We are all role models

The inescapable news of the weekend was the melee at the end of the Pistons-Pacers game at Auburn Hills, Michigan on Friday night.  For those of you who were just rescued from a desert island, with under a minute to go in the game, Ron Artest of the Pacers committed a hard foul on Ben Wallace of the Pistons.  Wallace took exception and shoved Artest and both benches decided it was time to vent some frustration.

 

As the referees attempted to calm things down, the fans decided to get in the act and one of them hit Artest with a full cup of some liquid refreshment.  Artest proceeded to unleash his rage in the stands and several players followed suit and the fans proceeded to give as much as they got.  The arena security detail was ill prepared for such happenings and at least one chair was thrown and an elderly person had to receive medical attention.

 

The most enduring image of the night, though, was the sight of two young children clutching each other for dear life with tears in their eyes.  I don’t know if these were children of spectators, children of players or what role the adults with them had played in this scene.  It really doesn’t matter.  I couldn’t get past their faces.

 

It took me back roughly ten years ago when outspoken NBA star, Charles Barkley, made the infamous statement, “I’m not a role model.”  I recall that statement being debated and discussed without a definitive answer given.  I don’t think we can avoid the obvious answer anymore.  We are ALL role models.

 

Someone is watching us as we live day to day.  Someone looks up to us.  Professional and college athletes exist because people watch them.  Sure, somewhere in our history, competition existed for the sake of competition; but now, competition exists for the show and the money such a show generates.  Every kid in the backyard throwing a football envisions himself as Peyton Manning or Bret Favre.  Every kid working on a jump shot or a lay up sees himself as Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant.  Unfortunately, when one of these folks screws up in their personal life, these same kids see that as well.

 

We might not be on television, but our kids are watching us as well.  If we berate an official or coach at a Little League game, our kids see it.  If we cut someone off on the Interstate and then give them the finger, our kids see it.  If we treat a spouse with disrespect, our kids see it.

 

Those kids went to Auburn Hills, Friday night, to see their heroes on the court and to spend time with their everyday heroes as well.  What they saw was not heroic.  It was not inspiring.  However,it was instructive.  This is how adults behave.  Is that what we want kids to see?  We are all role models.  We can never allow ourselves to forget that.

Reaching out?

The enlightened members of the national media didn’t even wipe the exit poll egg off their faces before they almost unanimously began asking if President Bush would “reach out” to the opposition, try to govern from “the center” and work toward “bipartisanship”. John Edwards, in his concession speech, if you can call it that, renewed his theme of “two Americas” and practically blamed the division in America on the Republicans. The media also reported that when John Kerry called President Bush to concede, he “lectured” him on healing the divisions in this nation.

Reach out? Heal the divisions? Note to the Democrats and their accomplices in the mainstream media: YOU LOST. Your agenda was rejected. Your campaign of hate was rejected. Your campaign of fear and envy was rejected. You folks are the last people to complain about division in America.

Look at the last forty years. Democrats have won elections by pitting black versus white, rich versus poor, employee versus employer, old versus young, women versus men, irreligious versus religious. To a Democrat, bipartisanship only occurs when a Republican sacrifices his or her principles and goes along with what the Democrats want.

The Democrats won’t see this, but this election is a repudiation of them, and perhaps for the foreseeable future. The Democrats do not have the Presidency. In fact they have only held the Presidency for eight years since 1981. Bill Clinton had to pretend to be a Republican to do that, and even then he never got fifty percent of the vote. The Democrats fall further and further behind in the House of Representatives. The Senate is closing in on being filibuster proof.

The American public isn’t leftist. The Democrats ARE, by and large, leftists. The American public believes in strong hawkish national defense. The American public believes in traditional faith based family values. The American public believes in low taxes. The American public believes in private enterprise. The American public believes in America’s sovereignty. The American public made this clear last night.

The American public does not believe in global tests regarding our security. The American public does not believe in license masquerading as personal freedom. The American public made that abundantly clear last night.

Will the Democrats see it? Can they even comprehendwhat they see? I agree, there needs to be a reaching out in this country. The Democrats need to reach out and rediscover the AMERICAN people. No, not the French people, the AMERICAN people.

 

 

In God's Hands

I truly believe that God calls men for certain times in history.  Yes, I know, that isn’t an enlightened way to think, but as a student of history I can think no other way.  Imagine how different the Revolutionary War and the early years of our Republic might have been without George Washington at the helm.  He was an inspiring figure so beloved that many wanted to declare him King after the defeat of the British.  Yet, he was humble enough and self effacing enough to ensure that this nation would not become a monarchy like Europe.

 

Abraham Lincoln was the perfect President to face the horrors of the Civil War.  Lincoln’s unique skills had not manifested themselves during his earlier life, and it is doubtful that he would have been a successful peacetime President.  Yet his resolve saved the and ended the scourge of slavery.  It is highly unlikely that any of his contemporaries could have accomplished those feats.

 

Franklin Roosevelt was the right man for the job of President during World War II, just as Churchill was the right man for the job of British Prime Minister during that dreadful war.  Ronald Reagan was the only man who could face down the Soviets and make them blink.

 

The point that I’m making is that throughout history, the cause of freedom has advanced.  The right people have been in place to lead that advance.  You may choose to believe that this is an accident, a mere random chance; but I don’t.  It is evidence of the Divine Hand of Providence watching over our nation.

 

With all my heart, I believe that George W. Bush is another one of those leaders who is chosen for a particular challenge.  That challenge, that enemy of freedom, is Islamofascism.  George W. Bush is a man guided by faith.  He isn’t a man who believes that being President is merely a goal in and of itself.  President Bush recognizes the moment in history we face.  He recognizes that the choices we make today will reach out into the future.

 

President Bush sees the enemy clearly.  Just as Lincoln saw that the Union MUST be preserved, even if places like Gettysburg, Shiloh and Antietam had to become blood soaked cemeteries, just as Ronald Reagan saw that the Soviet Union was the “Evil Empire” that must be confronted even as the world was calling for appeasement and disarmament; George W. Bush sees that this moment in time brings us to a clash of civilizations and ideologies that must be won.  George W. Bush has the faith and the fortitude to face this moment, even if it isn’t the popular thing to do.

 

I have already voted.  This week, I will drive my wife and my mother to the polls.  Then, we will have done all we cando to stand by this courageous man as he stands for our country and our way of life.  After we vote, the battle is in God’s hands.

 

This is a nation that has been blessed by God in unimaginable ways for the past two hundred and thirty years. In recent years, it hasn’t been cool to acknowledge that.  We have become dismissive of God’s blessings.  I sincerely hope that, as a nation, we haven’t rejected HIM to the point that HE allows us to fall.  For whether we like it or not, our nation’s future is in God’s hands.

