December 11, 2006

Blank Slate

Barrack Obama is a blank slate. A tabula rasa. Since he has essentially no political track record, he is a blank canvas onto which Democrats can project whatever philosophy or policies they feel he represents. Obama's hot selling book "The Audacity of Hope" apparently does not shed much light on his policy positions so we shouldn't expect to learn all that much about what he might be like as President by reading it apart from the observation that Obama is a positive and uplifting guy. The feel good rhetoric and slogans that he employs certainly worked for Massachusetts Governor elect Deval Patrick, whose “Together we can” sloganeering and substance free political platform captured the hearts of countless Massachusetts liberals. As a stand-alone entity, there is nothing wrong with positive and uplifting rhetoric and slogans. But there is something disingenuous about those who claim to be open to all ideas across the political spectrum but who are in reality liberals. From what limited information about his stances that came to light through the Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, it is clear that Deval Patrick is a liberal. Similarly, from the limited track record of Obama, despite his seemingly all-inclusive rhetoric, he too unequivocally, is a liberal as well. Perhaps Obama will switch to become a centrist candidate of some sort but as of now, as Dick Morris points out, his limited track record indicates that he is very much a liberal. Morris says, “…In reality, Obama is no "third way” politician. He is a party line Democrat, according to the National Journal, the 18th most liberal member of the Senate, which puts him ahead of (or behind) 60% of his fellow Democrats in the Senate. The gospel according to Planned Parenthood? He gets 100%. Right to life? Zero. The AFL-CIO celebrates his vote with them on nine out of ten issues and the ACLU agrees. He talks like a moderate, but he votes like a liberal.”

Barrack Obama is also enjoying the same kind of swooning liberal media backing that Deval enjoyed. I just hope that this time around the media can do its job and find out the actual policy positions of the candidate, rather than just echoing their slogans and generic platitudes. Perhaps Deval and Obama will run together some day on the same ticket, in which case their combined slogans almost comprise a complete thought. Deval Patrick and Barrack Obama: “Together we can…have the audacity of hope.”

December 06, 2006

The Way Forward

The esteemed panel of veteran beltway leaders headed up by James Baker and Lee Hamilton known as the Iraq Study Group (ISG) submitted their much-anticipated findings to the public and The President today. The bi-partisan ISG report offers a sober assessment of the situation in Iraq and offers some possible solutions to the problems facing the country, insisting that the solutions if adopted should be implemented in a wholesale, rather than piece meal, manner. The Washington Post is reporting that the President, “...offered no immediate endorsement or rejection of any of its recommendations.” The President praised and thanked the panel of statesmen for their contribution to the discussion and pledged that their findings would be taken very seriously by his administration.

I don’t believe that it takes a group of elder statemen to come to the conclusion that, “The situation in Iraq is deteriorating” and that “What we are currently doing is not working”. However, some of their attempts at offering solutions are at least interesting and appreciated, if not fairly unrealistic.

Principally among the unrealistic yet interesting recommendations is that we launch a new round of diplomacy aimed at Syria and Iran in an effort to encourage them to essentially help us achieve success in Iraq. Part of this effort, at least when dealing with Syria, recommends that we cajole Israel into ceding the strategic Golan Heights to Syria in return for their cooperation rather than contravention in Iraq and also that they stop supporting Hezbollah’s efforts to disrupt the fledgling democracy of Lebanon. Obviously recommendations like this are appreciated, but ultimately they are unrealistic. Syria most likely does not value the Golan Heights over their own desire to meddle in the affairs of the countries around them. The price for obtaining the cooperation of our sworn enemies surely is too high to make that avenue practicable.

The report is available to download in PDF form here. While serious efforts to seek solutions in Iraq should always be welcomed, many of the recommendations, especially in the diplomatic realm, do not strike me as particularly plausible. I am inclined to defer to the one man Iraq study group, in the form of geo political maestro Charles Krauthammer, on this matter as to what to do now moving forward. He too has a sober assessment of the situation declaring among other things, that the al Maliki government has thus far proven to be a failure and should be replaced if they are unable to drastically alter the manner in which they operate. The crux of Krauthammer’s suggestions comes in the form of a proposed ultimatum that be issued to the al Maliki government. In his latest column, written several days before today’s public disclosure the ISG report, Krauthammer says, “The United States should be giving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a clear ultimatum: If he does not come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that will, the United States will abandon the Green Zone; retire to its bases; move much of its personnel to Kurdistan, where we are welcome and safe; and let the civil war take its course. Let the current Green Zone-protected Iraqi politicians who take their cue from Moqtada al-Sadr face the insurgency alone. That might concentrate their minds on either making a generous offer to the Sunnis or stepping aside for a coalition that would.

I endorse this proposal as a possible workable solution to the situation. While it will be essentially a defeat for the Bush Administration if it is forced to admit that a unity government may ultimately not be plausible in Iraq, at this point it’s pretty clear that we have done all that we can to help the Iraqis help themselves. Freedom once found, is by nature unpredictable. The Iraqi people were given their freedom when we removed the butcher of Baghdad; it is now up to them to determine what to do with that freedom. Unfortunately for us all, the majority of Iraqis seem to want to devolve into sectarian strife, terrorizing their own population in the form of suicide bombers and mortar attacks perpetrated by Sunnis by day and Shiite police uniformed death squads raiding Sunni neighborhoods by night.

If an ultimatum is given to the al Maliki government and they comply, by either making concessions to the Sunnis or stepping down to let a government in that will, then the hopes of a unity government will not be lost. The other, and arguably less optimal side, of the ultimatum coin entails that we strategically withdraw from the green zone and move to our bases in northern Iraq where we are appreciated. This will still allow us to retain a strategic presence in the region, which ultimately is one of the primary reasons that we are in the country in the first place. With a presence in northern Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon along with friendly governments in Pakistan and India, we will have enough to maintain a presence that Krauthammer calls, “…the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.”

November 22, 2006

Kramer goes Krazy(er)

Seeing as I'm not a member of any minority group, I'm most likely not qualified to comment on this Kramer incident. But then again, I’m no great advocate of political correctness. One interesting aspect of this story is that it has further burnished what Jim Pinkerton of Newsday calls the ‘You Tube phenomenon’ where one incident or comment instantly circulates around the web until it snowballs into a major story that is on the lips of almost every single American with access to electricity. Other occurrences of this include the George Allen 'Makkaka" comment and the John Kerry "botched joke" about the troops. I'm not judging this phenomenon to be a problem; merely that it exists and that it is intriguing.

Of this Kramer incident, an African American comedian by the name of Patrice O’Neal quipped, in his own inimitable way, “I didn’t think the dude was racist until he apologized! I assumed he was doing some sort of Andy Kaufman esque -I only know what I’m doing- routine.”

It seems that this ‘You Tube phenomenon’ forces people to publicly repent which often results in making a bad situation worse. However, with the Kramer incident, there’s not a whole hell of lot worse it can get. If you haven’t seen the painful footage already you can get your ear/eye full here. Oh Kramer, what were you thinking? He certainly is old school…as in pre-civil war era old school, ouch.

