God Bless You All

Happy Thanksgiving.

I want to give thanks to you God for giving me life and the chance to make a difference in this world. I thank you my readers for taking your precious time to read my posts. I especially thank you who contribute to the debate by adding your comments.

I am grateful to the blogosphere for giving all of us bloggers the outlet to express ourselves. I thank the bloggers for the investment in time and passion they give to make the world more beautiful, funny, or just.

A special thanks to the troops overseas, as with Sgt Dub in Afghanistan. May you be safe and God bless you for your sacrifice. Bless you too Tyk, my Muslim friend in Lebanon. Our prayers are with you in hoping that peace will one day come to your land.

God bless Muslims, Jews, Christians and Buddhists throughout the world. May you find it in your hearts to help mankind evolve into a more peaceful kind of existence.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Rock

Saving the World: Michael Richards to Guerilla Warfare

Michael Richards and his Biiiiiig Mouth

Michael, Kramer on Seinfeld, not only used the N word at his recent appearance at the Laugh Factory, he repeated it several times so that we would understand him clearly. I would be inclined to accept his apology on David Letterman, except he had to bring Katrina into it.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The thing that is galling is that he said such racist things, and then he goes and blurts another racist thing—implying that the reaction to Katrina was based on race. Unacceptable racism followed by politically correct racism. I can only come to one conclusion now. Michael Richards is a racist to the bone.

click to hide most of this post

Pelosi and Ethics

Nancy Pelosi has gone and wanted to do it again. She wants to appoint Alcee Hastings to the Intelligence committee chair.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

This guy was impeached for unethical conduct while he was a judge. So much for Pelosi’s pledge to make this the “most ethical congress in history”—first trying to appoint the unethical John Murtha, and now Hastings.

click to hide most of this post

Moderate Muslims

I have to admit, though I was busy when I heard these, and wasn’t near a recorder or a pen at the times, I’ve begun to notice some moderate Muslims starting to speak out. There are a couple books out there—I’ll bone up on this as soon as I can. Plus, there are some Muslim leaders in the world and in America who are beginning to appear on talk shows. This does my heart good.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

On the other hand, they purport to speak for the majority of Muslims and I wonder about this. I hope they are accurate, but you hear so much about radical Islam in Europe, as in England, and even in the U.S., like in Dearborn, Michigan. I hope the new voices prove me wrong, as might Tyk, one of my commenters, from Lebanon, who also believes the majority of Muslims are like he.

I’d feel more comfortable if I saw as much outrage from the Muslim community about suicide bombings, Osama bin Laden, and the shelling of innocents as I’ve seen about statements by the Pope, or Dutch cartoons. Another issue I have is, why wouldn’t Muslims want Iraq to be free of Saddam and running their own country with a democracy? Why are they so against this? Fine, they want Americans out of a Muslim land—then what? Also, why do they view the Americans as invaders rather than liberators? These things I don’t understand. It just all seems to point to the fact that it remains easy for the majority of Muslims to believe that the West, led by the U.S., is evil.

click to hide most of this post

60% of Iraqi’s Think It’s Okay to Kill Americans

This I heard on one of my radio talks shows (Michael Medved). If this is true, then we may have to oblige them. I realize that “cut and run” might lead to an Iran-dominated area there. What is the alternative, though?

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Regardless of denials, this situation is starting to sound more and more like Vietnam. In both cases, in my present view, the U.S. waged war for honorable reasons; but in both cases, too, we did not get the rabid support we needed in order to help the locals fend off tyranny. We can’t do it alone. The geo-political situation is always a chess match, and we either have to come up with some new moves or live to fight another day.

click to hide most of this post

Towards a New Style of Fighting Guerilla Warfare

I still believe that we need to come up with a new style of fighting our guerilla wars. Our present way of doing it truly reminds me of the British and Americans in the Revolutionary War, and of the Americans in some of the Civil War. In those wars it was usually considered the “honorable thing” to stand up in full sight and fire your weapons at your enemy, also standing up and firing at you.

The first successful guerilla fighters were the Native Americans, who hid behind trees and used camouflage.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Modern insurgents and guerilla fighters like Al-Queda do not wear uniforms, which is against the Geneva Conventions, and hide among the populace, also forbidden. Whether it is forbidden or not, they do it. The good guys, the U.S. and its allies, abide by all the Geneva Conventions, and are at a disadvantage.