 

 

I have seen the error of my ways

After years of fighting leftism and defending conservatism, I have suddenly been hit with a beam of light like Paul on the road to Damascus.  I was wrong.  Conservatism is not the path of knowledge and enlightenment.  The Progressives are the way to go.

First, in the area of defense, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have tried to explain it to us for the past two years, but we haven't understood.  If we disarm, then all the nations of the world will follow our example.  Don't worry about dictatorships that might appear to be unfriendly to us, they just are afraid of us and it makes them defensive.  So what if some nations decide to keep their weapons, we will have done the noble thing and set the proper tone for dialogue around the world.  After all, the survival of the United States is less important than the cause of peace and harmony throughout the world.

I have embraced the belief that "Bush lied".  I don't let the fact that every intelligence agency in the world believed the same things about Saddam Hussein bother me.  I don't let the fact that the Clinton Administration and every Democrat in Congress said the same things about Saddam bother me.  Once I accepted this everything else made sense.

At home, we should return to the pre-Reagan tax rates, where the top marginal rate was 70%.  Those rich people just stole their money anyway, or made it on the backs of slave labor.  They can get by with much less.  If we cannot move people out of poverty into the middle class, at least we can reduce the number of wealthy people and make a larger middle class that way.  So what if it creates less of an environment for investment.  This country should not create wealth if it cannot be distributed equally.

Now, the government should retool the budget to pay for all the social programs that the masses want.  We must reduce the risk in people's lives.  Many people are incapable of making the tough choices necessary to survive on limited resources, so the government should, in a benevolent manner, make things easier for them.  So what if that eliminates the incentives for achievement and thwarts ambition.  Achievement and ambition are just methods that white males use to rob from and enslave the masses.

Government should actively encourage alternative lifestyle choices.  Traditional morality is simply too confining and inspires guilt which can harm an individual's psyche.  So what if traditional morality forms the underpinnings of an orderly and cohesive society.  No one should have to feel guilty, unless they have more material possessions than their neighbor.

The environment should become our predominant concern.  We must first stop abusing animals.  We cannot eat meat, since that involves killing an animal who was not allowed to choose.  Of course that also means that we cannot use leather for belts, shoes and other items.  There is always plastic.  Oh wait, I cannot use plastic either.  Plastic is petroleum based and thus requires using nonrenewable fossil fuels and causes air pollution.  I am giving up my truck for a bicycle, even though I will have to leave two hours early to make the thirteen miles from the house to the office, and no public transportation is available.  I may give up my house too.  I do not know if it was made from old growth lumber or not.  You see, when it was built, I was less enlightened than I am now.  What about the electricity that heats my home?  Does it come from environmentally hazardous nuclear plants or from fossil fuel burning power plants?  Does it come from hydroelectric dams that have been built and destroyed the pristine habitat of fish and wildlife?  This is so hard.  I may have to give up electricity altogether. 

Oh well, anyway, except for environmental confusion, I FEEL so much better now that I have joined the path of enlightenment.  Now if I could just remember how to speak French life would be perfect.

Still The Same

You always won, everytime you placed a bet
You’re still damn good, no one’s gotten to you yet
Everytime they were sure they had you caught
You were quicker than they thought
You’d just turn your back and walk
You always said, the cards would never do you wrong
The trick you said was never piay the game too long
A gambler’s share, the only risk that you would take
The only loss you could forsake
The only bluff you couldn’t fake

And you’re still the same
I caught up with you yesterday
Moving game to game
No one standing in your way
Turning on the charm
Long enough to get you by
You’re still the same
You still aim high

Bob Seger described John Kerry perfectly over two decades ago. For you see, John Kerry the waffler extraordinaire, the flip-flopper in chief, has played the game of politics like an amoral gambler. He has made a career of changing positions to ensure that he appeals to all sides of every issue. There is one issue that has always caused Kerry to reveal his true colors, though. The only bluff John Kerry has never been able to fake is in the area of national defense. He can pretend to be a hawk all he wants, but the record is clear. John Kerry believes that appeasement of our enemies is the only way to go.

As chief Vietnam War protester, John Kerry made the statement, “We can’t fight communism all over the world.” As Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, Kerry urged Michael Dukakis to use civil defense funds to influence American foreign policy to take a less confrontational approach to the Soviet Union. As a new Senator, he favored a nuclear freeze rather than Reagan’s defense build up. He supported the Sandinistas even though it was clear they were Soviet puppets. After the first World Trade Center bombing he proposed gutting the intelligence budget.

That is all in the past. But in the past two weeks, John Kerry proved that he’s “Still The Same” when it comes to defense issues. First, in the second Presidential debate, John Kerry proposed a plan to give Iran nuclear material, in exchange for their PROMISE to use it peacefully. Nope, I’m not making this up. John Kerry wants to give one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world, one of the nations that despises the United States, nuclear material. If that sounds familiar, it should. It’s essentially the same plan that Jimmy Carter came up with for North Korea during the Clinton Administration. The plan that North Korea is now violating. If that doesn’t disqualify John Kerry for President, then how about this.

In the first debate, John Kerry implied that it was hypocritical for the United States to be critical of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions when we are testing a bunker buster nuclear weapon. The King of the nuclear freeze lives. John Kerry equates us with Iran and North Korea. John Kerry attacks a program that is developing a weapon to be used against state sponsors of terror, with the implication that if we would stop developing weapons, then other nations would stop feeling threatened and we have fewer enemies. John Kerry the antiwar protester is still the same.

I’m not finished, though. In the New York Times Magazine, John Kerry made the following statement: “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person I know we're never going to end prostitution; we're never going to end illegal gambling, but we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise, it isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.”

Apparently, John Kerry thinks that before 9/11, terrorism was merely a nuisance. The first World Trade Center bombing was a nuisance. Somalia was a nuisance. Khobar Towers was a nuisance. The USS Cole was a nuisance. Those events were apparently the equivalent of “prostitution” and “illegal gambling”. The Massachusetts liberal who came to fame as an appeaser in 1971 is “Still The Same”.

The amoral gambler has one core belief that he cannot hide. When it comes to national defense, John Kerry is “Still The Same” as he has always been. Dangerous and clueless.

 

Beware of the Sheeple

Something happened, last week, to depress me about this election.  No, I’m not talking about W’s refusal to punch Kerry’s repeatedly unguarded chin.  I must say, the President’s lack of attack made me want to throw things at the television, but that was not nearly the worst news of the week.

 

The worst news was the news media trumpeting the hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters this election cycle.  It seems that several groups have been out and about using streamlined voter registration laws to get otherwise uninformed and misinformed people to register to vote.  “Isn’t that a good thing?”  “Shouldn’t we have more citizens participating in the process?”  Not really.

