1984

DWBB DWBB DWBB

I noticed a comment earlier this week, an out-of-context reference to Orwell’s ‘1984’. As it happens, I was re-reading ‘1984’ this past week, and once again observed that while it is justifiably called a classic, it is such for reasons the Liberals have neither observed, nor are willing to accept.

To refresh the memories of those who have not read ‘1984’ recently, the book focuses on the life on one Winston Smith, citizen of Oceania and outer member of the ‘The Party'. Smith lives on an island called ‘Airstrip One’, though he vaguely recalls it used to be called England. From this perspective, the reader sees a world in black and grey, all of it dirty and defiled, so that by the end of the book it is no wonder that the forces of oppression have won.

Many people have concluded that Orwell was sending a clarion warning of the dangers of Soviet Communism; and he was doing just that. But most people have forgotten that despite being British by citizenship, Orwell was not born there; he was born in Bengal in 1903 under the given name of Eric Blair, and served with the Loyalist forces in the Spanish Civil War. ‘1984’ was written in 1948, just one year before Orwell died from a lung ailment, which may go a distance in explaining his depression and futilism in the novel. Orwell was a Socialist, in that same unrealistic sense that pursues a dream without much notion of how to make it real. In the novel, the Party is opposed by a small, nebulous group which calls itself The Brotherhood, but without any formal roster, chain of command, or political platform. Rather, in my opinion, like those modern-day Socialists who protest everything done, but with so substantial or detailed plan for how to repair the issue. In ‘1984’, Capitalists are only discussed in perjorative and misleading terms, confused by the protagonist and the Party with the worst excesses of the aristocracy. When Winston acquires a copy of the forbidden “Book”, he learns that “the final phase of Capitalism” ended in the 1940s. How convenient, to exclude one of the most formidable positive influences on Society by claiming it was already obsolete. Ironic, that a device either used by Orwell to show the ignorance of the Party or demonstrating his own short-sghtedness, is so reflective of the modern Liberal mindset.

I also found the re-read interesting, because of the theme on War. In ‘1984’, Orwell’s world exists only as three great Super-states: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, which exist for practical purposes as oligarchies of equal size, strength, and morality. That is to say, a convenient and completely unreasonable assumption of global development, which ignores the culture, social fabric, and historical track of over a hundred-eighty nations. And again it is fascinating to see how this is reflected in the modern Liberal mindset, which considers all nations of equal moral weight, and every culture identical in character to any other. Although the Liberals borrow from another Orwell classic, and insist that Communists and Socialists are ‘more equal’ than others.

But I also re-discovered something I had forgotten before. Orwell explains that the world of The Party and the war is unending; Orwell implies that the future is hopeless, and survival a quixotic illusion. The strongmen came to power and ordinary people have no effective weapon against them; it was strange to me to read the physical description of Big Brother:

“the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features.”

That, and the fact that Big Brother plasters his mug everywhere, sure reminds me of Saddam Hussein. That, and the way that Liberals had and have so many things to say against his enemies.

I’m sure I don’t need to go into a detailed exploration of how ‘Newspeak’ found its way into Liberal Reality; calling Abortion “Choice”; calling suppression or religious expression “Freedom”; and demanding special rights and advantages for selected minority groups but claiming this is done in the name of “Equal Rights”. All of these tell us where Orwell’s ‘Party' went after his death.

It's enough to make me look a Clinton in the eye and ask them how "O'Brien" is doing.

NO MERCY

...

Convicted murderer, gangbanger and Liberal celebrity Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to die in California. Not surprisingly, there are many people on his side, including a showcase of successful rappers.

“He’s a special guy”, gushed Snoop Dogg. You got that right, Snoop. Williams not only murdered four people in 1979, he was a co-founder of that famous Youth Activities Association known as the “Crips”, whose long history includes murdering young men for the offense of wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong neighborhood, or even for just being in the way.


Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to meet privately with Williams’ lawyers on December 8. That does not speak well for Justice, or promise solace for the families of Yen-I Yang, Ysai-Shai, Yee-Chen Lin, or Albert Owens.

I notice that no celebrity seems to believe they should speak up for a murdered convenience store clerk, or for a family who did everything he demanded, but whom he killed just to leave no witnesses. Let me be very, very clear: In my book, if you put a shotgun to the head of a little girl and end her life, just because she’s inconvenient, there is nothing, at all, that you can say or do that justifies letting you continue to draw air. These murders were especially brutal and unprovoked. And his career as an entrepreneur of violence and devastated lives only confirms it. Justice demands that Williams receive the fate he earned.

The call is simple, Mr. Governor, but it’s vital you tell California there is a line which cannot be crossed. When you meet with his lawyers, explain to Mr. Williams through them that he will receive as he has dealt, in full measure. No mercy – that was the creed of Williams’ life before he got caught, it should be no different now that he sees his fell resolution come to claim him.

PFL Week Twelve

Week Twelve Scoreboard

Week Twelve Scoreboard

Eisenhower (12-0) 45, Hayes (5-6) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (12-0) 49, B Harrison (4-8) 3
Washington (12-0) 59, Carter (2-10) 13
George W Bush (11-0) 25, Truman (9-3) 6
Reagan (11-0) 34, Madison (7-5) 13
Monroe (10-1), idle
Jefferson (10-2) 47, Hoover (1-11) 9
FDR (10-2) 42, Arthur (5-7) 9
Grant (9-2) 41, Garfield (2-10) 10
JFK (9-3) 15, Taft (7-4) 6
Polk (9-3) 30, Van Buren (3-8) 12
Cleveland (7-4), idle
Lincoln (8-4) 43, GHW Bush (5-7) 3
John Adams (6-5), idle
John Quincy Adams (6-5), idle
McKinley (6-5), idle
Wilson (7-5) 32, Ford (4-8) 6
Jackson (6-6) 44, Clinton (0-11) 9
Nixon (6-6) 43, Buchanan (0-11) 6
Taylor (6-6) 38, A Johnson (0-11) 3
Tyler (4-8) 21, Pierce (2-9) 9
Coolidge (3-9) 18, Harding (2-9) 16
Fillmore (2-10) W Harrison (2-9) 15
LBJ (1-10), idle

Rankings and Division positions:

Division 2
(1) Washington 12-0
(7) Jefferson 10-2
(14) Cleveland 7-4

Division 3
(2) Teddy Roosevelt 12-0
(9) Grant 9-2


Division 1
(3) Washington 12-0
(6) Monroe 10-1
(11) Polk 9-3

Division 4
(4) George W Bush 11-0
(12) Truman 9-3

Division 5
(5) Reagan 11-0
(13) Lincoln 8-4

Division 6
(8) FDR 10-2
(10) JFK 9-3
(15) Taft 7-4

Shopping In Hong Kong

Beverly Hills, look out!

Hong Kong has changed from its conversion under British Rule to control by Mainland China. But it has more shopping malls than any place I have ever seen.

There are the normal clothing and electronics and entertainment places, as you'd expect. But the jewelry stores sell things you literally cannot find in the United States, and the cultural mix is totally unique. It's very strange to see so many people who look utterly foreign, but upon sight of an obvious American, they become a completely different person, as if they have studied the idioms and manners of Americans, to put us at ease. The store windows almost all had advertisements in English, making it clear to me at least where the hoped to get their best business. Of course, Hong Kong's legacy is such that many of the locals speak with what sound surprisingly like an Eton accent. I already knew about the British influence, but it's the American influence which now permeates the malls. I almost expected the U.S. Embassy to be set in a mall, given the atmosphere.

I was warned early on by my wife, not to do any buying, or even to speak. This is because my wife is convinced that on sight of an American, the price goes up. Or more likely, since the price is often posted, someone who speaks Cantonese and looks it as well can haggle, where an American is expected to pay the full price. After all, we're all rich, right?