November 10, 2006

Powers Point

As a result of the elections, it seems that now both parties will be involved in respective internal tugs of war. This is perhaps a refreshing departure from what the Democratic answer to Karl Rove, a man by the name of Rahm Emmanuel, calls “the politics of polarization”. Rather than bitter partisanship between two diametrically opposed parties, it seems that we have entered a new era of American politics which may be characterized by internal party civil wars.

Among other issues, Republicans have to internally debate the issue of immigration reform and Democrats, for their part, will have to sort out just how far left and “progressive” their own party is. As I have previously pointed out, many of the Democrats who won last Tuesday in the closest races are not of the far left liberal progressive ilk. Many consider themselves to be "moderates" if not conservatives, which results in a blurring of the lines that usually can be relied upon to distinguish between members of each party. For example, former Republican Jim Webb, who defeated George Allen, is more of a conservative than the liberal Lincoln Chaffe who ended up being punished for being a member of a party of which he rarely holds the same opinion with.

It will be more illuminating, and in the end more productive, for each party to conduct these internal debates than it ever was to launch vitriolic attacks against the opposing side of the aisle and never arriving at a party platform.

Enter the lovely Kirsten Powers, a Democratic strategist who seems to understand that the modern day electorate prefers a more reasonable, less far left leaning Democratic Party. On her blog, she defends Joe Lieberman against elements of her own party who discarded him for essentially wanting to fight a more pro-active war on terror. And on election night, she pointed out that many of the Democrats who won in close races are considered “blue dog” Democrats who are essentially conservatives that refer to themselves as Democrats for various reasons. It is people like Powers that may yet save the viability of the Democratic Party by, among other things, making the point that there is room in the Democratic Party for those who advocate an aggressive and pro-active war on terror. I encourage you to peruse her writings @ Powers Point.

November 08, 2006

Blue Dog Day Afternoon

One of the most dedicated civil servants in American history, Donald Rumsfeld, has fallen on his sword as a direct result of yesterday's elections. But before Democrats get too exited about advancing any kind of far left leaning agenda, they might want to take notice of the fact that many of the Democrats who won seats yesterday did so because they embraced conservative values. In fact, yesterday’s elections ironically amount to a reaffirmation rather than a repudiation of conservative principles. Many ousted Republicans met thier demise because they failed to live up to their conservative obligations of ethical standards of behavior and fiscal conservatism. And on the other side of the coin, it was the "Blue Dog" Democrats and centrists like Lieberman who attained success because they find themselves closer to the political center than the modern day "progressive" far left leaning Democrat.

In a largely symbolic gesture, Rumsfeld has been thrown under the bus, and it is time for all Democrats to put up or shut up. Perhaps now we can hear something resembling leadership from the Democrats, and not just Bush bashing. Looking forward, I genuinely hope that the Democrats can bring something to the table other than vitriol against the President and cut and run in Iraq.

November 03, 2006

Cut and Run

Cut and Run…the position held by the majority of Democrats on the main issue of the elections, Iraq, is not a winning stance. Ironically, it is because the situation in Iraq has deteriorated in recent weeks that the position of cut and run, which by the way represents any position other than staying to finish the job, seems even more absurd now than it did several weeks ago. And please, let’s not kid ourselves or quibble over terminology. Any accelerated timetable for withdrawal, no matter if called immediate withdrawal or “redeployment” is tantamount to and in fact is cutting and running. As Michael Steele points out to his angry and defensive opponent in Maryland, Ben Cardin, what would the Democratic strategy be in Iraq if they find themselves in the position of determining what to do in the country? Rather than repeat Cardin’s stammering response, let me save us the trouble and tell you that Democrats have no idea how to achieve success in Iraq. The only thing Democrats can say is that President Bush is not getting the job done. Even if that is true, in the minds of thinking people, Democrats are not simply absolved from having an actual position of their own on Iraq. Also, just for the record, “Stay the course” is a quicker way of saying, “stay until the job is done”. Unfortunately, Democrats did manage to redefine “stay the course” as “stay endlessly” and so the Bush Administration no longer uses that description. Democrats can attack a description of what we are doing in Iraq all day long, but when it comes to offering their own solutions, the silence is deafening.

So which is it? Do Democrats favor cutting and running (or whatever euphemism they want to call it) or do they simply have no position on Iraq? The answer is: they themselves do not know. It is my assessment that in many races, Democratic candidates have not thought beyond the Nancy Pelosi playbook of “blame Bush”. Really, it was circulated apparently very well that if Democratic candidates just pound away on Bush enough, then it really won’t matter if they don’t ever bother to offer any solutions of their own.

So, the Democratic secret hope that things go badly in Iraq seems for the moment at least, because the insurgents are trying influence our election, to be coming true. Their hopes and dreams of chaos in Iraq were in fact realized only too well, for now it is even more apparent that we cannot leave prematurely, because it would hand victory to all of the various enemies of our country. Really, can we all not agree that Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden are hoping, in fact actively and openly advocating, that we cut and run? Gee, what a surprise, the Democrats find themselves aligned with our worst international enemies on this issue, not to mention a host of other issues.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Democrats win back a degree of political power in a few days. Will our troops be immediately withdrawn, to the utter glee of our enemies? Or will Democrats be too busy conducting the various congressional investigations into the Bush Administration attempting to re-live the 2000 and 2004 elections, to bother conducting a war on terror? I defy any liberal reading this to show me where I’m going wrong with my analysis. And please, if you challenge me, try to come up with a specific vision of what should be done in Iraq. I won’t hold my breath, for I have yet to hear any left leaning individual anywhere offer a drastically different and/or substantive solution to the major issue of the day, the War in Iraq.

November 02, 2006


In a classic blunder, John Kerry has given Republicans an implement to bash Democrats over the head with just days before nationwide elections. Speaking about the value of education at a campaign event to a group of students at a Pasadena City College, Kerry said the following:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Ouch. Whatever Kerry insists his intent was, reading the remarks and listening to the audio of this obvious gaffe is painful, and as John McCain has said about the remarks “The words speak for themselves”.

These remarks, appropriately delivered on All Hallows Eve, play as a nasty trick to fellow Democrats and glorious treat to Republicans. Whether Kerry meant what he said or not has become immaterial at this point. Rather than apologize immediately, he elected to fight back viciously in an obvious effort to not get "swift boated" again. And apologies and disclaimers aside, the remarks speak to a pre-existing notion of Kerry as an out of touch elitist and limousine liberal who still sees everything (including the all volunteer army) through the prism of a Vietnam protestor.

And it is not just Republicans who are weighing in on the appropriateness of Kerry's remarks. Dems everywhere are running away from Kerry “…faster than embattled Republican candidates have been avoiding President Bush.” Says Clarence Page of Real Clear Politics. It's also been suggested that this is the final of three strikes for Senator Kerry on this matter. The first was his Winter Soldier testimony, famously proclaiming that our troops conducted themselves “ a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” The second strike came last year when Kerry accused our troops of acts of terror in Iraq “…in the dark of night”. With this latest blunder, otherwise known as strike three, Kerry has officially jumped the proverbial shark. He no longer is a viable candidate in the next Presidential election. It is the "coup de grace" as Michael Barone said on ‘Special Report’ “…in a language.” he added, “...that Mr. Kerry is fluent in.”.

