Archive for the ‘National’ Category

6
Apr

When Will They Get It?

   Posted by: Aurelius

I happened to be listening to Sean Hannity in the car this week (not a regular occurrence, as I typically listen to Cd’s, when not on the cell phone), and Hannity asked the burning question of our time (concerning the Democrat Party/Liberals and the War):

When are they going to GET it?

I have been mulling this over since, and the only conclusion I can come to is:

Never.

Now, I am not sure who, exactly, Hannity was talking about, but when I say this, I am specifically referring to the Anti-War/solid socialist left wing. In the tradition of the Loyalists during the Revolutionary War, and the Copperheads during the Civil War (more appropriately. the War of Northern Aggression), the Anti-War left has consistently been anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, and against the very idea that America should be more than one nation among a world of equals; that our system is no better than – but certainly much worse than – other systems.

The modern Anti-War left movement earned it’s spurs in the protests against the Viet Nam war. They were not against the conflict itself – just against America supporting the more capitalist South, over the Socialist North. Russian support for North Viet Nam was never an issue for these folks. And just as was predicted, when the Left finally came to power in America, in the wake of Watergate, they cut off aid and support for the South Viet Namese, and the dominoes began to fall. Laos and Cambodia joined Viet Nam as socialist paradises, where even having a reputation as an intellectual or teacher was a very real death warrant. More than 2,000,000 people died, so the left could feel good that they had stopped American interference in the conflict, and allowed the true expression of the people to be manifest in their adoption of socialism (at the point of a gun; After all, it was Chairman Mao – that socialist icon – who said that power flows from the barrell of a gun)…

In the 1980s these same activists morphed into the anti-nuke movement, whose railed and cried that America must appease the Soviet Union. That it was not our place to oppose Socialist movements. These same people actively supported Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and any other bloody handed dictator they could find, if they only met the singular criteria of opposing American interests… Leftist politicians even made pilgrimages to visit these tyrants, regardless of the fact that the constitution does not give them any power to conduct foreign policy.  The objects of their affection were more than happy to put up these uselful idiots as proof that the American people supported them, and it was only the evil and monstrous American Government that opposed their plans to bless all people with the benefits of a socialist state.

In the 1990s, with their fellow travellers in control of the executive branch, most of these folks drifted over to Environmentalism, to fill the void in their lives left when they didn’t have a Conservative executive to oppose, and as most people finally came to the realization that Socialism was not a rational (or safe) basis for government -except in Europe, where the gene pool became so shallow after two horrendous wars within two generations, that it is amazing they can still master the complexities of shoelaces and chewing gum. The left was so neutered politically, that they could not even oppose the use of military forces in the former Yugoslavian states.  After all, America had no interests in the fight, and Europe was in charge of the war, not some evil American leader.

Then came the answer to their prayers for lives with more purpose:  With the new century came a new conflict, and a conservative administration that did not simply absorbs the hits, and set about apologizing to our enemies for making them hate us so much that they had to sacrifice the lives of their sons to show us the error of our ways.

Now the Left again had a windmill to tilt against – in fact, the had two, becuase in the years in the political wilderness, they had discovered a new green veneer for Socialism, and a cause to push it down the peoples throat – Man Made Global Warming – but most importantly they again had a war to oppose – a war about overturning a tyrant to deliver a message, and keep him from using weapons of mass destruction.  This was the very thing they had opposed a generation earlier: America using her power to impose her will on other nations.   And again we have the policiticans from the frings – now in power again after being in the wilderness – conducting their own foreign policy, to the benfit of our enemeies; and doing to their best to maim and destroy our warfighting capability, while declaring their support for the troops.

To put it simply, in the view of this fringe (which I estimated at about 20% of the left in this country), America has no RIGHT to be superior to any other nation, or to impose our will on other, regardless of the cause.  Only the UN, or EU are pure enough in spirit (now that the USSR is gone, and China has gotten the Greed bug), to lead the world, and America must bow to their will.  While they won’t use the word anymore, the still espouse Socialism, with new guises:  Environmentalism, Universal Health Care, Open Borders, etc… Yje basic tenant of their faith remains that the American system is inferior to all others.  The solid backbone of their position is Moral Equivelancy – that all systems are equal (except ours, which is worse than all others).

Why they have this world view I cannot say.  Perhaps for some it is environmental; certainly some people come to recognize the follies of their youth in time.  For others it may be an inability to see and reason without a constant rush of emotion.  For some, it could even be some form of mental illness.