I think that the Geneva Conventions need to be revisited for “asymmetrical warfare” like we have now, fighting people that do not honor the codes. I also think that new tactics and strategies need to be devised so that our soldiers do not keep following our present strategy of winning the conventional part of the war but losing the guerilla part of the it. We can beat anyone in a conventional war, but our model of “standing guard” does not work once we’ve conquered the physical territory.

click to hide most of this post

Muslim Ingratitude

While Bush behaves like a perfect gentleman, he is cast as a living Satan. This man has more patience than Job. The press reports the "facts." The liberals join the radical Islamists in their propaganda. Even Bush supporters seem intimidated by all the negativity. There remain only a few lonely voices standing up for truth.

Anti-Bush protests hit Indonesia - CNN.com: JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP)

Thousands wound through the streets of Indonesia's capital and gathered at mosques Sunday to protest U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to the world's most populous Muslim nation, some chanting "War criminal" and "You are a terrorist!" Bush's arrival Monday comes amid mounting anger over U.S. policy in the Middle East and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan -- seen by many here as attacks on Muslims.

To the Muslims and Americans that hate America, George W. Bush expelled a terrorist organization in Afghanistan, and a tyrant in Iraq. He did these things to protect America and to help Muslims. The dual purpose was to defeat terrorists who were killing civilians, and to enable Muslims in this area to have freedom under governments and systems they choose. Muslims, and leftists, should thank President Bush and the Americans who died for them in this noble endeavor to bring peace and freedom to the world.

Maligning the Just

To Americans who don't understand why "the world" hates us, and why half of our country seems to join "the world" in this, this is one of those times in history when goodness is rewarded with hatred. Why do human beings do this? I don't know. Why were many of the saints killed or persecuted? I don't know. Why was Copernicus persecuted for saying the earth revolves around the sun? I don't know.

What I do know is that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. Lies will travel around the world twice before the truth has a chance to put on its pants.

Iraq, Bush, Oil and Muslims

Iraq is perceived as a mess, now even by the military leaders. So, people look for someone to blame. Fine, blame Bush. I join you in saying that it was an ill-conceived war. On the other hand, it was always worth the try, and it was always the right thing to do. The world, and liberals, are so wrong in perpetrating the myths that the war was waged for oil, and that the war is against Muslims.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The U.S. has not profited from this war. In fact, it has now spent more treasure on it than in Vietnam. If Bush did it for oil, why hasn't he seized the oil fields to pay for the war? It just doesn't make sense to make this accusation.

It is also obvious that this is not a war against Muslims. In fact, it is the opposite. Bush has freed two Muslim countries from tyrants. He wants to create a free Iraq. Why can't he do it? In my opinion, it is because the people of Iraq are not willing to fight for their own lives and freedom. They are grown so used to being subjugated by a strongman, and so filled with sectarian hatreds, that they can't envision anything better. Is this Bush's fault?

The One Product of Radical Islam

The only product that Middle-Eastern radical Muslims create in the world is hatred. Hatred for everything good. Ingratitude for help. With all the wealth in that area there should be a flowering of Islam. Where is it? Tiny Israel is stopping the Middle Eastern Islamic states from becoming great countries? The U.S. is preventing these Islamic nations from flowering? No. These countries teach their children hate and nothing else. They will become great again when they stop demonizing Jews and Americans and start loving their children, and teaching them to be doctors, and artists, and scientists. They've got the wealth. Let them use it for the good of the world instead of for bombing babies.

Speak Out

For good Americans, the people that love this country, it is important that you join together to condemn the misinformation and bullying that we are experiencing. Just simply speak the truth. You don't have to defend Bush for things you think he has blundered, but it is vital that you defend him for his goodwill. He is a good man, and you ought to be proud to say it. Iraq and Afghanistan are noble endeavors, if ill-conceived and unfinished.

Although protest is fair game, we are free also so say how we feel. I feel that these anti-Bush protests shame the protesters more than they shame Bush. Shame on them for their ingratitude. Shame on them for wasting the lives of their people with irrational hatreds and scapegoating.

OJ Book and Show Cancelled!

Sometimes human nature surprises me. All of you people who pressured Fox and Judith Regan to cancel the book and show succeeded, whereas I was one of the morbidly curious. Again, you are better human beings than I, and I salute you for getting this thing quashed. The good guys and girls won one. Thank you all.

