a candidate, the Dems have a train wreck.
Proportional allocation of delegates sounds fair, but it doesn't aid the nominating process. First of all, I would want to have a process that's similar to the general election, where electoral college votes are awarded winner take all in most states. Also, winner-take-all makes for convincing wins by a large majority and give the winner an implied "mandate" that is more effective in uniting a group at the end of the process.
One of the most interesting aspects has been the seminar being put on by the Democratic Party on how to screw up a nomination process. It's a total mess on that side of the nominating aisle - not that I object to that.
Here are three Democrat peculiarities that have contributed to the train crash:
1. An emphasis on the Caucus.
Does anyone really understand the caucus process? Or know why it is used so much on the Democrat side? What I've observed so far is that the caucus system severely limits the number of people that can participate in the process. How many people are willing to show up for two hours at night and vote out in public in front of their neighbors? It's undemocratic for one, sacrificing the secret vote of the ballot booth.
Look at Wyoming, for example. The Republicans had their primary a long time ago and had a good simple vote. Now the Democrats are doing it with a caucus and, if Fox New's scroll is correct, have about 10,000 people total in the whole state participating. They're going to award 12 delegates to the convention based on the votes of 10,000 people in a whole state? That's screwed up.
Don't even get me started on Texas, where the Democrats had both a primary and a caucus and everyone could vote twice in one day. Do you think this gives anyone confidence in the process? No.
2. Proportional awarding of delegates:
The Dems do it. The Republicans don't - preferring a winner take all system. The result? The Republicans have a candidate, the Dems have a train wreck.
Proportional allocation of delegates sounds fair, but it doesn't aid the nominating process. First of all, I would want to have a process that's similar to the general election, where electoral college votes are awarded winner take all in most states. Also, winner-take-all makes for convincing wins by a large majority and give the winner an implied "mandate" that is more effective in uniting a group at the end of the process.
Un-Inevitable
A year ago most Democrats, by all accounts, thought that two things were inevitable:
1. Hillary Clinton will be the party nominee.
2. Any Democrat will win the White House because of how much the country hates George W. Bush.
It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary's inevitability has gone down the drain.
What is clear to me is that the inevitability of the second probability is gone as well.
Things are looking promising on the Republican side, making a win in November highly possible. What things? Well, here's two:
- the Repbulicans have settled on a candidate already, while the Democrats have months of fratricide ahead of them in their screwed up primary.
- the "surge" is indeed working. This both takes it off the front pages of the paper and shows leading Dems to have been wrong when they declared the war "lost".
I'm looking forward to the electoral battle in November. I think the Democrats are well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
1. Hillary Clinton will be the party nominee.
2. Any Democrat will win the White House because of how much the country hates George W. Bush.
It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary's inevitability has gone down the drain.
What is clear to me is that the inevitability of the second probability is gone as well.
Things are looking promising on the Republican side, making a win in November highly possible. What things? Well, here's two:
- the Repbulicans have settled on a candidate already, while the Democrats have months of fratricide ahead of them in their screwed up primary.
- the "surge" is indeed working. This both takes it off the front pages of the paper and shows leading Dems to have been wrong when they declared the war "lost".
I'm looking forward to the electoral battle in November. I think the Democrats are well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
Monday, March 03, 2008
Super Tuesday 2 - tidbits
You know, faithful readers, that I've wanted to post something every day during this totally fascinating election season of 2008. Alas, time does not permit. So, to catch up, here are some tidbits:
- I'm of a split mind what I want to have happen in tomorrow's Super Tuesday 2 elections in Texas and Ohio. Do I want Hillary to get the crushing defeat that she so soundly deserves, and for the Clintons to finally be driven off the public stage in humiliating defeat. Yes, I want that. Or, do I more want Hillary to make just enough of a showing to stay in the race so that the two of them can scratch each other's eye's out (politically metaphorically, of course) all the way through the convention? Do I wish for political chaos and damage in the Democratic primaries until August? The Rush Limbaugh strategy.
