Truth and Consistency

I Don’t Carry Water

It appeared to me the other day, and a reader commented on the fact, that I may seem inconsistent in my views on some issues. One reason for this, in my opinion, is that I don’t, as Rush Limbaugh would say, “carry water” for any one party or even for one ideology. True, I lean right on many vital issues, like defense, the economy, and on the issue of gay marriage; but I lean left on issues like the environment, stem cell research, social engineering, and gay rights. This mixture means that a far-left or far-right person will not find comfort in my views. They won’t have a “home” as they would with Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter on the far right, or Keith Olberman, Al Franken and Stephanie Miller on the far left.

Nobody Owns the Truth

It’s even more than this though. I stand for truth, which can be confusing, and even inconsistent. No one party or ideology owns the truth. I know that Bill O’Reilly tries to do something similar. What he does is to seek balance. He says, as does the whole FOX network, that they are “fair and balanced.” I am not fair and balanced. On some issues there are shades of grey, so it is important on these issues to be fair and balanced. For example, the Iraq war is one such issue. I am for the war in Iraq; you may be against it. Therefore, it’s important that I, as a blogger seeking truth, present both sides of the issue, or at least be open to the fact that I may be wrong. I will seek your comments showing why I am wrong.

Other issues are black and white, though. Like demagoguery, in my opinion. Saying Bush lied about Iraq is just false. He said the same things all the Democrats were saying at the time, based on the best information they had. They believed, like Bush, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and so on. Bush might have been misled. But, he didn't lie. Black and white.

My Inconsistent Feelings about Democrats and Liberals

One issue where I know I seem inconsistent is my feelings about Democrats and liberals. On this matter, there are some areas of my judgment of them that are appropriately “grey,” and other areas that I feel are “black and white.”

click to show/hide the rest of the post

I have been consistent in saying that I believe true “classical” liberalism and progressivism are philosophies that have some merit. If a liberal or Democrat really believes in these views, they are just disagreeing with me on some very important issues. I won’t demonize them for this. I can admit that they are patriots, love America, and want good things for the world. We just disagree on how to get those good things.

I’ve also been consistent in my opposite feelings about liberals and Democrats, though. I don’t feel that most of them today are “classic” liberals and Democrats. I look around at the Democratic Party of today and see only liars and charlatans, demagogues of the worst order. There are no FDR’s or Harry Truman’s or John F. Kennedy’s. Instead, you have the demagogues Teddy Kennedy, Al Sharpton, and Charlie Rangel, to name a few. The only honorable Democrat I see who is prominent is Hispanic New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a man who should be president one day. Barack Obama seems almost honorable, in the fact that he is only slightly demagogic. You can hardly escape being a demagogue in the Democratic Party of today, so even he must tow the party line on some of their dishonorable positions.

What about the Party faithful? Most pundits don’t hold “the people” responsible for the views of their leaders. I am not so forgiving. I hold Iraqis responsible for the leaders they allow to lead them, like Saddam Hussein; I hold North Koreans responsible for keeping Kim Jung Il in power; just like I hold Americans responsible for ousting the British when we had our revolution, and in recent history we have elected George W. Bush to lead us, and now we’ve voted for the Democrats to lead Congress. We are responsible for the leaders we choose and support, and for those we throw out.

So, I hold people in the Democratic Party responsible for the views their party espouses. Since the Democrats are demagogues now, the Democratic Party faithful are culpable. I accept that their leaders are telling lies, which they swallow; yet, I believe they are still culpable, because it is up to every citizen to investigate political matters independently of their leaders.

Democrats have gotten to the point now where they take what is said on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or on Bill Maher’s show, or David Letterman, as truth, without question. They also are indiscriminate about their sources. They believe in the conspiracy theories of charlatans like Oliver Stone. They trust demagogues like Michael Moore. So, Democrats and liberals of today are guilty of not doing their homework and of being naïve.

Are Democrats and Liberals Good People?

Again, I am not so forgiving as other pundits. I believe if Democrats and liberals apply due diligence in coming to their conclusions, whether they be anti-war, anti-Iraq war, gay rights, anti-Bush, or whatever—then I can respect them. If, however, as I see all too often, Democrats and liberals merely parrot what they’ve heard on the shallow shows, like The Daily Show et al, then I believe they are shirking their responsibility in a democracy. A democracy can thrive only if its citizens are well informed and exercise sound judgment.

Why am I so tough on liberals? Because lives are at stake. Liberty is on the line. Our way of life is in jeopardy. We’d better be right about how we handle the war on terror, for example. I don’t want Bill Maher deciding for America what we ought to do about Iraq.

I will seem inconsistent because one day I’ll be talking about the good intentions of Democrats, and the goodness of “classic” liberalism and progressivism, and the next I’ll be slamming the Democrats, liberals and progressives of today for their demagoguery.

Truth Travels

I will seem inconsistent too because, simply, I seek the truth. Again, one day the Democrats will be proclaiming truth, and the next day the Republicans will be speaking truth. Neither party and no ideology owns the truth. The truth just is.

So, Republicans will not see me carrying water for them. Democrats, liberals and progressives will not find me seeing them as purely good people if they support demagoguery. Members of both parties, however, can find a home with me if they join me in seeking the truth, wherever it lies.

My Only Consistency is Seeking Truth

Of course, I agree that I don’t own the truth either. I present my version of it. On the other hand, I feel I am gifted with being able to discern the truth on many issues. Many of you will dispute me on this. You may be right, and I may be wrong, but that’s how I see it.

I see my consistency. I seek truth, period, wherever it lies. Yet, since truth travels, this leads to an appearance of inconsistency. I can’t help this. I will continue to call things as I see them, and you, my valuable readers, will do the same.

click to hide most of this post

A Time for Reflection

Now is the time for reflection and self-examination.

What do you want from your government?

What do you want to happen in Iraq? How can we achieve what you want there?

What do you want from Republicans now?

What do you want from Democrats?

What do you want for the economy, health care, the homeless, and so on?

What is your part in effecting all this, and making our country better?

When Demagogues become Statesmen, and Republicans become Republicans

The Zeitgeist

I’m trying to sense the zeitgeist of our present moment on this earth. The political will of America at this time seems to be saying, “It’s time to make the world a better place.” I think the need for blame is gone with this election. The U.S., and the world, are looking for solutions.

We want to find a solution for the war in Iraq, for terrorism, for the Israeli-Palestinian problem, for global warming, and for globalization. I think we are tired of the same old cycles. We want something done.

Demagogues, Corruption and Broken Promises

The Democrats, the party of lies and demagoguery, won this election fair and square, with their lies and demagoguery. The Republicans, the party of truth, lost this election with their corruption and broken promises. This can be a time of spiritual awakening for both parties. They can both “go straight.” The Democrats, now that they have power, can choose to stop being demagogues. The Republicans, now that they’ve reaped their karma, can choose to become Republicans.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Historic Opportunity

I think the election of the Democrats gives all of us an opportunity to look at things afresh. Fortunately, incoming Speaker of the House Pelosi seems to be taking her newfound power with some restraint. On the other hand, when you watch her opposite George Bush you can see in her eyes, words and demeanor that she is still out to conquer him. This woman is tough. I get the sense that she’d leave a baby to fend for itself on the side of a road if she found out the baby was a Republican. I suppose this is natural for a politician, but I’d rather she shed her demagogic tendencies entirely. There is no need now to continue to go for the jugular. She could make the transformation from political thug to statesman, and then all would be forgiven.

