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.