"Mommy" finally admits what Democrats think

I have finally seen it all.  Democrats are finally admitting who they are and what they believe.  Jeremy Zilber has written a book entitled "Why Mommy Is A Democrat".  It isn't a revelation to those of us that have understood the socialist nature of the Democrat party for a long time, but it is amazing that the Democrats would actually embrace this openly.

"Mommy" is a mother squirrel with several cute little kid squirrels.  The book shows these squirrels facing day to day trials and challenges and comparing it to the Democrat party and what a government run by that party would do.  For example, one page shows a homeless man sitting on a park bench with his hand out.  A rich couple walks by and does not help him, while in the foreground you see Mommy looking out the window while her two little squirrels play with blocks and let a mouse play with them too.  The page says, "Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." 

Nope, I'm not making it up.  That is really what is on one of the pages of this book.  In fact there is another page that shows a giant elephant lumbering down a path, about to run over a homeless man, while the Mommy squirrel gets her little ones out of harm's way.  That page says, "Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does."

In fact, "just like Mommy does" is a phrase that keeps gettng repeated in this book.  I have tried for years to tell everyone that would listen that the Democrat party considers the masses to be incompetent children in need of the protection and benevolence of a Democrat controlled nanny government.  Now here I have the Democrats saying it themselves.

The book's website states that this book "depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others".  Apparently freedom isn't a Democratic principle.  Obviously, self reliance isn't a Democratic principle.  We already knew that patriotism wasn't a Democratic principle.

No, Democratic principles involve "Mommy" government removing risk from our lives and eliminating the consequences of our own actions.  Democratic principles involve gently scolding us when we don't coddle deviance.  And now we have in a cute little book the Democratic principle of brainwashing our children because Democratic ideas would never win in a fair fight.

The author says that the book reflects his "passion for progressive (read socialist) politics, (his) sense of humor and (his) academic training in fields such as political psychology and socialization."  In other words, Mao could have used him during the Cultural Revolution.

The Democrats can't win by embracing socialism with those of us that still understand the concepts of liberty and limited government.  But they can win in the future if they raise a generation that believes that government should assume the role of mother and nanny.

The next time some Democrat tries to tell you that Democrats don't believe in nanny government and socialism, tell them about "Mommy" and what she finally admitted.

 

Too Smart To Understand

Have you ever met someone that is too smart?  Someone that is so intelligent and has learned so much that they have lost all common sense and the ability to reason in real world ways?  These are the people who try to be too clever when playing logic games and completely miss the answer.

The Washington Beltway and academia are populated by people like this.  They pride themselves on being the smartest people in any room and engage in deep and convoluted analysis of every problem before them.  In addition, these people tend to be secularists, or if  they are religious, they are in the mold of the Deists of the 18th Century.  They believe that God might exist, but that he doesn't engage in life changing and world changing events.  Even worse, most of these people tend to view religion as a way for charismatic leaders to dupe the simple and keep them subservient while they operate for their own selfish motives.

For example, these people always dismiss the men who oppose abortion as wanting to keep women in slavery; and worse, dismiss the women who are pro life as submissive chattel who are afraid to be free.  If someone suggests to these enlightened intellectuals that pro life men and women believe the way they do because of strong religious conviction, that person is immediately given a look that says unenlightened opinions are not welcome.  The person is then told about the control mechanisms of a paternal society and how one must look at the underlying goals of the abortion opponents.

The enlightened ones view Muslims and Islam the same way.  First, look at how they see Osama Bin Laden's opposition to the United States having troops on Saudi soil.  The "smartest people in the room" say that it is because we are an imperialist power, propping up a corrupt regime that oppresses the people.  The simple answer, though, is that Osama opposes our presence in Saudi Arabia because we are "kafir" infidels. 

Osama wants the entire Muslim world governed in the same way that the Taliban governed Afghanistan.  You can't get any more oppressive than that.  It is completely ludicrous to think that Osama worries about "oppressed masses" in the same way that leftist academics do.  The word "Islam" doesn't mean "peace" regardless of what President Bush claimed after 9/11.  It means "submission". 

Osama opposes the United States because it is a non-Muslim power and its troops owe no allegiance to Islam.  Muslims oppose the United States because the United States supports Israel, and not because of nationalistic longings for the Palestinians.  Muslims for years have privately acknowledged that the Palestinian issue is a tool to sway the secular West.  Muslims oppose Israel because the idea of Jews in control of the Holy City of Jerusalem is an abomination to them.  The Beltway crowd and the Ivy League crowd are too smart to understand that, though.  They can't imagine religion controlling such matters.

The recent events regarding the burning of Danish embassies in the Middle East is another example of how the smart folks are incapable of getting it.  One after another, they keep saying that the publishing of sacriligious cartoons in European newspapers is only an excuse.  Many of them even blame Bush and the invasion of Iraq.  W isn't the president of Denmark.  Denmark certainly hasn't been guilty of an aggressive foreign policy against Arab peoples. "This must go much deeper," the smart people say, though.

The President of Iran publicly denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel.  The smart people try to minimize the fact that he is following his deeply held religious beliefs. 