Democrats now have an historic opportunity. They have political capital with their followers, and even with the world. They can spend that capital by attacking and trying to obliterate their fallen opponents, or they can spend it by helping to solve some of the world’s problems.

Nixon visited China in 1972. This was an astounding event at the time, given that the United States and China, in fact the United States and the whole communist world, were the deepest of enemies in the Cold War of that era. Nixon was the biggest anti-Communist around, and the Republican Party was the anti-Communist Party. This is why only Nixon could have gone to China. He had the political capital to make such a gesture. The same kind of logic a short time ago meant that only Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the “lion of the desert,” could make peace with the Palestinians by dismantling Israeli settlements. He had the cache to give away land whereas none of the peaceniks could ever get away with such a thing.

Perception and Reality

Democrats, rightly or wrongly, have built a cache for being open to peace, open to dialogue, open to international cooperation. Republicans can point and say that the terrorists are overjoyed that the Democrats have taken power in the U.S. This is most assuredly true. It is also true that much of the world rejoices in the Democratic win. Republicans know that the world rejoices because Democrats have been just as anti-American as the world has been.

Still, no matter how the Democrats got here, they’re here. They did not get here honorably, but look what corruption the Republicans engaged in. All of this can change now anyway.

A New Beginning

The Republicans can clean house and begin acting nobly again, and the Democrats can stop being demagogues. The fact is, the Democrats have no choice. They are the ones in power now, so there will be no one to blame in the future for national mistakes, other than Democrats.

My hope is that Democrats will simply start standing up for liberalism, if this is the philosophy they really believe in. I similarly hope that Republicans will simply stand up for conservatism. Then, given their opposing view of the world, they will both try to help solve the world’s problems.

The Democrats, with their newfound power and political capital, can afford to seek true solutions. The Republicans must earn our trust again.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Democratic Congress versus Republican President

The Challenge for Democrats

Democrats will be challenged in the next two years by tugs in different directions. They will want to do a good job for the American people so that they are re-elected in 2008 and gain the presidency. One group of pragmatists, represented by Tim Walz, Minnesota Representative-elect, believe that the American public voted for “healing.” Americans want, according to Walz, a time to recover from a broken government riddled with bad policies and corruption. On the other hand, several other new Democrats are ideologues, similar to their Republican counterparts that took office in 1994, who led the Republican Revolution and produced the Contract with America. That era ushered in a more conservative America in many ways, leading to such things as tax cuts and a more hawkish attitude towards defense.

The goals of the present Democrats already contain contradictions. The next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for example, wants fiscal responsibility. She would like to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, using a “pay as you go” system of funding. Yet, already, she and several Democrats will be pushing for things like making college tuition tax deductible, cutting student loan interest rates, increased health care coverage, funding embryonic stem cell research, and a national cap on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. All these worthy programs cost a lot of money.

The Democratic theory is that they will pay for all this, and more, by getting rid of “tax cuts for the rich.” They also want to make life more fair by raising the minimum wage.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Republicans versus Democrats on the Economy

The Republicans believe that Democrats will be raising taxes on everyone, not just the rich. They judge that raising taxes even just on the “rich” will hurt the economy, killing the goose that laid the golden egg—which is the present robust economic situation, with low unemployment and the highest stock market in history. Republicans believe that raising the minimum wage will also hurt business.

Democrats counter that yes there are plenty of jobs, but that they are “Wallmart jobs,” low-paying with low benefits and no unions. Democrats believe that raising the minimum wage will not hurt business. In fact, they point to the Henry Ford theory that paying workers a livable wage will enable them to buy more products, hence helping business.

In addition, Democrats will want to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare patients; do something about industrial job loss overseas; and fight President Bush on any privatization of Social Security.

Presidential Power and Investigations

Bush will continue to try to strengthen presidential powers, an area where Democrats think Bush already has grabbed too much.

Several Democrats want investigations into missteps in the war, treatment of terrorism detainees and Bush's expansion of executive power. Pelosi is more moderate on this. She rejects out of hand, for example, any impeachment proceedings against Bush. She was pleased that Bush accepted the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Iraq

On Iraq, Democrats clearly look for withdrawal, and place some hope in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group—led by James A. Baker III, former secretary of state, and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton. The Baker crowd and others like Condoleeza Rice, considered to be pragmatists, now have the President’s ear, as opposed to the hawkish Neo-Cons like Rumsfeld and Cheney, who were the most influential advisors up until this election.

The Baker report is expected to present two alternative policies. Redeploy and Contain calls for the phased withdrawal of US troops to bases near Iraq where they could be redeployed against new threats, such as an emerging terrorist organization, anywhere in the region. Stability First calls for maintaining a presence in Baghdad and encouraging insurgents to enter the political arena, while Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, would be asked to help end the fighting.

The Democrats also want to enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

My Predictions

Pelosi and the Democrats will try to be on their best behavior, so corruption will actually go way down in government for awhile, which is great. Republicans were disgraceful in this area.

Pelosi will be able to enforce fiscal responsibility with her colleagues until the 2008 elections; but then, after they have retained their majority, their Democratic instincts will overwhelm them and they will begin enacting their social and economic agendas, and will raise taxes significantly across the board. This will hurt the “little people” that they say they love.

On the other hand, I don’t think raising the minimum wage will hurt the American economy or business as much as is feared. I actually do believe in the Henry Ford theory—that raising worker’s wages will help them buy more products, which helps business eventually.

I don’t know what the Democrats, though, can do about Wallmart and the globalization of the economy. They want to re-investigate our trade agreements. Can we go back to protectionism? Can you put the runaway horse back in the barn? I somehow doubt it.

I don’t mind Democrats letting us buy prescription drugs from Canada, which is a free-market solution to drug prices. I would mind, though, if they engage in price caps. This is tampering with the economy with socialism, and leads to bleak economics, again hurting the “little people” eventually.

As far as Iraq goes, I have high hopes for the Baker commission. Both their solutions seem feasible. Plus, if you noticed, I proposed one of their solutions in an earlier post.

As far as investigations against Bush and Republicans, I say cool it Dems. Americans just want the mess to stop. They are not in the mood for congressional hearings and righteous indignation. Just stay clean and try sincerely to solve our problems.

As far as your agenda goes, Madam Speaker, congratulations. This is the first time I've heard a Democratic agenda in years. I may not agree with all of it, but at least now we know your intentions, and we can debate them.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Did Conservatism Take a Thumpin'?

Republicans Lose the Super Bowl of Elections

The day after the Super Bowl fans remember the winning team as being the “victors” and the losing team as “losers.” It doesn’t matter what the score was, or who was ahead most of the game. It is not important if the winning points were scored in the last second or the last twenty minutes. It is of no concern if the last score came on a 100-yard returned punt, or a two-inch quarterback sneak. The winning team are the champions, and the losing team are failures.

