"Isn't this funny"

John "Doc" Holliday, the tubercular Old West gambler, lived his life with a single determination.  That determination was that he was going to die with his boots on, rather than in bed from the disease that was robbing his breath.  He didn't get his wish, and is reported to have looked at his bare feet while lying on his death bed and stating, "Isn't this funny?"

I see the same amusing irony in the Democrats and their mad dash to prosecute someone for leaking the name of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, to the press.  The Democrats are screaming about special prosecutors, felonies, and the undermining of our national security apparatus.  Of course, never mind that these are the very same people who were stating in 1998 that the concept of an independent prosecutor had outlived its usefulness, and that these are the very same people who saw nothing wrong with Hillary obtaining the FBI files of political enemies.

The major irony in all this, is that the Democrats have discovered a love for covert operations and the Central Intelligence Agency.  The left has spent the better part of the last 30 years trying to abolish the CIA and do away with covert operations.  The Church Commission, named for Senator Frank Church, went out of its way to nitpick every operation conducted by the Agency; EVEN DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR.

Even more recently, you can find papers that have been written by leftist think tanks and liberal academics that decry covert operations as being unseemly for a democracy.  Democrats are noted for their operation to covert operations.  Some, during the Reagan Administration, went as far as to imply that the CIA was more dangerous than the Communists.  The left was appalled, when in a similar case, President Reagan prosecuted Samuel Morrison for leaking photographs to Jane's Defense Weekly.

Yet, now, when there is political advantage to be gained, the Democrats have become the party of the sanctity of covert operations.  The Democrats are concerned about the damage this incident will have on national security.  They have become the number one defenders of the intelligence community.

If there is an honest Democrat out there, he or she should look down at his or her toes and say "Isn't this funny?"

Reminiscences

I suppose every generation comments on how much the world changes in their lifetime, but looking back, I am really amazed at how things are different than they were when I was a kid.

When I was born, my parents still had a working outhouse.  It was right next to the chicken lot.  The house that was originally on my parents' property only had jury-rigged indoor plumbing, and the new house was only a couple of years old when I came along.

The road that we lived on wasn't really paved.  It was a narrow gravel road upon which the county would spray tar every so often to give the illusion of paving.  My friends and I would ride horses on that road for miles and seldom see a car or truck belonging to a stranger.

I was in school before we had air conditioning, and while other kids got to watch three channels on television, we only got two channels until Daddy broke down and bought that UHF antenna.  It would be years later before he decided that color television was worth the money.  Of course, Daddy was one of these men who believed that watching television was a waste of time unless the news, a baseball game, or Gunsmoke was on.

As I got older, I raised calves, beans and tobacco to make spending money and money for school.  By then, horses were less important than cars and my friends and I would spend Friday nights and Saturday nights sitting on the hoods of our automobiles in front of the CO-OP.  It wasn't a very productive way to spend one's time, but it seemed like the thing to do.

Now, the road by the house is really paved, complete with double yellow lines.  City water is available, but my Mama stubbornly clings to her well.  Subdivisions and trailer parks have taken over the farm land and most houses have cable or satellite dishes.  Where everyone knew everyone else, now most who live on the road are strangers. 

Things sure have changed.  Yeah, I know, every generation says that.

The threat that is unreported

There have been a couple of recent news items that have not gotten the coverage they deserve.  First, a Muslim cleric, working with the detainees at Guantanamo, was arrested for espionage.  Then just within the past day or two, another worker at Gitmo was arrested for espionage.

The news media has attempted to portray the radical Muslims who are responsible for recent acts of terrorism against this nation as no more than a few wild eyed fundamentalists that are not anymore widespread than our own militia groups are.  We are repeatedly told that mainstream Islam is a religion of peace.

That may be true, but, if you recall, the outrage against Osama and his followers was somewhat muted in the mainstream Muslim community.  Oh, they condemned the loss of life, but the mainstream Muslim clerics obviously attempted to walk a tightrope to keep from offending the militants, which they must know make up a larger portion of their population than is reported.

Further, if you study Islam, national ties are almost irrelevant in comparison to religious ties.  I am not saying that a Muslim cannot be a loyal American, but their religion calls for their identity to come from their duty to Allah. Statements by leading Muslims in this country, since September 11, 2001, talk about how American Muslims even considered the possibility of Islam becoming the leading religion of the United States.

