Constitution Club

April 30, 2007

YAY! I Just Bought My Tickets!!!!

Filed under: Entertainment — Andre the Defiant @ 11:24 pm

Avenue Q is coming to San Diego.   I’ve been wanting to see it for so long.

Puppets on stage, how can you go wrong?  Sesame Street never won the Tony for Best Musical!

Update:  I’m sure I posted this one the old site, but a World of Warcraft version of my favorite Avenue Q song after the fold:

(more…)

Detroit NAACP to Hold Symbolic Funeral for ‘N’ Word

Filed under: Culture — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 9:52 pm

Symbolism over substance at its finest.  At least ol’ Jim Crow will no longer be alone in the hereafter.  I’m surprised they are not burying ‘ho’ right next to him as well.  Mr. “N” will not be missed, but I doubt he’ll stay buried for long.  I hope they bothered to let the rappers, gangsters and hip hop crowd know about the change.

The announcement by Anthony, president of the civil rights organization’s Detroit branch, came shortly before the start of the annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner. He said members and supporters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will conduct services and a “eulogy” for the racial slur.

9/11 was Bad but. . . the Morally Opaque LA Times

Filed under: Foreign policy, Liberals, Military issues, News media, The Iraq War — E the Wise @ 3:18 pm

Writer Rosa Brooks of the LA Times puts forth some dubious analogies in her recent piece entitled, 9/11 was bad but. . .   In it she makes the case that we are too squeamish about the death toll of 9/11.  She asks if we are “irrational wimps.”

Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective. As a nation, we have survived far worse. We lost more than 100,000 Americans in World War I, more than 400,000 in World War II, 37,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam — all without allowing our national character to turn into quivering jelly.

Every year, we also lose millions of Americans to preventable accidents and disease. We’re more likely to die on the road than as a result of Al Qaeda’s machinations. Annually, we lose some 43,000 people to auto accidents. For the grieving families, that’s 43,000 deaths too many. But, although we surely could reduce auto fatalities if we chose to make it our top national priority, the Bush administration has yet to announce a “War on Highway Deaths.”

I don’t altogether disagree with Brooks’ point.  We are a nation that has been conditioned to view death in any venue as unacceptable.  Yet when I read this, I would expect that she would then support limited casualties in the cause of liberty around the world.  No such luck.  You see what Brooks is trying to do is assert that we should not be so consumed with terrorism that we fail to function as a society.  But in the process, she presumably rattles off an acceptable number of casualties to prove that our government is just over-reacting to terrorism and should probably get out of Iraq since its all just a response to the over-reaction anyway.

To quote Donald Rumsfeld, “Stuff happens.” Giuliani’s right; if we elect a Democrat to the presidency, there will likely be future terrorist attacks on the United States. But there will likely be attacks under Republicans as well. There will always be people who want to hurt us, and some of them will succeed. We can take sensible, clearheaded precautions to reduce the frequency and severity of attacks, but we need to coolly assess the trade-offs and recognize that we can’t entirely eliminate all risk.

Since her invective is directed at Guiliani and the Republicans, one can only assume that invading sponsors of terror and regimes that seek to destroy us isn’t “coolly assessing the trade-offs.”  And yet if 3,000 Americans is acceptable to her on 9/11, why is she so disconcerted about the 3,000 war dead?   But a better question may be why she equates death from tragic accidental car accidents to those of hateful homicidal maniacs?  She must be turning into “quivering jelly.”

Are These the Faces of the Modern Democratic Party?

Filed under: Environmentalism, Feminists, Gay Rights, Idiots, Liberals — E the Wise @ 1:14 pm

This video provides a quick glimpse into the minds of those that despise the country that gives them the freedoms they are exercising.  They might not represent you if you are a Democrat but they are no doubt marching side by side with you.  Which leads to the obvious questions about why these nut cases are now firmly rooted in your party and why they are driving your debate?  If someone were to link the right wing equivalent of these hateful windbags I guarantee you that conservatives almost universally condemn them.  The John Birchers, the K.K.K., the neo-nazi skinheads, the Westboro baptist-types are not driving the debate on the right.  Yet their left wing counterparts are taking over their side of the spectrum.  Its disturbing to say the least.

Good News

Filed under: Washington — Andre the Defiant @ 12:17 am

I hate everything he spews forth from the podium, but this is great news:

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, who will soon begin chemotherapy to fight a cancer recurrence, told fellow alumni at Davidson College that he feels great and plans to return to work Monday.

MMMMM, talking points galore.

All the best, Tony.

From the “Where the Hell Were You?” files

Filed under: The Iraq War — Andre the Defiant @ 12:02 am

Profiles in cowardice…

Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.

Way to grow a spine… after the fact.  I hope that Medal of Freedom isn’t weighing you down too much.

April 29, 2007

According to the AP…

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 11:39 pm
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iran agreed Sunday to join the U.S. and other countries at a conference on Iraq this week, raising hopes the government in Tehran would help stabilize its violent neighbor and stem the flow of guns and bombs over the border.

Well, I’ll be damned. If only the AP had told us earlier. You mean all we had to do was ask Iran to be nice and they would? Well I, for one, am very hopeful. If Iran has now been neutralized by a simple conference, onward ho! Let’s conference with al Qaeda!

The Second Coming of Reagan?

Filed under: 2008 Presidential campaigns — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 8:15 pm

Reagan’s men are backing - an actor

Ronald Reagan’s closest allies are throwing their weight behind the White House bid by the late president’s fellow actor, Fred Thompson.

The film star and former Republican senator from Tennessee will this week use a speech in the heart of Reagan country, in southern California, to woo party bigwigs in what insiders say is the next step in his coming out as a candidate.

A key figure in the Reagan inner circle has now given his seal of approval to Mr Thompson, best known as a star of the television crime drama Law and Order….

…Mr Reagan himself, asked whether his training as an actor had prepared him for the presidency, once replied: “I don’t see how any fellow that wasn’t an actor could do this job.”

An actor huh? Like Hillary isn’t. The GOP must do everything in its power to put aside its petty differences and put forward the best conservative candidate that has the ‘right stuff’ to defeat Hillary. Like the saga of the Romans Republic and Empire, you can pinpoint those dramatic moments in a nation’s development where history was changed and the course of a people was in the balance. I believe the 2008 election to be such a time. We can choose the road of retreat around the world, socialized medicine, speech codes and ‘hate crime’ legislation, the abandonment of the Middle East to terrorists and rogue states, the advancement of the homosexual agenda, another Ginsburg or two on the Supreme Court and the continued flow of millions of illegal aliens into our society and consultation with the French on our foreign policy.