So, too, in elections. The victors this election are the Democrats, and the losers the Republicans. The “game” seemed like it was won in the last days before the election. It was won on a steady “ground attack” from about the 45-yardline of the Republicans, and it was an unstoppable march, but one that caught everyone by surprise with its scope and finality. The Democrats “scored” by taking the House, but then also “went for two” and got them, by taking the Senate also. They won by “2 points.” Not a big margin, but enough to earn the label of “champions,” and enough to gain control of the government—which is as good as a landslide.

Narrow Margin, Big Significance

Was it a “thumpin’.” No in terms of votes cast, but yes in terms of significance. Just as in the 1996 and 2000 presidential races, people remember George W. Bush as the winner, and Al Gore and John Kerry as the losers, even though Gore got more votes than Bush, and Kerry came close. Close doesn’t count. Close doesn’t matter in this race either.

On Tuesday, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. They won 29+ House seats, a bit below the expected six-year norm in a two-term presidency. They gained the Senate with a one-vote majority in a race capped by victories of 8,900 votes in Virginia and 2,500 in Montana. A switch of just 1,500 votes in Montana would have kept the Senate Republican.

Though the margin of victory was not large, the scope of it and its consistency across the nation does point to a vote of “no confidence” in this government, and on its core issue, the war in Iraq. In this sense, then, it really was a “thumpin’.” This is why Bush fired Rumsfeld the day after the vote. He got the message.

The question is, then, was this also a “thumpin’” for conservatism?

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Thumpin’ for Conservatism?

Republican losses included a sweeping defeat of moderate Republicans. The Republicans have ousted their country-club bluebloods, their Rockefeller Republicans and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). For example, after losing in this election, the pathetic “Republican” Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island even switched parties yesterday, becoming a Democrat after admitting he stayed a Republican during his last years in the Senate only because of his access to power. Sincere Republicans who voted for this fraud will remember him with disdain forever.

On the Democratic side, Representative Rahm Emanuel became the star of his party by recruiting many conservative Democratic candidates. Among others, there is the triumphant Senator-Elect Democrat Jim Webb from Virginia, former Secretary of the Navy, former Republican, and so very conservative on an array of issues. Plus, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax, and now a Democratic House member. And so on. Democrats have found religion, and gotten jiggy with it on other conservative values too. In Michigan, a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action won. Across the nation, seven of eight constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage were approved. Nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against eminent domain.

Who Won this Super Bowl?

What does all this mean? Both parties have moved to the right. Conservatism won this Super Bowl.

Who drove for the final score, the touchdown and extra two points of this game, really? It was Joe Lieberman, the unlikely quarterback of the winning conservative team. He is a moderate on most issues, and a conservative on others. He was “traded” by the liberals to the conservative side, and he got the ball and ran with it, dodging tacklers the whole last 45 yards down the field.

Lieberman won despite being open about seeking victory in Iraq, beating an anti-war Democrat and a Republican who siphoned off 10-percent of the pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state.











The Quarterback

Lieberman, though he is an independent now, will caucus with the Democrats, and is effectively the 51st Democratic vote for their new majority. He is the kingmaker. His leftist Democratic “friends” who abandoned him some months ago will now be courting him with flowers and cards.

So, here is the final score of the race. Democrats 51, Republicans 49, Conservatism 100. Conservatism did not take a “thumpin’.” It actually won this Super Bowl.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

The Runaway Bride Says Yeehaaah!

What Will the Democrats Do in Power?

The New Democratic Party

What do I think the Democrats will do in power? I think they will do the best they can. They want peace and good things for America just as much as any Republican.

I think they sense that even though they won control of both houses, many of their new faces are actually conservatives. Jim Webb, for example, who beat George Allen for a senate seat in Virginia, is about as conservative as you get. Webb, a former Republican, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was a highly decorated member of the Marine Corps in Vietnam. Webb served four years with the Reagan administration as the nation's first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and as Secretary of the Navy.

The New Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean are wild-eyed radicals, literally, with Pelosi’s Runaway Bride eyes and Dean's "Yee-haah!" Pelosi brings her “San Francisco values.” I don’t intend any negative reference to pro-gay by this—rather, I mean ultra-leftist positions like hating the military. Dean is just a hateful guy, ready to blow his temper in a moment, always disrespectful of the President and of half the country.

Yet, these two are pros also. Pelosi, I believe, will set aside her wild-eyed instincts for radical socialism and radical progressivism in order to appeal to the American voter base, which is centered far to her right. She will work with Jim Webb well, and other Democratic conservatives. She will be outwardly cordial to the genial Bush, but will maintain her steely meta-message that this man, to her, is dangerous and needs to be followed with, uh, someone like, well, Hillary in ’08.

Corruption

Will the Dems be as corrupt as the Republicans were? I don’t know. I hope not. Can’t politicians ever learn? It does seem that power corrupts. We’ll all just keep an eye on them.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The Budget

What about a balanced budget? Who knows? Dean balanced the budget in Vermont when he was governor. Pelosi champions a balanced budget in all her speeches. Yet, in the same breath, she’ll go on to mention all the new Democratic social programs she will introduce. Sounds like more spending to me.

What about taxes? Yes, I believe Democrats will keep their word on this. They will ruin the good economy by raising taxes, not just on the rich, as they claim, but on everyone.

The Environment

Democrats, I believe, will be more zealous in protecting the environment, which could be a good thing if they don’t ruin business in the meantime. I don’t object to solar panels on every home. Israel has these. Ultimately, they do help save oil, even though the initial costs are high. Go ahead, develop hydrogen power and ethanol resources. I’m not against becoming independent of the joke God played on the world by depositing many oil resources in the center of the radical Islamic world.

Civility

What about civility in government? The atmosphere will miraculously change now to civility, truly. Why? Because those nasty Republicans are out of office? No. Just the opposite. Because those nasty Democrats are in office, and they’ll stop their constant demagogic Bush-bashing and Republican-bashing in order to appear statesmanlike. There will be no need now for the squeaky wheel. They won’t have to harp day after day about the evil Republicans, the racist Republicans, the war-mongering Republicans. They have a new task, showing the American public that they are worthy of the presidency in ’08.

Democratic Agenda

The Democrats now will have the chance to at least propose their dream for America. Since their control in the Senate is slim, they won’t have a working majority in that body, but they will have a working majority in the House, which initiates bills. Of course, every bill they pass can be vetoed by the supposedly conservative Bush. So, any wild-eyed bill the Dems pass will be vetoed, even by the Great Appeaser.

The Democrats will have the chance to address all their pet concerns if they want, like health care, education, welfare, the homeless, gay marriage, ending the Iraq involvement, whatever. Their temptation will be to raise taxes, overspend, gut the military, abandon the Iraqi people, appease the terrorists, and empower the corrupt U.N. How much of this they do depends on how badly they want the presidency in ’08. If they are smart, they will curb their Runaway Bride eyes and “Yee-hah”’s, and become pragmatists—balancing the budget, advancing environmentalism responsibly, and remaining strong on the war on terror.

The Democratic Master Plan

My prediction is they will bide their time responsibly. They will act statesmanlike now, for the first time in years, in their dealings with the Republicans, and they will not propose a radical leftist agenda—until after they get the ’08 presidency. Then, all hell will bust loose. Then, they will change America forever. With Hillary in charge, and with Democrats still in control of both houses of congress, they will not be able to resist their deepest progressive urges, and we will become a socialist nation for some decades, until the pendulum swings back again to the good old days.

