An Insane Republican Cave-in

March 7, 2010 | war on terror

Fox News reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he would help the White House convince his fellow Republicans to support closing Guantanamo Bay if President Obama reverses course and sends the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind and his co-conspirators to military tribunals. 

The South Carolina Republican is considered to be a key player in the administration’s strategy to close the detainee camp at Guantanamo. He supports shuttering the facility but opposes trying the alleged architects of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in civilian court. 

One more reason why I am not looking forward to a Republican Majority in November. These guys are as stupid as the Democrats are.

WHY would Graham give away this compromise? Obama HAS to try KSM by military tribunal. He has no choice, at this point…now, however, it looks to the public that he has come to an agreement on the point, and, now, it makes the Republicans complicite in the closing of Guantanamo…really brilliant, Lindsay. We should all drop  him a note and thank him for getting Obama out of a bind on this.

Healthcare is Not the Issue; Democracy is

March 6, 2010 | Uncategorized

Mark Steyn makes a very good point, in his current column; the healthcare issue not about healthcare, it is about government control. That is why we have to fight

Why is he doing this? Why let “health” “care” “reform” stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?

Because it’s worth it. Big time. I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative”). The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

There are two distinct strains of political philosophy that are driving the debate in America today, Federalism and Democacy.  While these strains have been present ever since the founding of our Republic, the differences have never been as sharply defined as they are, now.

The political elite is the same as the wealthy and ‘educated’ elite in any country. They want a strong central government, in order that they can impose their own vision of the world. As with the Federalists in the early American Republic, they do not trust the masses; they feel that they are the only ones who know what is best for the country, and the people, and the people better listen to them, because they are smarter than the common man. That is basically the position of the Democratic party, today. This is not an opinion; read Bill Maher and Joe Kline, two very Liberal columnists who feel the American public are too stupid to understand the issues, and need to be forced to do what needs to be done.

The opposite side are those who believe that Democracy is better than tyranny precisely because the wisdom of the people is superior to the ‘wisdom’ of an educated class of elites who do not have to justify the failure of their policies over and over again. I am of the latter class, and believe it is this wisdom of the people over the elites which has made this country great.

That is why this healthcare issue is important…because, as Mark Steyn suggests, if we lose this fight, we allow a major web of government control to be inserted into the body politic. Once it is in, once it is law, it will not be removed…and we are well under the way to the failed social experiment that Europe tried and lost…and that every other country with a totalitarian government has experienced.

Sometimes You Have To Fight

February 27, 2010 | war

I have a friend who is married, with children. He was telling me, the other day, about his six year old son. Now, my friend is not a pacifist. He just doesn’t like guns, though, and tried to keep guns, and stories about guns, away from his son. One day, however, totally out of the blue, his son came up to him, with his index finger extended, his thumb up, and said, “bang.” 

There have been in the history of mankind, most likely, six  year old girls who have, spontaneously, cocked their index fingers and said ‘bang’ to their mothers and fathers. If so, I have never heard of such an expression. I daresay, I doubt if anyone reading this have ever heard of a girl making a gun and pretending to shoot someone. As I said, I am sure it happens. In the realm of human experience, anything is possible…but for a girl to do this would be unusual. For a boy not to do this would be unusual. 

For some reason, boys play in terms of competition and war. It seems to be hardwired into their brains. While I am quite certain that, before the invention of pistols, young boys did not cock their index finger and say ‘bang,’ I am quite certain that young boys have always figured out ways to simulate weapons, if they did not have a real weapon with which to play. It is as much as being a boy, and being a man, as is anything else. 

Men love war. There were times and places where men were not afraid to say so, and other times where they were, but one of the few constants that exist in the history of mankind is that wars happen, and there has never been a lack of people around to fight those wars. Men volunteer to fight in droves, at the beginning of any war, seeking the thrill and excitement associated with the fighting, the uniforms, the saluting, drilling, the ability to make big explosions and destroy everything that can be seen….in other words, everything else associated with war. 

This impulse towards violence seems to be capable of being re-directed, as the level of civilization increases. A prosperous, economically well-off culture rarely goes out to seek a fight with another culture. While, even in these cultures, there are always males who seek the thrill of combat and destruction (the reason why police are always needed), most males seem to be able to channel their destructive impulses to vicarious enjoyment of others trying to kill each other, watching football, kick-boxing and watching John Wayne on the tellie, for instance, or taking out their aggression on business rivals. This gives us hope for a future time when war is a thing of the past. 