Or we can hope for something better. Is Thompson that clear choice and the man to do the job? It’s too early to tell but increasingly it is apparent that he may be the next torchbearer of the Reagan Legacy.

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 5:19 pm

On Thursday, as the Senate was debated the Surrender in Iraq bill, Joeph Lieberman gave the the latest example of why is much too wise and honest to be part of the despicable party that tried to eradicate him from the political stage. Herewith are excerpts of his speech to the Senate:

ON WHAT THE LEGISLATION ACTUALLY WOULD DO

“To begin with, it means that our troops will not be able to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them–no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

“In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians–men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

“This makes no moral sense at all.”

“This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

“Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

“As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date–what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible–a deadline for defeat.”
——
TO COLLEGUES WHO SUGGEST THAT AL QAEADA WILL LEAVE IF WE LEAVE

“But I ask my colleagues–where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

“On the contrary–in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

“So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?”

——
AFTER QUOTING HARRY REID’S STATEMENT THAT BY RETREATING WE COULD “RESTORE THE WORLD’S BELIEF IN THE GOODNESS OF AMERICA.”

“Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq’s reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

“Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

“Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table–along with everyone seated at it.
In following General Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success–but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

“The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

“Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost–but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

“I yield the floor.”

Dave’s Quote of the Day

Filed under: Islam, Religion, The Iraq War — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 5:13 pm

(Actually two)

Al Gore would be happy that I am in the process of planting three trees (as well as some garden vegetables) in between comments about the Religion of Peace, current events and the latest senseless carnage by jihadist types in Iraq.

Author Oriana Fallaci’s final volume, The Force of Reason, recites a litany of radical Islam’s recent crimes—beheadings, explosions, murders, mutilations, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian screeds—and reinforces her critique with the sharpest weapon of all: sarcasm.

“Always clever, the Muslims. Always at the top. Always ingenious. In philosophy, in mathematics, in gastronomy, in literature, in architecture, in medicine, in music, in law, in hydraulics, in cooking. Always stupid, we Westerners. Always inadequate, always inferior. Therefore obliged to thank some son of Allah who preceded us.”

And another:

“If you are a Westerner, and you say your civilization is superior, the most developed that this planet has ever seen, you go to the stake. But if you are a son of Allah or one of their collaborationists and you say that Islam has always been a superior civilization, a ray of light . . . nobody touches you. Nobody sues you. Nobody condemns you.”

These were taken from the excellent column Warrior Princess by Stefan Kanfer

We’re Winning!

Filed under: The Iraq War — Andre the Defiant @ 1:11 pm

Nice talking points, but color me sceptical.  The bill sets benchmarks.  It also gets us out of another nation’s civil war.  I know that the idea of permanent bases in Iraq makes you all giddy, but it is bad policy.

And, of course, the bill not only fully funds the troops, but also increases spending on those that have been injured.

As for NRO:

At some point you will finally realize that those that have been wrong about EVERYTHING so far, may not be right this time.

WALNUTS!

Filed under: 2008 Presidential campaigns — Andre the Defiant @ 12:45 pm

Reason number 1,219 why McCain will never be the GOP nominee.

This is just embarrassing.  If Jon Stewart can kick your A$$, you’re in trouble. (Is that pure enough to post, Dave?)

“A Deadline for Defeat”

Filed under: Congress, The Iraq War, Washington — DFV the Scribe @ 10:21 am

On Thursday, as the Senate was debating the Surrender in Iraq bill, Joeph Lieberman gave the the latest example of why he is much too wise and honest to be part of the despicable party that tried to eradicate him from the political stage. Herewith are excerpts of his speech to the Senate, courtesy of NRO:

ON WHAT THE LEGISLATION ACTUALLY WOULD DO

“To begin with, it means that our troops will not be able to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them–no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

“In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians–men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

“This makes no moral sense at all.”

(more…)

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 4:46 am

Last week, the Democrats passed a bill so irresponsible that I don’t believe even they would have done it had they not known the President would veto it. There are no members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment who support it. None of the leaders in Iraq supports it. None of America’s allies back a withdrawal, and the Arab states are appalled at the idea. Indeed, the only element who backs a US withdrawal (other than al Qaeda and Iran) are the MoveOn, Kos, HuffPost blogosphere, a group that collectively possesses ZERO foreign policy thinkers, but one that has shockingly seized the reigns of the Democratic party.
It is important to note what the advocates of withdrawal are arguing, and what they are not. They have not made a case, or even attempted to, that US retreat will help the Iraqi prople. Nor have they explained what they think the Middle East will look like following such precipitous action. This is because the case, and now the bill, for withdrawal isn’t based on strategic concerns at all.
The reality is that the Left views a US troop withdrawal as the period on the sentence “We were right, and you were wrong” Ever since things have turned south there, they have been waiting with hovering pen, ready to dot the page and declare victory. They need instead to graciously accept a less satisfying, though much more sensible, American plan. One that acknowledges that while the Iraq War was a mistake, the situation there now is one that still holds both tremendous possibility and enormous plight for US interests.
To flee Iraq now, would be akin to leaving Afghanistan. Indeed the two situations are almost identical. Each has a fledgling government that is very pro-West, but will take years to be able to hold power on their own. each has enemies that are scattered and have almost no chance to actually regain power, but who are ruthless and effective and know that mere carnage helps their cause. In each case, al Qaeda fears that a loss to the US could threraten their very existence. And in each case, there are millions of countrymen who have risked or given their lives for the cause, and who are to this day relying on the solemn promise of the United States of America that we would not cut and run, leaving them defenseless.
The only real difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that Iraq, because of its location, is even more important to western interests. That’s it.
Since the Left doesn’t want to talk about what a post-US Iraq will look like, somebody should. Should we pull out as soon and as rapidly as the Democrats have proposed, Muqtada al Sadr would immediately return and seek to broaden his power. The Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade, now knowing that there is no one capable of providing security, would reconstitute thier murder squads, but this time with impunity. Similarly, Iran, who seeks a Shia government in Tehran, would ratchet up its support for the militias.
Al Qaeda would not peel away as some Democrats are laughably suggesting, but instead would believe that it could win. The suicide bombings that are killing Iraqi civilians are almost all al Qaeda. Right now they are carried out with 160,000 US troops. Wait until we leave. If you think the car bombings are horrific now, just wait.
Fearing this menacing Shia bloc, Riyhad has already communicated to us that they would have to intervene to protect the Sunnis from the carnage surely headed their way. US congressmen huff about an Iraqi civil war, but when that war sucks in Iran, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and all sorts of sundry and shadowy Middle East netwoorks, we would have a region-wide civil war.
On Bill Maher the other night, John O’Sullivan pointed out some parallel times in history. In 1947, the Indians wanted the British out. Some argued for a slow, phased withdrawal. Anti-imperialists would have none of it, so the Brits left quickly. The result — a million dead Indians, because the nation wasn’t prepared to provide security yet. In 1973, when the US had to rapidly flee southeast Asia, the people of Cambodia, Laos, and southern Vietnam died in the millions.
If the left-wing fantasy of withdrawal were to happen, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be ensnared in a bloodbath. Why is it that so-called anti-war advocates seek a policy that would assuredly precipitate carnage?
If we left Iraq, our Arab allies in the region would be embroiled in an awful gyre that they haven’t the power to control. They likely would call on us to re-enter at some point. Why is it that so-called progressives seek a policy that would engulf moderate Arabs and enflame the extremists?
If we fled now, the Middle East oil fields would be surrounded by an inferno of hostility and instability. Western democracies would ask the United States to restore order, having failed to convince us to stay in the first place. Why are the so-called internationalists telling our closest allies to pound sand?
The case for withdrawal isn’t a serious one, which is why everyone from the Senate Majority Leader to ConClub’s own advocate of retreat, refuse to clearly outline their defense for such a radical policy. The wise thinkers in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Cairo, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Amman, Sydney, Ottawa, Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi, and even Beijing, want us to stay. What kind of person seriously argues that we should tell all of them to go to hell and up and leave anyway? Certainly not a humanist, nor a pacifist, nor an internationalist. No, the advocates of retreat are none of those, but something far more sinister instead.