The War on Terror

I fear for the world in this area now that Dems are in control. Terrorists are celebrating the election all over the world. They are the happiest people on earth, even happier than Disney characters. I hope I, and the terrorists, are wrong. We’ll see. Either the terrorists will embrace the new appeasing American government, and stop blowing people up, or they will use this time of less pressure against them to build their arsenals quietly, so they can make their next attack even more spectacular than 9/11.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Rushing to Carry Water

Conservative Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show on Wednesday, November 8, 2006:

Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people have been asking me how I feel all night long. I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. (I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it.) The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

See Rush’s entire diatribe.

With this, Rush speaks for me at this time. I sometimes don’t agree with Rush, but I have clearly stated in my prior posts how I feel that George Bush has abandoned his conservative principles, especially on immigration and spending. Plus, the toleration of corruption is not a conservative value.

In fact, to clarify, I would define myself as mostly conservative on several issues, but not mostly Republican. As one of the evangelicals who voted Democratic said yesterday, “We vote values, we don’t vote party.”

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Candor and Action

I notice that Democrats have a different tone today than pre-election. They are less yap-dog, less screeching. They actually sound sincere. I guess the power they now have is sobering them.

Republicans too sound different. The appeaser, George Bush, sounds terribly chastened. He got rid of Rumsfeld yesterday, surely in response to the electorate’s rebuke. Plus, he actually said (paraphrase) “The election’s over,” using this as the reason for his new candor on several issues.

This is a flawed strategy, Mr. President. The time to have fired Rumsfeld was two months ago. The time to have been honest was—all the time, not just after the election. Truth. I say it again and again. Just be honest. Explain what you believe, and why, now and always. Trust the voters to accept or reject who you really are and what you really believe.

The Need to be Liked

The Republican strategy in Iraq has been a failure, as has been their conduct in office. They abandoned their conservative principles in order to be liked. Bush is the leader of this kind of approach. Did it come from Carl Rove? Now Bush, with his instincts as an appeaser, will try even harder to be liked, leading to his being even less popular than he is now.

Rumsfeld, the Iraq War, and Political Correctness

I am glad that Rumsfeld is gone. He was not effective, and never was. I still feel that invading Iraq was right, and that we’ve done a noble thing there in liberating the people. We fought a politically correct war there, though, just like in Vietnam. Again, this is because Bush wanted to be liked.

Did it work, George? You should have just won the war, and ignored the leftist sniping. You’d be popular now. People would have ignored the sniping. Democrats would still not have loved you, but they never will. They never loved Reagan either. You usually can’t have love and respect from your opponents. These opponents, too, were not just opponents. They were enemies.

The Architect and the Evangelicals

So, the great Carl Rove, the “genius,” the “architect,” masterminded an historical defeat for the Republicans. He made the mistake of trying to fool his base instead of listening to it. He threw them some bones immediately before the election, while ignoring them the last six years. Even 29% of evangelicals this time voted Democratic. Why? They felt used. They were deeply unhappy with Republican pork barrel spending, the lack of immigration reform, and the botched war effort.

The Job of a Good Politician

I think the way you get liked and loved and respected is to sincerely try your best to help the people. If you believe in conservatism, then you explain it, promote it, teach it, propagandize it, and enact it. If the electorate then don’t want it, even after you’ve done your best to sell it, that’s their right. You don’t appease them. You respect them, but you stand your ground. You let them choose whether to accept or reject you. In order to be a great politician or president, then, you have to be willing to let the public vote you out of office for your sincerely held beliefs. Yes, listen to your electorate. But don’t hold your finger up in the air to test the blowing wind.

The Wimp Factor

Before the first Iraq war, George Bush Sr., Bush 41, was labeled with the “wimp factor.” He got this reputation by raising taxes after having promised not to. (“Read my lips: no new taxes.”) I accuse this Bush, Bush 43, of being a wimp.

Get a backbone, George. It may be too late to save this country from liberal values, from future terrorist attacks, and from a generation of Democratic control now, because of you. If you change course now, do it in the direction of courage, not appeasement.

Principle versus Appeasement

The models are Reagan versus Schwarzenegger. Principle versus appeasement. Reagan proudly proclaimed his conservativism and championed it with the American people. As a result, he won, big time. Bush now has lost the House and the Senate, with appeasement. California governor Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, did win with appeasement. I respect Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum more, though, who lost in this election by sticking to his conservative values. That’s the kind of man or woman I want in office. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, running as an independent, won without appeasement. It can be done.

Leadership

I think the difference is leadership. If you are a great leader, you listen to the people, and adjust to their desires and needs. You also, though, use the bully pulpit of the presidency to lead. If you are FDR, you try to urge America into the battle against world domination by the Nazi’s. If you are Reagan, you try to promote conservative values and get Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” If you are Bush, you do invade Iraq, but you fight an all-out war to win, and you ignore your critics until the job is done. Plus, if you are Bush, you teach the American people the lessons Reagan began about the values of conservativism. You don’t sign pork, and you don’t tolerate corruption. You do not put loyalty to your friends above the good of the country.

The American People Have Spoken

The American people announced they were no longer willing to be the water carriers for people who did not deserve to have their water carried. Conservatives voted for conservatives in this election, not for Republicans.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Shock and Awe

Democrats Conquer America

I had a nightmare last night, and then I went to sleep. When I woke this morning, the nightmare returned. I guess it’s true. It’s worse than anyone thought. The Democrats have taken over the House, and probably the Senate. Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco values will Speak for the House. Governorships have fallen. The Republican Revolution? About as healthy as Castro.

Congratulations

First, congratulations to all you Democrats for your thousands of races in which you worked so hard. I know you are passionate about your beliefs, and you have won fair and square. The American people have spoken. We live in a democracy, and there is something to the collective wisdom of the people. So, I say to you America, you must know something that I don’t, and I humbly bow to your will.

A Few Bright Notes

Joe Lieberman won. The demagogues did not get this fine man.

Many of the Democrats who beat Republicans this election were actually conservative or moderate. This means that the country did not necessarily turn its back on conservatism. In fact, the Democrats, in some cases, may have learned a lesson from Bill Clinton and moved to the center, despite the leadership of the far-left Pelosi and Dean.

The Schwarzenegger Factor

Arnold terminated Angelides. Why? After his defeat in the special voting two years ago on all his losing, conservatively economic propositions, Arnold took a sharp turn to the left, firing conservatives, hiring liberals, but also engaging a crack Bush campaign team. The whole combination worked, and Arnold is back. He manages to remain conservative fiscally if in no other way. He’s not my dream Republican office holder, but I have to admit his formula is working.

The Pelosi Factor

I have to concede that this whacky raging liberal with her San Francisco values is a tough charmer, which makes her formidable. I, along with half a nation, cringe if her priorities and values ever become mainstream. We’ll get into San Francisco values in a near future post. Suffice it to say, she has reason to crow today, and she can relax her Runaway Bride eyes for a few days.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The Dean Factor

Howard Dean is another reason to mourn. His demagogic tactics have paid off. This hateful man is now looking like the new Carl Rove. Democrats have also improved their get-out-the-vote drive, their internet prowess, and their general organization skills, beating Republicans at their own game.

Voter Fraud?