Now we have two Muslim Americans working for the enemy in Gitmo.  I realize that I am sounding like a bigoted Islamaphobe in this piece, but it seems like the threat may be larger than we have wanted to believe.  We, as a nation, do not want to consider the possibility that the hatred toward us is widespread and based on culture and religion rather than things we can control.

American liberals, in fact, want to believe that any animosity directed toward the United States is as a result of our conduct, that can be changed.  They poo poo any notion that nothing we can do, short of national conversion, will change the minds of these people.

Perhaps it is just coincidence that two American personnel at Gitmo have chosen the enemy over their own country.  Perhaps they are two isolated incidents.  However, is it not slightly possible that the threat is greater than we WANT to believe?  Can we not consider that potential and ALL its ramifications without bigotry being involved?

What to do with Clark

Wesley Clark will have to improve his Q and A skills to survive the Democrat debates, but if he does, he has one huge advantage over the rest of the dwarfs.  Clark, at least, looks presidential.  I realize that is a silly way to pick a President.  By all accounts, Abraham Lincoln didn't LOOK Presidential.  But, fortunately for Abe, he didn't have to appear on television.  Today, the right "look" is a must.

The real question is what will Hillary do if Clark begins looking like he really can win.  I know you in the kneepad brigade refuse to believe that the Clintons EVER do anything in their own self interest.  But, Noam Chomsky not withstanding, human nature requires that we humans are consistently motivated by self interest.

Hillary cannot permit a Democrat to win the White House in 2004, other than her.  She is not suicidal enough to run against an incumbent in the primaries of 2008 and she is not foolish enough to wait until 2012 to run.  2008 is her year.  It always has been.  At least after 9/11.  As soon as Hillary decided that Bush could not lose in 2004, she began planning for 2008.  All of you, if you have the guts to be intellectually honest, know that I am right.

But now, Bush might be vulnerable.  Dean, Kerry, Grumpy, Sleepy and the gang don't scare her.  Regardless of what you true believers want to think, there isn't a one of them that could win a national election.  Clark has to scare her.  He is a General.  We rednecks in the heartland like generals.  He is good looking and has some charisma.  That means the soccer moms may come back to the Democrat party.

Hillary cannot allow this.  It is going to be interesting to see what happens.  Most of you don't want to believe that politics is this base, but you are kidding yourselves.  Hillary cannot even let the good General even SNIFF the presidency.  If he wins, she loses.  Stay tuned.

Lose the hyphen

What I am about to say is going to cause some to incorrectly label me as a racist. Racism is a belief that certain races are genetically superior to other races. Racists can be either white, black or Asian, even though a prominent black professor once said that blacks were incapable of being racist. A comment he made to attempt to justify his own racist tendencies. I am not a racist.


I am a culturalist, though. I am an American, and I believe that American culture is superior to the culture of modern Europe, the culture of Asia, the culture of Latin America and the culture of the Middle East. Some will say, though, "Does not an Indian or a Frenchman or a Russian have the right to be proud of their culture and think that it is superior?" To that I say, absolutely, however, once that Indian, Frenchman or Russian decides to become an American, that needs to change.


After 1776, our Founding Fathers were no longer Englishmen or English-Americans, they were Americans. If a person of Irish descent prefers Ireland to the United States, then he or she should move to Ireland. If a person of Mexican heritage prefers Mexico to the United States, then he or she should cross the Rio Grande. If you want to be an American then you need to lose the hyphen. That goes for African-Americans, Arab-Americans, Jewish-Americans and on and on.

America's history is as the land of opportunity.  We made that history as the Great Melting Pot.  Now we have become the Great Tossed Salad.  All that will accomplish is the Balkanization of America.  Check the history of the Balkans.  Ethnic rivalries have plagued that region for a thousand years.  As long as WE persist in multiculturalism and hyphenated Americanism, ethnic strife HERE will only persist and worsen.

If we want to be Americans then we need to be Americans.  Period.

Maybe it is time for an exit strategy

Democrats love to talk about exit strategies as if they are some elusive mystical goal at the end of a knight's quest.  However, a look through our history shows that we have never been good at exiting, once our military has become entrenched someplace.