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 4:45 am

Last week, the Democrats passed a bill so irresponsible that I don’t believe even they would have done it had they not known the President would veto it. There are no members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment who support it. None of the leaders in Iraq supports it. None of America’s allies back a withdrawal, and the Arab states are appalled at the idea. Indeed, the only element who backs a US withdrawal (other than al Qaeda and Iran) are the MoveOn, Kos, HuffPost blogosphere, a group that collectively possesses ZERO foreign policy thinkers, but one that has shockingly seized the reigns of the Democratic party.
It is important to note what the advocates of withdrawal are arguing, and what they are not. They have not made a case, or even attempted to, that US retreat will help the Iraqi prople. Nor have they explained what they think the Middle East will look like following such precipitous action. This is because the case, and now the bill, for withdrawal isn’t based on strategic concerns at all.
The reality is that the Left views a US troop withdrawal as the period on the sentence “We were right, and you were wrong” Ever since things have turned south there, they have been waiting with hovering pen, ready to dot the page and declare victory. They need instead to graciously accept a less satisfying, though much more sensible, American plan. One that acknowledges that while the Iraq War was a mistake, the situation there now is one that still holds both tremendous possibility and enormous plight for US interests.
To flee Iraq now, would be akin to leaving Afghanistan. Indeed the two situations are almost identical. Each has a fledgling government that is very pro-West, but will take years to be able to hold power on their own. each has enemies that are scattered and have almost no chance to actually regain power, but who are ruthless and effective and know that mere carnage helps their cause. In each case, al Qaeda fears that a loss to the US could threraten their very existence. And in each case, there are millions of countrymen who have risked or given their lives for the cause, and who are to this day relying on the solemn promise of the United States of America that we would not cut and run, leaving them defenseless.
The only real difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that Iraq, because of its location, is even more important to western interests. That’s it.
Since the Left doesn’t want to talk about what a post-US Iraq will look like, somebody should. Should we pull out as soon and as rapidly as the Democrats have proposed, Muqtada al Sadr would immediately return and seek to broaden his power. The Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade, now knowing that there is no one capable of providing security, would reconstitute thier murder squads, but this time with impunity. Similarly, Iran, who seeks a Shia government in Tehran, would ratchet up its support for the militias.
Al Qaeda would not peel away as some Democrats are laughably suggesting, but instead would believe that it could win. The suicide bombings that are killing Iraqi civilians are almost all al Qaeda. Right now they are carried out with 160,000 US troops. Wait until we leave. If you think the car bombings are horrific now, just wait.
Fearing this menacing Shia bloc, Riyhad has already communicated to us that they would have to intervene to protect the Sunnis from the carnage surely headed their way. US congressmen huff about an Iraqi civil war, but when that war sucks in Iran, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and all sorts of sundry and shadowy Middle East netwoorks, we would have a region-wide civil war.
On Bill Maher the other night, John O’Sullivan pointed out some parallel times in history. In 1947, the Indians wanted the British out. Some argued for a slow, phased withdrawal. Anti-imperialists would have none of it, so the Brits left quickly. The result — a million dead Indians, because the nation wasn’t prepared to provide security yet. In 1973, when the US had to rapidly flee southeast Asia, the people of Cambodia, Laos, and southern Vietnam died in the millions.
If the left-wing fantasy of withdrawal were to happen, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be ensnared in a bloodbath. Why is it that so-called anti-war advocates seek a policy that would assuredly precipitate carnage?
If we left Iraq, our Arab allies in the region would be embroiled in an awful gyre that they haven’t the power to control. They likely would call on us to re-enter at some point. Why is it that so-called progressives seek a policy that would engulf moderate Arabs and enflame the extremists?
If we fled now, the Middle East oil fields would be surrounded by an inferno of hostility and instability. Western democracies would ask the United States to restore order, having failed to convince us to stay in the first place. Why are the so-called internationalists telling our closest allies to pound sand?
The case for withdrawal isn’t a serious one, which is why everyone from the Senate Majority Leader to ConClub’s own advocate of retreat, refuse to clearly outline their defense for such a radical policy. The wise thinkers in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Cairo, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Amman, Sydney, Ottawa, Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi, and even Beijing, want us to stay. What kind of person seriously argues that we should tell all of them to go to hell and up and leave anyway? Certainly not a humanist, nor a pacifist, nor an internationalist. No, the advocates of retreat are none of those, but something far more sinister instead.

Not Again

Filed under: The Iraq War — Andre the Defiant @ 2:23 am

You guys think I take some perverse pleasure in these stories, but I honestly don’t.

The death toll for Iraqi civilians and American forces rose Saturday as a car bomb ripped through crowds of worshipers in the Shiite shrine city of Karbala, killing at least 60 people, and U.S. military authorities reported the deaths of nine soldiers and Marines.

I just wish we had never begun this fool’s errand.