We do not live in that world, yet, however, and no matter how comfortable we feel in our home, watching the Red Sox cream the Yankees one more time, there are people out there who are not living a cultured, comfortable life, and those people have no problem with the idea of killing others. These are uncivilized males, barbarians, if you will, living in primitive societies who have not been given an alternative to war and killing. They have, historically, been the bane of civilizations. It is not that civilizations have been brought down by barbarians, in the past, but barbarians have always been at the edges of civilization, waiting for those civilizations to become so indulgent as to ignore their outer defenses. At that point, barbarians invariably take advantage of the weaknesses of the defenses, and pour through the breaches to take the civilization from within. 

We see this happening in Europe where, at the end of World War II, Europe essentially disarmed, under the assumption that civilized people do not prepare for war. The logical result is that Iran feels no compunction about taking British soldiers hostage, while British warships are standing by. Britain appeals to the European community for help, and the European community does nothing, because it can do nothing. While they excoriate the United States for doing their work for them, they cannot do anything without working with the strength of the United States. They are a self-made paper tiger, without the will and the strength to defend themselves. It is a consequence of civilization, that living becomes so much more pleasant than dying that one would do anything to live…even to giving up ones freedom and sovereignty. Few people understand what Stan Rogers, the famous Canadian Folk Singer, once wrote, in his song “Harris and the Mare,”  “That to call myself a man, for my loved one I must stand/Sometimes you have to fight to be a man.

Mr. Washington

February 22, 2010 | america, washinton's birthday

Today is the anniversary of the birth of our first President, George Washington. We, as a nation, have chosen not to celebrate this day special and apart from any other President, and I would be the last to disparage the collective judgment of the American people on a subject such as this. Personally think the day to be important, and thus I would like to say a few words about a man who I consider to be a personal, albeit long dead, friend.

 The fact is, I like Mr. Washington. He turned out to be the perfect choice for our first General, and our First President, not to mention the title “father of our country.” He represents, to me, everything for which this country was founded, and everything for which we, as a people, should strive. He was, in today’s parlance, a ‘righteous dude,’ a person who lived an amazing life. The sad part, to me, about the lack of interest the people of the United States show in their history is that they miss the joy of reading of the lives of such extraordinary people. We find many doubting that anyone was, in fact, extraordinary, and even try to disparage them, and bring them down to earth.

 There are, however, people in history for whom the more one studies, the better that person becomes, people without peer, without fault. Winston Churchill was such a person, to me. Abraham Lincoln, another…and there are many more people can find whose lives are worth emulating. It is not that they were, in fact, perfect; I am sure Churchill, at some point in his life, picked his nose, or had impure thoughts about a woman or other…Abraham Lincoln was prone to deep depressions, and, for one year of his life, after the death of his first true love, Anne Rutledge, was most likely, from any definition, insane.

 These people lived exemplary lives, nevertheless. They did not have affairs. They did not seek gain at the expense of others. They devoted their lives, heart and honor to the public good. Few of us can live up to those standards, which is why they should be held up as examples to be followed. People need those examples, to show that it is possible.

 Thus we have George Washington. To me, Mr. Washington was a cross between John Wayne and David Niven; a man born to be an aristocrat, who did not shirk from living a harsh life in the wilderness, when called upon to do so, who never shrank from a fight, if there was any chance of winning, who often lost, but never gave up, and carried every enterprise he started to the end, one way or another. He is a man who I would have been proud to be, a man to whom I would have been proud to have been considered a friend, a man whose good opinion I would have treasured and honored above all.

 Mr. Washington was born in 1731. At the age of 16, he was sent, as a surveyor, into the wilderness West of the Blue Ridge Mountain, an uncharted land still inhabited by hostile Indians. A year later, at the age of 17, he was appointed chief surveyor of the newly formed Culpepper county. As district adjutant, which made (December 1752) him Major Washington at the age of 20, he was charged with training the militia in the quarter assigned him. Such a rise in responsibility was evidence of the regard in which he was held by his peers.

 In 1753, the French and Indian War began, and Mr. Washington fired among the first shots in this war. He was sent to tell the French to leave the Ohio Valley. When they refused, he attacked a small force of Frenchmen, killing an envoy sent to demand that he leave the area. In 1755, he was with a British expedition, under General Braddock, which was defeated at the Monogahela; Mr. Washington distinguished himself, having two horses shot out from under him, and his clothes holed by many bullets. His reward was, at the age of 24, to be appointed commander in chief of Virginia forces, and spent the next three years fighting a savage warfare, averaging two engagements a month with inadequate forces and few supplies.

 He was, thus, the obvious choice for commander in chief of the American armies when the American Revolution came about. He had more experience commanding troops in combat than anyone else, and was respected by all who knew him.

