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.

Random ramblings

Do you think the wives of John Kerry and John Edwards are a little jealous at the affectionate touching the candidate and his choice for veep are showing each other?  Al and Tipper were discreet by comparison.

Speaking of John Edwards, I wonder how the looney pacifist left is reacting to the selection of Edwards as the vice presidential candidate of the Socialist Appeasing Democrat party? Edwards has repeatedly stated his unwavering support for the war in Iraq, with statements similar to this one.   "I believe our cause is just in Iraq. I believe we are doing the right thing. I have supported it from the beginning. And I stand behind it unequivocally."  The right thing?  Stand behind it unequivocally?  Michael Moore won't be pleased.

Speaking of the Oscar and Palmes winning symbol of the super sized Democrat party, I wonder if the Democrats, which now embrace him, have forgiven him for his letter in 1999 calling Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton "war criminals" for the bombing of Kosovo?  By the way, General Wesley Clark, who Moore endorsed for President, was the General in charge of that bombing operation.  Oh well, at least Moore is consistent when he opposes the American military.

If you doubt who the Orson Welles of kookdom supports in Iraq, read this quote:  "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."  That should be plain enough for even the voters in Palm Beach County.

In all honesty, though, positions on issues and beliefs are irrelevant to the Democrat base this year.  They simply oppose George W. Bush.  The hatred these people feel toward President Bush is almost primal in nature.  Though few (some would) would admit it openly, these nuts believe George W. Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein.  They believe he is worse than Osama Bin Laden.  They really believe he is more evil than Hitler.  Of course Hitler had a somewhat socialist domestic policy, so that improves his standing with Democrats.

Do you recall that in 2001 and 2002 the Bush haters were screaming that Enron's Ken Lay would NEVER EVER be indicted because he was Bush's buddy?  Now that Kenny Boy has done the perp walk, look for the same Bush hating kooks to claim that Bush just had him indicted to protect himself in an election year.

Speaking of Enron, it always has bugged me that the Democrats have made political hay, without being challenged, that Ken Lay and Enron was part of Vice President Cheney's task force on energy.  The Democrats and the news media used this fact to blame Bush for the energy crisis in California, even though said crisis began in the spring of 2000 and ended in June of 2001, when Bush's FERC imposed price caps.  By the end of 2001, Enron was in the tank.  In other words, after Bush got elected nothing went right for Enron.  But the Democrats still want to accuse Bush of some misdeed where Lay is concerned.  Idiocy thy name is Democrat.

I leave you with this thought.  If Democrats didn't do so many unpatriotic things, they wouldn't have to worry about people questioning their patriotism.