Sarkozy for President

Filed under: Europe, The Iraq War — E the Wise @ 12:30 am

Le Blog drzz is plugging Nicolas Sarkozy for President of France.  I am not quite up to par on French politics but from what I can tell, a Sarkozy presidency would be a big leap forward in strengthening the trans-Atlantic relationship.  New polls show that Sarkozy has a 52% to 48% lead over Socialist Party candidate Segolene Royal.  I’ll keep you posted and perhaps drzz will enlighten us on the Sarkozy platform as it relates to the war on terror.  The election is on May 6.  Stay tuned.  But in the meantime, this site called the Toqueville Connection offers some interesting analysis about the current Presidential race.  It is clear that while Sarkozy is far from the perfect candidate, Royal would be an utter disaster.  She is a typical anti-American European liberal in a country where distancing yourself from the U.S. scores political points.  If I were to bet, I would say her message will win out.  Lets hope I am wrong.

Michael Scheuer in the WashPost

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 12:09 am

A fascinating column in which the former CIA agent and sometimes Democratic darling excoriates both Clinton and Bush — along with his main target, George Tenet. 

Of course, it’s good to finally have Tenet’s side of the Iraq and 9/11 stories. But whatever his book says, he was not much of a CIA chief. Still, he may have been the ideal CIA leader for Clinton and Bush — denigrating good intelligence to sate the former’s cowardly pacifism and accepting bad intelligence to please the latter’s Wilsonian militarism.

April 28, 2007

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 11:00 pm

And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.
I yield the floor.”

- O’Sullivan on India c. ‘48 and Vietnam
- What our allies really want us to do
- What a democratic President will do
- Now, the burden is on the withdraw advocates

William J. Perry
Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright
Jamie Rubin
Leslie Gelb
Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Beast is at it again

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 10:11 pm

Winning vs. Leaving: the False Choice in Iraq

Filed under: Congress, Foreign policy, The Iraq War — DFV the Scribe @ 9:48 pm

Last week, the Democrats passed a bill so irresponsible that I don’t believe even they would have done it had they not known the President would veto it. There are no members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment who support it. None of the leaders in Iraq supports it. None of America’s allies back a withdrawal, and the Arab states are appalled at the idea. Indeed, the only element who backs a US withdrawal (other than al Qaeda and Iran) are the MoveOn-Kos-HuffPost blogosphere, a group that collectively possesses ZERO foreign policy thinkers, but one that has shockingly seized the reigns of the Democratic party.

It is important to note what the advocates of withdrawal are arguing, and what they are not. They have not made a case, or even attempted to, that US retreat will help the Iraqi people. Nor have they explained what they think the Middle East will look like following such precipitous action. This is because the case, and now the bill, for withdrawal isn’t based on strategic concerns at all.
(more…)

More McCain

Filed under: Congress, The Iraq War — DFV the Scribe @ 2:30 pm

From the same speech:

In Washington, where political calculation seems to trump all other considerations, Democrats in Congress and their leading candidates for President, heedless of the terrible consequences of our failure, unanimously confirmed our new commander, and then insisted he be prevented from taking the action he believes necessary to safeguard our country’s interests….I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering.

Politics vs. Principle

Filed under: Congress, The Iraq War — DFV the Scribe @ 2:25 pm

Hat tip to the Weekly Standard

“We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let’s put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), speaking at the Virginia Military Institute, April 11, 2007

“We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007

“This war is lost.”

Reid, April 19, 2007

On the heels of the al Qaeda nab in Pakistan

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 9:28 am

7/7 ‘mastermind’ is seized in Iraq

From the London Times

The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

We will lose (1-28-07)

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 3:45 am

1. The US has now had two helicopters shot down in Iraq in the last eight days.

2. At a battle today near Najaf, hundreds of insurgents (probably Sunnis) engaged in a day-long fight with US-Iraqi forces. They were heavily armed with machine guns, rockets, and even anti-aircraft missiles.

3. Shi’ite death squads successfully fired mortars into a Sunni girls school in Baghdad, killing five girls and wounding 20.

4. Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen fought a three-way battle in Kirkuk, with 11 dead and 34 wounded.

 

5. And all of this after a group of insurgents was able to get a dozen black, GMC Suburban vehicles and US Marine uniforms to kidnap and kill four US soldiers last week.

 

We have supposedly been occupying Iraq for four years! And yet the various enemies are stronger than ever, their munitions more lethal and plentiful, and order that was once sporadic is now completely gone.

 

It is hard to overstate how spectacularly incompetent the US occupation has been. There was actually a point in 2004 or so when we were slowly winning. The insurgency was being steadily defeated and Zarqawi himself wrote that the “noose was tightening” and that he thought his side would soon lose.

 

But at every point since then, the decision-makers in Washington listened to those who said that to bolster our forces would be an “escalation” and that to demand with threat of force that Iran and Syria not intervene would be a “provocation.”

 

In fact, by listening to those voices (many of whom were and are the loudest administration critics) they turned over our war policy to people who are the least fit to manage such a thing, for they are fundamentally uneasy about effective military force and are often arguing in bad faith because they are more apprehensive about US victory than defeat.

 

In any event, the die was cast long ago, and the 20,000 additional troops meandering their way to Iraq will be unable to overcome the scandalous blunders their past and present commanders have made.

October 22, 2006

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 3:41 am

The ‘awe’ is gone, the fear of the US is gone, and therefore in many ways the victory that was so close at one time appears to be gone. The road to victory had to be paved with the bodies of bad guys, instead it is littered with the tortured and assassinated bodies of those killed by death squads and coalition forces killed by roadside bombs. In the Middle East, if they don’t fear you as the avenging angel of death, then you’ve already lost.

DH - 10/23/06 - 10:59 PM 

All along, conclub has said that we need to fight the war to win or leave. Clearly, we do not have the stomachs to subdue insurgents, disarm militias, or make key people give us information. We should be killing anything that looks offensive, siphoning every drop of oil, assassinating people like al-Sadr, executing Saddam, and making sure civilians aren’t wantonly killed by thugs that roam the streets.

E - 10/22/06 - 9:43 PM

Iranian influence (1/27/07)

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 3:39 am

For approximately the 6,340th time, ConClub sets the curve in the current news cycle.

In a somewhat-reported news story, Pres. Bush has authorized American military forces to fully respond to Iranian military attacks against our troops in Iraq.

In a less-reported story, a sophisticated and audacious abduction and slaying of four US servicemen in Karbala has rocked the US military establishment. Copying the American style of black SUV’s and desert camouflage, the gunmen ambushed a US campsite in the early-morning hours. They kidnapped and then murdered four US Marines, after being halted in their attempt to transfer the Marines to somewhere outside the city.

The usually Shiite-leaning Iraqi government left no doubt as to where it cast the blame:

A senior Iraqi military official said the sophistication of the attack led him to believe it was the work of Iranian intelligence agents in conjunction with Iraq’s Shiite Mahdi Army militia, which Iran funds, arms and trains.  Regarding the first story – about Bush authorizing force against Iranian agents – many are wondering “Why now?” And indeed the intelligence agencies of the United States, Britain, Israel, and ConClub (referred to by some as “The Quatrain”) have known for years that Iranian meddling in
Iraq is significant.
 