I was pleased and displeased to notice certain aspects of the Hong Kong culture. As an American, I was more or less excused for my large waist; Americans are expected to be fat, even if that is not a flattering image. But Asians, and Hong Kong especially, have completely unrealistic expectations for their body types, and I found myself sympathetic more than once to an overweight boy or girl, who was openly taunted for their weight by other children. I know from some discussions that such ridicule is a lifelong ordeal for heavy Asians, especially in professional positions. On the other hand, I was pleased to observe that racism is largely unknown in Hong Kong. That is, while Cantonese take a provincial pride in their culture, individuals from other nations and cultures are welcome and generally treated with respect and open minds. This was a pleasant change from Tokyo, where Nisei abuse of other nationalities, especially Koreans, is both common and malicious.

I found myself once again dismayed at how poorly Americans manage mass transit, when I saw how efficient the Hong Kong bus system is. It may not be the best in the region, and certainly not in the world, but it was surprisingly easy to get places in Hong Kong by bus, especially compared to Houston, where only the Park n' Ride system works well. I'm not picking on the Metro drivers, please understand, but the lack of coordination to make it possible for the ordinary person to commute, shop, and get around where they need to be without owning or renting a car.

The weather so far has been very much like Houston, warm and very nice in the afternoons, with just a little less humidity, if a little cool in the mornings. On the other hand, the water in Hong Kong, well, let's just say it inspires the bottled drink industry.

PFL, Weeks Ten and Eleven

***

Week Ten Scoreboard

George W Bush (9-0), idle
Eisenhower (10-0) 44, Nixon (5-5) 3
Reagan (9-0), idle
Teddy Roosevelt (10-0) 37, Grant (8-2) 0
Washington (10-0) 65, A Johnson (0-10) 3
Monroe (9-1) 64, Carter (2-8) 0
Jefferson (8-2) 64, Buchanan (0-10) 0
FDR (8-2) 57, Pierce (2-8) 3
Truman (8-2) 50, Fillmore (1-9) 9
JFK (7-3) 41, Tyler (3-7) 12
Polk (7-3) 45, Taylor (5-5) 6
Taft (6-3) idle
John Adams (6-4) 35, GHW Bush (5-5) 16
Cleveland (6-4) 25, Hoover (1-9) 9
Hayes (5-4) idle
Lincoln (6-4) 56, Harding (2-8) 3
Madison (6-4) 47, Coolidge (2-8) 0
McKinley (6-4) 38, Ford (4-6) 6
JQ Adams (5-5) 18, B Harrison (4-6) 12
Arthur (5-5) 27, LBJ (1-9) 13
Wilson (5-5) 44, W Harrison (2-8) 9
Jackson (4-6) 30, Garfield (2-8) 7
Van Buren (3-6) idle
Clinton (0-9) idle


Week Eleven Scoreboard

Eisenhower (11-0) 62, Hoover (1-10) 0
Teddy Roosevelt (11-0) 53, Garfield (2-9) 9
Washington (11-0) 56, Taylor (5-6) 7
George W Bush (10-0) 27, McKinley (6-5) 6
Reagan (10-0) 35, John Adams (6-5) 19
Monroe (10-1) 38, Van Buren (3-7) 6
Grant (8-2) idle
Jefferson (9-2) 46, Nixon (5-6) 9
FDR (9-2) 49, Tyler (3-8) 0
Truman (9-2) 48, Ford (4-7) 3
JFK (8-3) 38, Arthur (5-6) 6
Polk (8-3) 48, Carter (2-9) 3
Taft (7-3) 28, LBJ (1-10) 3
Cleveland (7-4) 19, Hayes (5-5) 15
Lincoln (7-4) 48, Coolidge (2-9) 3
Madison (7-4) 24, GHW Bush (5-6) 13
JQ Adams (6-5) 39, Clinton (0-10) 19
Wilson (6-5) 45, Fillmore (1-10) 6
Jackson (5-6) 15, B Harrison (4-7) 12 (OT)
Harding (2-8), idle
W Harrison (2-8), idle
Pierce (2-8), idle
Buchanan (0-10), idle
A Johnson (0-10), idle

Immigration Hesitation

XXO


Well, someone on Team Obvious finally got through to Dubs, and convinced him to repackage his Immigration Reform plans. Good thing too. The original version took a basically good plan, and sent it out with all the enthusiasm of going to the prom with your mother. Not that the new version has received the support it deserves, nor much attention at all.

The MSM, as usual, has it wrong, suggesting across the board that Bush is pushing his plan to advance his political position. Since he’s not running for office again, and has shown no real concern about what the push polls say anyway, I find that hard to believe. But unfortunately, far too many people with an opinion on the issue of Immigration and Border Security have been unwilling to even give a hearnig to any proposal that does not already line up with their demands 100 percent. That, in a nutshell, is why the Congress has been unwilling to step in and so the heavy lifting on this issue.

According to the President, more than four and a half million people have been intercepted at the border since 2001, but loopholes in the law have prevented their incarceration or deportation for the most part.

Bush’s plan has specific tools, and if nothing else, should be considered for them. The DHS units at the border would get access to the Predator drones, satellite imagery, increased budget and staffing, and inter-agency cooperation. A key clue into how serious Bush takes the issue of border security, is the significant involvement of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff in specific planning and resource requisition.

In discussing the demographics of illegals entering the United States, President Bush noted that about 350,000 of the 4.5 million intercepted since 2001 had criminal records. This is a hard number which represents the greatest threat; while we can argue about the threat to the Economy posed by millions of illegal aliens, the far greater threat is represented by men known by their records to be armed lawbreakers, and if terrorists wished to smuggle men or weapons into the United States, these men would be their natural mercenaries. Job One is to better organize the capture and disposition of criminals entering the country, and to shut down networks of human trafficking. This would immediately improve the security of the borders, and make it that much harder for illegals to find help entering the country, and less attractive as a course of action.

The plan essentially has three critical areas of attention:

1. Improve border security to detect and intercept dangerous and criminal entrants.

2. The Congress must pass laws to close loopholes allowing captured aliens to simply walk out of custody, and to make it unpalatable for businesses to knowingly hire illegal workers.

3. The aliens already in this country illegally must be offered a plan which will make it appealing for them to become legitimate citizens, while pursuing, capturing, and deporting any illegal.

The first two parts should be obvious, but many have criticized the third, claiming it is a sort of ‘Amnesty’. Not at all. The problem, as should be obvious, is that America is a land where people do not expect to have to carry papers everywhere to prove they can be allowed there. Once someone has crossed the border, it’s a lot harder to catch them. And, given the poor laws on the books and the way local departments have not often been able to keep custody of illegals they catch, as well as businesses all too willing to turn a blind eye to hiring illegals, most illegals will be able to stay out of sight for a very long time, unless they decide it is in their interest to come forward and declare themselves. That takes both a stick, and a carrot.

The “Guest Worker” program works like this: An illegal alien would apply to be a Guest Worker. To do this, they would have to prove they had no criminal record in their country of origin, satisfy the DHS that they had committed no crime in the United States besides entering and remaining here, provide traceable information, like fingerprints, photographs, and a DNA sample, and swear to abide by the terms of the Guest Worker program. If approved, they would be allowed to work in the United States for one, three, or six years, after which time they would be required to leave the United States and return to their home country. If they wished to become a United States citizen, they would begin the process the same way as anyone else; the Guest Worker program is not designed to give any sort of advantage in gaining citizenship to anyone here illegally in the first place.