Whatever the underlying cause, the effect is sure and reliable:  Opposition to American interests, and American power.  A desire to have America be just another nation among equals, and certainly no better.  The misguided notion that equality of outcome is superior to equality of opportunity.  The innate fealing of inadequacy that leads them to desire the government to tell them how to live their lives, when to sleep, what to eat, what not to smoke, and, when possible, to use the government to inflict their views an opinions on their fellow citizens “for their own good”, or in the name of “the children”.  The need to be absolved of responsibility for their actions, but giving the government the power to leads their lives for them.. Becuase when we take action in our own interests, we are taking responsibility for the outcome.  And the last thing in their lives the Left wants, is to be held responsible…

George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist (moderate Left, by English standards).  The man had a gift for language and thought.  When you read the following, substitute “anti-war” for Pacifist:

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

A couple of other Orwell quotes, along the same line:

England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God save the King than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometime squashilypacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.

The fallacy is to believe that under a dictatorial government you can be free inside. Quite a number of people console themselves with this thought, now that totalitarianism in one form or another is visibly on the up-grade in every part of the world. Out in the street the loudspeakers bellow, the flags flutter from the rooftops, the police with their tommy-guns prowl to and fro, the face of the Leader, four feet wide, glares from every hoarding; but up in the attics the secret enemies of the regime can record their thoughts in perfect freedom — that is the idea, more or less.

We have become too civilized to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil. Those who take the sword perish by the sword, and those who don’t take the sword perish by smelly diseases.

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.

It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that American troops had been bought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

Note that I do NOT label the anti-war crowd as unpatriotic – they are patriots, by their own lights.  They believe that America is not the country that it should be.  Nor are all of them anti-american; though they are opposed to American interests.  But they do have an almost child like grasp of the human nature, and a complete unwillingness to realize that there are power hungry and aggressive people born into this world every day (well, except right wing politicians in America and Britian – they are all to willing to believe it in those cases).  Some of these will rise to power in criminal organization, or governments, or shadowy groups that use religion as their means to achieve power and forse their will upon others.  And someone has to be there to stop them.

The Europeans aren’t going to do it.  The Russians are just as bad as the ones who need stopping.  The Chinese forment what trouble the can to keep America occupied, while they move on their own agenda.  Like it or not, America is the bulwark – the soldier on the wall, keeping the barbarians from extinguishing civilization (and not just Western civilization – what nation ever on this earth was as open and welcoming to other races, creed, and thoughts as America?). 

 

 

20
Mar

The New Copperheads

   Posted by: Aurelius

No, not the batteries, but anti war Democrat party members,and their fellow travellers…

The DANE pointed out this great piece by Mackubin Thomas Owens in the NRO Online:

The book, Copperheads: The Rise an Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North, by journalist-turned-academic-historian Jennifer Weber, shines the spotlight on the “Peace Democrats,” who did everything they could to obstruct the Union war effort during the Rebellion.

Weber demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the Copperheads materially damaged the ability of the Lincoln administration to prosecute the war. Weber persuasively refutes the view of earlier historians such as the late Frank Klement, who argued that what Lincoln called the Copperhead “fire in the rear” was mostly “a fairy tale,” a “figment of Republican imagination,” made up of “lies, conjecture and political malignancy.” The fact is that Peace Democrats actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

It is certain that the Union soldiers tired of hearing from the Copperheads that the Rebels could not be defeated. They surely tired of being described by the Copperheads as instruments of a tyrannical administration trampling the legitimate rights of the Southern states. The soldiers seemed to understand fairly quickly that the Copperheads preferred Lincoln’s failure to the country’s success. They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln’s policy except to stop the war. Does any of this sound familiar?

Gateway Pundit also has a great piece on the similaities of the Copperhead movement:

On Aug. 29, 1864, the Democratic National Convention assembled in Chicago, Ill., The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of “Compromise with the South”, which became known as “The Chicago Platform”. They nominated General McClellan for the Presidency on the following declaration of principles:

Resolved… that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

Resolved… that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.

Resolved… that the direct interference of the military authorities of the United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and a repetition of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and resisted with all the means and power under our control.

Resolved… that the aim and object of the Democratic party are to preserve the federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired ; and they hereby declare that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the subversion of the civil by the military laws in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The democratic party was not fit to run this country in 1864. And, the democratic party is not fit to run this country in 2006, either.

It’s time to call the a spade a spade (if I can say that without having to publically apologize, and go to rehab), and call the anti-war on terror Democrat Party members and the looney left what they are: Copperheads.

Wikipedia: The Copperheads were a faction of Democrats in the North who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. The name Copperheads was given to them by their opponents the Republicans, probably derived from the venomous snake (the American copperhead) that strikes without warning — Copperheads reinterpreted this insult as a term of honor, and wore copper liberty-head coins as badges. They were also called “Peace Democrats” and “Butternuts“. The most famous Copperhead was Ohio’s Clement L. Vallandigham, who was a vehement opponent of Lincoln‘s policies.