It appears to me that the second story, about the sophisticated abduction, has led to the first. The alleged Iranian abductions took place last Sunday; the announcement of a long-overdue US response to
Iran not until yesterday.
 Faced with evidence that Iran would ratchet up their attacks until confronted, the administration finally acted. But as with all of their other recent moves, it is probably far too late.

We have lost

Filed under: Uncategorized — DFV the Scribe @ 3:11 am

[originally posted January 27, 2007]

Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with administration proponents of a “surge” because he believes what he recently told The New York Times:

“The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems.”

So three years after we first argued for more troops in Iraq, Pres. Bush may finally agree. But just like landing the job as Gary Barnett’s agent or George Allen’s presidential steering committee coordinator, what may have been great three years ago is probably just a waste of time today. At one time, the insurgents were Sunnis who had a defined network of support lines and a home base in Anbar Provence, and they had identifiable targets (the Shia who were forming the government). Thus we had someone to attack, somewhere to control, and something to defend. All of that now seems so yesterday.

Bush wants to send 20,000 or so troops to help secure Baghdad. Secure it from whom exactly? The residents of Baghdad are both the victims of the violence and the purveyors. A martial law-type domination would probably work, but would also require US troops on every street corner, and we are well past the point of that being a realistic possibility.

The US can no longer win in Iraq, because what we would define as a win does not seem to be anything that most Iraqis want. The appetite for a power-sharing government that treats all Iraqis equally and divides the oil revenues appears to begin and end at the Green Zone door. The Shiites are ready to assert bloody dominion over Anbar, the Sunnis still don’t seem to get that we are their final protection against the coming slaughter, and the rest of the world expresses concern about the consequences of US defeat but remains pitifully useless when asked to actually help.

The New York Times has the inside story of the execution of Saddam Hussein, and it shows just how little control Washington has these days over the workings of the Iraqi government. We should try to maintain the most influence possible with Iraq, and if they let us keep troops there we should do so. We will probably have enormous sway with the Iraqi government we helped birth, just as we do with Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., and that’s not nothing, But the effort to create a respectable example of self-government in the Middle East has failed and should be abandoned.

April 27, 2007

Why do the Democrats now support fascism?

Filed under: Liberals, blogging — DFV the Scribe @ 10:28 pm

In the debate over the President’s plan to wiretap the phone calls of suspected foreign terrorists communicating with operatives in America, numerous Democrats said the White House was Nixonian.

When the White House said they were going to continue to try to protect Americans from mass murder, leftist blogs called the administration fascist.

I myself had to field numerous angry (and somewhat slurred) phone calls from Andre the Defiant, demanding to know why I was supporting the encroaching oppression engulfing us. I responded in more reasoned (though equally slurred) terms that all serious people in Washington supported the plan, even if half of them had to lie and feign outrage.

As proof, I openly wrote — in the run-up to the ‘06 elections — that when the Democrats took the Congress, they would do nothing to peel back the administration’s efforts.

Here we are today, and Harry Reid wants to spy on Americans. Nancy Pelosi wants to rifle through people’s library checkouts. Joe Biden helps the government keep track of your bookstore purchases. And Chuck Schumer himself thinks the Pentagon should infiltrate honest groups of American citizens merely trying to assemble.

That’s not all. John Kerry thinks that the President should intercept Americans’ emails, Hillary Clinton is just fine with CIA torture, and even Russ Feingold himself thinks that an imperial fascist in the White House, who is massing power and systematically excluding the plebes, should have a comfortable stay in the Oval Office!

At least, those would be the conclusions one would have to draw from the fact that the Democrats have not taken the opportunity to de-fund or ban any of these things. Don’t you remember their unhinged rhetoric? Insisting, – demanding – that anyone who supported the White House-slash-Gestapo was corrupt? Now they can do something about it, and they are silent.

But their voice is downright resounding compared to the bloggers. Where is Glenn Greenwald? What about Atrios? Surely Andrew Sullivan is practically weeping with contempt for this new gang!

When will Kos organize primaries to oust these turncoat Democrats? When will Hollywood stars finally make good on their pledge and flee the approaching Kristallnacht? Where are the  massive modest rallies organized by  human rights groups communist agitators?

Weren’t they all just standing up for the Constitution? Didn’t they really love America, and thus sought to defend it from repression? Weren’t they the vangaurds of liberty, speaking truth to power? Wasn’t the cause so vital that they had to defile funerals, memorial services, and black-tie banquets to make their points?

No?

You Can’t Handle the Truth

Filed under: Bush, Law — Andre the Defiant @ 8:42 pm

I didn’t know this fact about one of the fired USAs  (via Pinko Commie Bill Maher):

After graduating from Wheaton College and the University of New Mexico law school, David Iglesias ’80 began what would become a well-known legal career with the Judge Advocate General Corps. In 1986, the year he joined the corps, he was called to represent two men accused of assaulting a fellow Marine at their base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.The case was the inspiration for the play and movie A Few Good Men. “It was one of those things when I look back, I can see the hand of the Lord in it,” David says.

Performance issues, my ass.

This is Simply Awesome

Filed under: Science — Andre the Defiant @ 7:36 pm

A man who ranks among those I admire most, going to a place he helped me understand.

Friday Night Punk- Rancid

Filed under: Friday Night Punk — Andre the Defiant @ 3:45 pm

Ruby Soho

Tim Armstrong is one of the yummiest punk rockers EVAH!

Update: I can’t help myself, I’ve had a crush on him since I was a teen… more Tim after the fold.
 

(more…)

More good news for the Democrats to ignore

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 2:58 pm

Saudis Arrest 172 in Alleged Terror Plot

“They had reached an advance stage of readiness, and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks,” the ministry’s spokesman, Brig. Mansour al-Turki, told The Associated Press in a phone call. “They had the personnel, the money, the arms. Almost all the elements for terror attacks were complete except for setting the zero hour for the attacks.”

Another Reason to Love the Blue States

Filed under: Gay Rights — Andre the Defiant @ 1:02 pm

New Hampshire lawmakers approve gay civil unions

I know some may think that allowing sinful gay couples to have legal benefits will lead to hetero marriages failing across the land, but those people are silly.

“No special rights” was a mantra I remember chanting as a CR during the Amendment 2 days, but this is not special rights- just equal rights.

Iraq is NOT Germany, and any attempt to compare the two is silly, at best

Filed under: Iraq — DFV the Scribe @ 7:20 am

 

[originally post October 28, 2007]

Sorry, but the historical references from Andre and Josh Marshall need a bit of work.