The self-immolation of Kerry paves the way for the ascendancy of her majesty herself, Hilary Clinton. The Clintons never really liked Kerry, so no love is lost, but I bet the Clinton’s shared a good laugh at Kerry’s expense in light of this most recent jaw dropping misstep. While the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls is contracting in front our eyes, it was Democratic strategist Joe Trippi who suggested that in fact it is perhaps Howard Dean who will profit most from Kerry’s epic gaffe. If the results of the mid term elections are not as spectacular for National Democrats as have been projected, Dean can now shift any blame that might come his way as head of the DNC to Kerry and his politically tone deaf gaffe.

Apparently this Kerry surprise Halloween gaffe will have implications up and through the upcoming elections. Are Kerry’s remarks a Trick or a Treat? Well…that depends on your perspective.

October 25, 2006


It is becoming clear that Iraqi Insurgents are attempting to influence elections here in the United States. As the terrorists successfully managed to do to Spain with the Madrid train bombings, the Iraqi Insurgents are trying to do to us here in America, as the mid term elections approach. As was the case with Spain, the goal is to drive voters to elect leaders who take a softer line against the enemy. The Insurgent’s plan seems to essentially be: to ramp up the violence and chaos until our elections, at which point Americans elect less hawk-ish leaders because, as OBL preaches, America is really a paper tiger (Bill Clinton/Mogadishu). In the next phase of the plan, the decidedly less-hawkish new leaders remove American troops from Iraq on an accelerated timetable, before any sort of friendly Iraqi government could ever sustain itself. And Finally, as was the case with the Tet Offensive, the inferior force achieves a kind of victory by propaganda rather than military might. I'd like to think that we have learned from the Tet Offensive, Mogadishu, as well as from the Madrid train bombings and at the very least when voting, we bear in mind that the Insurgents are hoping that the party in favor of an unhealthily accelerated withdrawal from Iraq win a majority of seats in Congress this November.

October 24, 2006

Free Ride

As Election Day approaches, it occurs to me that I still have more or less no idea what Deval Patrick would be like as Governor of Massachusetts. It seems as though the local media and much of the punditry is content to issue Deval a free ride when it comes to attempting to ascertain what Deval Patrick would be like as governor. Sure, the Healey Campaign has been running ads depicting what Deval ‘s stances on issues are, but I haven’t heard Deval himself confirm or deny any of the charges. It would be nice if someone could get Deval to answer a question directly about issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants for example. In the debates, Deval has a way sounding generally positive and uplifting when answering a question, but by the end of his explanation I am left wondering what the original question was. Even the Independent chatterbox, Christy Mihos, has been very clear on matters of illegal immigrants rights and privileges by categorically denying any to Illegal immigrants because yes, they are illegal. When speaking on the same topic, Deval’s stance is, shall we say…more nebulous. I for one don’t think that it is too much too ask, to have a candidate give clear, obfuscation-free answers to important matters.

Kerry Healey is the only candidate to have signed the no new tax pledge. I imagine that Deval would have some flowery and pleasant sounding rhetoric for one to listen to if asked about the no new tax pledge, but surely there are very few residents of the Bay State deluding themselves into believing that Deval Patrick would not raise taxes. Not that Deval would ever come out and say that he will raise taxes though, he would rather simply avoid any issue in which or about which, he is not seen in a favorable light. In the most recent debate hosted by David Gergen at Faneuil Hall, Healey managed to get a word in edgewise when she confronted Deval on taxes. She said, "You should be honest about it, you are liberal. You are going to raise taxes." Rather than deny that charge, Deval tried to change the topic slightly by accusing Healey of using “the right-wing Republican playbook.” As usual, other candidates chimed in and Deval managed to evade directly answering the charge of raising taxes. It simply is not in Mr. Patrick’s interest to come out and clearly articulate his positions on certain issues. And it is also not in Mr. Patrick’s interest to participate in a one-on-one debate with the second most popular candidate, Kerry Healey when he can just sit back and enjoy the near circus like atmosphere that is produced in a four person squabble in which the general public ends up more confused than some of the candidates seem to be.

With exactly two weeks to go until elections what I have heard from Deval amounts to a series of political platitudes, feel good slogans, and a continuous griping over the “negativity” of Healey’s campaign ads. I genuinely hope that Massachusetts voters are able to learn what Deval would be like as governor before he coasts into office. An excellent opportunity for Deval to tackle his own vagueness has arisen with Kerry’s Healey’s repeated calls for a one-on-one debate. I understand the strategy behind Deval’s refusal to debate Healey one-on-one, but I don’t buy his explanation for a second. On this matter of one-on-one debates Patrick’s position is that, “It would be unfair to exclude other candidates.” It is clear that Deval is simply hiding behind this argument of fundamental fairness, when in reality he knows that it is not in his best interest to engage in a one-on-one debate under any circumstances. He knows that a one-on-one debate would give Healey a chance to explain herself uninterrupted by charlatans, and it would likely mean that he (Deval) would to have to directly answer questions without the distractions and the overall confusion found in of a four-way debate. I have a very simple solution if in fact Deval is serious about wanting to let all candidates speak as his only reason for wanting four way debates exclusively. The answer is to have additional one-on-one debates as well as the remaining multi-candidate debates, which are by the way, of almost no use to the voters at this point. That Deval won't do this tells me that he is afraid of something, because surely the other two minor candidates have been able to get their message(s) across by now. I sincerely hope that in the next two weeks Deval can do something meaningful (like a one-on-one debate) to clear up some of the ambiguity of his stances, for the sake of all voters. If Deval fails to answer the one-on-one debate challenge of his main competitor and simply coasts into the Governorship with the unabashed aegis of local liberal media, never sufficiently explaining himself on a variety of issues, I for one cannot respect him as my governor.

October 10, 2006

Clintonian Revisionism

With the mid-term elections scant weeks away, political operatives everywhere are scrambling to raise issues and dig up dirt on any candidate under the sun. From Mark Foley to down and dirty political TV ads, the gloves are coming off. Along with all of this, I am seeing an emerging strategic trend, which is being adopted by mainstream Democrats. In a combined effort to polish the Clinton legacy and to re-cast Democrats as tough on matters of national security, there seems to be a growing effort to re-write or at least revise certain chapters of the history of the Clinton Administration.

Lately, there have been two fallacious thrusts of this Clinton Administration revisionist history, one more egregious than the next. First, during the now famous Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace interview, Clinton did everything he could to suggest that he had done everything possible to kill or capture Bin Laden and that his administration did a tremendous amount to thwart the plans of Al Qaeda. Secondly, and more recently, Democratic operatives are attempting to re-write the Clinton Administration’s handling of the People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and their acquisition of nuclear technology and weaponry. Both of these Clinton failings are being recast as triumphs in order to “take back” national security as a winning issue for Democrats. The theory being that if Democrats can revise enough of the history of the Clinton Administration, they can achieve three important goals. If successful, Clinton’s somewhat sordid legacy can be repaired, the Democrats take a winning issue into the elections, and Hilary Clinton’s stock rises as somehow being tough on terror because her husband was (even though he wasn’t).

