A Surplus of Critics

Official British support for the U.S. in the War on Terror has been unwavering. Tony Blair has been eloquent when George Bush was not. His support, and the support of his government have lent legitimacy to the effort and disproved the accusations from the rest of Old Europe (and the New Left here in the U.S.) that we acted “unilaterally”. Thanks Tony. Thanks U.K.

That support, however, does not necessarily qualify everyone in England with a computer to criticize (British) every aspect of American life and politics any more than my going to a nude beach qualifies me as an expert on Nudism. Britain has a lot in common with America; but no one who hasn’t lived here – lived, not visited – can truly understand what America is all about.

My message to the British Press and the rest of the world media that have been so happy to jump on America’s liberal media bandwagon: Shut Up and Mind your own business!

The U.S. has a surplus of many things; and our supply of blowhard, left-(and right)-leaning know-it-alls may be the most conspicuous surplus of all.

Mexico is Upset

Mexico is upset that we Americans would like to slow the flood of Mexicans from coming into the U.S. illegally and stealing our money and resources. Here's my response: Fuck Mexico.

Canada's leadership is upset that our government would ask them to tone down their constant streams of anti-American rhetoric that flows from their mouths. Canada says we have no business asking them to back off a step or two. Canada will, however, continue - as it has for the past 150 years - to hide behind America's skirts, while spending $29 a year to defend itself. My response: Fuck Canada.

And Europes big and little "guns" - the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium, Spain - always have something negative to say from their imaginary positions of moral superiority. Fuck Germany, France, Belgium, and the horse they rode in on.

Sure, maybe the people of Canada, France, Mexico are ok. Maybe they don't hate America. But they keep electing people who do, and who are anxious to express that hatred. There should be a cost for that - and maybe if there is, these "ok" people will vote differently.

Since when did friendship become a one-way street? Since never. It isn't. And it shouldn't be.

Calling an asshole by another name - "France" for instance - doesn't make it any less an asshole. It's time to start treating our friends like friends, and our enemies like enemies. It's time to stop wasting our money (billions) and our goodwill where it is not appreciated.

Arrogant but true: these whiny, defenseless countries need us a lot more than we need them.

America supports the economies of both Mexico and Canada. America is in the process - for the third time now - of saving Old Europe's ass from the fire. America is carrying the fight for the whole world. And in exchange, not only do we get no financial help, but we get constant criticism and meddling.

Time to start charging dues.

Iraq still unstable... After 11 whole months.

It has been nearly a year now since Iraq set out on its journey towards Democracy. And now, 11 months and three elections later, the success of Iraq's Democracy is, unbelievably to some, still... STILL... in doubt.

What fools we are to listen to - much less believe - the drivel that we read in the papers and hear on the news. As if, in anyone's wildest imaginataion, and under the absolute best of circumstances, a stable democracy could be expected to be fully formed in the time-frame allowed by the left.

No. Even the most hardened, New York Times reading, Socialista, Bush-hater knows the ridiculous nature of the standard that they are using to discredit the literally astounding progress that the people of Iraq have made.

Here we are - the epitome (supposedly) of Democracy - and yet, after 230 years, it could be honestly said that American Democracy is far from stable. We don't have suicide bombers (yet) and we don't have assasinations (yet); but we do have an even more destructive and deceptive force working to promote chaos in the United States. No longer "Far, the Left has hijacked the Democratic Party and turned it into a terrorist organization of an even more devious sort.

Instead of confronting their enemies, the Left chooses to undermine every single effort of those who would try to make the world a better place. They choose to gnaw away at our national (and personal) confidence, mistakenly thinking that a weak enemy will make themselves stronger.

Makes me yearn for the days of tar and feathers... the days when we, once red-blooded Americans wouldn't have put up with such treason - and that's exactly what it is.

But we "regular Americans" have become too timid... to fearful of the wrath of the Left; and we allow this cancer to take over our beloved country. We watch George Bush try to fight the overwhelming forces unified against him. Maybe we hope he will win... maybe... but not enough to stand by him. We keep our heads down and pray (silently) that the most radical major party in the history of America doesn't accuse us of being radical.

Sad days.

post-Conservatives

George Will among others... has become a deranged pseudo-libertarian to whom any activity that might hypothetically threaten his own personal privacy must be stopped, regardless of the purpose, intention or practice of that activity. Nowadays, potential for abuse of any kind - no matter how far-fetched or unsubstantiated - is sufficient reason for quashing any plan, no matter how necessary or useful that plan may have been.

The NSA-spying-on-your-mother crap is only the most current example. Think of Abu Graib, the Anwar drilling battle, the torture 'debate', terrorist's rights cases, Guantanamo... or any of dozens more examples.