 

Voting is the most important DUTY that any citizen has.  The choices made affect all of us.  Therefore, the last things we need are more clueless people voting.  Think about it.  These groups are setting up tables at shopping malls and college campuses urging people who have no real interest in the political process to register to vote.  Many of these people would go through their entire lives without ever casting a vote if these interest groups didn’t shove the form in front of their faces.

 

These people tend to be the ones that don’t study issues, watch news programs or listen to entire political speeches in context.  They are the people who tend to be influenced by soundbytes, celebrities and who are prone to believe stupid statements like “ah feel your pain,” and “Bush lied people died.”  These people are really sheeple.

 

We have enough sheeple voting in this country.  The Democrats have survived as a national party, thanks to sheeple.  Democrat politicians, for over thirty years, have said that Republicans want to restore Jim Crow laws and burn down black churches.  The sheeple believe it.  Democrat politicians, for over thirty years, have said that Republicans are going to take away Granny’s Social Security check and make her eat cat food.  The sheeple believe it.  Democrat politicians, for over twenty years, have claimed that Republicans WANT poisoned water and air.  The sheeple believe it.

 

These sheeple are even taken to the polls by activists from the AFL-CIO and the NAACP.  They typically don’t show up in polls.  Therefore, it’s safe to add, at least, two percentage points to any percentage the Democrat candidate has.  In a close race, these newly registered sheeple are going to make the difference.

 

I truly fear that this is a constituency that can carry John Kerry over the top.  If the Democrats get enough sheeple to the polls, it’s going to be very difficult for the President to win.

 

 

So you want to speak Klingon?

Trying to discuss foreign policy with a Kerry supporter is like learning how to speak Klingon.  It's frustrating, time consuming and, in the end, serves no useful purpose.  I don't know why I keep trying.  I suppose it's my Missionary Baptist roots coming out, seeing a poor leftist in need of conversion.  I'd have better luck trying to convert a meth head atheist with one Buddhist parent and one Hindu parent to Christianity.

Leftists don't even see the same problems we see.  When I talk about a clash of civilizations you know I'm discussing the war against Islamofascism.  The only clash of civilizations that leftists see is the "widening gap between rich and poor throughout the world".  Islamofascism isn't a unified movement, they claim.  The Palestinian terrorists and Chechnyan terrorists are internal problems of Israel and Russia respectively, and we need to limit our activities to going after specific Al Qaeda operatives.  I'm serious.  That is what your typical leftist thinks about the "War on Terror".

Saddam Hussein's Iraq had only peripheral ties to terrorists, they insist.  The terror training base at Salman Pak had nothing to do with us they claim.  Saddam was content to build his palaces and let his people starve.  As at least ten Kerry supporters have told me, "He was contained."  His payments to Hamas and Hezbollah were not our problems.  His refusal to account for known stocks of chemical and biological weapons were no big deal.  We should have allowed "inspections to work," whatever that means.  Oh, and don't bother giving leftists and other Kerry supporters quotes from Kerry, Clinton et al from 1998 forward that were even more hawkish than anything Bush might have said.  "Bush lied to get us into war" will be the only response you get.

France and Germany only oppose us because they find Bush offensive, the leftists claim.  Never mind France's huge Muslim population.  Ignore the evidence of bribery in the Oil for Food program.  In fact, leftists and Kerry supporters claim that the Oil for Food scandal hasn't been proven yet.  Leftists deny that France and Germany have self interests that would cause them to oppose us no matter who might be President.  France and Germany should be given the benefit of a doubt, but the Bush administration is guilty until proven innocent.

Dissent is the most patriotic thing one can do, according to these people.  I dare you to point out to them that the insurgents in Iraq are emboldened by protests against US presence in Iraq.  Tell them that the insurgents are counting on doing something shocking enough to cause the protesters to turn public opinion against American involvement and cause a withdrawal.  Go ahead tell a leftist that.  They will simply say they love America and they are trying to save lives that are being taken because of OUR misguided leaders.

If you think you can change a leftist's mind on foreign policy, I have only one thing to say to you.  toH tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaH 'e' DaneH'a'?[tlh]

Illegal? Excessive Force?

The American Left loves the United Nations.  The hopes, dreams and aspirations of leftists are tied up in the prestige and power of this organization.  Of course, it isn't hard to understand why.  The UN sees a world crisis and does either one of two things.  It either takes the wrong position right from the start or it takes the right position and then won't do a damn thing about it.

Of course, what should we expect?  Of  the over 180 member nations of the UN, most are Third World nations with little interest in freedom, representative government or self sufficiency.  The voting records of the General Assembly show most of these nations voting AGAINST the United States on a regular basis, all the while enjoying the fact that the United States is assessed 20% of the UN's budget.

Basically, if you look at the history of the United Nations General Assembly, the only nation attacked more regularly than the United States is Israel.  The UN opposes the US and Israel with virtually as much regularity as the American Left does.  Leftists are the natural allies of the United Nations.

This past week found Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, in full anti-American voice.  He pronounced that the invasion of Iraq was "illegal".  Yes, you heard right, the same man who sees nothing wrong with the Saddam Hussein-UN-Oil For Food and Palaces and Al Qaeda conspiracy that was occurring for years; says that the removal of the dictator of Iraq, who violated 17 UN resolutions over a twelve year period was illegal.

The only thing that would be more laughable would be the announcement of a United Nations expeditionary force, led by France, to remove the United States and its coaltion partners from Iraq.  You might think I'm kidding, but I have no doubt that the UN would love to see Saddam Hussein restored to power, even more than Howard Dean and Al Gore would. 

Also, this week, in a speech before the General Assembly, Kofi For Food said that Israel had used "excessive force" in its response to Palestinian terror.  I must have missed the news report, but I don't remember hearing or reading that  Israel had nuked the West Bank out of existence.  Israel has fought Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and all the other Arab Islamist terror organizations with one hand tied behind its back for years.  It has made concession after concession.  It has tried its best to limit attacks to leaders of the terror groups.  Yet, still, a corrupt,  pompous ass like Kofi Annan calls their use of force "excessive".

In truth, the majority of the United Nations General Assembly would love to see Israel cease to exist.  By the same token, those same members would love to see the United States knocked down a peg or two, and that isn't even including the French, Germans and Chinese.

Yet, John Kerry says that if he were President, he would "reach out" to this bunch of thugs, dictators, Islamofascists, America haters and anti-Semites.  I guess we can be sure that John Kerry would avoid "illegal" actions to protect America's interests and would help to condemn Israel's "excessive" desire to survive in a sea of sharks.

Democrats gnash their teeth over "Cowboy" foreign policy.  I guess they prefer "Kofi" foreign policy.  We wouldn't want to be "illegal" or "excessive" you know. 

What if CBS were FoxNews?