Where are the cries about voter fraud, my Democrat friends? I thought the Republicans were going to steal this election? With so many close races, voter fraud should have guaranteed Republican wins. What happened? Realize, Democrats, that you have been duped all along. The hysterical media you follow has always, and will always, lie to you. Again, yes, there is voter fraud. It is not organized, though, on a party-wide basis. There is no lurking Watergate with this Republican Party. At least in this area, the Repubs are clean. Learn a lesson from this, and start to be more discerning in your reading and viewing habits. Your hysterical sources are just that, hysterical and demagogic, simply untrue.

The Nightmare

So, now my friends, we live in the nightmare. Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Sharpton, Rangel and Reed will run the Congress and the nation, with an opposition, lame duck president. You get what you deserve. I hope that either these folks rise to the occasion and transform with power into something more than screeching demagogues, or that the next two years serve to show the American people what they have wrought.

A Few of the Good Guys Fallen

I deeply regret the fall of some great leaders. I’m sorry, for example, that Democrat Harold Ford fell. I love this guy. I regret that Republican Rick Santorum didn’t make it. Many good Republicans just got in the way of the Democratic tsunami. They apparently didn’t have a chance.

Why Did We Lose?

Republicans, and some conservatives, lost their races because there was a genuine desire for change with the American people. Republicans blew their chance. They botched Iraq and communicating about it, spent like drunken sailors, tolerated or participated in corruption, and failed to act on immigration.

I said before the election that the Republicans needed a spanking at the very least. They got a whipping. They were taken to the tool shed.

The Future

I fear for the future of my country. I will get behind our new government, but I lack any trust that they will act in the interest of the American people or the world.

On the other hand, maybe this loss will be a lesson for Republican leaders to listen to their base, and to blogs like this. You cannot ignore your base like you did, Mr. and Mrs. Republican leader, and Mr. Bush and company, and expect your followers to enthusiastically support you. Again, you did not live within your budget. You allowed our country to become more Third World with your open-border policies. You are fighting in Iraq the way we bungled Vietnam. You were corrupt, or turned a blind eye to the corruption in your party.

We are conservatives, Mr. President, and we elected you and your colleagues to be honorable, well-spoken conservatives, and you have failed us. Next time when we say close the borders, we mean close the borders. Don't think you can fool us with last minute electioneering and slogans about gay marriage.

The Demographic Time Bomb

One reason why the Republicans lost is changing demographics. America is becoming more urban, and more ethnically diverse, usually considered an advantage for Democrats.

In this area, I do think Arnold is smart, and Bush. Both never gave up on the minority vote.

My only problem is the way they have done this. They’ve both become panderers. Arnold and George refuse to stem the tide of illegal immigration, for example.

I think there is an alternate method of courting minorities. Invite them in. Bush has done this with his many African-American and Hispanic appointees, but he and Republicans must do more. Republicans and conservatives must actively court minorities. They must go to their churches and functions, recruit them as conservatives, and offer them even more leadership roles in the Party and in government.

I and my philosophical compadres deeply believe in the values of conservatism. I judge that Hispanic Catholics are a natural match for conservatism, and African-American churchgoers too. Plus, other minorities will join the cause if and when they realize that conservative values will help them financially as well.

Formula for Winning

Yes, we can win future elections by becoming liberal Terminators like Arnold, or, we can have the courage to act like Reagan, and become true conservatives again.

Believe me, Reagan would have won this election, Democratic tsunami or not.

Bush is no Reagan. Though I love George W. Bush for some of his stances, and for his doggedness and common decency, he just isn’t conservative enough.

And, he needed to study English in his formative years when he was anesthetizing his brain with alcohol. We need another Great Communicator.

Our Mission

Our mission is just and good and right. We can welcome Arnold into the fold, but we really need to find the next Reagan. Then, we need to do a better job of engaging.

Let’s get to work.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Kudos to CNN

I always tune in to the “opposition” networks, the major liberal media outlets ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and the BBC. I do this to open my mind to the other side, to learn whatever I can that they have to teach, and glean whatever truth they may have in their biased presentations. Most of the time I cringe while I’m listening, as I hear another slanted story, another bash of Bush, their describing the war in Iraq as a “travesty,” their questioning the great economy, and so on. Their idea of “balanced” is to describe, constantly, what the Republicans are doing to get elected again, instead of talking about the issues. The ratio of guests is about 3 liberals to 1 conservative. They avoid talking about the things that are important to the nation, and instead harp on Democratic anxieties and fears.

You can always tell if you’re listening to a liberal station, or a truth station, by the content of the show. If the show is emphasizing voter fraud, it’s a liberal show. If they’re preaching “Broken Government,” it’s a liberal show. If the emphasis is on war casualties, how bad the war in Iraq is going, the national debt, voter dissatisfaction, the desire of the electorate for change, Republican corruption and so on, it’s a liberal show.

The truth stations are FOX, and, well, that’s all, and a handful of shows on the other stations, like The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Scarborough Country, and a few others with at least an attempt at balance, like This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and The Mclaughlin Report.

You know you’re listening to a truth station because they talk about the issues that are most on the mind of voters. They actually discuss terrorism, taxes, globalization, and the economy. They report corruption, but they don’t see it as a partisan issue. They investigate things like voter fraud, but without the hysteria. They talk about what’s going wrong in Iraq, but they seek solutions instead of just blame. They usually give equal time to liberals and conservatives.

Last night I was pleasantly surprised. I watched CNN’s election coverage, and it was a presentation of truth, for a change.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The guests were, on the left, James Carville and Larry King, truth meister David Gergen, and all-around-nice-guy conservative J.C. Watts.

Kudos to CNN. Everybody on the panel actually spoke truth. For example, when asked why Democrats were complaining so much about voter fraud, Democrat Carville answered (paraphrase), “It’s because we’ve lost so many elections recently. The party that loses the elections is the one to complain,” he said, and laughed. How refreshing. The whole show was like this. Everyone was respectful and got along well. There was no bashing. They discussed the election possibilities without rancor and without slant.

One of the reasons for the quality of this show was the mix. For a change, it wasn’t heavily overbalanced with liberals. Plus, adding J.C. Watts brought dignity, and including David Gergen brought credibility. I could watch and enjoy shows like this all day long. I don’t mind if this type of show would present something critical of the government, or critical of conservatives. The presentation would be balanced. I could hear the message.

Message to CNN. This show was a winner. Use it as a model. I don’t mind if you lean left. I admit FOX leans right. Just throw a bone to the right once in awhile, and toss in a little truth from time to time, and I’ll be happy. I guarantee your ratings will go up too.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Momentum Shift Before the Election

Recent polls show Republicans making gains. The most recent PEW poll shows likely voters favoring Democrats 47% to 43%, a marked narrowing from recent weeks. Two weeks ago, that gap was 51% to 40%.

Here are some of the most recent generic poll results: Generic Congressional Vote

Poll - Date - Republican - Democrat - Spread

RCP Average
11/01 - 11/05 42.0% 51.6% 9.6%

USA Today/Gallup
11/02 - 11/05 44% 51% 7%

Pew Research
11/01 - 11/04 43% 47% 4%

ABC News/Wash Post
11/01 - 11/04 45% 51% 6%

Newsweek
11/02 - 11/03 38% 54% 16%

Time
11/01 - 11/03 40% 55% 15%

The PEW results

Summary of Findings: Republicans Cut Democratic Lead in Campaign's Final Days: Democrats Hold 47%-43% Lead Among Likely Voters, Released: November 5, 2006.