 Mr. Washington’s greatness as a military commander was not because of his skills as a military commander. He was, in fact, trounced by the British in almost every engagement where he faced organized British troops. His greatness stems from the fact that he did not quit, through some very bad times, and that he kept the army together when many counseled defeat and surrender. Though expressing discouragement, often, in his private letters, he was, in public, the soul of inspiration, a man who soldiers would follow through bitter weather and defeat. Of course, in the end, he led his army to victory against the British…and there was no one else who the nation could think to vote for the first President of the United States than Mr. George Washington. We owe him, above all others, the gratitude for the survival of our revolution.

 So it is hard for me to not like the man. He was a man of the people, a man who could have lived his life in aristocratic splendor, but chose the hard life of a soldier…not for glory so much as because that was the type of man he was. He was a hard drinker, a fighter, a man who I am positive had a vigorous love life before he met his wife (what woman could resist a handsome young man such as that, who had wealth and land), but whose marriage was never stained with the hint of dishonor. His life, in fact, was never stained with a hint of dishonor. He was a man who we can and should emulate, as a people, and one whose life can stand as a symbol of the best to which we aspire to the rest of the world.

 It seems shameful that there is a national holiday to another man, but none to our First President.  I can only hope that some day we choose, again, to recognize the contribution of Mr. Washington to this country by restoring, to him, a day in his honor.

 Thank you Mr. Washington, for our country. May God bless you, and may your name forever be remembered by the grateful descendants of your efforts.

Keeping Us Safe

February 20, 2010 | iran

When will the American public get ANGRY? This pissant is STILL pushing a healthcare plan that no one wants and his minions in Congress are threatening to force it through despite public opposition….and now we hear that Iran ‘might be developing a nuclear warhead. Mark Steyn replies:

In Iran, the self-declared nuclear regime announced that it was now enriching uranium to 20 percent. When President Obama took office, the Islamic Republic had 400 centrifuges enriching up to 3.5 percent. A year later, it has 8,000 centrifuges enriching to 20 percent. The CIA director, Leon Panetta, now cautiously concedes that Iran’s nuclear ambitions may have a military purpose. Which is odd, because the lavishly funded geniuses behind America’s National Intelligence Estimate told us only two years ago that Tehran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Is that estimate no longer operative? And, if so, could we taxpayers get a refund?

This is a perfect snapshot of the West at twilight. On the one hand, governments of developed nations micro-regulate every aspect of your life in the interests of “keeping you safe.” If you’re minded to flip a pancake at speeds of more than four miles per hour, the state will step in and act decisively: It’s for your own good. If you’re a tourist from Moose Jaw, Washington will take preemptive action to shield you from the potential dangers of your patio in Arizona.

On the other hand, when it comes to “keeping you safe” from real threats, such as a millenarian theocracy that claims universal jurisdiction, America and its allies do nothing. There aren’t going to be any sanctions, because China and Russia don’t want them. That means military action, which would have to be done without U.N. backing — which, as Greg Sheridan of the Australian puts it, “would be foreign to every instinct of the Obama administration.” Indeed. Nonetheless, Washington is (all together now) “losing patience” with the mullahs. The New York Daily News reports the latest get-tough move: “Secretary of State Clinton dared Iran on Monday to let her hold a town-hall meeting in Tehran.”

Yes, Bush had his responsibility, too…but he isn’t in charge, now, is he, and will Obama fall back on the fact that he was ‘just following the policies of the previous administration” as an excuse? If not, what WILL be his excuse when the first warhead goes off?

The Results of Voting For Amateurs to run the Government are Predictable

February 19, 2010 | democracy

Charles Krauthammer, as usual, goes to the central point in our current Washington gridlock; while the President’s supporters have come up with excuse after excuse, even suggestions that Americans are too stupid to understand, for the failure of a once popular President who enjoys an unbreakable monopoly in Congress to pass any significant legislation, he points out that other Presidents have managed to do so. The problem is not difficult to understand; it is the leadership

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

It’s 2010 and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health care reform — lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: “America the Ungovernable.” So declared Newsweek. “Is America Ungovernable?” coyly asked The New Republic. Guess the answer.

From the Economist:

America’s political structure was designed to make legislation at the federal level difficult, not easy. Its founders believed that a country the size of America is best governed locally, not nationally. True to this picture, several states have pushed forward with health-care reform. The Senate, much ridiculed for antique practices like the filibuster and the cloture vote, was expressly designed as a “cooling” chamber, where bills might indeed die unless they commanded broad support.

Broad support from the voters is something that both the health bill and the cap-and-trade bill clearly lack. Democrats could have a health bill tomorrow if the House passed the Senate version. Mr Obama could pass a lot of green regulation by executive order. It is not so much that America is ungovernable, as that Mr Obama has done a lousy job of winning over Republicans and independents to the causes he favours. If, instead of handing over health care to his party’s left wing, he had lived up to his promise to be a bipartisan president and courted conservatives by offering, say, reform of the tort system, he might have got health care through; by giving ground on nuclear power, he may now stand a chance of getting a climate bill. Once Mr Clinton learned the advantages of co-operating with the Republicans, the country was governed better.