Today I want to present you with a hypothetical scenario.  Let's suppose that a former member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War had contacted FoxNews Channel with documentary proof that John Kerry and the VVAW were working in coordination with the North Vietnamese government in 1971.  This proof consisted of correspondence, supposedly written to Kerry by the chief negotiator for North Vietnam and a copy of Kerry's written response.  FoxNews decides they want to use this documentation and produce a Special Report expose hosted by Brit Hume, proving that, not only was John Kerry against the Vietnam War, he was FOR the North Vietnamese.

After the network receives these documents, two things happen.  One, Roger Ailes immediately calls Karl Rove and says, "You may want to talk to this guy that used to run with Kerry.  He has stuff that will destroy him."  Secondly, these documents are examined by experts who tell FoxNews they are most likely inept forgeries.

Let's also suppose that Brit Hume insists on running with the story anyway.  The expose airs, and within hours experts are on rival networks calling the documents forgeries.  Hume, though, stands by his story, and finally after every expert in the nation weighs in that the documents are phony, he simply states that the allegations remain true even if the documents are not true.

The resulting outcry would end FoxNews and probably end George W. Bush's campaign, depending on how much coordination there was between Ailes and Rove on this story.  Yet, the scenario I described actually happened regarding President Bush's Guard service. The players were Dan Rather, CBS producer Mary Mapes, Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland of the Kerry campaign and Bill Burkett who hated George W. Bush before hating George W. Bush was cool.

The most we get from the mainstream media is cluck clucks about the damage to CBS' credibility.  No one even wants to look at connections to the John Kerry campaign.  The mainstream media wants to claim they don't have a bias.  So should we, the American people, simply accept that coordination between Kerry campaign officials and TV newsmagazine producers on a story designed to smear the President is merely the standard operating procedure of an unbiased media apparatus?  Yes, unless of course we're talking about FoxNews.

 

 

A Clash of Civilizations?

Do you believe that we are facing a clash of civilizations in our war with militant Islamofascists? I was recently accused of being “over the top” with that claim in a political discussion with an acquaintance. The simple fact is that most Americans don’t believe the threat from the militant followers of Allah is as great as it really is. Or maybe I am just exaggerating the threat.

I repeatedly have compared the necessity of fighting this war to the necessity of fighting the Cold War. In reality, this threat is greater. The Soviets were dangerous because of the nuclear missiles they had and the satellite nations they created in which they could put those missiles. The typical Soviet citizen, though, wasn’t that interested in dying for Communism. Invade the Soviet Union, and the citizenry would defend their homeland as most people, except American leftists, would. However, they were content to leave conquest to their ideological soul mates whom they encouraged to foment civil war in places like Korea, Vietnam and Nicaragua.

The militant Islamist is different, though. Not only will they die for their ideology, they will take as many people with them as possible. Of the world’s one billion Muslims, it is estimated that 100 million follow a militant brand of Islam. Further, it is safe to say that ten million of those are committed enough to die and kill for the greater glory of Allah. Remember, Islamofascism is an ideology fed by clerics, not apparatchiks and bureaucrats.

Of course, it’s easy to dismiss this and claim that the only reason the Islamists are mad is because we support Israel and because we have American troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. A dismissal like that is akin to saying that Naziism merely arose in Germany because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. It completely ignores the underlying beliefs involved.

First, one must recognize the true nature of Islam. Islam doesn’t mean “peace” as moderates tried to claim after September 11. Islam actually means “submission”. They believe in complete and total submission to Allah. Earthly pleasures are to be ignored in order to commit one’s life to the will of Allah. The will of Allah demands a rigid societal structure where no dissent is tolerated and no choice regarding lifestyles deemed “decadent” is countenanced. As a result, McDonald’s, MTV and Coca-Cola are viewed as threats.

Secondly, Islamofascists don’t see national borders the way one would assume. Leftists like to claim that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. Quite frankly, that is irrelevant. They viewed themselves as Muslim. They had less loyalty to the house of Saud than they did to the clerics that taught them complete submission to Allah.

An Islamofascist views himself as a Muslim, first, last and always. Further, an Islamofascist doesn’t see that as merely a religious statement. It is an ideological one. The outspoken Malaysian Anwar Ibrahim stated, "We are not socialist, we are not capitalist, we are Islamic." Islam must control society.

Of course I’m sure people are saying that we should let them have their societies and stay out of their way. If it were only that easy. We got out of Iran. Still though, as Daniel Pipes noted, “Kalim Saddiqui, the main Iranian polemicist in the West, deems Western civilization ‘not a civilization but a sickness.’ And not just any sickness but ‘a plague and a pestilence’ Belhadj of Algeria's FIS ridicules Western civilization as ‘syphilization.’

Such a pestilence cannot be permitted to survive. Pipes states the struggle this way:

Hatred against the West inspires a struggle with it for cultural supremacy. Fundamentalists see the rivalry as cultural, not military. "It is a struggle of cultures," a Muslim Brethren leader explains, "not one between strong countries and weak countries. We are sure that the Islamic culture will triumph." But how is this victory to be achieved? By producing better music or coming up with a cure for cancer? Hardly, as Saddiqui, the Iranian spokesman in London, vividly makes clear: "American GIs clutching photos of their girl friends would be no match for the soldiers of Islam clutching copies of the Qur'an and seeking shahadah [martyrdom]." Islam will triumph, in other words, through will and steel.

Pipes also recognizes that the ultimate goal of the Islamofascists is the supplanting of the United States as the dominant influence in the world. They do not WANT to be left alone in the Middle East. They want to dominate the entire world. Pipes says:

'Umar 'Abd ar-Rahman, the Egyptian sheikh who guides (the 1993 World Trade Center bombers), stands accused in a Manhattan court of seditious conspiracy, that is, trying to overthrow the government of the United States. However bizarre this sounds, it makes sense from 'Abd ar-Rahman's perspective. As he sees it, the mujahidin in Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union; so, one downand one to go. Not understanding the robustness of a mature democracy, 'Abd ar-Rahman apparently thought a campaign of terrorist incidents would so unsettle Americans that he and his group could take over. A Tehran newspaper hinted at how the scenario would unfold when it portrayed the February 1993 explosion at the World Trade Center as proof that the U.S. economy "is exceptionally vulnerable." More than that, the bombing "will have an adverse effect on Clinton's plans to rein in the economy." Some fundamentalists, at least, really do think they can take on the United States.

The Islamofascists, Osama Bin Laden among them, really believe that the United States is a paper tiger. Osama said that after Clinton left Somalia. They believe that if they inflict enough damage on us, then we won’t fight. They believe that if they can make life bad enough we will implode and the unified Muslims will take over.

This is a clash of civilizations. The Qu’ran teaches jihad in three stages. The first stage involves purifying oneself. The second stage involves defensive warfare. However, the third stage COMMANDS aggressive warfare against ALL who refuse to become Muslim or pay the taxes imposed by Muslims. Cf. Sura 9:29 and Sahih Muslim 4294. We are now in the third stage. War has been declared upon the United States. The only reason opponents of this war think I’m over the top is because they still have their heads buried.