A nationwide Pew Research Center survey finds voting intentions shifting in the direction of Republican congressional candidates in the final days of the 2006 midterm campaign. The new survey finds a growing percentage of likely voters saying they will vote for GOP candidates. However, the Democrats still hold a 48% to 40% lead among registered voters, and a modest lead of 47%-43% among likely voters.

The narrowing of the Democratic lead raises questions about whether the party will win a large enough share of the popular vote to recapture control of the House of Representatives. The relationship between a party's share of the popular vote and the number of seats it wins is less certain than it once was, in large part because of the increasing prevalence of safe seat redistricting. As a result, forecasting seat gains from national surveys has become more difficult.

The survey suggests that the judgment of undecided voters will be crucial to the outcome of many congressional races this year. As many as 19% of voters now only lean to a candidate or are flatly undecided. The Democrats hold a 44% to 35% lead among committed voters. But the race is more even among voters who are less strongly committed to a candidate; those who only lean to a candidate divide almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats (5% lean Republican/4% lean Democrat).

Republican gains in the new poll reflect a number of late-breaking trends. First, Republicans have become more engaged and enthused in the election than they had been in September and October. While Democrats continue to express greater enthusiasm about voting than do Republicans, as many Republican voters (64%) as Democratic voters (62%) now say they are giving quite a lot of thought to the election. About a month ago, Democratic voters were considerably more likely than GOP voters to say they were giving a lot of thought to the election (by 59%-50%). As a result, Republicans now register a greater likelihood of voting than do Democrats, as is typical in mid-term elections.

The Republicans also have made major gains, in a relatively short time period, among independent voters. Since early this year, the Democratic advantage in the generic House ballot has been built largely on a solid lead among independents. As recently as mid-October, 47% of independent voters said they were voting for the Democratic candidate in their district, compared with 29% who favored the Republican. Currently, Democrats lead by 44%-33% among independent voters.

Notably, President Bush's political standing has improved in the final week before the election. Bush's job approval rating among registered voters has risen from 37% in early October, to 41% in the current survey. Mirroring the GOP's gains among independent voters, Bush's rating among this crucial group of swing voters now stands at 35%, its highest point this year.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

GALLUP

Democrats Lead Republicans in House Vote by Seven Points: November 06, 2006. Narrowed lead still appears large enough to give Democrats majority control of House, by Frank Newport, Jeffrey M. Jones, Lydia Saad, and Joseph Carroll, GALLUP NEWS SERVICEPRINCETON, NJ –

The final USA Today/Gallup measure of Americans' voting intentions for Congress shows Democrats with a 51% to 44% lead over Republicans among likely voters. Although this margin has narrowed from previous USA Today/Gallup polls, it still suggests that Democrats have enough strength to gain a majority of House seats. Statistical models developed from previous midterm elections suggest that if the pattern of elections over the last decades continues this year, a national vote margin of seven points translates into the Democrats winning enough seats to give them a clear majority. The USA Today/Gallup estimate of voting preferences of likely voters nationwide is 51% voting for the Democratic candidate and 44% for the Republican candidate. This is slightly narrowed from the 54% to 41% lead enjoyed by the Democrats in the Oct. 20-22 poll, and considerably narrower than the large 59% to 36% Democratic lead in early October.

Bloomberg

Bloomberg.com: Japan: Democrats Have Narrower Lead in Election, Polls Find, By Nadine Elsibai

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The contest for control of Congress
has tightened in the days leading up to the Nov. 7 vote with the
Democrats' margin narrowing, two polls showed. Democrats hold a 51 percent to 45 percent edge among likely voters, down from a 14-point margin two weeks ago, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll. A separate poll by the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press showed a similar decrease in support for Democrats, who now have a 47 percent to 43 percent advantage over Republicans compared with 50 percent to 39 percent two weeks ago.

My Predictions

I believe the Democrats will win control of the House, but by a narrower margin than previously thought. The Republicans will maintain a razor-thin edge in the Senate.

If this is true, I would define this as a minor victory for Republicans. The Republicans, if they lose the house, have only themselves to blame, with overspending, a weakness on immigration, and too many cases of corruption causing them to lose power. The Democrats, if they don’t swamp the Republicans in this year of anti-Republican sentiment, have only themselves to blame, with no positive platform for the country, no solution for Iraq, and their “anything but Bush” and “anything but Republicans” stands on all the issues.

There seems to be no great passion in this election except negative passion. On the left, the passion is to “throw the bums out,” with a fierce anti-Bush feeling and anti-Republican sentiment centered around the war in Iraq. On the right, the passion is to avoid Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House with her raging liberal San Francisco values, and to avoid putting national security in the hands of a party weak on defense.

I am disappointed in Republicans this year. There is no reason they had to get to this point where their power is in jeopardy. They should have spent less, handled Iraq better, and stopped illegal immigration. I am disgusted with Democrats, though, with their demagoguery. The polls have narrowed significantly in the last few days. We’ll see if the momentum continues for Republicans and away from Democrats. It is exciting, and we’ll see what the people say.

P.S. If the elections are close, or if Republicans win or close the gap further, look for the “voter fraud” excuse to be trotted out by Democrats and their hordes of "gotcha" lawyers already in place. Democrats never lose elections anymore; they are stolen, of course.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

Saddam and Wyatt Earp

Saddam Guilty and Sentenced: May Be Hanged in 30 Days

Reactions

At this point I am dispassionate about the verdict on Saddam and his pending demise. I no longer have the glee that I might have had some time ago. He is guilty of so many atrocities that I have no pity on the man, yet at least he has called, through his attorney, for no revenge or bloodshed on his behalf. The reaction to the verdict does seem to be mild so far, so are we left with the Butcher of Baghdad doing something Lincolnesque in his final days on earth? Well, that’s a stretch.

Implications of the Rule of Saddam

It appears now, in hindsight, that Saddam was a strongman who kept Iraq together as a country. He corralled and tamed the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis into a functioning nation. Yes, things were better for Iraqis when he was in charge. People could lead normal lives, go to the market, sit in cafes, visit nightclubs, walk around. Yes, those were better times. On the other hand, what was the price for those better times?

In order to keep the various tribes, sects, nationalities and political factions in line, Saddam had to be vicious. Threats, arrests in the middle of the night, rape, torture, murder and mass murder, the use of poison gas. This is one way to do it. Sort of like the mafia, only unimaginably worse.

So now, the Iraqi’s are trying to do without a strongman. They’re attempting to keep this quarreling nation together through democracy. Can they do it? Who knows? The place is kind of like the Wild West in America, which had to be tamed by strongmen called gunfighters who came down on the side of the law, but who skirted the law to “get their men” and impose order. Some of the heroes of the Wild West were unsavory characters, like Wyatt Earp. They shot and killed people without reading them their rights.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Slowly, America transitioned, and it was a long transition, to the rule of law and habeas corpus and all that. Even until recently, we had a kind of strongman heading our FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, who wore dresses in private, but secretly taped Martin Luther King, persecuted his enemies, and probably even blackmailed presidents. Still, he transformed America into a relatively law-abiding place, reducing the clout of the mafia and other mobs, getting undesirables like Al Capone off the street, and creating an atmosphere of relative internal peace.