Rock

click to hide most of this post

Good and Evil

Targeting Civilians versus Collateral Damage

Propaganda versus Truth

A couple of recent comments serve to highlight the job we good, truthful people have on this earth. We are up against a propaganda machine that is fueled by ignorance and psychological factors beyond our control. Unfortunately it is a real battle between good and evil.

Liberals tend to feel, not think. They cannot distinguish between websites, for example, that are propaganda tools and those that are informative and objective. One sign, for example, that a site is a propaganda machine is that it is one-sided. If you land on a site that is only, for example, anti-Bush, you are on a biased, probably liberal, propaganda smear site. Go ahead and read, but the site is looking for evidence to support its theories. Compare that with this site. Here, you'll find good and bad things said about Bush. This is one sign that the site is seeking truth.

Moral Equivalence

Left-wing sites constantly promote moral equivalence. They propagandize, for example, that collateral damage is the same thing as targeting civilians.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

They cannot understand the difference between flying planes into towers full of innocent people in order to kill those people and a bomb going astray that was targeting a terrorist encampment. It is evil to walk into a market full of shopping housewives with a bomb strapped to your body. It is a necessarily unfortunate part of war, though, that innocent civilians will be killed. Terrorists are aware of leftist sympathy for them, and use this to develop new tactics, such as using human shields to protect themselves.

There is no moral equivalence. Here is the difference. One person dresses in civilian clothes; lobs mortars at civilians; hides among civilians; and tries to get the opposing army to attack them while they are in the midst of civilians. The other person wears a uniform; does not hide; seeks out military targets; and tries to kill the person who is killing civilians. Sometimes this second person unfortunately kills a civilian--the one the terrorist is hiding behind, or near. The first person is evil. The second person is good. Period.

Leftists demonize America and Israel, and excuse Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah. Their moral universe is warped.

click to hide most of this post

The Nuclear Conundrum

List of States with Nuclear Weapons

There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states," an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and purportedly North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognized by international bodies as none of these four countries are currently signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has been developing uranium enrichment technology and stands accused by the United Nations of doing so for weapons purposes.

History of Nuclear Weapons

The United States was the first country to develop nuclear weapons with the Manhattan Project, from 1942 to 1946, where they won the race for the weapon with Germany and Japan. The United States was the first and remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons, in WWII, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945. The bombs together killed roughly 214,000 people, the majority civilians. Dropping the bombs arguably ended WWII early, preventing the planned invasion of Japan and saving many American and Japanese lives.

MAD

In the Cold War that followed WWII, Russia first developed nuclear weapons in 1949. Eventually, Russia and the United States had so many nuclear weapons that they could destroy each other in any all-out nuclear confrontation. This led to a kind of uneasy peace guaranteed by MAD (mutually assured destruction), the fear that the use of nuclear weapons by any country will also lead to its own destruction, by the sure retaliation of the attacked state.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Since this time, the rest of the nuclear club has developed its nuclear weapons while avoiding using them again because of MAD. MAD has worked so far because all the countries with nuclear weapons, however illogical they may seem at times, appear to fear being destroyed. Another thing that has kept nuclear weapons from being used is that people all over the globe have come to the conclusion that Hirhoshima and Nagasaki were so horrible that nuclear bombs should never be used again. Plus, the civilized world now believes that targeting innocent civilians in war is no longer acceptable.

The Breakdown of MAD

Despite several attempts at curbing the development and spread of nuclear weapons, there are still enough of them in the world now to destroy the earth several times over. Plus, as was mentioned in the opening paragraph of this post, these kinds of weapons are now in the hands of eight or nine states.

MAD is still working, evidently, but the big fear is that one day soon it will no longer apply. When North Korea and Iran develop their full arsenals of nuclear weapons, these WMD's will be in the hands of rogue states, who have disregarded world opinion and appear unpredictable and even dangerous in their aggressive postures toward their neighbors. Iran, for example, has vowed to destroy Israel, another nuclear state.

Plus, terrorists like Al-Queda have been trying to obtain nuclear weapons for some time now. Unscrupulous characters in Russia, Korea or Iran could sell or give nuclear weapons to the terrorists. The terrorists, as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. World Trade Center Towers, seem unconcerned with killing innocent civilians, and unafraid even of their own destruction. They effectively lost a whole country, Afghanistan, but continue to proliferate underground. MAD does not seem to work with them.