He's no moderate

I have been reluctant to get on the Arnold Schwarzeneggar bandwagon.  After all, he was a “moderate”.  I dislike moderates more than I dislike liberalism, simply because I believe that moderates have no real beliefs other than consensus.  I tend to be a true believer and can, at least, respect other true believers even if I disagree with them.  So needless to say, I was dreading the Governator’s speech to the Republican National Convention last night.  Wow!  I was sure in for a surprise.

 

Governor Schwarzeneggar strode out onto the stage last night with an air of confidence and a presence not seen since Ronald Reagan.  He began with humor, then proclaimed “…there is no place, no country, more compassionate more generous more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.”  I thought, “at least he doesn’t think we should become more like Europe.”

 

Then he told about actually experiencing communist tyranny, oppression and the fear that accompanied it.  He said, “My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!”  Take that leftists, we DID win the Cold War.

 

The speech and the speaker were definitely growing on me.  He followed that by talking about how his birthplace of Austria had become socialist.  Governor Schwarzeneggar said:

 

I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

 

Not only did Schwarzeneggar unashamedly invoke the name of Richard Nixon.  He called Hubert Humphrey a socialist.  By that time, I was actually applauding the television.  I have argued for years that the Democrat party has become the party of socialism and here was someone who had lived under socialism saying it to all of us.  No political correctness.  No comments about the honorable opposition.  No pretending that the Democrats believe in freedom.  He called them precisely what they are, socialists.

 

Could this be the same guy that the leftist mainstream media had said was uncomfortable being a Republican?  I wanted to hear more.

 

He then spoke to other immigrants.  He said, “One thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.”  Anything!!!  Yes!!  He was saying what I have never stopped saying.  America IS the land of opportunity.  We don’t have perpetual classes of rich and poor.  We can start with nothing and make something of ourselves.  WE, each individual are responsible for our own way in the world, and here in America we have the best opportunity to make those dreams happen.

 

The next part of his speech, I’m going to cite in its entirety.  It is the essence of conservatism.  Yes, conservatism.  It is what Ronald Reagan communicated to us.  It is what George W. Bush believes.  It is what each of us that call ourselves conservatives treasure.  Leftists don’t understand it.  The Michael Moores of the world try to twist it.  But they can’t.  It is who we are, and we aren’t moderate.

My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how.

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!

With that paragraph Arnold Schwarzeneggar had me pumping my fist in the air.  With that paragraph, Governor Schwarzeneggar had gained a new fan.  Not just of his movies, but of his commitment to conservatism. 

 

He then talked about President Bush and his resolve to fight this War on Terror regardless of the polls.  He also said that the hate of the terrorist is no match for "America's decency".  He really said decency.  The man speaking last night had nothing in common with the Bush hating mob that protested Sunday which by and large believes that America is a negative force in the world.  This is a man who believes in the decency of America.

 

Schwarzeneggar closed by sealing the deal.  He said:

 

Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! Back from the attack on our homeland -- back from the attack on our economy, back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.

 

I know the Democrats and the liberal media still try to portray Arnold Schwarzeneggar as a moderate because of his views on certain social issues.  However, last night, he told America who he is.  Last night, he told America who the Republican Party is.  Neither is moderate.  We are conservative.  We are proud of it.  We know what is right and good about America.  The American spirit cannot be defeated.  Hasta la vista, Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

A Decade of Defeat

My father was part of the Greatest Generation. You know who they were. They were the generation that beat the Depression and saved the world in World War II. This generation believed they were destined to do great things. They were convinced that they could change the world for the better, and they believed that they had a responsibility to fight the spread of communism throughout the world. They were determined to make life easier for their kids.

My older brother is a Baby Boomer. My brother is a Vietnam veteran. However, he isn’t the face of the Baby Boom generation. The face of the Vietnam generation is the protester. Don’t let them fool you. They weren’t protesting merely the Vietnam War. They were protesting against the United States. They opposed US corporate power. They opposed US military power. They opposed US political power. They opposed the US Establishment. There is one other thing you must not let them fool you about. They were for a communist society. They didn’t necessarily support Stalinism, although plenty of them did. They didn’t necessarily support Maoism, but if you searched their pockets, you would have found many carrying Little Red Books.

The protester generation supported a utopian Marxist notion proclaimed by radical professors and endorsed by singers such as John Lennon, whose “Imagine” states with extreme clarity what these people desired. No nations, no possessions, no religions. They convinced themselves that if this collectivist utopia could be reached, then all war would cease.

They deluded themselves in believing that if we stopped challenging communism, then those nations would stop feeling threatened and become more open and we could join them in a “brotherhood of man”. Jane Fonda said in 1970, that we should "hope" and "pray" to become communist.

There was no place for people like my brother in that generation. Not only was he a Vietnam veteran, he ended up making the military a career. That made him an impediment to the goals of these people. Returning Vietnam veterans were ostracized unless they damned the United States and became antiwar protesters themselves. The news media, always leaning to the left, became mesmerized by this movement. In the end, they destroyed the morale of a nation. We never lost Vietnam on the battlefield. We lost it at home. As a result of the protester generation, the United States questioned its national morality, its role in the world, and evenwhether it was worthy to survive.

This is where my generation comes in. I was born in 1962. I grew up in the 1970s. We had politicians telling us that Americans expected too much. We were told that we needed to accept the existence of the Soviet Union as a fact of life and that we should learn how to get along with them, even if we had to change our policies to do so. We were told that traditional morality was repressive and oppressive. We were made to question the concept of national pride. By the end of the decade of the 1970s, we were told that we deserved to have our embassy personnel taken hostage in Tehran.

It got so bad that in 1980, as a senior in high school, I was told by an Army recruiter to stay away from the Army and go to college. Why? Because I had scored too high on my aptitude test. That was an Army recruiter telling me that. Jimmy Carter was right about one thing during his presidency. We were suffering from a national malaise. The protester generation and its left wing comrades in the Democrat party were the cause of it. Thank God for Ronald Reagan and the election of 1980.

Now again we are at war, in the middle of a long struggle against an enemy just as evil as communism. Into this circumstance steps one of the poster children for the protester generation. John Kerry who after serving in the US Navy, became one of the best diplomats and propagandists the North Vietnamese government had, wants to be our President. The man who compared our military to Genghis Khan, wants to be commander in chief of that military.

John Kerry and those who thought like him were responsible for a decade of defeat once before. Do we want a repeat of that? I know I don’t.

 

 

Think Again

I have had at least five people tell me that they are voting for John Kerry because he can’t be any worse than George W. Bush.  They admit that they aren’t enthralled with Kerry, but they MUST vote against Bush, and Kerry can’t be any worse.  I have two words for those folks.  Think again.