I want both. I think, though, that I have to come down on the side of wanting Hillary soundly defeated and out of our lives. The Clintons are so politically dangerous to America's future that I want the possibility of her being President off of the table. I'll sleep easier.
- Who is the most beatable in the general election for McCain? Hillary, with her decades of baggage? Or Barack who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama? I say both are beatable. Finsh off Hillary now. Take out Obama in the general. It can happen.
- Speaking of B. Hussein Obama's middle name: I think most if not all of the pundits are missing the point about why it should cause Americans pause in voting for him.
It's not that he is currently a muslim - he's not, he's a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.
It's not, as Karl "the Architect", said on Fox News tonight irrelevant because B. Hussein Obama did not choose his middle name.
It's relevant precisely because the people who did choose his middle name are the people who most influenced and shaped his life and his worldview, and they are all "practicing" muslims. So, did Obama oppose the Iraq war in 2002 - when EVERYONE else supported it - because he really thought it was bad strategy, or because of the worldview that his overwhelmingly muslim family shaped him with? You can't say you know.
I'll just say it straight out. We are at war with Islamic Jihadists who mean to do great harm to America. I do not want a commander-in-chief, who will be called on to pull the trigger to defend us, who has sympathetic family connections to the group we are fighting. I don't. That's my preference, and I'm entitled to it.
I'll refer you to this website for a look at Barack Hussein Obama's family history. Chock full of muslim heritage. That obviously doesn't disqualify him from anything - except the one thing that he's seeking: commander-in-chief of our armed forces. My opinion.
- By the way, the same disqualification applies to Hillary, who's closest personal aide and live-in companion Huma Abedin is a Saudi Arabian nationalist with muslim parents from India and Pakistan. Under what national security clearance program did she get to be the closest aide to a presidential candidate? Is she an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia? It's a reasonable question.
- It's not just Obama's muslim past that is troubling.
His formative collaboration with leftist activists during his "community organizer" days is.
His corrupt alliance with Rezko in Chicago, who apparently fraudently funneled money to Obama to buy his mansion, is.
His membership in a church that preaches black nationalism, and corresponding antipathy to "white culture" and America in general is. Now personally, I'm not into racial politics. But Obama's church is, to the extreme, and that's the point. (Go read their "12 precepts and convenants" about the "Black Value System") It has undoubtedly shaped his worldview, and that should be questioned.
His 100% allegiance to the pro-abortion industry - to the point of even opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - is.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obama.
- So, Obama is beatable by a Republican candidate who will go after him. That candidate, unfortunately, is not John McCain. McCain will pull his punches just to be liked by the liberal media, and throw conservatives under the bus - as he did with Cunningham last week for mentioning he-who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken's middle name.
- During the early months of the primary, the political spin was that the Republican's were in disarray and didn't like any of their candidates while the Dems were in a lovefest with all three of their candidates. That most Democrats thought that "any of our three" would make fine candidates and easily beat any Republican in November.
Trust me, that lovefest with their candidates on the Dem side has taken a beating lately. I don't know if you read left-wing websites like democraticundergound.com, or listen to leftwing radio, but I do. And they are just as in disarray and not liking their candidates at the moment as the Republicans do. The palpable dislike of Hillary and Barack by the opposite supporters on DU is getting hardcore and vicious. Obamaniacs hate Hillary, and vice versa. The lovefest is over.
- I don't know about Ohio, but I think Mike Huckabee still has life left in him in Texas. My gut tells me he could post big numbers there. His strategy of denying McCain enough delegates to lock up a first-ballot win at the convention has life in it.
Tomorrow should be exciting. I'm tuning in...