The carrot is obvious; legal residency, including the right to legal protection by the police, nominal civil services, and the freedom to work without fear of arrest for being here illegally during the time and terms of the program. The stick is, that ‘one strike’ would get you deported immediately, and the DHS would already know how to find you. Also, a key component of the program is to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I have already discussed the criminal element, who often live in barrio communities because they know the people are afraid to contact the police; indeed there is no reason for them to want the police there. This program provides for people who want to be law-abiding, to do so, and takes away protection for many criminals, since even one ‘Guest Worker’ in a community means the criminal cannot count on silence anymore. Also, there are illegals who do not want to become U.S. citizens, but simply to work here for the money. This program roots them out, but providing a way to tell who basically is willing to play by the rules if they get another chance, and those who don’t care anyway. It relieves pressure from trying to resolve the issue of all the illegal immigrants, by focusing on the most dangerous and the most uncooperative elements directly. Thus, the program is a distinct winner, if it gets the support it deserves.

Now, some will look at this and remain unsatisfied. Good. No one is saying this is the last step, or even the middle, in addressing the issue. This program will help secure our borders and give options to the people most likely to work with the government. A long-term solution will be difficult, not least because it will require a much more common-sense approach to minimum-wage laws and similar red tape which drive small businesses to the point of rebellion. It will take minorities realizing that the difference between a citizen who obeys the law and an illegal who gains unfairly, is far greater than the difference in skin color or culture. And it will take honest consideration of small step measures, accepting short progress on the way to longer, better, results.

PFL, Weeks Eight and Nine

tweet.

Week Eight Scoreboard

George W Bush (8-0) 56, Ford (3-5) 3
Eisenhower (8-0) 70, Buchanan (0-8) 6
Reagan (8-0) 53, GHW Bush (4-4) 3
Teddy Roosevelt (8-0) 18, Jefferson (6-2) 9
Washington (8-0) 34, Wilson (4-4) 13
Grant (7-1) 24, Jackson (3-5) 12
Monroe (7-1) 50, Taylor (4-4) 3
FDR (7-1) 18, Lincoln (5-3) 16
Truman (7-1) 51, W Harrison (1-7) 6
JFK (6-2) 48, Pierce (1-6) 9
Taft (5-3) 28, Arthur (4-4) 9
Cleveland (5-3) 26, Nixon (4-4) 25
Hayes (5-3) 29, Hoover (1-7) 15
Polk (5-3) 66, A Johnson (0-8) 3
John Adams (4-4) 40, Coolidge (1-7) 3
John Quincy Adams (4-4) 31, Garfield (2-6) 6
B Harrison (4-4) 38, Clinton (0-8) 15
Madison (4-4) 57, Harding (2-6) 16
McKinley (4-4) 44, Fillmore (1-7) 6
Tyler (3-5) 22, LBJ (1-7) 19
Van Buren (3-5) 21, Carter (1-7) 15


Week Nine Scoreboard

George W Bush (9-0) 50, Hayes (5-4) 0
Eisenhower (9-0) 25, Truman (7-2) 9
Reagan (9-0) 62, Clinton (0-9) 0
Teddy Roosevelt (9-0) 18, Lincoln (5-4) 9
Washington (9-0) 28, FDR (7-2) 10
Grant (8-1) 47, Harding (2-7) 16
Monroe (8-1) 56, LBJ (1-8) 6
Jefferson (7-2) 28, Wilson (4-5) 12
Polk (6-3) 25, JFK (6-3) 9
McKinley (5-4) 28, Cleveland (5-4) 10
Taft (6-3) 19, Van Buren (3-6) 18
John Adams (5-4) 32, JQ Adams (4-5) 12
Carter (2-7) 21, Arthur (4-5) 12
GHW Bush (5-4) 21, B Harrison (4-5) 9
Madison (5-4) 30, Jackson (3-6) 10
Nixon (5-4) 38, Fillmore (1-8) 23
Taylor (5-4) 19, Tyler (3-6) 12
Ford (4-5) 18, Hoover (1-8) 15
Coolidge (2-7) 18, Garfield (2-7) 15 (OT)
W Harrison (2-7) 12, Buchanan (0-9) 9
Pierce (2-7) 21, A Johnson (0-9) 13

PFL, Weeks Six and Seven

... still catching up, halfway there ...

Week Six Scoreboard

George W Bush (6-0) 61, W Harrison (1-5) 10
Eisenhower (6-0) 46, Jackson (3-3) 0
Jefferson (6-0) 42, Cleveland (3-3) 0
Washington (6-0) 32, Monroe (5-1) 17
Reagan (6-0) 65, Harding (2-4) 6
T Roosevelt (6-0) 40, JQ Adams (3-3) 6
Grant (5-1) 44, Clinton (0-6) 10
Kennedy (5-1) 24, Madison (3-3) 22
Truman (5-1) 21, Polk (4-2) 19
FDR (5-1) 43, LBJ (0-6) 12
Arthur (4-2) 24, Tyler (2-4) 9
Lincoln (4-2) 24, J Adams (2-4) 18
Nixon (4-2) 32, Hoover (1-5) 15
Taylor (4-2) 21, Carter (1-5) 18 (OT)
Wilson (4-2) 21, McKinley (2-4) 18 (OT)
GHW Bush (3-3) 27, Coolidge (1-5) 6
Hayes (3-3) 36, Buchanan (0-6) 9
Taft (3-3) 40, Pierce (1-5) 3
Ford (2-4) 18, Fillmore (1-5) 15
B Harrison (2-4) 24, Garfield (1-5) 12
Van Buren (1-5) 40, A Johnson (0-6) 12


Week Seven Scoreboard

George W Bush (7-0) 67, Fillmore (1-6) 0
Eisenhower (7-0) 28, Jefferson (6-1) 9
Reagan (7-0) 65, Coolidge (1-6) 0
Teddy Roosevelt (7-0) 46, Jackson (3-4) 6
Washington (7-0) 28, Polk (4-3) 20
Grant (6-1) 24, JQ Adams (3-4) 12
FDR (6-1) 24, JFK (5-2) 12
Monroe (6-1) 65, A Johnson (0-7) 3
Truman (6-1) 22, Wilson (4-3) 7
GHW Bush (4-3) 21, Arthur (4-3) 12
Lincoln (5-2) 21, Madison (3-4) 12
Hayes (4-3) 22, Nixon (4-3) 15
Van Buren (2-5) 28, Taylor (4-3) 6
Cleveland (4-3) 41, Buchanan (0-7) 6
Taft (4-3) 31, Tyler (2-5) 12
John Adams (3-4) 54, Harding (2-5) 12
Ford (3-4) 12, Carter (1-6) 9 (OT)
B Harrison (3-4) 22, Hoover (1-6) 9
McKinley (3-4) 55, W Harrison (1-6) 6
Garfield (2-5) 34, Clinton (0-7) 9
LBJ (1-6) 24, Pierce (1-6) 12

Monday From Abroad

##-##

The United States looks different from abroad, especially from such a remote locale as the Kowloon Bay in Hong Kong. It’s something less than an exotic adventure, however, when you try to find out whether those mushrooms you bought at $38 a pound, canlegally be brought into the United States. The U.S. Customs web site (which can be brought up online in Hong Kong) directs you to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which for some reason was blocked the first two times I tried to reach it. Apparently, American corn is considered a subversive influence.

In a way, I should have anticipated this. With the scare about Avian flu reaching a fever pitch wherever it is discussed, broad measures against contagion would be reasonable, but over-reaction has also happened. It should also be noted, that Hong Kong is as worried as anyone about keeping the Avian flu out. Two years ago, Hong Kong was hit with SARS just as badly as most Chinese coastal cities, and the island was panic-struck. This time, they are taking no chances, and that means tight restrictions as well on what comes into Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has a well-deserved reputation for fine tailoring. Unfortunately, most men in Hong Kong are not, ahem, my size, which is to say that unless I wanted to pay a premium price, the off-the-rack selection was quite limited. The electronics selections were truly impressive, but not a necessity, nor in my range of income. It is fascinating, a la Dick Tracy, to find that you really can buy a wrist-TV, complete with cellular transmission features, so that you can call your friend in New York to tell them about this great show in Tokyo you just saw, while you stand in Hong Kong. Amazing.