The facts on both of these issues have been known and touted by conservatives for years now, rarely if ever challenged. To must of us, it seems rather unusual to suddenly want to re-debate issues long since resolved. In the Bin Laden case, I was of the understanding that neither the Bush Administration nor the Clinton Administration had done nearly enough to prevent terrorism pre 9-11. Even though Clinton had many more opportunities and more time to fight Al Qaeda than Bush did, the issue, politically speaking, I considered to be a wash. It stands to reason that not much political mileage can be made on an issue where both sides of the aisle essentially failed. In a way, the whole country failed. We all failed to see Al Qaeda terrorism as the threat that we now know it to be. For example, the American public most likely would not have been behind a pre-emptive military attack on the Taliban, which now in hindsight would have been a brilliant move. So hindsight being 20/20, both administrations can be blamed for failing to prevent 9-11. To me, at least it seemed, that if blame were to be doled out, then the Clinton Administration would receive the lion’s share. I never imagined that Democrats would attempt to point to what Clinton did against terrorism pre –9-11 as a winning issue! A truly bizarre strategy over an issue, which I assumed, was a wash.

Since the Clintons want to re-debate and blame game who did what when pre 9-11, all of the same cast of characters have re-emerged from those days immediately following 9-11 when the American public wanted to know what the hell happened. Members of the 9-11 Commission, Richard Clarke, and Michael Scheuer all principal players in the post 9-11 political drama, are now getting a renaissance of face time on the various television news outlets and programs. If one listens closely to Michael Scheuer , head of the Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999, it is clear that President Clinton had many more opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden than the Bush Administration ever did. The disarmingly candid Scheuer, by the way, is no fan of the Bush Administration. In his initially anonymously published book Imperial Hubris , he takes The Bush Administration's characterization of Osama Bin Laden to task as overly simplistic and incorrect by saying amongst other things that, “It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Maida, not American culture and society.” While the nature of our enemy in Al Qaeda is a matter worthy of debate, the facts surrounding our opportunities to kill Bin Laden are not a matter of dispute, rather they are a matter of historical fact. The self-deprecating and humble, self described bureaucrat Michael Scheuer is about as straight a shooter as there is when it comes to the facts surrounding Bin Laden and American counter terrorism measures pre 9-11. Among other condemnations, Scheuer points out that President Clinton had "eyes on target" many more times than any other administration ever came close to having. To make a long and well publicized story short, what we find after only a little research is that in reality the bulk of any blame that should be assigned vis a vis 9-11 should fall squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. Again, the Bush Administration, like the American people as a whole, is not blameless. But because Monday morning quarterbacking and blame gaming are not productive endeavors, I had issued all parties involved even Clinton, a pass. That we now find Democrats wanting to make what Clinton did pre 9-11 somehow a winning issue, to me is laughable.

The other area of history that Democrats are attempting to re-write of late surrounds North Korea. However ridiculous it would seem to point to Clinton’s handling of Bin Laden as a positive, attempting to recast Clinton’s handling of North Korea as adept, takes the ludicrous cake. I thought this issue as well had been put to rest long ago. I had no idea that suddenly now, weeks before an election, Democrats would point to the Clinton Administration’s handling of North Korea, by literally handing them nuclear technology, as a positive. This somewhat controversial ad created by David Zucker, director of the Naked Gun movies and Scary Movies, sums it all up nicely. As history has proven, dealing directly with North Korea in bilateral talks brings us nowhere because, when North Korea eventually blows us off and breaks the framework of an agreement, the rest of the world does not care. Other countries like China and Russia laugh at us when crackpot despots blow us off. Having learned that lesson, it seems clear that any type of agreement that would hold up would have to be a multilateral effort which Bush has been attempting to undertake. A strategy, by the way, that one would think Democrats would be in favor of given their carping vis a vis Iraq. As usual however, Democrats are always in favor of doing the opposite of whatever it is that we are doing. Suddenly now Democrats are in favor of unilateral action when it comes to North Korea (and Darfur by the way). Also, Democrats are now suggesting that the reason that North Korea desires nuclear weapons and broke their agreements with us is because they were offended for being included in the “axis of evil” speech given by President Bush. The theory being that Bush is to blame for not coddling or cozying up to Kim Jong Il. It's amazing that Democrats still have not abandoned the strategy of appeasement when it comes to dealing with our enemies. It's as if Democrats are suddenly Rip Van Winkle, just now waking up from a slumber in which they were not aware of the last 20 years of history.

All of this goes to the idea that Democrats want to make national security their own issue. Their mentality is “not to get swift boated” again, meaning that because of the swift boat ads, defense and national security had been taken away from John Kerry as his own issue in the 2004 presidential election. It is of course silly to cite the largely truthful swift boat ads as the reason why Americans didn’t buy into Kerry as tough on terror, when the real reason was in fact that Democrats are in reality weak on terror. Meaning, It is not a question of spin and political ads as much as it of actual facts and voting records.

In the end, I believe it to be a losing strategy to attempt to re-write history by casting Clinton and the Democrats as all knowing national security gurus. A better strategy would be to actually vote for measures that are tough on terror, such as the wiretapping of potential terrorists, risk profiling at airports, and tracking the finances of terrorists. But because Democrats don’t actually believe in these and many other anti terror tactics, they (unless directly involved in a mid term election), cannot bring themselves to vote for them. So the strategy is: rather than actually be tough on terror, try to revise history to a point whereas the American people begin to somehow believe that they are tough on terror. At the end of the day, trying to confuse the American people into believing that Democrats are and have been tough on terror is a poor substitute for actually being tough on terror.

October 08, 2006

More Important

Here is a short list of issues that I find more interesting and more pressing than the Mark Foley e-mail scandal:

Healthcare reform.
The War In Iraq.
The acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weaponry by North Korea and Iran.
Tax cuts and economic prosperity.
Energy independence (drilling in Anwar).
The War on Terror and national security (wiretapping).
An oil based alliance between Hugo Chavez and Iran.
Social security reform.

Here's to hoping that (at least) these matters are considered when we vote in November.

September 20, 2006

Strange Bedfellows

As an avid reader of anything that Charles Krauthammer has to say I am aware that if military action is undertaken against Iran there will be many immediate implications. Amongst them is an apparent oil based alliance between Iran and Venezuela's emerging international villian Hugo Chavez.

From the Jerusalem Post:

'Chavez has come out in support of Iran's nuclear program as well as denouncing the war in Lebanon, accusing Israel of a "new Holocaust." At the Non-Aligned Movement summit, which was held in Cuba leading up to the Iranian leader's Caracas visit, Venezuela and Iran channeled the tide of global anti-US sentiment into support for Iran's right to nuclear energy.'

Amongst many other illuminating assertions, Krauthammer prophesies that when the almost inevitable hostilities arise between a coalition of the willing and Iran over the acquisition of nuclear weaponry that, “Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.”

The world, now including parts of our own hemisphere, is going to hell in a hand basket thanks to fascistic and anti Semitic dictators like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Thank the lord that Saddam is out of power. That’s one less terrorist sympathizing anti American dictator left to deal with.