Example number one is the Philippines.  We obtained it in the Spanish American War in 1898 and 1899 and still have approximately 1000 troops there.  We have between 50,000 and 70,000 troops in Germany and World War II has been over for almost 60 years and the Cold War has been over for ten years.  We have 48,000 military personnel in Japan.  Yep, World War II again.  The Korean War has been in ceasefire mode for about 50 years and yet we have 37,000 troops in South Korea.  Additionally, we have about 7000 troops in the Balkans and I have not mentioned the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Yet, George W. Bush is called imperialist.  My God, leftists, do you even have a clue how stupid you sound?  We spent the entire 20th Century putting our troops all over the world and George W. Bush had nothing to do with that.

I will agree, though, it may be time for an exit strategy, a worldwide exit strategy.  We certainly do not want to appear to be imperialist, now do we?

Conservatives have no place in modern America

Nothing to say

Politics is my heroin.  I need it.  I am obsessed with it in all its glory and all its corruption.  I read everything I can about political philosophy.  From Machiavelli to Marx, from Goldwater to Chomsky, I read it.  I want to learn about all the different theories behind the role of government in society and how politics affects our day to day lives.  I am fascinated with political campaigns from local elections all the way to the national scene. 

Having said that, it would be safe to assume that I am going to be glued to the Democrat presidential debate tonight on FoxNews Channel.  Right?  Wrong.  The problem is that none of the candidates have anything to say to the American people or about their real political philosophies.  None of them have any strong positive belief system that they have shared with the public. 

The current crop of Democrat candidates have only one message.  They hate George W. Bush.  Their discussion of actual issues and how to deal with those issues consists of all the depth of an internet message board.  They want your vote, but they want it based on the fact that they are not George W. Bush.  Now, that is good enough for a Democrat primary season that will bring out the pirahnas of the party.  But for someone who wants to see vision and a real belief system it is a waste of time.

Oh, I'm sure that plenty of Democrats will disagree with my assessment but if they are honest with themselves, none of these candidates are political philosophers.  Al Gore was portrayed as a political thinker even though he really wasn't.  But the nine candidates on the stage tonight could make Al Gore actually appear to be Thomas Hobbes.  They are that shallow.

They hate Bush.  They tell jokes about Bush.  They would do SOMETHING different than Bush.  Now you've heard what they are going to say tonight.  So, you might as well join me and watch "Cupid" instead.  The thought processes on that show will be much more substantial than anything these nine have presented thus far.

My manifesto

1.  I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, as it is written.  That includes the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  I do not believe in "penumbras", "implied powers" or the need for a judge to look to the laws of some foreign country to determine what the law of the United States is.  The Constitution is THE authority.

2.  I believe in the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.  I do not believe that this nation should ever have to subjugate its will to that of any world body.

3.  I believe in a strong national defense and the protection of the nation state, the United States of America, from all entities and nations that seek to destroy her or that give aid and comfort to those that seek to destroy her.

4.  I believe that the FEDERAL government must be limited to those functions that are authorized by the Constitution.  If the citizenry decides that the Federal government should engage in activity not authorized by the Constitution, then the appropriate remedy is a Constitutional amendment.

5.  I believe in liberty.  Liberty includes the right to engage in conduct that does not interfere with other individuals' liberty and further includes economic liberty to engage in activity for profit without governmental interference unless such conduct constitutes harm to another person.

6.  I believe that earned income is the property of the wage earner until such time as the government takes it in the form of taxes.  Therefore, tax cuts cannot be equated with government spending because the money does not belong to the government until it recieves it.

7.  I believe that government is the least efficient entity available for attempting to solve social ills and that typically government exacerbates the problems it attempts to solve.

8.  I believe that the best thing government can do for the economy is to stay out of the way and permit people to compete and be productive.

9.  I believe that liberty is more desired than equality.

10.  I believe that most human achievements have been reached by men and women pursuing their own self interests.

11.  I believe that with liberty comes the responsibility to behave in a manner consistent with traditional morality as advanced by Judeo-Christian teachings.