By the way, and I guess I will find out shortly if this is something I should be posting, but you can read Polipundit from Hong Kong. I’ve tried to be safe though,and have been bouncing my posts in via a Houston server. Last thing I need is for my wife’s mom to get in trouble for me writing about American politics!

PFL Weeks Four and Five

[ hut hut ]

Week Four Scoreboard

George W Bush (4-0) 22, Truman (3-1) 9
Eisenhower (4-0) 48, Hayes (2-2) 0
Jefferson (4-0) 56, Hoover (0-4) 3
Monroe (4-0) 34, McKinley (2-2) 12
Polk (4-0) 33, Van Buren (0-4) 9
Reagan (4-0) 44, Madison (2-2) 3
T Roosevelt (4-0) 46, B Harrison (1-3) 6
Washington (4-0) 69, Carter (0-4) 3
Cleveland (3-1) 21, JQ Adams (2-2) 18 (OT)
FDR 45 (3-1), Arthur (2-2) 6
Grant (3-1) 38, Garfield (1-3) 13
Coolidge (1-3) 31, Harding (2-2) 13
Jackson (3-1) 34, Clinton (0-4) 19
JFK 18 (3-1), Taft (2-2) 3
Lincoln (3-1) 37, GHW Bush (1-3) 9
Wilson (3-1) 35, Ford (0-4) 3
J Adams (2-2) 41, LBJ (0-4) 13
Fillmore (1-3) 24, W Harrison (1-3) 18
Nixon (2-2) 40, Buchanan (0-4) 15
Tyler (1-3) 18, Pierce (1-3) 12
Taylor (2-2) 35, A Johnson (0-4) 6


Week Five Scoreboard

George W Bush (5-0) 34, Wilson (3-2) 0
Eisenhower (5-0) 40, Cleveland (3-2) 6
Jefferson (5-0) 38, Hayes (2-3) 6
Monroe (5-0) 18, Polk (4-1) 12
Reagan (5-0) 22, Lincoln (3-2) 15
T Roosevelt (5-0) 65, Clinton (0-5) 6
Washington (5-0) 45, Van Buren (0-5) 13
Grant (4-1) 27, B Harrison (1-4) 12
JQ Adams (3-2) 18, Jackson (3-2) 12
Kennedy (4-1) 38, LBJ (0-5) 3
FDR (4-1) 27, Taft (2-3) 12
Truman (4-1) 24, McKinley (2-3) 16
Madison (3-2) 25, J Adams (2-3) 22
Arthur (3-2) 22, Pierce (1-4) 3
GHW Bush (2-3) 40, Harding (2-3) 7
Nixon (3-2) 32, Garfield (1-4) 19
Taylor (3-2) 24, Fillmore (1-4) 9
Tyler (2-3) 21, Coolidge (1-4) 15
Ford (1-4) 30, W Harrison (1-4) 15
Hoover (1-4) 33, Buchanan (0-5) 12
Carter (1-4) 30, A Johnson (0-5) 9

Honest Error, But One Which Cannot Be Excused

x.x

The Wall Street Journal has an article questioning the “success against Terrorism”, based on an upcoming report from the Congressional Research Service.

A key passage in the article reads, “The report says measures such as the number of terrorist incidents per year and the number of terrorists killed or captured are inadequate. Instead, it urges the use of broader social indicators, like the ability of terrorists to recruit.” On its face, this sounds reasonable, but on closer examination, it not only is not a valid suggestion, but reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the war, in purpose and in effect.

The Wall Street Journal article gives a spotlight, unfortunately, to Ivy League (as in Ivory Tower) professors like Alan Krueger, a Princeton professor (specialty unidentified, most likely Political Science) who states, “We emphasize body counts, without acknowledging the elasticity of al Qaeda's recruiting”. The Journal goes on to state Professor Krueger’s claim that “al Qaeda is able to replace key personnel faster than they are killed or captured”, on no evidence of any kind.

The Journal notes that Raphael Perl wrote the report for the Congressional Research Service, suggesting that the report reflects his individual views, rather than a researched and supported consensus. Perl specifically describes the Terrorist operations in Iraq as “criminal organizations”, which highlights a significant error in his perception.

This is another example of impractical thought taking the place of experience and examination of the facts. This is not a police campiagn in Iraq, but a war. Frankly, Perl and Krueger are doing nothing more than parroting the Liberal arguments from the 1990s, that Terrorism is a criminal matter, rather than a threat to National Security and a violent element of warfare. A brief review of recent history shows the cost of making such assumptions. The trials of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers yielded six convictions, but failed to pursue connections to the people who funded and supplied the bombers, because the prosecutors were seeking convictions ahead of protecting against a future attack, and the Terrorists were allowed to delay the trials for years, providing information on American security measures to anyone interested in studying them. The terrorists were allowed to present themselves as victims, oppressed by the U.S. Government.

Al Qaeda certainly gained valuable information from the cirminal process, whereas the FBI and CIA were forbidden to communicate vital information to each other, because the acts were considered “criminal”. Democrats still refuse to accept responsibility for the results of their errors, the poor strategy employed by the Clinton Administration, allowing Al Qaeda to grow from a small regional group to a truly international threat. This is just a repeated attempt to take the war away from the men best able to win it, and give the terrorists another chance. I believe that Liberals like Perl and Kruger do not openly mean to put the United States in danger; their arrogance simply will not allow them to understand the need for a military solution to a serious threat to the nation. And that error, however honest, cannot be allowed to undo the victories accomplished, or imperil our future course.

Presidential Football League, Weeks 2 & 3

catching up...

Week Two Scoreboard

Washington (2-0) 63, A Johnson (0-2) 6
Polk (2-0) 45, Taylor (1-1) 3
Monroe (2-0) 51, Carter (0-2) 10
Reagan (2-0) 52, Taft (1-1) 6
J Adams (1-1) 45, GHW Bush (1-1) 6
Lincoln (1-1) 54, Harding (1-1) 6
Jefferson (2-0) 61, Buchanan (0-2) 3
Eisenhower (2-0) 38, Nixon (1-1) 6
Cleveland (2-0) 22, Hoover (0-2) 12
Arthur (2-0) 24, LBJ (0-2) 16
FDR (1-1) 60, Pierce (1-1) 0
T Roosevelt (2-0) 34, Grant (1-1) 3
Truman (2-0) 59, Fillmore (0-2) 3
McKinley (2-0) 42, Ford (0-2) 3
George W Bush (2-0) 48, Van Buren (0-2) 0
JQ Adams (1-1) 16, B Harrison (1-1) 15
Jackson (1-1) 30, Garfield (1-1) 7
Kennedy (1-1) 44, Tyler (0-2) 6
Madison (1-1) 41, Coolidge (0-2) 6
Hayes (1-1) 41, Clinton (0-2) 10
Wilson (1-1) 50, W Harrison (0-2) 6

Week Three Scoreboard

Kennedy (2-1) 31, Arthur (2-1) 9
George W Bush (3-0) 33, McKinley (2-1) 3
Hayes (2-1) 18, Cleveland (2-1) 16
Eisenhower (3-0) 59, Hoover (0-3) 3
Jefferson (3-0) 36, Nixon (1-2) 19
Monroe (3-0) 35, Van Buren (0-3) 9
Polk (3-0) 42, Carter (0-3) 9
Reagan (3-0) 45, J Adams (1-2) 9
T Roosevelt (3-0) 55, Garfield (1-2) 6
Truman (3-0) 42, Ford (0-3) 6
Washington (3-0) 54, Taylor (1-2) 10
JQ Adams (2-1) 48, Clinton (0-3) 9
Madison (2-1) 34, GHW Bush (1-2) 3
Grant (2-1) 54, Buchanan (0-3) 9
Harding (2-1) 16, Pierce (1-2) 15
Jackson (2-1) 15, B Harrison (1-2) 12 (OT)
FDR (2-1) 46, Tyler (0-3) 3
Taft (2-1) 31, LBJ (0-3) 0
Wilson (2-1) 45, Fillmore (0-3) 9
Lincoln (2-1) 51, Coolidge (0-3) 0
W Harrison (1-2) 19, A Johnson (0-3) 16