September 19, 2006

Patrick's Day

Well, it’s Patrick's day here in Boston, as in Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Deval Patrick. He just won his party’s hotly contested primary election earlier this evening defeating the current Attorney General Tom Reilly and venture capitalist Chris Gabrieli. The immediate implications for Patrick’s victory over his more moderate opponents include the fact that the Republican candidate, current Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, now has a significantly improved chance to win the general election that did not exist hours ago. Although not a lot here in Boston is made of it, former Clintonite Deval Patrick resides far to the left of his now vanquished fellow Democrats on the political spectrum. Among Patrick’s little publicized positions on issues include: giving tuition breaks to illegal immigrants, the advocacy of issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, the opposition of the MCAS graduation requirement, and opposition to the growth of charter schools. If only the other two candidates had bothered to point out any of these far left positions, they might have had a chance to defeat Patrick.

Interestingly, what was pointed out and made very much an issue of was Chris Gabrieli’s ties to corporate sponsors who would stand to gain tremendously if a one billion dollar public funding proposal of stem cell research, that Gabrieli advocated, was realized. Amazingly, this fact had to be pointed out by the Republican candidate Kerry Healey who may have strategized that Gabrieli was the largest obstacle in the way of realizing her own gubernatorial ambitions. Of this move Gabrieli stated, on the steps of the State House that, “The Healey campaign is doing their best impression of Karl Rove”. While it is always annoying that Karl Rove is bashed precisely because of his effectiveness, Gabrieli, in my opinion was correct. The Healey ad campaign that bombarded the airwaves took the proverbial wind out of Gabrieli’s sails, allowing a possibly unelectable far left candidate to sweep in and steal the hearts of Massachusetts Democrats (especially the Boston Globe) everywhere. Of course, many left leaning Boston pundits mischaracterized Healey as “being against stem cell research”. This is a common mischaracterization, which conflates the idea of being against the public funding of stem cell research with being against stem cell research period. But that issue, at least here in Boston, is for another day.

Many local pundits assert that Kerry Healey would not stand a chance against the tough on crime and more moderate Attorney General Tom Reilly. And Chris Gabrieli, for his part, actually shares some of the same reasonable (read conservative) opinions on immigration and taxation that Healey does. Healey’s chances to win being better against Reilly or Gabrieli is unclear. What is clear is that Healey’s chances to acquire the top Beacon Hill position are vastly improved against a far left candidate in Deval Patrick. Also, the turn out of voters in today’s Democratic primary was rather low (about 20% of eligible voters). That number will likely increase in the general election when conservatives like myself (who actually vote) are given the chance to weigh in as I did last time for Romney.

Congratulations to Mr. Patrick on his victory and thank you to Massachusetts Democrats for Selecting a member of the far left to go up against the level headed conservative Kerry Healey. Healey for guv in 06’.

September 15, 2006


The Following nugget of leftie thought that I found on a friend's blog as a comment, serves as an excellent blueprint of common left leaning fallacies. Here is the comment and my reaction:

"This is Matt and I am a fiscal Conservative and a social Progressive. I believe in balanced budgets, capital punishment, and I am against abortion. I vote completely Democrat.
I read your posts and noticed a lot of misrepresentations of what Democrats believe and will try to explain by going through them one item at a time.
We Democrats also believe, along with Republicans, that America must defend its citizens by all legal means possible.
Democrats, in general, do NOT believe G W is a terrorist. Although some Liberals do. We just believe he is an unintelligent man who got elected by money and Karl Rove. He just likes being at the big party with the wealthy. And, like most drunks, he is probably a fun guy to have a few drinks with.
I don't know any Democrats who are defnding terrorists. Please be more specific.
We are not against the War on Terror. To say so is absolutely a LIE. We are against the obvious mismanagement of this war. This administration has no intention of ever bringing this war to a conclusion.
We are not against wiretapping and surveillance of all real enemies of America. I am in favor of both domestic and foreign wiretapping, but, only of our enemies, not political enemies. As you know, many in the Republican ranks characterize people who speak out, like myself, as traitors. And thus, by that Limbaugh definition, are valid targets for eavesdropping. Those who believe this are drinking Limbaugh Kool-Aid and eating Ann Coulter Candy. And they have been deceived into believing that the Neocons who have taken over the Republican Party are Conservatives. Incidentally, it is a completely bogus claim that you can tell who are Christians, and who are not, by what political party they associate with.

Evidentally some mistakes were made at Guantanamo as evidenced by the fact that roughly 300 prisoners have been released. Otherwise they should have been tried. Why do you think we have checks and balances in the U S? Is it not to prevent errors and prevent those in power from misusing their power? What would happen if people in power could just, on their say so, have others jailed indefinitely. Will those in power always be right? What if they make a mistake? How will that ever be found out if they never have to give an account for their actions? They must be subject to proving their actions are not errors. This how we keep everyone honest. Otherwise they would be, in effect, dictators.
I an against secret prisons and detention of people without it ever being known. I am not against the locations being secret.
As for financial tracking programs, they are no big deal. I send large amounts of money to a missionary in Africa. I have to get a swift number to facilitate that transfer. There is nothing secret about this system.
We are not against harsh interrogation techniques, but, I am against sexual violations, killing, and broken limbs. Information gained by that method cannot be reliable. Things of that nature happened at Abu Gharaib. They were not just college fraternity pranks as Limbaugh portrayed them on the radio. I often heard the phrase, " These people would just as soon as kill you as look at you". Is the smae people that Rumsfield went over and released 6,000 of? If so, then he ought to be tried.
We are absolutely not for giving terrorists the ALL same rights as Americans. But, if you jail some one then you must have some PROOF for that action. Either try them or dispense with them.
How can you claim that person is a terrorists without proof? we don't have to provide them a lawyer, but, they must be allowed to present a defense. Why not? Either you have proof or you don't. You can't jail people, in limbo forever, just on specualtion.
We are for having an actual strategy for eventually extracating our troops from this diversion in Iraq. We don't ask for deadlines and dates. We need to get back to intelligently fighting the War against Islamo-Fascists. Do you know why G W and company have no strategy? Its because they didn't think they would ever need one. They just assumed they were going to be big heroes and everything would fall into place like dominoes. By the way, it was Nixon who cut and run in Viet Nam.
You know darn well that Democrats and Republicans are on the same side when it comes to the real War on Terrorists. Disagreement does not make one a traitor. It is actually traitorous to keep your mouth shut when you see blatant mismanagement causing needless harm and deaths to our troops.
Answer me this. What country did Britain attack to catch those terrorists cells in England who were planning to hijack a bunch of planes enroute to the U S? Police work is what did the trick. Not by sending an Army to invade somewhere. The thumb-your-nose diplomacy in Washington is creating more enemies for us. Which we will have to continue to deal with in the future."


This is Jaz and I am an (actual) Conservative and a Capitalist.

You say,

“We just believe he is an unintelligent man who got elected by money and Karl Rove. He just likes being at the big party with the wealthy. And, like most drunks, he is probably a fun guy to have a few drinks with.”