Right, he was no Saddam. He didn’t rape anyone or rip off fingernails. Yet he was a law-breaker and a man who used the might of a nation against all his enemies. The positive was that, along with his abuses of power, he kept the country in line.

Does Iraq need another Saddam to keep the peace there? I hope not. I hope they can transition to a lesser tyrant like Wyatt Earp or J. Edgar Hoover, and maybe from there to the kinds of leaders we now have in America. Democrats and liberals call Bush a tyrant, but they have no idea what the meaning of tyrant is—read your history and see what Nixon was doing, J. Edgar Hoover, even Lincoln during the Civil War. See The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, a biography of Abraham Lincoln written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2002. DiLorenzo presents evidence of civil liberties abuses such as the suspension of habeas corpus, violations of the first amendment, war crimes committed by generals in the American Civil War, and the expansion of government power. Lincoln was our most noble and benevolent tyrant, and thank God for him. Nixon was a good president except maybe for his handling of Vietnam, and for his tyranny. J. Edgar Hoover kept the peace, while violating civil rights.

Is there a Lincoln on the horizon in Iraq? I don’t see one, but I suppose it’s possible. These things take time. Again, they could settle for a Wyatt Earp, or even for a Nixon there. Then, they could improve to a J. Edgar Hoover, and then a Bush. That would be good enough for any nation. You don’t necessarily need to arrive at a Lincoln in order to have a good, functioning country.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post

War and Peace: Dialogue with a Good Muslim

War and Dialogue with the Muslim World

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said:

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Yesterday’s post, which involved a guest blog by a good Muslim from the beautiful country of Lebanon, Tarek El Khatib, author of the blog rambling and blabbering, evidently aroused much interest, apparently in the whole world. It was a record traffic day for this blog, which has been increasing meteorically in traffic anyway.

I think the rapid rise in traffic for this blog is due to the exact attempt to deliver its name—truth. Truth is unusual. Truth is necessary for winning wars and gaining peace. Truth is lacking in most places because of the fear of retribution, and even of being unpopular. Many of my views are unpopular. I oppose much of the great continent of Europe in my views, 99% of the United Nations, much of the Arab world, and half of my own country. Plus, I oppose even half of the half of my country that agrees with me, when they are wrong too.

Am I always right? Yes. What, you expect me to be humble? Good luck.

I think one reason for the interest in yesterday’s post is that there are many good people in the world. Any sign of hope is much appreciated. We hunger for peace, and we want there to be good Muslims in the world. Well, I found one. He is a young man much like any young man in the world, just trying to succeed in life, have a little fun, and contribute his part for the good of society. This might not be remarkable except that he is a practicing Muslim, and willing to share his views about terrorism and Israel and his part of the world. Again, even this might not be remarkable, except that I am willing to tell this dear young man my version of the truth and engage him as he reacts.

So far, he has reacted with dignity. I know he will continue in the same vein. He truly is a good person, I have no doubt about that. Still, it is not enough, in our times, just to be good. Good people now are confronted with evil. When evil exists, good people must do something. Tarek is doing his part by being open, honest, and forthcoming. My readers are doing their part by considering what we say.

We await the Islamic world’s reaction to the West’s disappointment in them. Are they going to continue strapping on bombs and killing innocents, or turn Islam into a true religion of peace?

This is not an exhibition. This is not a show. This is our lives.

Tyk’s Comments on Yesterday’s Post

Hey Rock... Wow, very honored and touched by what you said already...

Listen, I love your reaction about what you think I am, i.e. an open minded Muslim, who will not send you anthrax or a bomb for disagreeing with, but I promise, MOST Muslims are moderate. It's because of the media and the attention that you only hear about al-Qaeda and about Iraqis ripping each other open and all the sort... You never hear about anything happening in Singapore or Malaysia, which are fully Muslim nations that integrated in Eastern Asia... You never hear anything about Morocco or Tunisia or how they're developing human rights and democracies while raising their standards of living...

click to show/hide the rest of the post

That's the problem. We have a communication problem and the West only sees the bad side of Arabs and Muslims, but ask people who have actually been to the Arab, Muslim worlds, or the Middle East what they think of what they've seen. Especially in Lebanon (which has probably the highest percentage of Christians in the Arab world). It's got beautiful nature and an amazing nightlife, with clubbing, drinking, pubs, bars, lovely restaurants and cafes... I've actually met Americans here who told me about curfews in places like Boston where clubs have to close at 3 whereas here in Lebanon there are clubs that don't get packed until 3-4... And with the exception of Saudi Arabia and some parts of some Arab countries, the countries ARE NOT DESERTS where women are covered from top to bottom and where some kind of hardline Zarqawi style police walk around beating up people who are not fundamentalist terrorists...

MOST OF THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD ARE AGAINST OSAMA BIN LADEN. There are Sheikhs that have made fatwas (religious decrees) about how it is Islamically wrong to commit suicide attacks.

The thing is, UNFORTUNATELY, there are a bunch of people who were probably abused during their childhood or who have too much spicy food or for whatever reason ended being the fanatics that they are and again UNFORTUNATELY all what you hear is about these people and their murders and their terror plots, and again UNFORTUNATELY they associate and justify themselves Islamically with verses from the Quran playing in the background and the name of Allah hung behind their death announcements, and so people end up inclined to believe that Muslims are terrorists or that they support the killing of innocent children or whatever...

Rock you actually said something about Islam being currently used to spread hatred, and I hope I gave you a deeper perspective on things... We'll chat some more and I'll give you closer looks about how things function here and why things end up the way they are on this side of the globe...

Tyk

Again, thanks a lot for your post, and you're more than welcome in Lebanon anytime!!!!

Rock’s Response

Tyk, thanks for the welcome, and thanks again for your comments, and for the lovely pictures of Lebanon I took from your blog and put up in yesterday’s post. Lebanon indeed is a gorgeous country. You deserve peace in your land. I am deeply honored and grateful for your kindness, openness, and willingness to be forthcoming.

All I can say is I hope you are right. I’d like to believe you when you say that most Muslims are against Osama bin Laden and terrorism. If this is true, then yes, we do have a communication problem. You make valid points about all the peaceful Muslim countries you describe. This should get more publicity, so your words are a good start. This is a good thing. However …

I don’t expect you to answer this, Tyk, but I’ll simply point out that most of the world’s major problems today seem to be connected with Muslims. I’m not saying this to make you feel bad or get defensive. I take you at your word and believe you are reporting your sincere beliefs that the majority of Muslims are peace loving.

I don’t see it this way—yes, because of the reporting, but also because of the actual videos I see on TV, and the breadth of their examples, and the fact that most major problems today in the world, again, seem connected with Islam.

What We Need from Muslims

I’m going to get specific in a minute, but let me preface this with saying that you and your friends, Tyk, it seems, and Muslims like you, are important to the world. Yes, we do need to hear more from you. In addition, we need people like you, and more important, Muslim leaders, to speak out against terrorism and hatred for the West. I sense that you are a young man of good will. I think we need this. It is not enough for Muslims just to avoid being terrorists. It is not enough for Muslims just to avoid supporting suicide bombers. Good Muslims must also, I believe, speak out against hatred for the West.