Presidential Football League

For those interested, and with a good memory from last year:

First Week Scoreboard

Washington 25, Lincoln 15
Polk 23, Madison 15
Monroe 23, J Adams 12
Reagan 46, Van Buren 9
GHW Bush 24, Carter 6
Taylor 24, Coolidge 12
Harding 21, A Johnson 18
Jefferson 18, FDR 15 (OT)
Eisenhower 31, JFK 3
Cleveland 29, LBJ 16
Taft 22, Hayes 18
Arthur 18, Hoover 15
Nixon 31, Tyler 13
Pierce 15, Buchanan 12
T Roosevelt 37, Wilson 6
Truman 27, Jackson 13
McKinley 22, JQ Adams 15
George W Bush 56, Clinton 3
B Harrison 27, Ford 0
Garfield 27, Fillmore 12
Grant 48, W Harrison 6

Thanksgiving

[ ]

Call me hokey, but I always like to recall what I am thankful for on Thanksgiving Day.

I am thankful for a merciful and benevolent God, with a strong sense of humor.

I am thankful for a great wife and two wonderful daughters.

I am thankful for my family, and all they taught me.

I am thankful for everyone who has taught me lessons.

I am thankful for President George W. Bush.

I am thankful for Richard Cheney.

I am thankful for Condoleeza Rice.

I am thankful for Donald Rumsfeld.

I am thankful for the United States Armed Forces, past and present, and for all their sacrifices and service.

I am especially thankful for the United States Marine Corps.

I am particularly thankful for the National Guard.

I am respectfully thankful for the United States Coast Guard, who saved damned near every flood victim along the Gulf Coast, who could be saved.

I am thankful for the State of Texas.

I am thankful for blogs, without which we might well have surrendered to Terrorists by now.

I am thankful for a responsive readership, who take the truth and demand it be heard everywhere.

I am thankful for the opportunities I have had to meet, speak with, and come to know some truly fine people who have done exceptional things.

To all of you, thank you.

No Points For Imagination

***

The Democrats are rather annoying these days, as they try to claim that President Bush somehow misled America into going to war in Iraq, and that Republicans are corrupt politicians with no intention of serving the nation. Both of these attacks are not only false, they are no better than repeated attempts to pursue arguments which never gained traction the first or second time. One might therefore wonder why the Left thinks they can score with a proven loser, although the Kerry Campaign suggests that the Left does not fare well in spotting clear losers these days. The reason, of course, is that the Left has bought into the push polls in the MSM, and honestly has come to believe that the President is weak, and therefore vulnerable. Further, many on the Left, including their ostensible leadership, have not bothered to validate their own claims, or investigate the facts for themselves, lest they find out they could be very, very wrong.

So here we are, in the waning months of 2005, and the Democrats feel the need to say something, but they are not inclined to seek a tangent that might actually work, so we instead hear yet another verse of the same old lie and whine. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population which believes anything they hear often enough, which the MSM is only too happy to oblige, resulting in a small but constant change eroding support for the President and Republicans among average Americans.

This could be a bad thing, except that the Democrats have forgotten an element they used to comprehend; the Internet. The two things which have radically changed the landscape are blogswarms and linking. That is, one smal voice is easily drowned out by a major network, but if enough voices carry the same message, it gets heard. And the virtue of linking, is the evolution of footnotes - it allows for a writer to support his claims with evidence, tied directly to his work. The lies are a lot harder to make stand these days, because people will demand evidence, and are far more inclined to make up their own minds.

So, I have a sneaking suspicion that this most recent effort by the Left will bear early fruit, but it will sour in their mouths come election day, as there’s nothing to grow roots on in these slanderous rumors. And what’s more, there’s no reason to believe the Democrats will reconsider their course of malice, since it suits their petty emotions too well.

War Residuals

[.]

One thing I cannot stand about the Democrats, is the way they put politics ahead of the country. Now, this sort of statement is common to partisans on any side, but what I mean here, is the unfortunate fact that wars last for a very long time, often long after formal hostilities have ended.

Look around. Communism, to anyone with a good sense of Economics or History, is very much dead, and Communist regimes have generally gone out of power, those Communist countries remaining have had to change their version of Communism to include some very Capitalist ideas. China for example, the largest ostensibly Communist government on the planet, has a department of its Inetrior Ministry devoted to seeking Capital investments from major Western corporations. That is, where in the past the Chinese Central Committee expected to deal with national governments for business agreements by way of treaties, they now seek direct negotiations with specific companies and individuals, very much like a large entrepreneurship themselves. Chairman Mao did not write or speak anything on the subject of commercial infrastructure, but the New China sees things differently. Yet it is also true, that there remain hundreds of thousands of otherwise reasonable people, who think Stalin was good for Eastern Europe, and Castro has built a paradise. I note that these same communist protesters, however, generally live and protest in more capitalist locations.

The Fascism of the Nazis would seem to be very much dead, yet neo-Nazi groups have sprung up around the globe, often with little rational purpose except a desire to revere Hitler, mass murder and all. The same thing exists for Anarchists, whose heyday helped spark World War I (most people do not realize that it was an off-shoot of an Anarchist group which murdered the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo). Anarchists are everywhere, with loud and offensive banners and slogans which still manage to say nothing of why they think their goals are realistic or even possible. And for all the noise about the new Jihad of the Islamo-Fascists, historians could point out several Islamist uprisings in the past, often related to a ‘Mahdi’, but just as bloody and insane as anything cooked up by Bin Laden or Zarqawi.

What I am saying, is that for all the wars fought up to now, there is a residue left behind, a spirit of the defeated party which finds new spirit and voice later on, sometimes in surprising places. Therefore, winning a war is a matter which goes a good deal further than an Armistice. The Nazis lost on the battlefield in 1945, but it was a full generation afterwards, before the average German came to think of Americans as a natural friend. And the pendulum swung back against us, as by the end of the Twentieth century, German sentiment came to believe in a stronger role for Germany in Eureopean politics. Like the French, the Germans were quick to pay lip service to the cause of NATO, but slow to follow an American lead where risk and sacrifice were demanded.

I suspect that down deep, this is what the Liberal truly fears, the bookend possibilities of war in the Middle East. On the one hand, if the U.S. frees nations from tyrants, they may well come to applaud the U.S. at first, but one cannot help but wonder if they might go the way of Germany, France, and Japan, and turn against us economically and politically when they see an opportunity. And of course the other possibility is equally horrid in Liberal eyes; that the Conservative perspective on Foreign Policy might be proven by events, leading other foreign powers to reach agreements with the United States on terms which would move them towards a truly open government. This would be a clear strategic victory for Conservatives, as it protects U.S. National Interests in the best possible way, but convincing foreign nations that their best interests are to mirror our own. The reason this is opposed by Liberals, and hence by the Democrats, actually seems to be that they would rather have a tyrant they know, than a representative democracy which can make its own choices. That is, they fear a truly representative government in Iraq, for the same reasons they fear one in the United States.