Many previously conservative pundits and politicians have fallen into this trap. They have adopted the leftist position that Americans will always do the wrong thing if given the slightest opportunity. And, while pretending to support this country's efforts to protect itself and the world, these neo-libertarians are dismantling that ability.

The communists of the 40's, the socialists of the 70's, and the bush-haters of the 21st Century, could not have envisioned the success that the post-conservatives are handing to them. And the Leftist press revels in giving us every detail as America is dismantled before our very eyes.

Treason of the Press

Why does John Murtha, the heretofore totally invisible senator(?) from um... Pennsylvania(?), continue to get press coverage on an almost daily basis?

His plan consists of leaving Iraq as soon as "practicable". In other words, Murtha proposes breaking our promise to the Iraqi people and abandoning them to the terrorists who infest their country - terrorists who, according to Murtha, are only there because we are.

It is Murtha's constantly stated opinion that we have caused the trouble in Iraq, that our forces are weak, and that our staying there only makes things worse and it is his belief that we are losing the fight.

Although his absurd plan created a discussion that might eventually be helpful in solidifying the country's attitude (to the limited extent that solidification is still a possibility), no one - absolutely no one in their right mind - has jumped all the way on Murtha's Retreat Express. Every single expert has stated that leaving Iraq prematurely would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and their new government.

And yet... every single day... another Murtha article, speech, press conference, or high profile appearance. His anti-American statements get even more coverage than the more experienced and familiar Wacko's, Sheehan, Clooney, Streisand, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy... (enough! that list is way too long).

Why? Because his statements keep negativity on the front burner. And negativity on the front page might sway even more unthinking Americans to the dark view of the war and the military and - most important of all - George W. Bush. And that, afterall, is the purpose of our free press these days.

Aren't there laws against treason?

NYTimes: Third House of Congress

It is not news that the New York Times is the owns and controls the Democratic Party; but it may surprise some to realize that the Times has become the third (and superior) House of Congress, influencing public policy far more than either of the Junior Houses.

Representatives and Senators alike follow the lead of the Timesmen for agenda and policy positions. Votes in the two Junior Houses are guided by polls and postion statements coming out of the House of Time. Those few who stray from the agenda, they are severely repremanded by their far more powerful colleagues in New York.

It is the Times from which we, the American People, receive the rules by which we must live (political correctness, unrestricted abortion, anti-Christianity, and so on).

It is from the Times as well, that we get the opinions that we hold (war is wrong, Bush lied, the economy is in bad shape, Republicans are corrupt, and so on) and even the polls telling us what percentage of us hold them.

And the Times, more than any other single influence, determines who will serve in all of the Federal Government's other branches.

Specifically protected by the Constitution of the United States, the House of Times is not subject to re-election or recall and is accountable to no one but itself. [No need to point out that the readers "vote" with their wallets. The Times does not require readers in the general public. As long as it is published, and without regard to circulation figures, the Times will be the "paper of record" and its statements will be presented as gospel by all of its underlings in the world media.]

It is a sad day when the very institution that is supposed to tell us what happened in the world, is allowed to determine what WILL happen. Talk radio and the blog-world aside; that day has come.

Torture is good

Kinsley's Slate article on torture appears to be vaguely against the proposition that torture is sometimes justified and particularly discredits Charles Krauthammer's attempt to define those conditions and their limitations (which is, I admit, equally vague). While ridiculing the very likely "ticking bomb" scenario, which has strangely become the base argument against torture restrictions proposed by McCain, Kinsley's argument for a total ban on torture is itself based on even more unlikely extrapolations (kill the scientist and his family, "go door-to-door killing people before they kill others").

I happen to believe that torture can be a useful tool in the hands of professionals. Kinsley posits that if you would torture to save a million lives, why not a thousand, a hundred - at what number is torture no longer justified. When applied to terrorism, my number for justifying torture happens to be ONE AMERICAN.

McCain says torture never works. McCain is dead wrong on that issue and Kinsley wisely avoids supporting that false claim.

To rely on selective breaking of this "total" ban on torture is foolish on its face. It also hands the left a club with which they will beat every Republican President for eternity.

The point that no one seems to be presenting here is that torture - or more accurately, the threat of torture - is an immensely valuable tool in the War on Terror. Take that tool away; tell the terrorist that we might turn off the air conditioning but, under no circumstances will we allow the temperature in his cell to rise above 78 degrees, and you have given up your advantage.

A football team that unilaterally declared that they would not tackle anyone who ran up the middle would never win another game, and that is exactly what a total ban on torture would amount to.

Here's my rule on torture for commanders in the field:

Do what you think needs to be done but be prepared to justify it later.

That simple rule will give our military the leeway that they need; it will enable the Left to continue to pursue their endless complaints against them; and it will allow our chicken-hearted congress to keep forming committees to investigate this or that. Everybody wins.