Hatred for the West

I realize that a portion of the Muslim community, in my estimation a large portion, millions, hates the West. Part of the reason, I perceive, why they hate the West is exactly one of the things you promote as a positive about Lebanon. The clubbing, the pubs, the partying. Fundamentalist Islam, it seems to me, wants to control family life and women to preserve their idea of family values. I can even understand this desire.

We have our own fundamentalists who want to do the same. Mormons, fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, and so on. These people also have set ideas about family life, rituals, how women should dress and behave, who is the head of the family, even who is going to heaven and so on. There is even some residual anti-Semitism in some quarters, as in fundamentalist Islam. There is, too, a desire to “convert the world” to their way of believing, with some sects. Many of these people would consider Las Vegas, for example, to be the decadent symbol of a crumbling society.

I was born and raised a Catholic. At one point in my life I was a true believer and I even would avert my eyes during the sexy parts of James Bond movies. I have left my “fundamentalist” past over the years, but I still remember how it felt to be that way. I still retain, as you know, my belief in God, though I have expanded this to include most religions, except Islam, and added New Age beliefs.

My point is, I can empathize with a fundamentalist’s desire to have an orderly world, and an orderly progression to the afterlife. I can understand the hope for an intact family with common values. I can comprehend wanting my girlfriend or wife, and my sister, to be “pure.”

I might go to Las Vegas and enjoy the decadence, for example, but I still don’t want to become a part of it. I don’t want my family to become strippers or prostitutes (but, as Seinfeld would say, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”).

The difference, though, between our fundamentalists, or my lingering traditionalist feelings, and fundamentalist Muslims, though, is a matter of degree. The fundamentalist Muslim hates. He/she wants Christians, Jews, all infidels, dead. He wants Israel off the map. She wants Israeli’s driven to the sea. She is willing to strap on an explosive vest and murder innocent people out for a night of “clubbing.”

Let me be specific:

Examples of Muslim Attacks

7 March, 2006 Varanasi bombings. An attack attributed to Lashkar-e-Toiba by Uttar Pradesh government officials, over 28 killed and over 100 injured, in a series of attacks in the Sankath Mochan Hanuman temple and Cantonment Railway Station in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi.

9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings. Over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved.

29 October 2005 Delhi bombings. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus, just 2 days before the Diwali festival.

23 July 2005 - Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.

7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.

4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people.

3 September 2004 - Approximately 344 civilians including 186 children, are massacred during the Beslan school hostage crisis by Chechen Islamic Terrorists or "Chechen Separatists".

11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings, Madrid bombings, on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda).

16 May 2004- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried out by Salafaia Jihadia.

12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub, 202 killed, 300 injured.

24 September 2002 – Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.

7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured.

9 March 2002 - Café suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured.

3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover. Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured

13 December 2001-Suicide attack on India's parliament in New Delhi. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. Allegedly done by Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists organizations, Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba.

September 11, 2001 attacks, 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.

The USS Cole bombing was a suicide bombing attack against the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) on October 12, 2000 while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. 17 sailors were killed.

7 August 1998 - 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.

25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.

26 February 1993 - World Trade Center bombing, 6 killed.

April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing, in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 killed.

According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified. Extremist acts have included airline hijacking, beheading, kidnapping, assassination, and suicide bombing. Terrorist threats have included fatwas and death threats. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims.

Some terrorist activities committed by Muslims do not fall into the category of Islamic extremist terrorism: Nationalist and separatist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist.

See Extremist Terrorism.

Muslim attitudes towards terrorism

In the parliamentary election of January 2006, 57% of Palestinians voted for Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, United States, Canada, and the European Union and responsible for a number of attacks against Israeli civilians. Observers are divided over whether the election results represent support for the organization's tactics, support for the organization's social programs, or dissatisfaction with the previous government which was widely seen as corrupt and incompetent. A public opinion survey released following the election, indicated that nearly three quarters of Palestinians believe that Hamas should change its policy regarding the destruction of Israel and 84% of Palestinians support a peace agreement with Israel. Among Hamas voters, 73% of respondents supported a peace agreement with Israel. However Hamas has ruled out removing the clause in its constitution which demands the destruction of Israel.

A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries.

A Daily Telegraph survey showed that 6% of British Muslims fully supported the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground.

A 2004 Pew survey revealed that Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). In Turkey as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.

The Free Muslims Coalition rallied against terror, stating that they wanted to send "a message to radical Muslims and supporters of terrorism that we reject them and that we will defeat them."

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said:

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Statistics compiled by the United States government's Counterterrorism Center present a more complicated picture: of known and specified terrorist incidents from the beginning of 2004 through the first quarter of 2005, slightly more than half of the fatalities were attributed to Islamic extremists but a majority of over-all incidents were considered of either "unknown/unspecified" or a secular political nature. The vast majority of the "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities did however happen in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.The methodology employed by the Center is sometimes disputed.

Iranian Ayatollah Ozma Seyyed Yousef Sanei issued a fatwa (ruling) that suicide attacks against civilians are legitimate only in the context of war. The ruling did not say whether other types of attacks against civilians are justified outside of the context of war, nor whether Jihad is included in Sanei's definition of war.

On the other hand, Fethullah Gulen, a prominent Turkish Islamic scholar, has claimed that "a real Muslim," who understood Islam in every aspect, could not be a terrorist. There are several, if not many, other people with similar points of view such as Karen Armstrong, and Prof. Ahmet Akgunduz, and Harun Yahya.

Conclusions

So, Tyk, the conclusions are uncertain. You are probably right, and I’ve learned a lot by researching this issue. There are millions of Osama lovers among Muslims, it seems, but also millions of peace loving Muslims like you.

I believe Islam needs a centralized kind of structure and a reformation. I don’t think good Muslims like you will be effective in countering the Islamic world’s bad press until and if the trouble spots in the world associated with Muslims go away.

Questions for the Islamic Community

Why can’t more Muslims speak out, as you have done Tyk? Why doesn’t Islam reform itself? Why won’t Islam let Israel exist in peace? Why do so many Muslims want to take over the world and impose Sharia? Why is much of the Islamic world governed by primitive tribalism and hatred?

These are tough questions. I can understand how difficult it is to answer them.

Thank You Tarek

You are doing your part for goodness in the world, and I am grateful for this. I just don’t know what is the answer for Muslims who choose to hate. I continue to believe that forums like this are a start, and people like you speaking out is a beginning.

This is the hope.

Truth, Love and Obligation

Unfortunately, war sometimes is the only alternative. When 3,000 of your fellow citizens are murdered, when young families are murdered, when teenagers out for a night on the town are blown up, something must be done.

Who will be stronger? People like you? The United States and Israel? Or, the terrorists? Or, their enablers, like most of Europe, pacifists, and Democrats?

I know you probably will continue to disagree with some of my conclusions. We will disagree about Israel. Still, I appreciate you for just being you. You do count. You do matter. For being a good Muslim with love in your heart, I thank you, and I believe most of America thanks you. We send our love to all good Muslims in the world.

For you and for us, though, there are difficult choices to be made, and much work to be done.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

click to hide most of this post