And the reason for that fear is the residue of American History applied to national political parties. The Republican party is the truly revolutionary party, having come into existence to oppose Slavery and fight to end it. Over the years, the Republicans have often found themselves in the minority, and so blamed for evrything in government which went wrong, and given no credit for things which went right. When the Stock Market crashed in 1929, while Hoover's White House must carry blame for its inaction at critical points, and for failing to speak to the nation, it should also be noted that many economists now believe that Hoover's plan for recover ywas sounder than FDR's, and the New Deal actually extended hardship for some parts of the country. The difference is between showy Democrat gestures, and traditional Conservative restraint, and it's no surprise that Conservatives did not fare well in the age of television until former actor Ronald Reagan found a way to mix Conservative pragmatism with populist drama. Since then, Republicans have come around to play the show game, and President Bush is criticized most harshly by fellow Conservatives, for failing to put on a good show, preferring instead to dwell on substance. Even modern Conservatives have failed to study the reasons why so many minorities support Democrats over Republicans, even when the voting record shows much better treatment of minorities by Conservatives than Liberals; the Liberals simply package their work in such a way, that they lie effectively about their own votes while claiming credit for everything done by Conservatives.

This all comes back to four wars; the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War 2, and the Cold War. The Civil War was a clear Republican success; it's a historical fact that the Democrats lined up largely with the Slave-owning South, and negotiated at one point for British intervention against the Union forces, which smells suspiciously like Treason, and for that reason Democrats had a very hard time taking the White House for a generation after the war. The Spanish-American War was controversial in its time, but it was a victory which not only claimed a lot of territory for the United States and scared the European powers into accepting the reality of the United States as a "great power" like themselves, but also reinforced the image in American minds that the military was at its best under a Republican, which image has been a burr in Democrat butts ever since. In World War 2, FDR discovered that he needed a broad consensus for many of his plans, and so had to reach accomodation with Republicans . This worked out well for FDR personally, but Harry Truman discovered that after the war, many Americans had begun to think of the Democrats and Republicans as equally to be credited for the war's victory, which hurt Truman's image in Korea and had a bit to do with Eisenhower running as a Republican.

And then there is the Cold War. Basically, by 1980 things were such a mess that most historians seriously considered the Soviet Union to not only be a permanent fact of the world, but likely to prevail in the long term over the West, who were widely tagged as weak and indecisive. Reagan changed all that, staring down the Soviets every chance he got, with strong rhetoric and carefully chosen action. By the time Reagan cried out, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", he had not only won the war against the Communists, but showed up every Democrat who had counseled appeasement.

So, here in 2005 the residuals are there to be seen. Republicans have been, historically, more reluctant to use military force than Democrats, but have enjoyed better effect. And Democrats have a long series of bad decisions, whcih they could correct, except that their pride will not let them consider the possibility.

The Despots Strike Back

[ + ]

In their revolutionary book, 'The Third Wave', Alvin and Heidi Toffler explained how Information Management would become the next great paradign shift in human conditions, comparable to the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions before it. Unfortunately, just as with the first two revolutions, there are people trying to control access to Information and establish an effective monopoly of knowledge trade. The present campaign revolves around control of the Internet. The Washington Post (of all people) got it mostly right in an editorial dubbed “The Internet At Risk”.

It boils down to this; some twelve thousand people convened in Tunisia to discuss control of the Internet, including American control. I think it is significant that a location like Tunisia was chosen to discuss a high-technology issue. Not Seattle, Tokyo, London, Houston, Berlin, San Francisco, Bombay, New York or Kuala Lampur, but Tunisia, the city of Tunis to be precise, a “hot spot” only when one is speaking about the weather. And the forum was once again mainly about “rich” nations needing to share with poorer nations, without a single mention about how many of the poorer nations not only lack the infrastructure to benefit from end-user computer applications, but very often have governments not known for free elections, to say nothing of accountability for funds received. And naturally, the leaders of those poorer nations, however they came into office, found it appropriate to demand that they be granted shared control of the Internet.

The Post noted, “Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses”, but also observed “The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice.” The Post observed, as an example, that any nation or authority which controls Internet names and domains can prevent ‘undesirable’ groups or individuals offline, or charge varying rates to show preferences where they please.

Of course, the Post did not get the story completely right. The Post contended that governments “can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.”

And there lies the hidden threat. The best reason for American control of the Internet, is that little thing we call the First Amendment. Yes, it allows for the Nazi Party, the Hell’s Angels, and the Democratic National Committee to say all manner of malicious and false things, but it also protects minority viewpoints which would otherwise simply disappear. The same Internet that allows for pornography and propaganda, also allows any individual to have their voice heard, and for any argument to have a chance to stand on its own merit. Recent years have shown that network and cable broadcasts have just as much offensive material, and arguably the pursuit of ratings and sponsors makes them less act less responsibly than a website which exists or fails on its own accountability to its audience. The same Internet that drives radical malice like the Dean Campaign in 2003-4, also provided for a critical watchdog which tripped up a fraudulent attempt to influence the campaign with forged documents. There is even reason to believe, that the oppression of certain minority groups in other parts of the world is restrained by the knowledge that a webcam makes it possible for the word to get out to the entire planet. The Internet is a wild territory, but compared to other mediums for news, entertainment, and opinion, it is far more effective and honest than anything else available.

Naturally, this sort of honesty scares bureacrats, which has led to attempts to regulate political speech on the Internet. And there is already history on the books, showing that political speech is not always given protection by the Congress or the Courts.

It’s easy, in between elections and with so much other noise going on, to miss something this quiet and this subtle. But it’s important to remind folks, that for all the value blogs provide, there are many people who hate them, and would like very much to see them shut down, even as they deny their intent.

God and Politics

One thing which always sets Liberals off against Conservatives, is the assumption they make that we are claiming God is on our side. To compensate for this feeling of inadequate holy ordination of their policies therefore, many Liberal politicians and candidates can be seen attending churches, albeit very often only so they can speak from the pulpit in defense of their own politics, something almost every Conservative eschews, but I digress.

It has long been understood that Conservatives and Liberals are held to different standards. An obvious example is Congressman Murtha’s slander of Vice-President Cheney, claiming that his deferment earlier in life makes him unfit to give orders or establish policy for the military, which makes one wonder why Congressman Murtha never had a problem with Bill Clinton. And more than a few Guardsmen have taken issue with the Democrats’ blunder in suggesting that Bush’s National Guard service was less than honorable, since the claim assumes either that the Guard excused Bush’s supposedly poor peformance, or that the Guard standard was rather low. It should also be noted that Trent Lott was essentially hounded into leaving a leadership position because of an ambiguous statement that some claimed suggested he was a racist, but former KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd was not only allowed to hold a leadership postion in the Senate, but has been often held up by the Democrats as a moral leader.Go figure.

But there is a deeper divide between Conservatives and Liberals on the question of God and faith. While both Conservatives and Liberals vocally support the First Amendment right to practice faith as one believes, there is a significant difference between the two sides on how to protect that right. For Conservatives, religion is personal as well as cultural, and so long as Congress does not pass a law which attempts to establish a state religion or demonstrate a specific religious preference, religious demonstrations and displays should not be denied or suppressed. Liberals have long pursued a course which essentially demands an atheist America, as exemplified by the ACLU and People for the American Way’s attempts to deny basic rights to churches and faith organizations, such as the Boy Scouts or the Roman Catholic Church. The dichotomy of professing the rights of the indivdual, but denying people the right to publicly express faith or use their faith in key decisions, is an hypocrisy the Left simply chooses to ignore.

The expression of faith goes deeper. Liberals and Conservatives alike had no offense at Jimmy Carter saying he was a devout Christian in 1976, but Liberals scorned President Bush’s statements of faith, as though the Jesus Christ worshipped and followed by Carter was now off-limits to Conservatives. That is brazenly dishonest, yet common to the point of ubiquity. And here in the days of Michael Newdow, religion is taken as a sign of evil intent, as evidenced by comments from many Liberals about Samuel Alito’s intentions, as though the man coordinated his own nomination, and doubtless will be brainwashing his SCOTUS colleagues if he is confirmed to the High Court. Otherwise, one would be forced to consider that the anti-faith bias of so many on the Left, is more indicative of pathogenic disorder than reasonable discernment.