It would take one nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. It would take about eight to effectively cripple the United States. It would take one in the U.S. to effect a catastrophe bigger than Katrina.

Iran and North Korea

Present world tactics to stop Iran and North Korea from developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons are useless. Both countries have every reason to enter the nuclear club, and the world is not united enough to punish them to the point where they will give up their ambitions. Both Iran and North Korea see what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and figure that this could not have happened had these countries possessed nuclear weapons. They are correct. Plus, having nuclear weapons gains a country respect and financial reward. Unfortunately, this is the truth.

Solutions

Our present solution to the nuclear problem is to try to keep the number of nuclear weapons in the world stable, or decrease it; and to stop nuclear proliferation, especially into the hands of rogue states. This tactic clearly is breaking down.

If the world bans nuclear weapons entirely, will this help? The problem is that some countries will not go along with this, or will keep nuclear weapons secretly. Then, the countries that gave up their weapons will be at a disadvantage. This will be the worst case for the world. All the good nations will be defenseless and all the bad ones will be able to destroy the good ones.

What is the solution? I am not smart enough to say. There is no country on earth that has been smart enough to say.

The United States continues to tilt at windmills in its quest to keep Iran and Korea out of the nuclear club. I wish us well in this, but I don't see that we will succeed. These two countries will have nuclear weapons.

Plus, MAD will no longer work with the terrorists.

So, we're in an impossible situation.

I suggest we continue to think. We must come up with a solution. We should not give up in trying to keep Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear club, but we also need a vision that goes beyond this. It is not enough for us to pray, since I believe that God has given us this conundrum as a test whether we deserve to survive as a species. The answer to our prayers, I believe, is that God wants us to solve this problem ourselves.

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 Problem with Democracy

Benevolent Dictatorships Always Work Better than Democracies

Things were better for some Iraqis when Saddam was in charge. If you were a Sunni, and you kept your nose clean, life was pretty good for you at that time. Now, after those nasty Americans invaded your country you can’t even go out for a cup of coffee without worrying about being blown up.

Dictatorships are always better than democracies at keeping the peace. Hitler could just cremate the “troublemakers” in Germany; Mussolini could hang anyone who didn’t make the trains run on time; Saddam could drop poison gas on trouble-making Kurds.

These dictators were not benevolent. What if you could find a benevolent dictator, like Napoleon Bonaparte maybe? Let’s say, for example sake, that Jesus himself would become your dictator. That would be a pretty good deal. The trains would run on time, and you would be treated humanely and fairly.

One problem with dictatorships, though, is that true benevolent dictators are rare. Maybe King Hussein in Jordan comes close to this ideal. There are other problems too, though. Power corrupts, as they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the benevolent dictator can be tempted to abuse his power. If King David, for example, wants another man’s wife, he can send that man off to certain death in battle. Another problem is how can you find the next benevolent dictator when this one dies or retires? One further problem is that a single man, or woman, cannot be an expert in all matters. This is why Germany lost WWII. Hitler’s war strategies led to disaster for his country.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

So, the final word on kingdoms and dictatorships is that they can work very well if you have a brilliant saint in charge. If you have less than a brilliant saint in charge, though, these forms of government lead either to human rights abuses or worse, or at least to decision-making that threatens the survival of the nation.

Even in Saddam’s Iraq, even if you were a Sunni, the quality of life was severely crimped by the fact that you always had to fear offending Saddam. No one was safe from his moods or whims. Your wife and children weren’t secure. There was no real protection of the law. That’s no kind of life.

The Problem with Democracy

Democracy is inherently more disorderly than any kingdom or dictatorship. It is always closer to mob rule. The trade-off is freedom.

In a democracy, the rights of citizens are protected, so that, for example, criminals have the right to defend themselves. You can’t torture someone to get a confession. You can’t hang a man because he looks at you funny. You can’t even search a man’s property unless you have a warrant. All in all, it’s a safer environment for criminals. So, there’s more crime, more disorder, more protests in a democracy.

Democracy and War

Democracies have a more difficult time sustaining war efforts than dictatorships. The terrorists, for example, can kill you if you don’t join them in bombing the local hospital. They can pluck your eyes out if you don’t chop off the head of the hostage you just captured. They can throw your children in a ditch and cover them up if you don’t join the street demonstration against the “awful” American devils. Dictators can whip up and sustain a fever war pitch in their populaces by brainwashing their subjects, threatening them, torturing and killing them if they resist.