 

John Kerry and Michael Moore have pilloried George W. Bush for remaining seated at the elementary school in Florida for seven minutes after learning we were attacked on September 11, 2001.  Obviously, a commander in chief, or someone who aspires to be commander in chief, should immediately find a phone booth, (do they still make them?) don his cape and save the day.  Well, maybe not, by John Kerry’s own words, after the second plane hit the tower, he, and a few other Democrats sat for forty minutes, “unable to think”.  Forty minutes of incapacitation is worse than seven minutes of inaction.

 

Well, George W. Bush spent too much time on vacation prior to September 11, when he should have been doing something to prevent the attacks.  Of course, John Kerry, when he sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee missed, 29 of 38 public meetings that committee held, and during that time proposed cutting intelligence funding to a degree that Ted Kennedy couldn’t even go along with him.  I believe that would qualify as “worse”.

 

Of course, the major reason that is given as a justification for voting against George W. Bush is that he “lied” and took us to war in Iraq.  John Kerry, they say, would never have done that.  First, John Kerry had access to the same intelligence as President Bush prior to the war and made statements just as strident as President Bush about the threat posed by Iraq.  Be that as it may, let’s look at what John Kerry has done since the war.

 

He keeps tip toeing around the “Bush lied” argument, but REFUSES to say that the war itself was a mistake.  In fact, John Kerry says that even knowing that Saddam didn’t have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, he would have STILL voted for the war.  Yet, he wants the support of the anti war Bush haters.  Kerry claims he could have handled this war better, yet refuses to give specifics.  The only thing that he says is that he could have brought our allies on board.  That would have been a cool trick, considering our “allies” (France and Germany) had national interests that preferred to have Saddam in power.

 

So, basically, Kerry is saying that he would have still gone to war and toppled Saddam, yet he naively thinks that he can convince nations to willingly go against their own self interests to pursue American interests.  President Bush has never been THAT simple minded.  Again, Kerry proves to be WORSE than President Bush.

 

The Bush haters want to believe that Kerry can’t be worse, but he was ineffective longer on September 11, he ignored more intelligence for a longer period of time, and his plan for Iraq is based upon a naïve belief in his own powers of persuasion.  You think Kerry can’t be worse than Bush?  Look at the known facts and think again.

John Kerry is their man

Conservatives get criticized by liberals(leftists) for not seeing nuance.  The Left sees the world in shades of gray and abhors the black/white right/wrong thinking of the right wing.  Certitude is seen as simplemindedness.  I call this the sanctity of uncertainty.  This almost religious devotion to uncertainty governs every foreign policy issue the Left faces.

Based upon that, John Kerry is certainly their man.  He is a war hero (allegedly) who spent more time opposing the war than he did fighting it.  He proposes to make our intelligence network stronger, but proposed the most Draconian cut ever of our intelligence services, a cut that even Ted Kennedy couldn't support.  He claims to be committed to our intelligence gathering community, yet he missed 75% of the public meetings that were held when he served on the intelligence committee.

He supports fighting wars by coalition, yet voted against the first Gulf War when there was an overwhelming coalition of the international community.  Of course he voted for the Iraq war in 2002 without a coalition and now says that he would still vote for the war, even though he claims that Bush "misled" us into war.  He claims to be determined to win the war against the terrorist aggressors, yet this same man said in 1971, that we could not fight communism all over the world.

John Kerry claims his life changing moment occurred on Christmas of 1968 when he was illegally in Cambodia while President Nixon (sic) was claiming that we were not.  Of course, we now know that he wasn't in Cambodia that Christmas and claims that it was near Cambodia or just inside Cambodia in early 1969.  Nuance, you see forbids giving a definite statement.

John Kerry voted for the $87 billion to fund our troops in Iraq, but then voted against the $87 billion.  He proposes to cut the deficit while at the same time increase spending even more than President Bush has.  He proposes to fight a "sensitive" war, yet will achieve complete victory.  He believes life begins at conception but promises to not vote based upon that belief.  He opposes gay marriage but also opposes defending traditional marriage.

Basically, John Kerry has been onboth sides of every issue facing this country since and including Vietnam.  In fact, throughout his history, the only issue with which he has never waivered was his refusal to stand up to communism and the Soviet Union in any fashion during the Reagan Administration and the Cold War.

Except for failing to oppose communism, John Kerry has taken nuance and uncertainty to an artform.  In other words, in every way imaginable, John Kerry is the PERFECT candidate for the Democrat party in the twenty first century.  He captures their views completely.  John Kerry is certainly THEIR MAN.  They should feel proud.

If Islamists win, it won't matter

According to my wife, I talk about politics too much.  However, I consider this election to be the most important election facing this nation since 1980.  This nation is facing an outside threat that is potentially greater than the threat we faced during the Cold War.  In Islamofascism we are facing an enemy that combines a fanatical religious ideology that is similar in fervor and devotion to that of either Naziism or Bushido; in combination with no qualms about using terrorism against civilians and studied guerilla tactics.  This enemy must be defeated. 

I realize the American people don't like to recognize threats.  We have a history of wanting to believe that with two oceans we can isolate and insulate ourselves from those that seek to do us harm.  Therefore, a large segment of our population believes that if we would stay out of the Middle East and stop "meddling" in the internal affairs of that region, the Osama Bin Ladens, Al Qaedas and Ansar Al Islams would leave us alone.

Such a view completely ignores the ideology of our enemy.  These people believe in an expansive form of Islam that requires that the world be purified.  We, the United States, are the primary purveyors of a materialistic decadent lifestyle that desecrates everything that Islam holds sacred.  Thus, we must be stopped.

Even facing this enemy, though, we still have Americans that are treating this election like any other, with their pet issues that override anything else.  These people need to realize that if the Islamists win, it won't matter.

For example, take the issue of abortion.  If the Islamists win, preserving the right to suck the brains out of an unborn fetus will be the least of a woman's worries.  Burkhas, and not leaving the house without male escort will become the order of the day.

Government funding for education won't be a problem either.  Only boys will be permitted to go to school, and then only to religious madrassas, and then only as far as the clerics deem necessary for the service of Allah. 

You think saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God" in it is a bad thing.  Just wait until you are forced to pray towards Mecca.

Even issues like unemployment and inflation won't matter either.  You won't be permitted to buy immodest clothing,  secular music, or alcohol.  That should save you a bunch of money.

I know, most of you don't want to believe that the threat is that real.  "They could never conquer us, no matter how many they kill," you say.  It just took one subway blast in Madrid to get that country to change its entire government.  50,000 dead in Vietnam was enough to make us stop fighting communism for an entire decade.

The simple fact is that the Qu'ran teaches patience.  The Muslim is told to live among the infidels for a time.  The Muslim is told to wait until the time is right.  There are one billion Muslims in the world.  It is estimated that ten percent of them are fundamentalists.  It is further estimated that people like Osama Bin Laden are considered heroes by ten percent of those.  That is a potential suicide army of ten million people.  The only thing they lack is unity.