“…even though Tony Snow may say otherwise, public opinion never dipped during WWII.”

Maybe not regarding Roosevelt’s approval rating, but that chart [TPM's Josh] Marshall links shows that as late as summer of 1942 only about 25-30% of Americans believed that the Allies would win the war. The Battle of the Bulge was a poor reference by Snow, because by then everyone knew we were going to win the war. Not so in 1863, though, when Lincoln was cratering in public opinion because the Civil War wasn’t going well. It wasn’t until Sherman torched Atlanta in July of 1864 that Lincoln was assured of reelection.

I haven’t the slightest idea what the My Lai massacre has to do with anything. The acknowledgment that civilians die in war is not the same as advocating it. No one on this site has defended US soldiers accused of murdering innocents.

Iraq is NOT Germany, and any attempt to compare the two is silly, at best.

As has been pointed out on here before, Iraq isn’t to be compared to Germany or the Civil War, in part because WWII cost us 400,000 Americans, the Civil War 620,000, and Iraq thus far almost 3,000. So it’s true that there’s very little comparison.

The Civil War was certainly a “war of choice,” and the choice was widely derided until the good guys won and the history books smiled upon the result. Lincoln could have resolved the situation without the loss of a single American life, but he chose a far bloodier path.

And the last year of WWII was a “war of choice,” too. The Americans didn’t need to fight across Europe in 1944-45; Germany was all but defeated. But Roosevelt’s insistence on continuing the fight left some 100,000 American boys in European graves.

April 26, 2007

Rewriting History a Classroom at a Time

Filed under: 2008 Presidential campaigns — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 11:07 pm

Fred on Historical Revisionism and Western Civilization

This would be a good place to quote an important British writer, George Orwell, who wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Even in America, our children are often taught a watered down, inoffensive and culturally sensitive version of events ranging from the Crusades to the battle at the Alamo.

It’s time for people who believe that they have a stake in Western civilization and its traditions to get a little backbone — even if it offends somebody.

Increasingly his views appear to be straight off the pages of Conclub. Run, Fred, Run! It’s incredibly refreshing to hear a major figure addressing the wide range of topics that we have seen the former senator do.

If the Repubs were smart, they’d just agree to skip the primaries by promising Guiliani he could be Secretary of State, McCain Defense Secretary, Romney Veep (he’d be our Al Gore, good for sending to funerals and looking nice in a suit) and as a kicker Tancredo could have Homeland Security (that would put the fear of God in illegal aliens and terrorist infiltrators wouldn’t it?) and dole out the rest of the cabinet to the rest of the field. And then on to dealing with the true issues facing the nation and securing and defending our national interests both at home and abroad.

Is There Some Strange Virus That Only Affects the Brains of Female Winguts?

Filed under: Conservatives — Andre the Defiant @ 10:42 pm

First it was Atlas-Pam, then Althouse, followed by Debbie the Costco Coulter, but now it has even hit Her Highness Michelle!

Or is this an example of that great conservative wit I have heard about so often, but never actually experienced?

Who could possibly be next?

Not you, Laura!

We have lost. Accept it.

Filed under: Bush, The Iraq War — Andre the Defiant @ 10:16 pm

I couldn’t believe what I read today:

“When I was in Diyala province, I interviewed a two-star general on camera for CNN, and he admitted for the first time from anyone in the military that they are now prepared to accept options other than democracy. Now, this is what this war was sold to the American public on. Yet, they are saying now democracy isn’t mandatory, it’s an option, and that they are prepared to see a government that can protect itself, give services to its people, and it doesn’t have to be democratic.

“In fact, the general said most of our allies in this region are not democratic. So that fundamentally addresses the root cause of why America says it went to war. And now the military is saying, well, we may not get there.”

Apparently now, our next move may very well be to put a Musharraf-style dictator in charge or Iraq.   Honestly, when I think of our options at this point, this one has struck me as probably the best for some time now, but take a moment and ponder this.

An unelected strong man in charge of a nation of people who hate each other.  The only way he could stay in power will be through the use of force.  He will have the backing of the United States in order to promote stability in the region, as well as to ward of the influence of Iran.    Why does this sound familiar?

Oh yeah.  Saddam, circa 1987. 

The next time the president tells me that a troop withdrawal means the 3,400+ troops we have lost so far will have died in vain, I think I will put my fist through the wall.

Christians in bull’s-eye in new ‘hate crimes’ plan

Filed under: Congress, Culture, Law, Political Correctness, Religion — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 11:28 am

Congress working to create penalties for non-PC views

If fascism ever makes its appearance on the American scene, it will not have arisen from the rumblings on the Right, but from the various isms that infest the Left. Always be wary of anything that seeks to silence the pulpit, for your free speech and freedom to share your religious views will not be far behind. Every once in a while the Left lets us see a glimpse of the nanny state utopia that they are working so diligently to create. The final goal of the insidious ideology that hides behind the skirts of such benign terms as ‘human rights’, ‘tolerance’, ‘diversity’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘inclusiveness’ cares very little for any of them. There is an agenda. It is clear, it is stark and it is unapologetic.

 

The Right has always been accused of ‘legislating morality’ even as the Left cheerfully ‘legislates immorality’ while criminalizing traditional values.  Rather ironic don’t you think?

 

A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn “thoughts, feelings, and beliefs” into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull’s-eye, according to opponents. “H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech,” according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

“As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics,‘It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender’s politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,’” said Lavy.

 Related article:

Christian belief a ‘hate crime’ under plan; backup proposal would mandate jail time for dissing a ‘gay’.

“Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The ‘hater’ can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!” Marcavage said…As WND has reported,such laws already have been used around the world, where in Canada pastors are fearful of reading biblical injunctions against homosexuality, and in Australia where two pastors were convicted of “vilifying” Islam…Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth,noted that in Canada and France both, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a Swedish hate crimes law was used to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, in jail for a month.
“And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might ‘prejudice’ them against a homosexual child put in their care,” LaBarbera added.

April 25, 2007

Russia Bids a Solemn Farewell to Yeltsin

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 7:46 pm

So Boris was laid to rest. History has not yet decided how it will view the former Russian president . I believe it will be both gentle and generous in its final assessment of the part he played as the Cold War came to an end. Compared with both his predecessors and successor Yeltsin was remarkably non-authoritarian and open to Western ideas.

His wife says goodbye…..

Russia bid a solemn farewell Wednesday to Boris Yeltsin, its first post-Soviet leader, in a funeral presided over by some two dozen white-robed priests, with a crowd of dignitaries including President Vladimir Putin and two former U.S. leaders in attendance.