By making this personal attack, you’ve established that you hate Bush. I imagine that this passionate Bush Bashing drives most of your political thought process and analysis. With that in mind, let's move on.

“I don't know any Democrats who are defending terrorists.”

Isn’t Ramsey Clark a democrat? He is currently on the legal defense team for Saddam Hussein who I consider a terrorist. Saddam was the leader of a state friendly to terrorists (giving financial dispensations to suicide bombers) and the leader of a state who used the tactics of terror (rape rooms anyone?).

Since you’re a classic Bush Basher, I know I’ll never get you to see Saddam as anything approaching a terrorist, so we will just have disagree and proceed.

You mention “Kool-aid drinker” but when you said, “This administration has no intention of ever bringing this war to a conclusion. “ I caught a whiff of Kool-aid. Is there some sort of Michael Moore type conspiracy information that you are privy to involving endless bloodshed in the name of oil, or perpetuation of the American Military Industrial complex that you would like to share with us, or are simply implying that, as is the case with other conquered nations like Germany and Japan, we will have troops in country in one form or another, indefinitely? If the latter is your flavor then you are correct. At least I hope you are. I hope we will be keeping a garrison in Iraq at least for the duration of the war on terror, AKA indefinitely.

“We are not against the War on Terror. To say so is absolutely a LIE.”

Bush bashers love this word “lie”. As in “Bush lied, people died” or the classic mantra of “Bush lied about WMD”. These are two laughable bumper sticker slogans, but like your own statement, they share a very loose definition of the word lie. First of all, I don’t see the statement: ‘Democrats are against the war on terror’ in the original post, so this “lie” arrangement is a bit of a Straw man argument but certainly no intentional misrepresentation of what the original author believes to be true has transpired. A lie is when I tell you that something is true that I know to be false. In this case, conservatives don’t know exactly what to believe about Democrats. All of the evidence that we are exposed to suggests that, at the very least, you are not helpful in our efforts to fight terrorism (a goal you claim to share).

You give a run down of many of the tools used to fight terror and detail exactly what specific conditions have to be applied and what standards upheld. It’s not that standards and red tape are bad necessarily, it's just that you seem more concerned with raising hurdles in front of efforts to fight back than you are in strictly fighting terrorists. Democrats don’t want to be pinned with the idea that they are making it harder to prosecute the war on terror yet you surely would concede that certainly, you are not making it any easier with this anti Bush agenda by attempting to block legislation (Harry "We killed the Patriot Act" Reid) and so forth.

“I am in favor of both domestic and foreign wiretapping, but, only of our enemies, not political enemies. As you know, many in the Republican ranks characterize people who speak out, like myself, as traitors.”

I don’t know whether to consider this a straw man argument or simply a red herring. Nowhere is the debate centered on the wiretapping of political enemies. This paranoid charge is something to hide behind. Democrats have problems with the wiretapping of terrorists, which is what is being debated.

“We are not against harsh interrogation techniques, but, I am against sexual violations, killing, and broken limbs.”

Here we go with the straw man again. Nowhere is anyone proposing that we sexually violate, kill, or break limbs to get information. Suggesting that Americans are that bloodthirsty reminds me of Kerry’s Winter Soldier testimony. “...Cutting off limbs… blowing up bodies…in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

“We are for having an actual strategy for eventually extricating our troops from this diversion in Iraq.”

First of all, Iraq is not a diversion, to say so is a LIE... just kidding. I would not consider that statement of yours a ‘lie’ because I understand that you believe Iraq is a diversion, you are just incorrect. I wonder, do you support the use of American troops anywhere? I know, you were for going into Afghanistan, please spare us. However, if you are genuine in your desire to find a solution in Iraq, as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out in an Op-ed, a possible solution will inevitably involve the co-option of some of the Sunni insurgency into the new Iraqi government by granting limited amnesties. Guess who was against this notion? Democratic leadership, principally among them the sophist, Chuck Schumer.

Then you conclude with,

“What country did Britain attack to catch those terrorists cells in England who were planning to hijack a bunch of planes enroute to the U S? Police work is what did the trick.”

This is representative of the John Kerry approach to fighting terrorism. It is the law enforcement answer to fighting terrorism that Clinton and Madeline Albright pursued throughout the 90’s. Guess what? It don’t work. We are thankful that Britain was able to thwart an attack using Scotland Yard and law enforcement resources, but I for one believe that we have to use all of the tools of law enforcement, plus the military, plus political (restructuring) solutions. Simply using law enforcement is the old playbook, didn’t you see “Path to 9-11” with Harvey Keitel?

All of that said, I appreciate you stepping forward and representing rational left leaning individuals, but you are still incorrect on a wide array of topics.

September 11, 2006

5 years


The Anniversary of 9-11 is here and unfortunately for us all, the bi partisan spirit of cooperation to fight our enemies overseas that existed in the immediate weeks following the attack has long since dissipated. But it is not conservatives, a group to which I became a member on September 11, 2001, that have changed their colors. On that fateful day, almost all Americans seemed to be on the same page of anguish, rage and then hardened resolve to fight back. I was on that page as well, newly interested in civics, geo-politics and public policy. However, in the last five years I have watched as the left leaning part of our populace at first became less enthusiastic to fight our enemies, to a point whereas now they have become a downright impediment to our effective waging of the war against those who seek to kill us. It has been pointed out that it is perhaps inappropriate to mention partisan matters on the anniversary of such a somber occasion, but because the bi partisan sprit that has been abandoned long ago by the left no longer exists, I would submit that it is in fact fittingly prescient to point out the folly of the political party that I see as an obstacle to bringing justice to the memory of those innocent American citizens lost on 9-11. It is with this in mind that I launch the following partisan attack.

Five years after the attack on our homeland, Democrats and left leaning Bush critics are as confusingly inconsistent as ever. On the one hand, left leaning critics have stated that Bush failed to anticipate the danger posed by Islamic terrorism and that furthermore, not enough has been done to protect us. However on the other hand, many of those same Bush Bashers make the argument that Bush and conservatives are exaggerating the threat of terrorism for political purposes and are guilty of the dreaded “fear mongering”.

First of all, I wonder if those who accuse Bush of fear mongering imagine that, as Michael Moore has said, “there is no terrorist threat”. Because, if a Bush critic maintains that the threat is exaggerated it seems to me that said critic then therefore does not believe that there is a serious threat in Islamic terrorism. Also, many of those on the left who believe that Republicans and Bush are exaggerating the threat of terrorism and fear mongering are themselves, the argument can be made, guilty of fear mongering. Many of the same prominent Democratic leaders who charge that Bush is exaggerating the threat of terrorism, like Chris Dodd for example, also make the argument that not enough has been done domestically to protect us and because of that, we are imminent danger.

I would ask Democrats like Dodd, which is it? Are we in imminent danger because Bush has not done enough to protect us, or has the threat of terrorism been exaggerated for political gain? If you were to ask a Democrat this, I imagine that rather than decide on either one or the other mutually exclusive argument they would, like a child, want to have it both ways. In other words, many left leaning Bush critics want to be able say that Bush has not done enough to protect us and at the same time say that Bush is exaggerating the threat of terrorism. If one feels that were are in imminent danger of another attack, then surely that same person would have to understand that there is indeed a significant threat posed by Islamic terrorism. But by making both points simultaneously, Democrats water down each argument and seem as confused, inconsistent, and childishly illogical as ever. On this anniversary of September 11th that much, at least, has not changed and political correctness and liberalism remain as two of the most significant impediments to fighting back against the ever present and insidious threat of Islamic terrorism.