- I'm of a split mind what I want to have happen in tomorrow's Super Tuesday 2 elections in Texas and Ohio. Do I want Hillary to get the crushing defeat that she so soundly deserves, and for the Clintons to finally be driven off the public stage in humiliating defeat. Yes, I want that. Or, do I more want Hillary to make just enough of a showing to stay in the race so that the two of them can scratch each other's eye's out (politically metaphorically, of course) all the way through the convention? Do I wish for political chaos and damage in the Democratic primaries until August? The Rush Limbaugh strategy.
I want both. I think, though, that I have to come down on the side of wanting Hillary soundly defeated and out of our lives. The Clintons are so politically dangerous to America's future that I want the possibility of her being President off of the table. I'll sleep easier.
- Who is the most beatable in the general election for McCain? Hillary, with her decades of baggage? Or Barack who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama? I say both are beatable. Finsh off Hillary now. Take out Obama in the general. It can happen.
- Speaking of B. Hussein Obama's middle name: I think most if not all of the pundits are missing the point about why it should cause Americans pause in voting for him.
It's not that he is currently a muslim - he's not, he's a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.
It's not, as Karl "the Architect", said on Fox News tonight irrelevant because B. Hussein Obama did not choose his middle name.
It's relevant precisely because the people who did choose his middle name are the people who most influenced and shaped his life and his worldview, and they are all "practicing" muslims. So, did Obama oppose the Iraq war in 2002 - when EVERYONE else supported it - because he really thought it was bad strategy, or because of the worldview that his overwhelmingly muslim family shaped him with? You can't say you know.
I'll just say it straight out. We are at war with Islamic Jihadists who mean to do great harm to America. I do not want a commander-in-chief, who will be called on to pull the trigger to defend us, who has sympathetic family connections to the group we are fighting. I don't. That's my preference, and I'm entitled to it.
I'll refer you to this website for a look at Barack Hussein Obama's family history. Chock full of muslim heritage. That obviously doesn't disqualify him from anything - except the one thing that he's seeking: commander-in-chief of our armed forces. My opinion.
- By the way, the same disqualification applies to Hillary, who's closest personal aide and live-in companion Huma Abedin is a Saudi Arabian nationalist with muslim parents from India and Pakistan. Under what national security clearance program did she get to be the closest aide to a presidential candidate? Is she an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia? It's a reasonable question.
- It's not just Obama's muslim past that is troubling.
His formative collaboration with leftist activists during his "community organizer" days is.
His corrupt alliance with Rezko in Chicago, who apparently fraudently funneled money to Obama to buy his mansion, is.
His membership in a church that preaches black nationalism, and corresponding antipathy to "white culture" and America in general is. Now personally, I'm not into racial politics. But Obama's church is, to the extreme, and that's the point. (Go read their "12 precepts and convenants" about the "Black Value System") It has undoubtedly shaped his worldview, and that should be questioned.
His 100% allegiance to the pro-abortion industry - to the point of even opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - is.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obama.
- So, Obama is beatable by a Republican candidate who will go after him. That candidate, unfortunately, is not John McCain. McCain will pull his punches just to be liked by the liberal media, and throw conservatives under the bus - as he did with Cunningham last week for mentioning he-who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken's middle name.
- During the early months of the primary, the political spin was that the Republican's were in disarray and didn't like any of their candidates while the Dems were in a lovefest with all three of their candidates. That most Democrats thought that "any of our three" would make fine candidates and easily beat any Republican in November.
Trust me, that lovefest with their candidates on the Dem side has taken a beating lately. I don't know if you read left-wing websites like democraticundergound.com, or listen to leftwing radio, but I do. And they are just as in disarray and not liking their candidates at the moment as the Republicans do. The palpable dislike of Hillary and Barack by the opposite supporters on DU is getting hardcore and vicious. Obamaniacs hate Hillary, and vice versa. The lovefest is over.
- I don't know about Ohio, but I think Mike Huckabee still has life left in him in Texas. My gut tells me he could post big numbers there. His strategy of denying McCain enough delegates to lock up a first-ballot win at the convention has life in it.
Tomorrow should be exciting. I'm tuning in...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)