The elaborate Cathedral of Christ the Savior echoed with priests’ chanting and the a capella choir singing the funeral liturgy during the 85-minute ceremony. It was a placid finale for one of the most dramatic and controversial figures of modern political history….

“The whole dramatic history of the 20th century was reflected in the fate of Boris Nikolayevich,” a letter from Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II said, using Yeltsin’s patronymic. “Being a strong individual, he took upon himself responsibility the fate of the country at a difficult and dangerous time of radical change.”

My favorite memory of Yeltsin is the crack up between him and Clinton.

Full sentence from Yeltsin to Journalists that cracked up Clinton:

And this is all due to you because, coming from my statement yesterday in the United Nations, and if you looked at the press reports, one could see that what you were writing was that today’s meeting with President Bill Clinton was going to be a disaster. [Laughter] Well, now for the first time, I can tell you that you’re a disaster. [Laughter]

Re: Andre’s Love-Fest With the Reality Based Community

Filed under: Liberals — E the Wise @ 4:00 pm

A few of my favorite selections from my misguided friend:

  • The Iraq war is lost.  Accept it.

Of course the Reality Based Community (RBC) wants the war to be lost.  Forget about the fact that we hold the land and that the surge is making an impact before all of the troops arrive.  For the sake of their very political lives the RBC needs the war to be lost.  Any success in Iraq over the next year will mean certain death to Democratic hopes for the future.  If I were them I suppose I would root for the bad guys too. . . actually, I take that back. . . I would never stoop so low.

  • The division between rich and poor has not been so great since about 1929.   It’s time to invest in canned food and shotguns

Class warfare is the silver bullet of the RBC.  If they can somehow convince people that they are poor because of “the man” then they can create a class of victims that rely on the RBC for their handouts.   And what is the cure for poverty?  Wealth.  Over and over again, in Ireland and China and India and here at home, it can be shown that the only thing that cures poverty is the creation of work with the capital of the wealthy.  But the RBC, for some reason, won’t acknowledge this simple economic principle.  Why?  Which leads me to the third point:

  • Tax cuts do not raise revenues- and despite your side’s claims, Wal-Mart is not the Great New Hope for our nation’s future.

The RBC is in the business of denouncing tax cuts as a way of collecting the booty for themselves.  All in the name, presumably, of curing the ills of society.  Nevermind that this claim is so ludicrous that any dim-wit with a rudimentary knowledge of economics has seen and continues to see the effects of tax cuts on our economy today

  • The Rockies suck. Go Padres

You might have a point there.  Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then.

The Big White Lie

Filed under: Conservatives, Liberals — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 1:09 pm

 Here is a good piece by Andrew Klavan. He’s been taking a bunch of heat from the Pandagon crowd and gathering a few cheers from the FReeper camp today on this, but he makes some very good points.

We each have our own preferences but the thing I like best about being a conservative is that you don’t have to walk around bent over under a terrible burden of guilt for being white, or a Christian, or an American, or a member of Western Civilization, or that you own two cars and have electricity in your home, or that you use more than one square of toilet paper when you go to the restroom…. And you don’t have to be angry all the time.

‘The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God…. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.”

The Agenda Moves Forward

Filed under: Culture, Feminists, Liberals, Political Correctness — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 10:43 am

 Three Predictable Problems at the Commission on the Status of Women

I have often been asked why I am a committed advocate of the conservative ideology. The answer is that it is the last refuge for logic, common sense, decency, a semblance of morality, respect for tradition, and understanding the role history has to play in  current events.
When you don’t have that, you end up with things like this. This is an excellent article on what the globalists would like to impose upon the rest of us. When they are so wrong, then I must be right.
 

As the proud father of three daughters (between E the wise and me, Conclub has six girls and throw in Guru Steve and we’ve got seven, amazing) these are precisely the people you don’t want indoctrinating your children into their twisted and warped world of womanhood.  Be sure to read the whole thing.

The United Nations (U.N.) continues to be predictable and manipulative, as revealed in the first draft of the “agreed conclusions” released this week at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). To read the document, one would conclude that to end “violence against the girl child” means universal abortion-on-demand and teaching girls about their “sexuality.” It also means, according to the draft of agreed conclusions, that all this should be accomplished in a shroud of confidentiality; don’t let parents know what their daughters are doing.

Why I love science

Filed under: Science — Andre the Defiant @ 12:20 am

Look what that no-longer-needed (at least according to the Bush administration) Hubble telescope found:

A square Nebula, far beyond our usual ability to perceive!  Maybe that’s where the angels (or Zeus, Set, and/or Loki) live.

Amazing. 

April 24, 2007

Reality-based is a great place to live

Filed under: Conservatives, Culture, Idiots, Liberals — Andre the Defiant @ 11:54 pm

And, despite the fact that the term “Reality-based community” was meant as an insult from your side,  it is also a scary place to live…

Reality-based includes many weird concepts such as:

- The earth is NOT 6000 years old, and the Grand Canyon wasn’t formed during Noah’s flood.  There were no dinosaurs on the Arc, and Adam and Eve are a metaphor.

- Global warming is real, and your children are going to have to live with it.

- The Iraq war is lost.  Accept it.

- The division between rich and poor has not been so great since about 1929.   It’s time to invest in canned food and shotguns.

- There is no war on Christmas, and the majority of this nation sounds incredibly silly for even implying it.

- Offering an exclusive white, male, Protestant, heterosexual scholarship is equally silly, and really demonstrates an amazing divorce from “reality”.  How hard is it to understand that some groups have been disenfranchised?  Let’s end “legacy admissions”, then we’ll talk.

- Tax cuts do not raise revenues- and despite your side’s claims, Wal-Mart is not the Great New Hope for our nation’s future.

- The Rockies suck. Go Padres.

THB on the ‘Reality Based Community’

Filed under: Idiots, Liberals, blogging — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 11:24 pm

THB has a few thoughts on the “Reality Based Community” that the Defiant one is so proud to belong to.

The Internal Reality Based Community

…This is not “reality” as we know it, this is actually the opposite - ideological wishful thinking; the delusion of fools, the chicanery of elites. This “reality” is entirely internal and self-referential, it’s unable to stand the test, which is why it can’t be debated. Hence the epithets that inevitably follow: racist, homophobe, yokel, fool, et al. This slogan is the truculent political equivalent of an angry twelve year old who screams “I am SO an adult!” in a battle with her mom over her curfew.

The Left attempts to define Political Correctness

Filed under: Culture, Liberals, Political Correctness, blogging — Dave - the Infidel Sage @ 10:16 pm

Kai Chang from the blog Zuky wrote a piece titled The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of “Political Correctness”  which sought to ‘reclaim’ the phrase Political Correctness and to wave a finger at all those who have dared to strike back at the PC advocates. It has been hailed as the “definitive analysis of Political Correctness” by a variety of Left wing bloggers while at the same time completely sidestepping its true nature. Kai manages to both deny and misguide when it comes to this issue. His obvious hesitancy in dealing with the PC movement is both striking and revealing.