7
Feb

Concerning Rudy

   Posted by: Aurelius

Captain’s Quarters has a piece that nicely summarizes Rudy Giuliani’s place in the race for the Republican nomination.

John Podhoretz explains the surprising popularity of Rudy Giuliani in the early stages of the 2008 presidential primary campaign, writing that Republicans want to like Rudy — if he’ll let them. In his New York Post column, Podhoretz notes more than a few of the hurdles that Giuliani faces, but insists that neither conservatives nor Giuliani want to go to war over them:

Republicans not only like Rudy, they want to like him. Conservative Republicans want to like him. Socially conservative Republicans want to like him.

Rudy, by contrast, is trying to convince social conservatives that he’s their friend. They disagree on certain matters, he’ll say, but on the key issue of our time – the struggle of the West against Islamic extremism – they’ll never have a better or more staunch ally and leader.

And while his personal views on some issues may differ from theirs, he’ll appoint judges in the manner of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito – which is, in the end, most of what a president can do to support the ideas in which social conservatives deeply believe.

One of the arguments for supporting a moderate is that moderates have a better chance of winning general elections. Hillary Clinton knows that, which is why she antagonized the left-wing activist base of her party to build centrist credentials during her term in the Senate. They generally have a tough time in the primaries, however, because of real or perceived indifference or outright hostility to the party base. In Rudy’s case, we haven’t seen that kind of hostility, unlike John McCain in some instances where his frustration with conservatives got the best of him. Rudy doesn’t apologize for his positions, but he casts them in such a way as to build a consensus for leadership as the overriding consideration in the primaries.

I don’t agree with Giuliani on every issue.  But then, I didn’t agree with Reagan on every issue, either.  Rudy’s position on most issues correspond to mine.  One of the most important is the continued appointment of Constructionist judges to the Supreme Court.  He agrees that Border Security is paramount (though I would like to hear more details on what to do with the illegals already here).  His position on abortion is that the current law is established, but I gather that he would prefer that it be a matter left to the states.  He is law and order – just look at the change in New York city during his tenure.  And most of all, he has a sense of humor, and does not seem to take himself way too seriously.  And best of all, as a product of New York politics, any skeletons in his closet have long been exposed, and he has been on the national stage for years.

He is not my perfect candidate.  I truly wish that Newt Gingrich has a real chance in the race.  But Rudy seems to have the qualities that we need right now.  And, as a bonus, he can give the left a true fight for the state of New York’s electoral votes.

31
Jan

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up…

   Posted by: Aurelius

Just DAYS after the Left had apoplectic fits over George Bush leaving the “-ic” off when referring to the Democrat Party, they local branch of that party proves his point (though he spinelessly denies it, and claims it was a honest mistake – oh well, my opinion of Mr. Bush is not glowing).

As Stefan Sharkansky noted over at Sound Politics noted yesterday:

The Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee holds a “public hearing” at 1:30pm today on several bills designed to cripple the people’s Constitutional right to initiative:

SB 5181 – Requiring signature gatherers to wear identification.
SB 5182 – Requiring signature gatherers to sign initiative and referendum petitions.
SB 5356 – Prohibiting payment of petition signature gatherers on a per-signature basis.
SB 5392 – Increasing the initiative filing fee.
SB 5418 – Requiring ballot titles to indicate tax consequences of the ballot measure.
SJR 8205 – Relating to the constitutional provisions regarding initiatives and referendums.

Most members of the public whose rights these bills aim to vaporize are too busy working to attend the hearing. But Tim Eyman, whom the anti-citizen coup-plotters in the permanent government love to hate, will be there. Watch live on TVW.

Thus proving that there is little, if anything “Democratic” about the party that calls itself “Democrat”, any more than the “Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea” deserves appellation of Democratic OR Republic. But isn’t it funny that the farther left, and intolerant of dissent a movement goes, the more it tries to garb itself in the name “Democratic”, to try to hide their true intent?

31
Jan

Obama in Wonderland

   Posted by: Aurelius

Courtesy of Examiner.Com:

Although he frequently makes a point of finding something charitable to say about his opponents’ arguments, Sen. Barack Obama almost always ends up voting liberal.

“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year.

In my life to date, I have been able to have rational, reasonably unemotional conversations with (to the best of my recollection) 5 “liberals”.  In every other case, the conversations either begin or (fairly quickly) end with an increase in volume, and lowering of actual “reason and fact” into cliche and epithets.