This is not a difficult problem to understand. It is the result of  62 million STUPID Americans vote for an amateur with no experience and no accomplishments to run THE most complicated government in the world. That is the basis of the problem. Everything else stems from that, and until the American public wakes up and understands that running a major government is NOT the place for amateurs, then maybe they ARE too stupid to understand.

Army Investigates Additional Muslim Terrorism

February 18, 2010 | war on terror

Fox News reports:

The U.S. Army is investigating allegations that soldiers were attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina.The ongoing probe began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, told Fox News.

The Army is taking the allegations “extremely seriously,” Grey said, but so far, “there is no credible information to support the allegations.”

Five suspects, detained in December, were part of an Arabic translation program called “09 Lima” and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim. It wasn’t clear whether they were still being held.

We, the American public need to see these allegations. Is the army under assault by domestic terrorists? On what basis were the allegations made in the first place

US Captures Top Taliban Leader

February 15, 2010 | pakistan, war on terror

Fox reports:

The Taliban’s top military commander was captured in a joint operation by U.S. and Pakistani forces in Karachi and is being questioned in the same city, sources confirmed to Fox News late Monday.Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is the most important Taliban figure to be caught since the war in Afghanistan began. He is close to the Islamic group’s spiritual leader Mullah Muhammad Omar and to Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.

If this is true, it is great news…for a  lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it was a joint American-Pakistani operation.

Now, if we can POSSIBLY interrogate him BEFORE reading him his Miranda rights, we MIGHT find Usama bin Laden…

The United States (and the World) Ride Off Into the Sunset

February 5, 2010 | american ideals

Victor Davis Hanson once again goes to the central problem facing the world, at this moment in history:

The world’s masses — most of them young, poor and non-Western — may applaud a hip, post-racial Barack Obama more than they ever would an old-money Texan like Bush. Obama may give soaring Wilsonian speeches abroad and be crowned with the Noble Peace Prize for his anointed vision of a new global brotherhood.

But, unfortunately, national leaders themselves do not behave like excited concertgoers or European intellectuals. Instead, they have only long-term self-interests — not temporary emotional crushes — and so seek to expand their influence whenever they can.

Obama better understand that difference. A world without strong U.S. leadership really would become a far more dangerous place where the strong do as they please and the weak obey as they must.

A very important point. A world without strong U.S. leadership is a dangerous place. We have lived with a ‘Pax Americana’ since the end of WWII; there have been wars, but the tensions have been contained, because the United States has been stronger than any coalition of enemies combined. Without that strength and leadership, bad guys flourish. As I have written, in a previous post:

In his The Case For Goliath: How America Acts As The World’s Government in the Twenty-first Century, Michael Mandelbaum suggests a different role for the United States than that of ‘imperialist’ or empire, or even “the world’s policeman.” Mandelbaum suggests that the United States is, more and more, functioning as the government of the world.

The National Problem

February 3, 2010 | american ideals

The first step invovled in solving a problem is understanding what the problem is…and it is very important that we all understand that the Democratic Party is NOT the Liberal party of Hubert Humphrey and Jack Kennedy…that party was rational and patriotic. What we are dealing with, today, are Communists, masquerading as Democrats. They do not understand Capitalism, Democracy or freedom. They favor centralized government control…a model which has NEVER worked, but favors those in power.

I went to the Republican Caucus,  here, in Minnesota, tonight…and the point I made was that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is principle. Democrats do not have principles. Republicans do…though Republicans do not often follow those principles. When Republicans do not maintain their principles, they lose, as was seen in 2008

Dennis Prager spoke to the Republican Party, and defined the problem very succinctly:

I would like show you some of the large themes involved in your present work.

First theme: It is harder to sell truths than to sell falsehoods.

It is very easy to say, “Vote for us and we will give you, we will give you, we will give you.” It is much harder to advocate what is right and to say, “Vote for us, but no, we won’t give you” — even though that is the more moral and the more American position. So you have the far more difficult task.

Second theme: You are not fighting liberals. You are fighting the Left. Democrats were once liberals. But you are not fighting liberals any longer. You are fighting the Left. And as leftists, they do not like to confront reality, even if it means rewriting it.

Third theme: Most people on the Left are True Believers. This is critical to understand. They are willing to lose Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are prepared to lose both houses to get this through. Why? Because losing an election cycle means nothing compared to taking over more of the American economy.

And finally, theme four: I have a motto that I offer to you because this is the ultimate moral case for us: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple — though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”