Before you say it, no, we are not making them unite by being in Iraq and by supporting Israel.  They would unite anyway.  That has been the goal of Arab leaders for fifty years.  If anything, our projection of strength is dividing the Muslim community between the pragmatists and the ideologues.  Each prisoner we take and each terrorist we kill reminds the pragmatists that their interests aren't served by the ideologues.

Think about it, the terrorists are seeking to divide and weaken us by their constant attacks.  By the same logic, our attacks divide and weaken them.  Believe it or not, they have their own appeasers, their own Michael Moores.  Therefore, we have to keep the pressure on them, both in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.

If we don't, while it might not happen in the next four years, it will happen.  The Islamists will unite.  They will fight us to the death.  It might only affect your children and grandchildren, but if the Islamists win, it won't matter what your pet issues are.  George W. Bush has the resolve to fight this enemy, no matter what it takes.  John Kerry is the same person who said, "We can't fight communism all over the world."  Nothing else needs to be said.

They said to ask

The same people who loved “Fahrenheit 911”, Richard Clarke and Joseph Wilson are now outraged about the book about John Kerry entitled “Unfit To Command” and the television ad put out by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.  The same people who have tried to prove that George W. Bush was AWOL in 1972 are incensed that John Kerry’s activities for four months in Vietnam are being scrutinized.  The same people who proclaimed that the American people should ask those who served with him to find out what kind of man John Kerry is now want to limit which of those people you can ask.

 

Face it, John Kerry has only given Americans three reasons to vote for him.  He’s a Vietnam War hero.  The French like him.  He’s not George W. Bush.  That is his entire campaign in a nutshell.  Every time he is introduced at a speaking engagement, we are reminded of his heroic and honorable service in the Vietnam War.  He earned three Purple Hearts in the space of four months, you know. 

 

What about John Kerry’s voting record in the Senate?  He’s a Vietnam War hero.  What about John Kerry’s opposition to increased intelligence funding after the first World Trade Center bombing?  He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam.  What about Kerry’s inconsistent positions on the War in Iraq.  “Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush didn’t,” is the response.

 

Therefore, Senator Kerry, if your service in Vietnam is your number one qualification to be President, then it should be examined.  Closely.  From all sides.  You have admitted that you took part in the burning of villages.  Did it happen the way “Unfit” describes?  Did you run your boat up to the shore of a village with no known political or military activity and take your Zippo lighter and burn down the huts?  That would be slightly more outrageous than making a male Arab prisoner wear women’s underwear.  Wouldn’t it?

 

We’ve heard how you single handedly killed a Viet Cong attacker saving the lives of your men.  Was it actually a fleeing Vietnamese teenager wearing only a loin cloth?  That would rank higher on the atrocity scale than a naked human pyramid.  Don’t you think?

 

When you came back from Vietnam, you seemed to know a lot about atrocities.  Exactly how much do you know?  How much did you do yourself?

 

John Kerry and the Democrats have made his Vietnam record a campaign issue.  John Kerry wants you to see the polished medals that he really didn’t throw away.  However, John Kerry doesn’t want anyone to ask the questions about how he got them.  His supporters don’t want those questions asked either.  That is negative campaigning and dirty politics, they say.

 

The Democratic National Convention says otherwise.  They paraded Vietnam veterans across the stage and said “If you want to know about John Kerry, just ask the men who served with him.”  Sounds reasonable to me.

Dear Mike

Dear Mike:

 

Since the release of your movie “Fahrenheit 911”, I have searched your statements and writings trying to discover your views on this nation, the War on Terrorism and your basic ideology.  Your supporters tell me that your film is still a documentary even though it expresses a point of view, and I simply wanted to discover the foundations of that point of view.

 

I read your letter of April 15, 1999, concerning the Balkan conflict.  In that letter, you called President Clinton “a sad pathetic man”, and claimed that not only was the bombing of Yugoslavia a war crime, but that the bombing of German installations during World War II accomplished nothing positive.  You claimed that both parties in Washington were really one party and that they didn’t represent us, merely corporate interests.  Do you really believe that the people have no voice in their government?  If that is so, then, with what would you recommend replacing it?

 

You made a statement in your book, “Dude Where’s My Country”, that the threat of terrorism was nothing more than a scheme by corporate cabals (presumably, rich stupid white guys) to frighten the population and rule the world.  Do you really believe that?  Do you believe that September 11, was part of some grand plan to enslave the masses?  By the way, the chief founders of this nation were “Stupid White Men”, so does that make their work in creating this nation and our founding principles inherently flawed?

 

You also claim, in “Dude” that the United States has been so culpable in so many acts of worldwide terror that we should expect more September 11s.  Do you really mean that we deserve to have our civilians blown to bits by Islamofascist monsters?

 

In my search, I came across this quote from you while speaking in Great Britain .  You said, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug pricks.  We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

 

Do you really have such a low opinion of your fellow Americans?  It seems that you are saying that we are too stupid to know what policies to support and what policies to oppose.  You seem to be saying that we are too stupid to even elect our own leaders.  Do you really mean that?

 

I’ve gone to your website numerous times to read your weekly statements to your fans.  In one of those letters, you described the Iraqi insurgents that were killing our troops in this way.  ''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''   You actually said that people killing Americans were “the Minutemen”.  You, in effect, compared them to Paul Revere and others who fought for individual liberty in this country.  These insurgents are either Muslim militants or Ba’athists.  They don’t believe in individual liberty.  Yet you praised them and proclaimed victory for them.  What were you thinking?

 

I’ve also seen this statement by you.  "We need to change our ethic and aspire to be more Canadian-like…."  That’s interesting since Canada has a higher percentage of stupid white men than even the United States.  Perhaps it’s the French influence.

 

I could go on, for example you claimed on your website that Elian should be thankful he was returning to Cuba .  You’ve made other statements where you call your countrymen stupid.  All the while you are enjoying the blessings that this nation has to offer.  You’re a millionaire.  You live in an expensive apartment yet decry the plight of the homeless.  You send your child to private school.  You travel in exclusive circles.  All because of the greatness of America.  Yet, if we are to take you at your word, this nation isn’t worth saving.  It should simply be wiped out and the enlightened people should begin again

 

You’re no Gandhi.  For all his faults, and believe me there were many, he loved his country and joined the people in their suffering.  You’re no Che Guevara, either.  At least he was willing to fight and die for his idea of revolution.  You are more like Noam Chomsky.  A blustering hypocrite, who doesn’t even live your convictions.  Both of you despise America and its materialism and capitalism, yet are not willing to give up what that system has awarded you.

You don’t believe America is really worth saving, yet where would you be if it ceased to exist?  Think about it.