When Muslim cleric Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiras says, “I say to you: You must look at our situation with an outlook of confidence in Allah's victory! If you help Allah [spread Islam], Allah will bring you victory. We once ruled the world and the day will come when, by god, we will rule the entire world," the elites in the West ignore it or pretend that he is merely using religious rhetoric to make a point.

When three Christian schoolgirls are murdered by Islamic radicals in Indonesia, the enlightened ones won't discuss it, or worse, try to pretend that President Bush has somehow inspired these attacks.

The bottom line is that the Beltway crowd and academia doesn't understand religion.  At least they don't understand fundamentalist type religions.  They don't understand millions of people truly feeling a cosmic duty to obey words that are considered divinely inspired.

No matter how many times the Islamist says that he is obeying the will of Allah, the smart crowd is going to look for other explanations.  No matter how many Mohammed Attas die as martyrs, seeking their reward in Paradise, the academics will try to explain away the clear evidence of religious faith in their acts of murder and suicide.

No matter how obvious it is that religion is the primary motivation in everything these people do, the secularists will be unable to see it.  I realize that this isn't a new phenomenon.  Marx wasn't the only intellectual of his day to view religion as "the opiate of the masses" or something similar.

The problem is, though, that until those fighting the Islamofascists recognize the real deep seated religious component of this evil, they will continue to misread the acts of terrorism and the statements of Middle Eastern leaders.  That could turn out to be fatal for the entire West. 

Our culture and their culture is completely incompatible.  Our dominant religions and theirs are only compatible, in their eyes, when we are subject to sharia law and accept our place as "kafir", with only the rights of second class citizens.

Compromise is impossible.  Appeasement is impossible.  God doesn't permit partial obedience.  THAT is the biggest thing that the secularists and academics don't get. 

After Two Years, We Still Don't Know

On December 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General of the United States, James Comey, wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, authorizing him to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."  Thus, the Valerie Plame investigation became the latest in a long line of political tempests given to an independent counsel.

Over two years later, the only indictment from this investigation is the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby for the peripheral charges of perjury, false statement and obstruction of justice.  In essence, what Libby told Fitzgerald, his investigators and the grand jury was different than what someone else said and different than what some records implied.

Libby was not indicted for outing a covert CIA agent.  Libby was not indicted for leaking classified information.  Supposedly, Libby said that he learned about Plame's employment with the CIA from NBC's Tim Russert when actually he learned about it from government sources a month earlier than his conversation with Russert.  The offense of perjury requires that someone lie about a material fact.  Whether who told Libby about Plame is even a material fact or not is a discussion for another day.  But he certainly has some issues to argue.

Libby's attorneys have begun trying to obtain discovery from Fitzgerald.  "Discovery" is a legal term describing documents, statements and other evidence that one side is to turn over to the other side in a court case in preparation for trial.

According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fitzgerald is required to turn over certain tangible evidence in his control whether he intends to use it at trial or not.  Further, pursuant to the case of Brady v. Maryland, Fitzgerald is supposed to turn over evidence that might be exculpatory.  This is where the parties are in the process.

Libby's attorneys requested, among other things, an assessment of the harm, if any, the revelation of Ms. Plame's employment caused.  A perfectly reasonable request, one would think, given the fact that such harm was the reason that Mr. Fitzgerald was doing this investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald, though, wrote back to the defense attorneys, "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document."

If this were April 1st, I would think that the next sentence would be "April Fools!"  That has to be Pat Fitzgerald's attempt at humor.  Right?

The entire reason for the investigation was because there was some harm caused by the outing of a "covert operative".  Right?  But here we have the special prosecutor saying that no formal assessment of what harm, if any occurred, and further using the term "CIA employee", instead of "agent", "operative", etc.

Mr. Fitzgerald, other than spending taxpayer dollars and fueling the speculation of leftist bloggers, what the hell have you been doing for the past two years?

As a former prosecutor myself, I have been involved in grand jury investigations.  The first assessment that is routinely made is whether the complained of conduct even constitutes a crime.  In other words, Mr. Fitzgerald and his team should have, from the beginning, evaluated the relevant statutes, determine whether Ms. Plame's status is covered and THEN make a determination if some harm occurred from the conduct in question.

Apparently, none of that mattered to Mr. Fitzgerald.  He doesn't know if any harm has occurred.  He hasn't even evaluated to see if any harm has occurred and apparently, hasn't determined whether she was even a covert operative or not on the dates in question.

Again I am forced to ask, what the hell have you been doing for the past two years?

After two years, millions of dollars and one BS indictment, we still don't know if Valerie Plame was a covert operative with the CIA.  We still don't know if the revelation of her employment to the world caused any real harm.  We do know, however, that her husband is a shameless self promoter who has talked out of both sides of his mouth concerning Iraq, Niger and his wife.  We do know, however, that other sources confirmed that Iraq was trying to resume trade with Niger.  We do know, however, that the only thing of value that Niger had to sell to Iraq was uranium.  Those things are without question.

Mr. Fitzgerald, perhaps it's time you answered some questions.