September 04, 2006


"According to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll carried out in July, more than one-third of Americans (36 %) suspect U.S. officials helped in the September 11 attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could later go to war." -Washington Post

I've been aware of college campus 9-11 conspiracy theories (even as curricula) for a while, but had no idea so many Americans put stock into what I assumed was a fringe movement. I'm not going to debunk the conspiracy theory here because the debunking has already been achieved by Popular Mechanics magazine of all outfits. Suffice it to say that if you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, you are a crackpot and as I will attempt to prove, most likely a leftie as well.

While I personally believe that almost all of the 36% in this poll could be found to be on the left side of the aisle, in fairness lets conservatively assume that two thirds of those that believe that the US government had a hand in or took no action to prevent 9/11 could be described as Democrats.

Math dictates that two thirds of 36 is 24. So, 24 percent of the population buys into this conspiracy theory and are Democrats. After taking into account the roughly 20 percent of Americans who can be considered to be the independent/middle of the road swing vote percentage of the population, we arrive at 40 percent of the population that can be considered Democrats. In other words, for purposes of this discussion, lets assume that Democrats and Republicans each have their own 40 percent of the population.

So, 24 of the 40 percent of all left leaning individuals believe that our government had a hand in 9/11.

I know that detractors of what I'm saying here will question my logic, but in the end I believe it to be a fair statement to say that based on the results of this poll, cross-referenced with what we know of simple demographics, roughly half of all Democrats buy into this crackpot conspiracy theory that Bush planned 9-11 and so on. Do we now begin to see at least part of the reason why the majority of Americans don’t trust Democrats on issues of national security? The observation that at least half of all Democrats believe in this conspiracy fantasy regarding 9/11, is another indication that Dems are not ideal candidates when considering who should lead us in the dangerous era in which we live, known as the age of terror.

R.I.P. Croc Hunter

Steve Irwin, otherwise known as the "croc hunter", was killed the other day while filming a documentary about the underwater dangers of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Apparently, Irwin's chest was pierced by the barbed tail of a stingray. From what I have heard, a stingray attack is not normally fatal for humans but Irwin had the extreme misfortune of having his heart pierced by the stingray. Although the serrated stingray tail injects toxins into its victims, Irwin’s cause of death was most likely the severing of the aorta. This would have resulted in all of the body’s blood volume being pumped into the chest cavity causing unconsciousness followed by a quick death.

“He would have known what had happened but he'd be blacking out fast. It would have been very quick, exactly the same as if he had been stabbed in the heart.” Says M & C News.

I feel bad for the pop culture icon even though his occupation seemed to invite danger as a matter of course and I wonder if it wasn’t perhaps ill advised to be so close to such a dangerous creature. Rest in peace, Croc Hunter.

August 28, 2006

True Grit

As a member of the discussion panel on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume, Washington managing editor and host of ‘Special Report’, is free to speak his mind. On Sunday he did just that. Hume doesn’t exactly pull his punches when referencing the criminals who kidnapped two of his employees and colleagues Olaf Whig and Steve Centanni (who had just been realeased minutes before the broadcast of Fox news Sunday). Everything Hume states is exactly correct, however Juan Williams, taking a turn for the worse, defends the kidnappers as members of a larger ‘victim’ body of people, the Palestinians. This, coming from a guy (Williams) who has a book out decrying the victim mentality that African American leaders and democrats perpetuate here in America. Brit Hume: up, Juan Williams: down. has the transcipt and video of this compelling exchange.

August 17, 2006


Yesterday I heard an exceedingly interesting and eminently reasonable defense of terrorist profiling on NPR of all places. During the radio segment "Marketplace" the audience was treated to an appeal to reason presented by National Review Commentator David Frum. (Click the above title to download the audio of the segment and/or read the transcript).

I find Frum's commentary to be an eloquent advocacy of what he calls "risk profiling". Among other things, he essentially points out that the recently foiled terrorist plot in England would possibly have not been thwarted here in America because of our own politically correct "randomized" scrutiny and screening at airports whereas an eighty year old grandmother traveling for the first time from Arkansas receives the same level of scrutiny as a twenty something year old Muslim man with a criminal record and traveling to the U.S. from Syria via Pakistan.

Frum joins a chorus of other conservative voices that I have heard recently on this very subject and to me it is becoming clear that America will have to shrug off some of the shackles of liberalism and politically correctness in order to more effectively protect ourselves from the fanatics that seek to kill us.

July 24, 2006

He's not a Terrorist, Just a Lib

Well, It has happened. Boston has fallen victim to the recent outbreak of pro-terrorist organization rallies that have been taking place across America.

As usual, click the above title to link to the related story.

Watch the videos where the protesters attempt to intimidate and eventually attack the “Zionist” taking the footage. Also, it is not illegal to take pictures of people assembling in public.

July 21, 2006


Israeli forces are moving into position on the Israeli Lebanon border, possibly massing for an invasion or incursion into Southern Lebanon. This, as the Lebanese defense minister is declaring that the Lebanese army will meet such a threat with force. "We'll defend our land to the last soldier.” said Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr today.

Unfortunately for Murr there are several factors working against him. First of all, his latest call to arms may prove to be only as successful as the last time he did so several days ago when attempting to assemble a force to go in and regulate the Hezbollah militants who control what is now essentially a terrorist zone south of the Litani River in Lebanon. When Murr last issued an order to muster his forces, no one showed up. If only the Lebanese army had gone into to restore order to the country, the Israelis would not be mounting a possible invasion and this current build up of Israeli troops would have perhaps not been necessary.

Also, there is the fact that The Lebanese army is not a significant fighting force capable of doing much damage according to regional experts.

“According to Mustafa Alani, senior security consultant at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, most members of the Lebanese military do police work rather than that of a real army.

“It is not a fighting force,” Alani told AFP. “Hezbollah is far stronger than the Lebanese Army.”

The Military Balance lists the army’s equipment as some 310 main battle tanks, mainly old Soviet-made T-54 and T-55 models, 1,257 armoured personnel carriers and 541 pieces of artillery.

It also has a paramilitary force of 13,000 men, a tiny air force of 1,100 servicemen and a navy numbering 1,000 personnel.”

As it stands now, Israeli forces, with the tacit blessings of President Bush, stand poised to attack Hezbollah and their new apparent, if not virtual, allies the Lebanese army.

July 19, 2006

Artistic Betrayal

Just look at this photo of a sign a Hezbollah "protester" in NYC was carrying around yesterday. The artistry of this graphic alone would determine which “camp” I would rather be a part of. Let’s see, on the top we have the colorful, multinational look of various nation states and on the bottom we have something resembling two skull and crossbones pirate flags in front of a menacing looking background. Apparently what aesthetically reflects the look of the word “evil” is truly in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's just my western bias but even a child, without the capacity to read the captions, would be able to point out which side could be considered “evil” simply based on the graphics. Gee…what side seems more evil, the multilateral colors of nation states or the black background crossed pirate flags flanked by scimitars look?