Democracies go to war following major events, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the toppling of the World Trade Center towers. In these instances, they are so incensed by something that their anger can only be assuaged by military effort. Democracies can then maintain their war efforts only as long as the populace believes in the justness of the war. If they see their young men dying, and forget the reasons why, they begin to withdraw their support for the effort, and then can stop the war by the power of their vote or collective opinions.

Dictatorships understand all this. They know that one part of every war with a democracy is to fight the propaganda war too. All you need to do is convince about 60% of the citizens in your enemy’s democracy that the war is not worth it in order to win.

The Value of Democracy

All this, in my opinion, nonetheless lends support to the value of democracy. It is a trade-off. We give up some order in our society in order to have freedom. We give up some staying power in war in order to ensure that our cause in any war is just.

This is why democracies are safer for the world. Democracies rarely can sustain a war effort that proves ineffective or unjust. This is a good thing. It means futile wars end sooner than later, and it discourages adventurism and imperialism.

Lessons for Iraq

It would be great if we could install democracy in Iraq. This would indeed make the world safer. The trade-off, though, is less order there. In the present, it even means chaos. Iraq is in the same place America was during our Civil War, or in the darkest days of our Revolution. It is a place of chaos. This is the price of freedom. This chaos will end if and when the Iraqi people decide to fight, die, and win for freedom.

If democracy takes over in Iraq, things might never be as orderly as they once were when Saddam was in charge. On the other hand, people then will be able to go out for a cup of coffee, and relax while drinking that coffee, without having to worry that their daughter will be raped by a soldier with a whim.

click to hide most of this post

O.J. and Pelosi

These two are not related news stories, except that conservative Republicans like me, and even some other Americans, think both characters are bad for America.

If He Did It

I said before in a previous post that one of my IQ tests for any American is to ask them if they think that OJ is guilty. If they say Yes, then they have at least an average or above average IQ. If they say No, then they are morons—and this includes the racist jury that found him innocent.

click to show/hide the rest of this OJ segment

I’m no longer passionate about the case, except my feelings against any American who persists in ignoring the mountain of evidence against Mr. Simpson. This kind of willful negligence is the real continuing tragedy of the case.

I know the Fox channel is going to broadcast this upcoming event in a few days, where OJ is interviewed by Judith Regan. I’m not as incensed about the show as much as other Americans. I respect anyone’s right to be furious about this show, but I guess I’m too jaded at this point. I feel deeply sorry for the Goldman family that they have to sit through this. Plus, I think that Ms. Regan and Fox should have been careful to ensure that any profits from the show go to the Goldman’s and not to Simpson.

Also, airing of the show will hurt the Simpson children. It can’t help but mess them up further psychologically. Their father has proven by doing the show and book that his murdering of their mother was not a one-time fit of anger, but the mark of a sociopathic or psychopathic heart, mind, and soul.

Still, though I feel all this, I’m going to watch the interview anyway. I have no moral ground on which to stand with this. I will watch for three reasons:

1. morbid curiosity;

2. I want to see how this murderer explains his actions and watch how a psychopath expresses himself about his crime; and

3. I want to see O.J. Simpson “confess,” and watch him struggle and squirm on national TV.

A side benefit of this for me is that I hope this demonstrates to the remaining O.J. supporters what kind of human being they have been defending all these years. I know that every accused person deserves a defense in America, but I’ve always disliked, and have been on the verge of hating, the people that defended him, especially since they went above and beyond by playing the race card in this case, and stood up for him even after the trial was over, when they could have stopped their pretense.

I hold people like attorney Leo Terrell in particular contempt since they defend OJ to this day, and I assume it’s for racial reasons, which I find despicable.

click to hide most of this OJ segment

Nancy Pelosi

I was easy on Ms. Pelosi when she first got elected, but now she has disappointed me already. She seemed like she was going to be a sensible leader by reaching out to the moderates in her party, who are the ones who just won the House for her, but I see I was very wrong on this. She tried to get her radical leftist friends chosen for the important posts, like Congressman John Murtha from Pennsylvania (defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland for the position of the new majority leader) and now another, and presently gives every indication that she will indeed be fighting for the San Francisco values that moderates, independents, and conservatives feared.

click to show/hide the rest of this Pelosi segment

So, it looks like San Francisco values will be worth an upcoming post. In the meantime, she has been defeated twice by her own party, and we’ll see if the moderate Democrats continue to beat her.

