CAN'T TAKE THE LEFT SERIOUSLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Well, we once again have General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the Democrats have toned down their rhetoric somewhat -- telling MoveOn.org not to run any "General Betray-us" ads and not stating outright that they think the good General is a liar -- they left little doubt on this, the first day of hearings, that the Left simply cannot be taken seriously on matters of national security.

The New York Times piece on the matter provides the quotes from the various Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. Clearly, neither of them is ready for prime time.

Hillary, the lovely and talented wife of the priapic Bill, cited what The Times calls "sluggish political progress and a questionable recent Iraqi military campaign in Basra" to make the dubious point that the surge, ably led by Gen. Petraeus, wasn't working. Said the would-be Madame President, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Right! We aren't getting any results. Check your sources, Hillary. Violence all over Iraq has gone down. The Iraqi government has come up with oil revenue sharing plans. Sunnis, once given the cold shoulder in the Shiite majority government, are now taking their places in the government and the military with outstanding results. Oh, and that mission in Basra? Much has been made about the 1000 Iraqi deserters, but no mention of the 96% or more who stayed and fought bravely.

Just a little historical reminder: the Iraqis are trying to do what our Founding Fathers did when they formed our government. They are doing it under fire from outsiders (al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria) and they are doing it in a part of the world that hasn't seen anything like representative government in its entire history, until the founding of Israel in 1948. More importantly, they are doing it faster than our Founding Fathers. If this is failure, than we need far more of it in the world.

Speaking of Iran, none of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee seemed at all interested in Gen. Petraeus' account of Iranian interference in Iraq, principally among the Shiite militias, but also through their puppet, Syria, which is arming and aiding al Qaeda and other Sunni fighters. It's not as if Iran doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the Democrats get their way, Iran will be left in control of Iraq, whether the Sunnis or the Shiites win out. Either way, they'll be dancing to Tehran's tune.

Which, of course, brings us to the Saintly One, Barak Obama, who spent his time in the limelight on the Committee to restate his view that the Iraq war was a “massive strategic blunder.” OK, so what do we do now, other than turn tail and run?

Elsewhere, Saint Obama has called for direct talks, a "diplomatic surge" he called it, with Iran, saying that "I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that." He also wants to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to self governance by pulling American troops out. Said His Holiness: "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Did someone say, "Neville Chamberlain"? Saint Obama seems to think that if we just sit down with the mullah-tocracy of Iran and send our troops home from Iraq, all will be suddenly right in the world! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? We are talking about Islamo-fascists. Iran has made countless deals with the West. They've gotten concession after concession. And every one of those deals they have violated. So Saint Obama wants to talk some more? Let me know how that one works out!

While Saint Obama is making his pitch for a "diplomatic surge", it seems that Iran has been honoring past agreements about their nuclear program by announcing the completion of 6,000 new centrifuges to make even more fuel for a power program and, more likely, weapons use. This thanks to the outstanding (well, maybe not) efforts of the UN and the European Community, which has been trying to get Iran to stop.

Clearly, Saint Obama is not at all mature enough, nor knowledgeable enough, to take the helm of this great nation. Negotiating with Islamo-fascists is every bit as futile as negotiating with Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. It's worse than futile. It lets our leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done, while the real enemy laughs at our naivete and goes about the business of fascists everywhere: total global domination.

Which, by the way, is also the ultimate goal of Islam itself. On this matter, I don't think that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats. It annoys me to no end when President Bush says that the Islamic terrorists have hijacked a "great religion of peace". Even a casual perusal of the Qu'ran will show you how uninformed that is.

That being said, at least the Bush administration has taken this fight back to the enemy in their lands, rather than here in the United States. Whatever their weaknesses, the Republicans, especially the Conservatives, are far and beyond superior to the Democrats and the Left when it comes to national security.

Let's not forget that, until 9/11/2001, we were getting hit by Islamo-fascists at least once every other year. The Clinton years are especially illustrative. The absolute most that the Clintonistas did against al Qaeda was to fire a few cruise missiles. Even then, they tipped them off by warning Pakistan. Worse, they picked the day the priapic Bill Clinton was waiting to see if he had truly suborned Monica Lewinski's perjury before the grand jury. Other than those less than useless pinpricks, he did nothing!

On the other hand, the case can be made, based upon the afore mentioned statistics, that the Bush policies have actually made Americans safer. After all, how many attacks have we experienced since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Let me count... Oh! We haven't had any! Yet the Democrats still insist that President Bush has made us less safe than we were in the 1990's.

This is why the Left and the Democrats cannot be taken seriously on national security.

They really don't get it!