The phrase “politically correct” can be used in two distinct ways: either with its original literal meaning, or with the mocking sarcasm that’s common these days. I’ll get to the former in a moment, but I’ll begin with the latter. As it’s commonly used, “PC” is a deliberately imprecise expression (just try finding or writing a terse, precise definition) because its objective isn’t to communicate a substantive idea, but simply to sneer and snivel about the linguistic and cultural burdens of treating all people with the respect and sensitivity with which they wish to be treated. Thus, the Herculean effort required to call me “Asian American” rather than “chink” is seen as a concession to “the PC police”, an unsettling infringement on the free-wheeling conversation of, I suppose, “non-chinks”. Having to refer to black folks as “African Americans” rather than various historically-prevalent epithets surely strikes some red-blooded blue-balled white-men as a form of cultural oppression. Having to refer to “women” rather than “bitches” lays a violent buzzkill on the bar-room banter of men preoccupied with beating on their chests and off other body parts.

Ah yes, the Left waxes indignant about being painted with the Politically Correct brush.

There is, of course, no mention of the thousands of examples of official persecution carried out due to Political Correctness. No listing of the campus speech codes, the corporate hypersensitivity, the frightened political figures and the cowed populace at large that cannot be denied. Yet not a day goes by where the news does not report yet another poor individual who has run afoul of the PC crowd.

What the Left fails to admit is that the ideologies that pursue PC policies are clearly advocating the silencing and censoring of the thoughts and actions of others. The little totalitarian reservations we refer to as college campuses reek of speech codes and censorship as the fascists of the Left seek to mold us into their Orwellian servants in preparation for the coming utopia.

They are all about free speech and tolerance and diversity and sensitivity and multiculturalism until one dares to openly admit to being pro-life, or a born-again Christian, or a believer in traditional morality, or that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that Israel has the right to exist, or supporting gun ownership, or that maybe we should not allow in millions of illegal aliens every year. Once such an admission is made, suddenly all that great liberal love and tenderness is thrown out the window and all that is left is the naked viciousness and unmerciful intolerance of Political Correctness.

Freedom of speech to enforcers of the PC doctrine means hand-wringing over polar bear populations, condemning the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo, sounding the cry of climate change, tossing and turning at night over Abu Ghraib photos and bemoaning the oppression of all others by white males in modern society. Its logical conclusion is the broad brushing of nearly all of Western Civilization with the smears of patriarchy, misogyny and unforgivable perpetual oppression. Any other thoughts or speech that might challenge the official line is simply unacceptable in their eyes.

 In practice, despite the protestations of Kai and his ilk, Political Correctness is unapologetic Orwellian Newspeak - an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak. New speak, new think. But instead of just being used to perhaps benignly bring a bit of civility to the English language, it has become the bludgeon to silence the critics of the rainbow of ‘isms’ that exist on the Left and a powerful weapon to ensure the ideological conformity demanded by the disciples of the great secular religion of “Multiculturalism, Diversity and Tolerance”.

In practice it is stifling to debate, a purposeful minefield that makes any discussion of society, culture, morality or current events a frightening experience that, for many, is better left undone. And, unfortunately, its breeding grounds are the college campuses that once espoused the idea of intellectual freedom and debate, but have increasingly become mere mental boot camps to create the ‘progressives’ of tomorrow.

Christianity teaches and promotes the Golden Rule concepts of respect, decency, humility, love, acceptance, and civility, but in stark contrast to the PC ideologies it also teaches the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and immorality. Political Correctness is the weapon used by the secularists as they attempt to impose their own version of a moral code on the populace with any hint of God removed. It cloaks itself in the intellectual concepts of tolerance, understanding, cultural sensitivity, human rights, and dignity, while suspending all judgments concerning morality. To our secular humanist/progressive friends there is no right and wrong, only ‘different’. ‘Compassion’ trumps common sense, and the right to not be offended has become the greatest human right of all.

I’ve seen it, I’ve experienced it, and I spent my college years fighting and exposing it. It’s not about calling Asian Americans ‘Chinks’ or women ‘bitches’ (red herring arguments at best), but about having the right to debate the issues of the day with full intellectual honesty. When debate is stifled and speech curtailed because of everyone being petrified of being labeled “insensitive” (or far worse) due to an innocent comment that may have offended someone, then we have lost a valuable part of what made us a great nation and successful civilization. Those who would perform a collective intellectual lobotomy, and their perpetually outraged cadres shouting bumper sticker slogans, are the enemy and we’ve labeled their speech codes ‘Political Correctness’.

Kai complains that the term Political Correctness has become the subject of ‘sneers’. It deserves every mockery and word of derision it has ever received. It is indeed true that the whiff of fascism can be detected in the air. It does not arise from the Right, but is the practiced ideology of the ‘New Left’ and their disciples. In our modern society, authoritarianism from the Right is disconcerting. When it comes from the Left, it is downright frightening. Political Correctness has no real root in America’s founding principles, law or jurisprudence. Instead, it is the intellectual equivalent of state sponsored mob rule. We have many rights in the United States. The right to not be offended is not one of them.

Perhaps novelist Dorris Lessing stated it best.

“Political Correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

Global Climate Change, Bill Maher and Bees

Filed under: Environmentalism, Liberals, Science — E the Wise @ 8:34 pm

In the past I have been critical of the knee-jerk environmental claim that global climate change is simply a result of man made factors.  The notion that man is preponderating nature by way of his carbon output strikes me as premature.  Throw in the disinclination of the left to even talk about nuclear power– a very acceptable alternative to fossil fuels– and you can see my nihilism to the established environmental talking points.  Furthermore, when cyclical solar and weather patterns are factored in and the most vocal proponents of lifestyle changes leave far greater carbon footprints than the uncleansed masses, you have in me an agnostic environmentalist at best.  My point is this: I don’t want to completely disregard the science that says global temperatures are on the rise.  I simply reject the self-annointed experts that say 1) we know exactly what the cause of rising temperatures are, 2) we have the answers to solve the crisis, and 3) failure to heed our warnings will result in catastrophe that only Dennis Quaid can overcome.

So it was with interest that I read the latest report on what is happening to the country’s honeybees.  The early reports of the bees demise are inconclusive:

More than a quarter of the country’s 2.4 million bee colonies have been lost — tens of billions of bees, according to an estimate from the Apiary Inspectors of America, a national group that tracks beekeeping. So far, no one can say what is causing the bees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives.

Naturally, peo