One last thing, a clarification of sorts. Conservatives do not generally claim that God is on our side. It is, however, worth noting that God has made His priorities and commandments rather plain, and from what I can see, while God is sovereign, it appears that Conservatives are more on His side than Liberals. And that distinction is paramount in this category of debate.

Valerie Plame; The Lie That Just Keeps On Lying

[?][X]

There was a science fiction show once, about a secret agent who could change his appearance at will, as in reshaping his face and body into whatever he desired. He returned home after a long career but nobody would accept him, since he was nothing like the man he used to be. The thing is, you see, he had been so many different people so many times for so long, he couldn’t remember who he really was. He was compelled to choose one of his lies for his real life.

That, put simply, is Valerie Plame. The legend from the Left is that Ms. Plame was a hard-working honest servant of the U.S. Intelligence Community, made an innocent vcitim of the evil Bush regime, because her husband, the equally hard-working and noble Joe Wilson, caught the President in a lie. Makes a good storyline, and I rather expect Michael Moore will get around to making a movie about her. It meets the Moore Standard, after all - zero facts but the MSM doesn’t care.

The facts are very much a different story, and one the Democrats are not likely to push into production. To begin with, Joe Wilson is a documented liar, and one know to have a large mean grudge against the Bush Administration. For example, Wilson not only gave numerous interviews to the press about a confidential trip to Niger to investigate the question about whether Saddam Hussein’s regime attempted to purchase enriched Uranium, but he also declared that Bush was lying to say that Iraq had been attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. The evidence later showed that while Wilson focused on a single suspect document, which was never promoted by the Bush Administration, he withheld information known to the CIA, which supported the contention that Saddam had in fact been attempting to find sources fo enriched uranium. Wilson also hid the fact that his wife was the major influence which arranged for his government-paid trip, to such a point that the CIA did not enforce its normal secrecy requirements, which allowed Wilson to spend his time with press interviews and photo ops, instead of a debriefing and balanced evaluation of the facts.

What happened next was essentially a paranoid feud, the immature and egotistical Wilson representing both the paranoia and the malice in this instance. When the White House declined to respond in kind to his taunts and insults, Wilson went to Capitol Hill, and found a willing audience on the Democrat side of the aisle, which colored the debate on pre-War intelligence and poised to rewrite the history of the decision to go to war again in Iraq. The careful observer would have noted (and many did) that Wilson was unable to back up his claims with evidence, and that his screeds were actually no more than a bitter attempt to damage enemies.

On to Valerie Plame. To hear the MSM, the Plame issue was driven by a desire to punish Joe Wilson for criticizing the War in Iraq, which led to the exposure of his wife, an undercover CIA agent. The reality is different. First, it has been confirmed that Plame was not a field agent for the CIA, at least during the time in question, but a desk employee whose work was in no way related to field operations. Also, it is understood now that Wilson’s inadvisable trip for the CIA was made possible by his wife’s recommendation. And several intelligence reports have supported the fact, that reports of Saddam’s attempts to obtain nuclear material were true, which proved Wilson’s claims false. Further, two major intelligence reviews confirmed that the Bush Administration neither falsified nor manipulated intelligence data.

The facts, however, have not kept Wilson and his allies from pressing their hatred of the President well past the point of obsession. This is both good and bad. The first bit of bad news, is evidenced by the Libby indictment. Fitzgerald himself has admitted that Libby was not indicted in any direct consequence of the Plame investigation, but claims it was necessary to indict Libby, even though the facts suggest that honest error and confusion are more likely than malice or intent to deceive. With Woodward stepping forward to point another finger, again with nothing to show connection to the alleged “outing” of Plame, yet taken up eagerly by people enjoying the role of Grand Inquisitor. It’s one thing for Congress or the Justice Department to investigate known crimes and clear evidence, but quite another to pursue fishing expeditions for high-profile trophies. On the plus side, while the War in Iraq, the central issue in the 2004 Federal Election, was controversial and complex in many aspects, the sheer hysteria manifested by the Left cost them vital support from voters unwilling to grant power to a party so blind to basic facts. As the 2006 mid-term elections begin their primary cycle, it is a bad idea for Democrats to believe that the claim of “Bush Lied” will lead to election success, since it has already failed in a test bearing more directly on the President. Democrats chuckle at low published Job Approval numbers for the President, but fail to observe vital differences in the respondent pool from 2004, and also fail to note the distinction between happiness at the present condition, and commitment to see the mission completed. The 403-3 vote last night shows that even the most rabid Democrats generally understand that the American people are not at all keen on a ‘cut & run’ strategy, and since the Democrats have decided to once again polarize the issue, it forces people to mostly support the President. It shows a true disconnect on the Left, that they are able to comprehend that attacks on the President are not likely to sway the voters they need most, yet they refuse to rein in their most obnoxious members. Bear in mind, the difference between outrageous statements made on the Right and on the Left, is that on the Right the extremists do not hold office, while the most malicious and deceptive statements are repeated by Democrats in office, who know full well that the claims they make are neither truthful, nor do they serve the needs of the nation.

It is sadly true as well, however, that should the Democrats find some way to take control of the House of Representatives, they would be likely to try to impeach President Bush. While I consider this unlikely in the extreme to actually happen, because it is a possibility it must be considered and defenses manned. The facts have been presented many times already, so that while the Democrats can make noise on the WMD question, they cannot seriously hope to find evidence to support a claim that the decision made by the President, and approved by the Congress, was anything but honest and legitimate.

This brings us back to the Plame affair. To the unbiased observer, the claim that Plame was somehow the innocent victim of a conspiracy must seem laughable. After all, the Wilsons held press conferences, a photo shoot with ‘Vanity Fair’ magazine, a book deal, and countless television appearances, yet they continue to claim that their privacy is precious to them, and that they are simple, unassuming people. There is no question that while the President’s decision was supported by the available evidence at the time, Wilson’s motive for attacking the President was no better than a vendetta. The “evidence” not only does not lie, it has more than proven that Joe Wilson is nothing but lies. But the Democrats and the MSM have done an effective job of keeping the character of the Wilsons out of sight, and alleging connections through innuendo and rumor. Washington D.C. has always been a town full of whispers, and far more liberal in its politics than almost anywhere else in the country. The Democrats have effectively conceded that while they can taunt and insult the President, nothing in five years of slander has worked against him, so they are focusing on Vice-President Cheney. If the Democrats can get Cheney to resign as VP, expect the MSM to start trying to compare Cheney to Agnew, and to start hinting that Bush has something to hide.

Why do this, if it is so unlikely? For one thing, Democrats think they have a chance in 2006. Mathematically, that’s correct, and we Republicans had better not be too casual about protecting the House majority. But if opinion polls are not so great for President Bush, they are abysmal for the Congress, and especially for Democrats. The Democrats generally understand that they are very unlikely to take control of Congress in 2006. But if they can put pressure on Cheney, some Democrats hope they can force him to resign; stress after all, could lead to a stroke or heart attack, to which Cheney is unfortunately more susceptible than most men, and I am sorry to have to say there are Democrats who would like to deliberately cause a health condition which threatened the life of the Vice-President, in order to make him quit. Other Democrats would like for Cheney to stay on, knowing that if he resigns at a time when things are going well and the President is popular, the new Vice-President (Rice, perhaps) would immediately be considered the GOP front-runner (by the MSM) and make things harder for the Democrats to take the White House in 2008. if they keep the heat on Cheney, he has to stay put to show he is not going to be chased off by the attacks on him. So, the attacks on Cheney right now are supported by both factions on the Left. This, in the Democrats’ mind, could lead to a tarnished President and VP when the 2006 elections take place, strengthening the Democrats’ place in Congress, and leading to potential sweep in 2008, with Democrats retaking control of the House and Senate as well as the White House. I will let the reader decide how realistic that ambition should be counted, but caution us to defeat the attacks and prove the character of the men making them.