Motives?

First we heard it from John Kerry some months back, now we hear it from John Edwards.  Foreign leaders want Bush gone.  They trumpeted this as though it was simply a given that these leaders, if they existed, had the best interests of the United States at heart.  The news media, though, has never asked them the most pertinent question regarding these desires.  What are their motives?

We really shouldn't expect the mainstream press to ask this question, because as a whole, they agree.  They want Bush gone too, so questioning motives isn't important.  Further, secular socialist Europe is the model for what most of our news reporters want in a society, so anything that comes from there has to be good.

We should, though, at least take a brief look at some of these attitudes.  I have no doubt that Jacques Chirac wants Bush gone.  I further have no doubt that he doesn't have American interests at heart.  France is a has been nation that can't accept its has been status.  France has resented the US ever since we delivered them from the evil of Naziism.  Charles De Gaulle, who was a self aggrandizing opportunist of Clintonian proportions, was the first to pull a Chirac.

He separated France from the military arm of NATO and demanded that all American troops leave French soil.  President Johnson, through his Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, asked DeGaulle if that included those buried in France while liberating it.  That has been the attitude of the French nation, by and large, ever since.  George W. Bush's perceived arrogance can't hold a candle to that of the French.

In fact, most of Europe needs the US to fail or diminish.  The French and German dominated European Union has made no secret of its desire to be the dominant world player in the new century.  The EU doesn't want a strong independent United States in competition with it.  Therefore, the EU needs a US leader that is more interested in consensus than leadership.

One other factor that the US media never mentions in regards to Europe's opposition to the US and its confrontation of Islamofascism is the fact that the Muslim population of Europe is growing quickly and becoming more powerful.  Quite frankly, the nations of Europe don't want to tick off that Muslim population.  In other words, there is a fear of standing up for what is right.

I'm sure Kofi Annan would like to see a Kerry presidency as well.  Of course, if you think that the United Nations has the best interests of the American people at heart, then I have some ocean front property for sale in Iowa.  Just to give you an idea of the make up of the United Nations, this week, that body voted on the security fence that Israel had built around its border to keep out the crazies that bomb pizza parlors looking for virgins.  The vote was 150 votes demanding that Israel remove the fence.  Only six nations voted for Israel's security, including the United States.  That is the body that Kofi Annan leads.  Yet we should care who he wants to be President?  Only if we are suicidal.

Kim Il Jong of North Korea has already made his preference public.  He began broadcasting John Kerry speeches on North Korea state radio even before the Democrat primaries ended.  Now that is definitely a glowing endorsement.  Of course, given the fact that Kerry's picture hangs in Hanoi's Vietnam War museum, we shouldn't really be surprised.

The bottom line is that I don't question that some foreign leaders support Kerry and want rid of Bush.  However, we might want to ask ourselves "why?"

 

The Scorecard Thus Far

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Wrong then... wrong now

The American Left cannot be trusted to be in charge of our war against Islamofascism.  First, we have the Michael Moore and the Hollywood crowd who believe that we did something to make them mad in the first place and since we are evil we deserve whatever we get.  Then we have the Democrats who believe the threat of terrorism is overrated anyway.  These, however, are not the most compelling reasons that our success in this war depends on defeating John Kerry and the Democrats.

 

There is a recent political ad that underscores the severity of the distinctions between the conservative position and the leftist position regarding this crucial moment in our history.  I’m talking about the ad where we see John Kerry, in 1971, making the statement before Congress, “We cannot fight communism all over the world.”  Kerry spoke from a perspective of pessimistic defeatism, that came to define the country throughout the 1970s.  Implied in that statement was the idea that we couldn’t win against the and its satellites, and we were probably wrong to even try.

 

Juxtaposed against that statement was the statement by Ronald Reagan in Berlin, “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall.”  Reagan’s was a statement of confident defiance.  That confident defiance against evil, yes, I said evil, marked Reagan’s entire Presidency.  Ronald Reagan came into office believing that the Soviet Union could be defeated and SHOULD be defeated despite all the negativity that engulfed Washington DC.

 

We must remember that in 1981, contrary to liberal historians’ contentions, conventional wisdom was that we had to learn to accept the existence of the Soviet Union.  It was always going to be there.  Challenging the Soviet Empire would result in Armageddon.  John Kerry and the leftist Democrats acted upon that belief.  Nuclear freeze was the talk of the day.  “Prove to the Soviets that we are no threat to them” became the standard policy of the pessimistic left.

 

Ronald Reagan allowed no such pessimism to enter his mind.  He was determined to challenge the Soviets and engaged in that policy with a single-minded purpose that terrified the timid defeatists here and in Europe.  Reagan was determined to put Pershing missiles in Europe and DARED the Soviets to do something about it.  Reagan authorized the CIA to funnel money, printing presses, radio transmitters and such to groups like Solidarity in Poland and elsewhere.  Reagan increased aid to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.  He evened steeled his determination to assist the Contras during the time that John Kerry and his ilk were embracing Marxist Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega.

 

Reagan pushed for the Strategic Defense Initiative, derisively called “Star Wars”.  The Soviets began to think that this crazy cowboy really thinks he can win a nuclear war with us.  This wasn’t détente.  This wasn’t a nuclear freeze.  This wasn’t appeasement.  This was Ronald Reagan, along with his good friend Margaret Thatcher, drawing a line in the sand, and stating that freedom and justice WILL prevail over tyranny, fear and oppression.  The American Left was horrified.  Yet history has proven Reagan right and the John Kerry’s of the world wrong.

 

Don’t let leftist revisionists try to give credit to Mikhail Gorbachev or claim that the Soviet Union defeated itself.  Despite John Kerry’s pessimism we DID fight communism around the world and we won.  Yes, leftists, we won.

 

Now, these very same leftists are claiming that we cannot fight Islamofascism all over the world.  They are claiming that we should have limited our fight to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.  They are claiming that we are making more enemies and are going to bring about Armageddon.  They are echoing the sentiments of the STILL timid and STILL pessimistic European Left.  They are claiming that there is no way that we can remake the Middle East and achieve victory.  They claim we must accept that terrorism is a fact of life until we appease the terrorists.  They call George W. Bush a crazy cowboy.  They claim that we can’t challenge every nation that doesn’t like us.

 

Regardless of what they say, we must face the facts.  We are faced with an enemy that will not negotiate.  We are faced with an enemy that is motivated by a belief system even stronger than communism.  We are faced with an enemy that isn’t limited to one loosely organized terror group.  We are faced with an enemy that respects nothing other than determined brute force.  We cannot waiver in this fight. 

John Kerry has already proven himself to be a defeatist and a pessimist.  He isn’t a man of vision.  He isn’t a man of resolve.  He isn’t a man to lead this nation to victory.  He’s already proven that.  We cannot let such a man lead this nation in this war.