Looking for a message

Don't you find the nine dwarfs running for President as Democrats amusing?  In last night's debate they attempted to top each other in Jay Leno style shots against President Bush.  Perhaps after the 2004 election they can open a comedy club together.  John Kerry drew laughs when he said the only jobs the President had created were the nine candidates standing on the stage.  Unfortunately no one held Monsieur Kerry down and DEMANDED that he explain how the government is supposed to create private sector jobs.

John Edwards had his Leno moment when he said that the only Spanish Bush has spoken to American jobs is "Hasta La Vista".  I just wish someone had hooked him to a lie detector and asked him if he supported a real tightening of immigration policy. But these two examples are typical of what was said last night.

The bottom line was they should be President because they hate George W. Bush.  Did any of them explain anything?  Of course not.  Did any of them offer logical solutions to problems that government can solve?  Are you kidding?  It didn't happen and it won't happen.

Americans are too easy on politicians.  In our culture of instant gratification we are satisfied with late night comedy and angry whining.  The politicians know this.  The Democrats running for President are glad that you don't take the time to study the economic theories behind various proposals.  The Democrats running for President are glad that you don't know a lot about the rest of the world and the true nature of our enemies.

It is all part of this elitist mentality the leaders of the Democrat party have.  They know best and they don't have time to explain it to you.  So they are just going to act outraged and tell a few jokes.  Someday, somewhere, though, maybe someone will ask them, "What are you going to do differently?"

It's Time to Wake Up

I won't lie.  I'm frustrated by the Bush administration and its behavior in the War on Terror.  No, I don't believe that the war in Iraq was a distraction.  I believe it was part of the War on Terror.  My frustration is based on a belief that the administration refuses to recognize the threat from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  I realize that our State Department has had a blind spot toward the House of Saud for decades.  After September 11, 2001, though we cannot afford to wear blinders with regard to anyone.

Now new information revealed by Gerald Posner seem to prove that the Saudi and Pakistani governments maintained relationships with Al Qaeda operatives before, during and after September 11.  According to Posner, when Abu Zubaydah was captured, he expressed relief when he believed that his interrogators were Saudi intelligence officers.  He then began naming names of top Saudi and Pakistani officials that were his contacts.

To borrow a word popular with young people, "Duh!"  This is news?  Given what we know about the movements of Osama and his cronies, and given what we know about the political climate in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, what is shocking about this?

My question is whether this revelation will be enough to make the Bush administration crack down on Pakistan and the House of Saud.  We may need their help in some areas, but not at the expense of allowing them to actively support those that want to destroy us.

Please don't misunderstand.  I'm not about to become a Democrat.  Remember, Jimmy Carter, when trying to impress the Nobel Peace Prize committee advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States.  The Progressive Caucus would require that we play "Mother may I?" with the United Nations before engaging in military action.  Bill Clinton treated terrorism like a crime instead of an act of war and patted himself on his back when low level terrorist grunts were captured and prosecuted.  This is the same Bill Clinton who, according to a new book, practically worked to avoid capturing or killing Bin Laden.  Nope, trusting our national security to Democrats is not an option.

I just want to see the Bush administration wake up.  The Saudis and Pakistanis have more in common with our enemies than they have in common with us.  They cannot be trusted.  They are not our friends.

 

The one time that Marx was right

Just to give you an idea of what to expect from Ward of the Court, I thought my first entry would enlighten everyone on a little known fact.  Karl Marx believed in supply side economics.  Yep, that's right.  The economic theory that underpins modern conservative thought and is repeatedly ridiculed by the left was accepted by Karl Marx the godfather of communism.

Before you pass out from amazement, let me provide a little context.  Marx despised the free market.  He believed that in the industrial age in the free market, the worker was little more than a commodity.  Thus, he certainly did not advocate supply side economics.  However, in a speech in Brussels in 1848, Marx said:

The most favorable condition for the worker is the growth of capital.  This must be admitted.  If capital remains stationary, industry will not merely remain stationary but will decline, and in this case, the worker will be the first victim.  He will go to the wall before the capitalist.

Of course Marx went on to claim that the worker will go to the wall in the free market under any system, but his admission that supply side economics was better for the worker in a free market society is startling nonetheless.

So the next time some leftist makes fun of supply side economics, you might want to remind them that even Marx admitted that it worked.