Unforgivable

!!!

It has finally begun to dawn on Senate Republicans that they have fumbled badly in the “United States Policy on Iraq Act”, more commonly known as the Warner Amendment. Unfortunately, instead of accepting the damage they have done and their responsibility, the consensus of the GOP Senate is to either ignore the effect of their action, or else deceitfully try to explain their way out of it. Many Senators have tried to simply head out on vacation with no apology for their action, while a few have actually tried to excuse their conduct. That won’t work, as events will unfold.

The Warner Amendment came as a vapid response to a Democrat-sponsored cheap shot, a demand for a withdrawal from Iraq which failed in the Senate by a 58-40 vote.

First off, note that the Democrat’s resolution was the template for the Republican version, to such a degree that the actual document presented for the vote simply scratches out the names of the Democrat sponsors and replaces their names with “Mr. Warner” and “Mr. Frist”. Let me say that again; the actual Republican resolution was actually nothing but a modified version of the Democrats’ own demands! There is no way, given the tone and wording of the resolution, that any Republican who voted for the Warner Amendment can pretend to have done proper diligence or focus on the interests of the nation, our troops, or the goals for the Iraq effort. This is, to use a crude analogy, like a man who admits that he propositioned a hooker, paid her and watched her undress, but who somehow maintains to his wife that because he didn’t complete the act he somehow did nothing wrong. Betrayal of trust is unforgivable, Misters Senator, and you should have known that long before you played into this trick.

So, what does this resolution do? First off, there is the stated “purpose”, which includes lines like “recommend changes to the policy” and “require reports on certain matters”. The Democrats love these, because they are obvious rebukes of the Administration. No Republican claiming to stand with the President has any business supporting such attempts, and they know it.

Next up is Section [b](3), which specifically calls for “the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq” in “calendar year 2006”. That’s government talk for “Run Away! Run Away!”, which again is exactly what Democrats have always wanted in Iraq, and no Republican should have considered for even a second.

Section [b](4) specifically demands that the United States publicly announce their intention to leave, to the people of Iraq, which would demoralize millions of Iraqis who believed the promise of American commitment to full stability in Iraq, including millions of women who voted for the first time, and millions of families who dared to express their free speech in the open. This statement represents a betrayal of promises and commitments made, because it demonstrates a lack of resolve critical to the survival of a democratic republic in Iraq. I can’t imagine any U.S. serviceman in Iraq thinking such a statement would be in any way advisable or reasonable in the foreseeable future.

Section [c] goes on to demand, “every three months … until all United States combat brigades have redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report on United States policy and military operations in Iraq”. This is unconscionable, in that this would demand the President defend his decisions over and over again, in a circus tent forum (“unclassified” not only bars relevant information to defend key decisions, but would provide fodder to a press corps known to be hostile to the military, to the point of malice), and allow countless fishing expeditions by Congressmen and Senators looking for political opportunity at the expense of the war effort. Just imagine such a demand of Roosevelt during World War 2, or of Reagan during talks with the Soviets.

Section [c] also includes such gems as [c](1)(A) demanding “compromises necessary” from the Iraq government, which is doubletalk for appeasing terrorists entrenched in Iraq; and [c](1)(B) demanding bring in “the international community” to “forge a … political settlement”, which is doubletalk for saying let the United Nations co-opt democracy in the name of expediency. There is not one person with a knowledge of history, who could honestly believe such demands would lead to a stable or healthy Iraq.

In short, the resolution demands miracles now, or else to just pull out and run. It completely abrogates not only the moral purposes for removing Saddam Hussein from power, but also pursues a reckless path likely to harm, even kill, the innocent and virtuous citizens of Iraq by abandoning them to the whims and desires of known enemies on their borders, and to the terrorist factions which already threaten their future. In essence, the only thing which stands between most Iraqis and the chaos of terrorism and a new dictatorship, is embodied by the United States Armed Forces. And the people who voted for this resolution want that protection removed. Such a statement is unconscionable on every level of honor and decency.

Matthew McDonald, speaking for Senate Republicans, sent a mass e-mail yesterday to bloggers and the press, in a weak attempt to justify the betrayal of Iraq and our military. In a piece he titled “Setting The Record Straight”, McDonald not only ignored the specific text and demands of the resolution approved by the Senate, as well as the absolutely stupid tactic of using the Democrat’s own proposal as the template for the Republican version, he also falsely tried to pretend that the Republicans somehow were supporting the President and the People of Iraq in this betrayal. Sorry, Mr. McDonald, but you could not be more wrong in that pretense. As your own e-mail admitted, Senator Harry Reid was able to claim that the Senate – Republicans and Democrats alike – demanded that Bush “change course in Iraq”. (Senate Floor, November 17)

See that figurative knife sticking out of the backs of millions of Iraqi kids, Mr. McDonald? It reads “Made by the GOP” on the handle, and it came from your table.

Senator Warner actually tried to claim “I think this is supportive of the strong points the President has consistently made. In no way is it to be construed, in my judgment, as critical.” (Press Conference, November 15)

Translation: 'You see honey, I didn’t know she was a hooker, she looks a lot like you and I thought I was actually being faithful… and I only gave her fifty bucks to get undressed, uhhhhh, because I thought she needed to change into better clothes, yeah that’s it’ Sorry, MISTER Warner, but no one outside the Beltway could possibly believe that lie for a second.

The e-mail from “Ronald” McDonald went on to compare the demands in the resolution to statements made by and regarding the Iraqi citizens, completely missing the critical distinction between a nation making strides on its own initiative and efforts, and the demoralizing effect of being left on your own after a deadline. The e-mail from Mr. McDonald did serve one useful purpose, though – the inability of Mr. McDonald to understand the sheer lunacy of voting for such an execrable resolution shows just how insulated and unrealistic your average Senator’s comprehension of the real world has become.

As a Texan, I would like to use my own Senators as an example for a personal message I think we should all be sending:

Senators, you have forfeited your right to hold office. By siding with enemies of the people of Iraq and by betraying your President, especially while he was visiting a major foreign nation, you have demonstrated a complete lack of fitness for the duties and responsibilities of your office. You may count on my tireless efforts to see you replaced with a Republican who keeps his word and honor, and I am joined in that determination by millions of other Republicans who count our President and our troops of worthy of support, and who have no tolerance for betrayal or an expedient politician like yourself.



In conclusion, I would like to note the breakdown of the votes between the Democrat's Surrender-Now demand and the Republican copy. Two senators did not vote on either measure; 53 voted 'yea' on both resolutions; 26 voted 'nay' to the Democrat version, but 'yea' to the GOP-brand White Flag; 6 Democrats voted 'yea' to the Democrat version, but 'nay' to the GOP version out of spite; and fourteen brave souls had the integrity and courage to vote 'nay' on both resolutions. These are the Senators we should applaud and watch for their future votes, as they are the only Senators who seem to understand the concepts of Leadership, Commitment, and Honor:

From Kentucky, Senator Jim Bunning [R]

From North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr [R]

From Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss [R]

From Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn [R]

From South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint [R]

From South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham [R]

From Oklahoma, Senator James Inhofe [R]

From Georgia, Senator Johnny Isakson [R]

From Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl [R]

From Arizona, Senator John McCain [R] (don't get cocky, John - you still have to explain your campaign finance "reform", and that 'let's leave it to the lawyers' bill you pushed on Torture definitions and restrictions)

From Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions [R]

From South Dakota, Senator John Thune [R]

From Louisiana, Senator David Vitter [R]




And, in proof that there is yet at least one Democrat who knows what Democrats used to stand for, Senator Kent Conrad [D] from North Dakota


Speaking for myself, Kyl should be made Senate Majority Leader, and Thune should be given a strong whip, and a license to get the party back in line.