In fact, I am disturbed that the left uses the phrase “Liberal” to describe itself, since the broad definition of Liberal means:

showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions”

The Left is ANYTHING but tolerant.  No dissent is tolerated from party line.  You are part of THEIR SOLUTION, or you are part of the problem.

Not sure where Reason and Fact enter into it…

29
Jan

Democrat Party Wants To Revisit Past Glory

   Posted by: Aurelius

From the Christian Science Monitor:

As the Senate begins a debate this week on whether to oppose President Bush’s “new way forward” in Iraq, many lawmakers are balancing what they see as competing constitutional responsibilities – and stepped up pressure from voters long weary of a war that most Americans no longer think can be won.A first step is the debate over a non binding resolution to oppose the escalation of the war in Iraq. But should that vote succeed, Democrats expect to move next to curb defense funding.

You must remember that because of the Seniority system, the majority of Congressman and Senators in true positions of power now are from the 60′s generation. They remember the heady days when they were young, blooming flower children, protesting the war in Vietnam. Some of them were even in the House and Senate at the time.

And when the Democrat Party gained power in the early 70′s, the used it to quickly cut off funding to the South Vietnamese government, ensuring the triumph of the North Vietnamese, and through them, their overlords from the Soviet Union.

In the ensuing spasms of falling dominoes, more than 2 Million people died, and entire nations were devastated.

Not content with their past glory, the fellow travellers want one more sip from the well.

Of course, despite the best efforts of the Commissars of the Education Unions, many Americans can still read and, more importantly, think. Many can still remember the after effects of the last time the Democrat Party cut and ran.

“But Democrats also have this internal debate over just how far they can go. They are still afraid of being perceived by the American people as being antitroops or antipatriotic,” he adds. A strong showing from antiwar voters – expressed in e-mails, phone calls, or turnout at protests – “could provide an extra prod for Democrats to go that step further,” Mr. (pollster John) Zogby adds.

So they will tiptoe into this, with their eager supporters repeating the same winning strategy from the 60′s, holding protests, and gleaning as much coverage from the like minded media as they can, in an attempt to indoctrinate the supporters of the action in Iraq that they are in the minority, and should either opppose the war, or shut up.

But if the Democrat Party members in Washington think they can do this slow and stealthy, they are going to find the true moon-bat wing of their party forcing their hand.

“The president is irrelevant at this point. We are not going to change his mind. Thank goodness we have a Congress that is a co-equal branch of government,” says Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War and a former Democratic representative from Maine.

“We’re going to use the Internet to make it absolutely clear who is doing what. Members of Congress need to know that we have their back when they’re attacked, and if they are against us, they will feel the heat.”

How many millions will die this time, due to the failure of the Democrat Party to recognize that Appeasement and Defeatism only emboldens totalitarians and religious extremists?

How can it be that the Party that enthusiastically slaughtered Christians in Waco, cannot recognize the same type of megalomania in Iran and other Muslim extremist leaders?

26
Dec

Willing Suspension Of Reality

   Posted by: Aurelius

Speaking of Lies…

Bill Whittle over at Eject! Eject! Eject! has a great piece on the Slogans/Beliefs common on the Left of the spectrum, and the rebuttals for each.

Here’s a couple of points, condensed for your reading pleasure:

The Chickenhawk argument

If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

No Blood for Oil!

What would a real “war for oil” look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.
End U.S. Imperialism Now!

Look, the whole point of having an empire is to take the wealth out of the colonies and return them to enrich the home country. The US not only does not pull in the resources of other nations…it does exactly the reverse. We pump billions and billions of dollars annually into those nations that host our facilities, and the minute any one of those nations decides we are no longer welcome, we pack our bags, leave and turn those billion-dollar institutions over to the host country.

Give Peace a ChanceSounds reasonable to me. How much of a chance? Three years? Five? Ten years? See, now you’re playing me for an idiot.

Bush Lied, People Died.

Here is a pretty decent encapsulation of what both Republicans and Democrats had to say about Saddam and WMD’s. You will find Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s rhetoric somewhat less adamant and warlike than that of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and all the rest. These were elected representatives who studied the same intelligence that the White House did, and came to the same conclusion.

Unfortunately for them, Al Gore in his unbridled enthusiasm went and invented the Internet, and so now there is a record of what they said and when, available to the great unwashed masses. It shows a group of people deeply concerned about what was a pressing threat to this country. And now, almost all of them claim they were lied to?

Pop over to Bill’s blog to read the whole piece! You’ll be glad you did. Unless you are a Liberal/Watermelon/Media-Described-Moderate/America Hater/Sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome… Fair warning is given…

Page 4 of 41234