We have the best team in this game that has ever existed. Enough rules are in place to prevent the American Military from taking over America, as if they ever would. (Not that it would be a bad thing.) Too many (politically correct) limitations already exist to allow our guys to win a war the way we all know they could.

So let's not add any more restrictions to an already impossible assignment. Let's allow the professionals to fight the war that we all agreed, once upon a time, needs to be fought. And let's thank them for doing it.

Now who's dreaming?

Nuts on Planes

Dec 7, 2004 - You know the story: Some nutcase gets on a plane with a backpack and starts acting crazy, says he's got a bomb, and runs up and down the aisle singing "Go Down Moses" before bolting off the plane, ignoring Air Marshall warnings and acting in an otherwise threatening manner. He gets shot. Dead.

Everyone involved says the Air Marshalls acted according to their assignment except for one passenger.

Passenger John Mcalhany told The Associated Press on Thursday that Alpizar bumped into him as he ran off the aircraft, and he did not hear him say anything about a bomb.

"The first time I heard the word bomb was when I was interviewed by the FBI McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."

"This was wrong," McAlhany added. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead."

Put a reporter in front of some people and they can't seem to help themselves. They have to say something bad about the Government. This Mcalhany guy didn't hear the word bomb so, naturally, the nutcase couldn't have said it. What do you think the odds are that Mcalhany leans left in his politics?

I'm sure we'll be seeing more of him in the MSM, as we do anyone who "speaks out" against the Fascist States of America. That's all it takes these days to be a media star. Maybe this guy can take over for Cindy Sheehan.

And if the nutcase had been carrying a bomb, and the Marshall's had not acted as they are trained, who do you think would have been the first in line to sue Homeland Security for not doing its job? Passenger John Mcalhany.

Howard Dean is insane

No quotes needed
Everyone (on both sides) already knows

Howard Dean is insane
Howard Dean is a liar

Who better to lead the Democrats?

Leftist Logic?

Just one example of Democratic... um... logic?... case-making?... um... thinking?.... or... bullshit?

Hillary Clinton (in a Chicago speech):

"I disagree with those who believe we should immediately pull out," she told the crowd. "And I disagree with those who say we should stay there forever."

So this is the tactic: present one side (which is inherently foolish) and contrast it with another (which is grossly insane and btw completely made up).

Here are a few other debate suggestions the left could use to "center" itself, like Hillary does:

On Abortion: "I disagree with those who believe we should suck brains out of full term babies (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say we should let all pregnant women die in back alleys (the made up "contrasting view").

On Judicial Activism: "I disagree with those who believe that judges should dictate every aspect of American life (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say we should go back to the days when white men could own slaves and women (the made up "contrasting view").

On the Justice System: "I disagree with those who believe that criminals deserve the same rights as free citizens (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say that we should execute people who tear the tag off of their mattress (the made up "contrasting view").

On Corruption: "I disagree with those who believe that all Republicans are corrupt (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say Republicans are messengers of God (the made up "contrasting view").

On Religion: "I disagree with those who believe we strike down all references to Christianity in our society (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say we should force every American to go to a Christion church (the made up "contrasting view").

The Definition of Disingenuous

I don't know many details about this Iraq payola scandal - US funds for placement of positive articles in Iraqi publications - and I don't care.

What I do care about is the fact the the mainstream media seems appalled by the fact that someone would have the audacity to bypass their strangle-hold on the information business. MSM is offended not by the stories themselves, but by the fact that the Government has had even a single success in getting out its side of the story.

The NY & LA Times, the Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and everyone other "news outlet" does exactly the same thing; paying particular writers gross sums of money precisely because they will write stories slanted the way the editors (who are also paid based on their bias) want.

Here is an example from the LATimes "editors":

"THE GANG THAT COULDN'T shoot straight is firmly ensconced in Washington. The State Department trains Iraqi journalists how to be independent and fair; at the same time, the Defense Department contracts with an organization that secretly pays Iraqi publications to print stories making the American occupiers look good.

As often happens with propaganda, when daylight exposes the secret, the stench is overpowering."

Now that is truly amazing isn't it? This writer shows his stripes with the first five words of his article. Who in their right mind would expect anything but propaganda to follow that introduction? Then this clown - I mean Editor - goes on to make one of the most hypocritical statements in the history of pencils: "As often happens with propaganda, when daylight exposes the secret, the stench is overpowering." I don't even know what word would apply to a person who would write that line in the LATimes with a straight face.

Neither this "writer" or any other that I have seen claims that these alleged "Government planted stories" are untrue. The offense here seems only to be that they are positive, and MSM simply can't have that.

It is getting pretty crowded at the bottom of the food chain - lawyers, doctors, politicians, lobbyists, and so on - but "journalists" have shown themselves in the past few years to be as low as any, and far more destructive and dangerous than most. America under their control has become a pretty disgusting place.