I still judge that she must have enormous political talent, but I think her gut feelings are overwhelming her political savvy, and she will not be able to withstand her socialist, anti-American sentiments. Which means we are in for a nightmare with her in control. Hold on to your wallets, America, and your values. Look out for your weapons and your status, military, and be afraid America. Without the political acumen and restraint she seemed to have right before the election, she is a danger to everything we hold dear.

click to hide most of this Pelosi segment

Truth and Democracy

Nothing is More Important than Truth in a Democracy

A Good Blog Is:

A good blog of any kind must be simple and unified, even relentless. It must have a central theme and support this theme with every word, picture and even advertisement. This kind of thing you can see in The Daily Kos, Anne Coulter’s site, Michelle Malkin, Rush’s site, any number of successful political blogs and sites.

My site is unified around truth, in politics, news and entertainment. It leans right, but seeks truth from the left and right wing. My blog is unique in that I am eager for all kinds of truth, including philosophical truth, and truth about God and life. This opens my blog up to the great philosophical questions mankind is always asking. I don’t propagandize for a particular viewpoint; rather, I ask my audience to think, hard. I challenge them to become good Republicans, Democrats, citizens of the United States and of the world, and good human beings.

Mixing Messages

Political pundits rarely mix their messages. Rush delivers red-meat right-wing propaganda. Ann Coulter offers cutthroat controversial anti-left attacks, with humor. Michelle Malkin presents well-researched politically incorrect right-wing stuff. Bill Maher performs drive-by anti-right humor and mantras that make leftists feel they are cool, hip and smart.

A couple of pundits are in a category by themselves. William F. Buckley, for example, is one of the fathers of modern conservatism. Instead of talking down to his audience, he maintains a lofty level of language and ideas that challenge people just to understand what he is saying. His message is simple, pure conservatism, but his delivery is highly intellectual. On the left is Buckley’s counterpart, Gore Vidal. Then there is the faux intellectual, Noam Chomsky, who speaks nonsense every time he opens his mouth, but with great flair and elevated vocabulary, so that he sounds like he is smart.

Back down to earth, there are some pundits who get away with mixing their messages. Dennis Prager successfully mixes religion and politics. Michael Medved has created a niche relating popular culture and politics.

I mix philosophy and politics.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Philosophy and Politics

I think philosophy and politics are a natural duo. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle started it all with such works as The Republic, with the first recorded discussions about the philosophy of democracy and other forms of government. Then, of course, we’ve had all kinds of philosophers who talked about politics, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill.

One reason why we don’t do this anymore is that America is relatively settled. It has chosen its political philosophy, which is a democratically representative republic. We’ve got all our political traditions in place, and there is no need for a revolution anymore, unless you listen to the far left rhetoric about the matter—the radical leftists, socialists, anarchists, One-Worlders—the ones who demonstrate against the World Trade Organization and The World Bank and so on. They would love a revolution. Some days I would love one too, a revolution to install common sense back into politics.

I do think, though, that there is a need now to once again start exploring the philosophy of politics. Not because this is a time for a revolution; rather, because the world has gotten so complex, fast changing, and small. Whether we like it or not, we rub up against all the cultures and governmental systems of the world now, with extensive travel, instantaneous communication, and relentless immigration.

Why Philosophy is Important in the Iraq War

Part of the reason, I think, we fail in some of our wars, like Vietnam and Iraq, is that we lack an expert knowledge of the cultures of these lands. You can’t install a Western-style democracy in a land that doesn’t want it or isn’t prepared for it. If your theory is that all people hunger for freedom, this might be true; but it is also true that freedom must be earned; it cannot be imposed. Iraqis must be willing to die for freedom, or they won’t get it. Plus, freedom can have many faces. Freedom in Iraq might look different than freedom in America.

Black and White versus Relative Truth

My blog is an attempt to deal with the complexity of our world through the simplicity of truth. As I will continue to say, some things are black and white, and some things are relative.

America is good. This is truth.

Our soldiers are heroes. Truth.

Republicans are mostly good people. Truth.

Democrats are on the wrong track. Truth.

Islam is on the wrong track. Truth.

George Bush is a good president. Relative.

If you have read this whole post to the end, you are brilliant. Truth. At least, that's my opinion.

Thanks.

click to hide most of this post

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