Copyright April 8th, 2008

Looking Through Race Colored Glasses

Today, the Washington Post published an analysis of the fallout from Michigan voters approving Proposition 2, which will end all racial preferences in hiring and promoting employees, contracting, and entry into schools. The vote was decisive, fully 58% of voters agreed that affirmative action should be banned. But don't worry, my Friends on the Left! The government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers has rushed into the breech to save racism --Sorry! I meant equal opportunity for minorities.

I know that some folks might question my Politically Incorrect humor in that last sentence, so let me explain. I am a Conservative. I freely admit it. I am not a racist. I have no opinion, one way or the other regarding anyone's race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Of course, I expect the for same for me in return.

I believe that racism is not only wrong. It is stupid, stupid, stupid. It makes no sense personally, economically, or politically.

Therefore, I am steadfastly opposed to affirmative action in all its ways, shapes and forms.

Why? Because affirmative action is nothing less than racism and discrimination. It is wrong and stupid whether it is expressed against blacks and other minorities or against white males.

I happen to be in good company, since Michigan and California both agreed with what I wrote above. Indeed, they agree in overwhelming numbers.

Now, the Left, as is its wont, is trying to find ways around the Will of the People. The ACLU, no surprise, is wading in with litigation that will attempt to slow or reverse implementation of Proposition 2. Kary L. Moss, the executive director of the ACLU in Michigan describes a series of "both offensive and defensive lawsuits" to determine the bill's meaning for Michigan

Kwame Kilpatrick, the mayor of Detroit, is trying to limit city contracts to only those from within the city, which is 80% black. As much as he doesn't like what the voters want, though, his spokesman, Matt Allen, seems to think it's all a done deal: "As of December 22, there can be no more gender or race preferences."

According to the Washington Post, analysts believe that racism, and fear that whites are losing out in a state where the economy hasn't been quite as strong as elsewhere, was what tipped the balance in favor of Proposition 2. Linda Parker, Michigan's director of the Department of Civil Rights claimed that proponents "sold a bill of goods to Michigan voters, and played into the fears we have".

Look, here's the problem with what Ms. Parker said: she is playing upon the stereotype that anyone who's opposed to affirmative action (or anything promoted by the Left) is full of hate, fear, bigotry, and evil. Ms. Parker, in other words, is engaging in stereotyping in a racist and bigoted manner.

How dare I say that? Easily! I look into myself, and see the lie that Ms. Parker and all those Nanny Staters on the Left tell themselves and the undereducated.

In 1994, one of Newt Gingrich's advisers describe affirmative action as a form of sado-masochism in that you get to force someone who thinks you're a turkey to hire you anyway.

There is another way to look at affirmative action. Let's say that my great-grandfather was a known bank robber. It was an established fact that he robbed banks but he was never brought to justice. He died unpunished for his crimes and this was a great injustice. Therefore, we are going to put you in jail to make up for the injustice of my great-grandfather's life of crime. This will make me feel better, since I wouldn't have the guilt of my forebear's sins. And you will feel better since you are helping to correct the tragic injustices of the past.

And Liberals will feel better because they have found a whole new victim class to exploit and ensnare on their plantation of the Nanny State.

Repeating a theme which I will visit time and again in this blog, a truly free market would eliminate the effects of racism exposing the economic stupidity of bigotry.

Consider this thought experiment: You and I each own a business, selling widgets, say. We are competitors, each vying for a larger slice of the economic pie. I, for the purposes of this experiment, am bigoted against, say, purple people. I won't buy from them regardless of the price they offer, I won't sell to them regardless of how much they'd pay, I won't hire them regardless of how little they'd work for. You, on the other hand, only care about the green of the money. You'll buy from anyone who'll give you a good value for a good price. You'll sell to the highest bidder, regardless of color. And you'll hire the workers who give you the best return for your investments in their labor.

Now comes the crunch: Which one of us will still be in business ten, twenty, thirty years down the line? You, of course! You will out compete me at every turn. You will collect profits while I pile up debt.

So then, in a free market, what power did my bigotry bestow upon me? Absolutely nothing! That is the beauty of free markets. It equalizes everyone in terms of of opportunity, rather than the color of their skins or their gender, or... uhm, just about any other way the Left would like to divide us.

And what does affirmative action offer? Well, it offers hopelessness to their "favored" minorities, who are taught that they can not do for themselves without the Left's programs, it balkanizes us from each other in that we now become hyphenated Americans, and it cheats everyone because the incompetent are promoted beyond their abilities.

All of the above reasons are why affirmative action is stupid. Morally, it is every bit as reprehensible as the racism it seeks to remedy.

Bigotry, regardless of the motivations, is stupid and immoral. So let's put away our Race Colored Glasses!

Copyright Nov. 18th, 2006