And I’m not sure that France appreciates being lumped in with the rest of us Infidel.

The terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas seek the annihilation of a race of people. And in America, the first amendment dictates that we have to tolerate the intolerance of those who are openly declaring that they are actively seeking to kill us. Gee…I wonder which culture is more enlightened….

July 18, 2006


New Gingrich has declared that America is currently involved in fighting Word War Three. Unfortunately for us all, he is correct. While his detractors accuse him of alarmism or worse, the dreaded “fear mongering” he is, in reality, merely attempting to place things into a historical perspective in order to properly motivate the American people and our leadership. We do need to conceive of our sruggles as a war in order to pay the proper attention to them. The sum total of America and our allies’ current world wide struggles does, it seems to me, rise to the level of being considered World War 3. The struggle is certainly world wide and with the latest open hostilities taking place in Israel and Lebanon, it is certainly now a war.

July 01, 2006

The Political Spectrum

It has been brought to my attention that some of us may need a refresher course on understanding the political spectrum. While I am aware that there are numerous schools of thought when it comes to charting a political spectrum, I tend to go along with the two dimensional model seen above. I believe it to be a useful tool.

This site gives a quick, free, and objective quiz used to determine how right or left and how authoritarian or libertarian the test taker may be considered to be.

My results come back with a location in the spectrum three out of eight notches to the right and one notch of ten down (to the libertarian side of things).

Churchill Down

It has taken a while, but the wild eyed, ultra liberal University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has officially been canned. The university has just completed its investigation of professor Churchill, who compared some 9-11 victims to Nazis, among many other ridiculous and offensive statements. A panel found Churchill guilty of "falsification, fabrication, plagiarism ... and other serious deviations from accepted practices."

Churchill has also been, for years, fraudulently representing himself as a Native American, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism.

The eradication of Ward Churchill from CU is a victory for the tax payers of Colorado and the students who attend the school.

Now as a private citizen, Churchill is free to proclaim or publish any falsehood that he desires, but the tax payer will not longer be expected to foot the bill for his activities.

June 30, 2006

Selective Reporting

The lefty "media watchdog" Media Matters seems to spend an awful lot of time watching and deconstructing Fox News. I understand why they spend many hours absorbing the most watched news network out there, but their discussion of what transpires at Fox is routinely disingenuous. Media Matters gleefully points out any mistake or misrepresentation that Fox News may present, but at the same time they misrepresent, by omission, the analysis that takes place on Fox and elsewhere.

In a classic lefty fallacious turning the tables move, where lefties adopt the same rhetoric that is directed against them and direct it back at conservatives, Media Matters accuses conservatives of directing "vitriol" at the New York Times.(because they published of a story which went into detail about a top secret and totally legal program known as the Terrorist Finace Tracking Program.)

Bush-bashing lefty vitriol is a staple of the modern American left, yet here Media Matters claims that conservatives are directing "vitriol" at the New York Times. The video presentation on this particular page of Media Matters shows a series of conservative pudits taking the New York Times to task because of thier arguably treasonous and at the very least unpatriotic, behavior of late, up to and including this latest fiasco. After seeing the clip It is clear that the usage of the term "vitriol" is simply incorrect , not to mention borrowed. A factual analysis of the New York Times' jaw dropping lack of judgment vis a vis revealing the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program does not constitute "vitriol". As usual, when the left tries to simply level the same complaint leveled against them back at their opposition it fails to pass logical muster.

In Media Matters’ discussion of this latest affront perpetrated by the NYT they claim,

"Conservatives have directed their vitriol almost entirely at The New York Times, despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal also posted articles on the subject on their web pages on the same day -- June 22 -- as the New York Times, and both published articles on it in their June 23 print editions."

Here we have a classic example of disingenuous reporting by omission. Media matters fails to anywhere mention the fact the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times chose to run the story on TFTP after they had learned that the NYT was going ahead with publication of said story despite being asked not to do so by many public officials including even Jack Murtha. (Even Murtha knows that the publication of details on this program will harm America.)

When will lefty outfits like Media Matters learn? Anyone in the know is aware that the New York Times lead the charge on reporting this story, which by the way the 'Times' is now claiming is not really news because “terrorists already knew that we were tracking their funds”.

Again I ask, if everyone already knew the intimate details on this program then; how is that news? Unfortunately, applying a logical standard to almost any lefty stance is a fool’s errand, so why bother. (Oops, was that vitriol... or a statement of fact?)

But it is this sanctimonious attitude that Media Matters adopts which really takes the cake for me at the moment. If Media Matters truly wants to be seen as objective like Fox New strives to be, will they ever learn to present the full story and not omit certain key facts that anyone who has looked into anything is aware of?

As long as Media Matters is here to attack Fox News and conservative pundits, bloggers like me will be here to logically refute Media Matters and the legion of other lefty spin merchants.

June 07, 2006

The Longest Day

"Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation."

Ronald Reagan
June 6, 1984

June 02, 2006


1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in attack on US convoy.
2) US military initially says bomb also killed 15 Iraqi civilians.
3) Eight insurgents killed after attacking convoy. US later says the 15 civilians were not killed by bomb, but shot accidentally in battle.

1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in bomb attack on convoy of four Humvees. Troops then "go on rampage".
2) At roadblock, four students and taxi driver killed.
3) Eight people killed in one of three houses.
4) Seven killed in a second house.
5) Four brothers put in wardrobe and shot dead in a third house.

Unlike Jack Murtha, who is gleefully pointing to this incident as evidence that he believes advances his political agenda and who is obviously choosing to believe the worst of our American service personnel, I would rather wait until the investigation is concluded.

Rather than theorize and speculate as to what happened I would just point out that Iraqi insurgents have no problem using civilians as cover and generally involving civilians whenever possible. All it would take to cause civilians causalities if you were an insurgent, would be to fire at American troops and then run into a house or building where civilians were resideing and then hide, or even use civilians as a human shield.

It is very difficult to conduct a war where the enemy is not held to any standards of decency and/or rules of engagement, yet our own forces are constantly placed under the microscope with some of those on the American Left scrambling to find any evidence of wrongdoing to further thier political agenda and thereby, as a by- product of their political posturing, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

In a separate incident, American forces were cleared of any wrong doing when calling in an air strike on a building where insurgents were hiding. “The nighttime raid was conducted in the village of Ishaqi, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, by a ground assault force. After being fired upon from the vicinity of the targeted building, the soldiers called in air strikes by an Air Force AC-130 gunship, which attacked the building, the defense officials said."

"Local Iraqis said there were 11 total dead, and contended that they were killed by U.S. troops before the house was leveled."

In this case, the findings of the investigation seem to contradict the statements of the eyewitnesses. We shall see who is telling the truth in the Haditha “massacre” and if the Marines did blatantly kill civilians, they should be punished. However, the rushing to condemnation that is being offered up by Jack Murtha is utterly shameful and serves to bolster the enemies morale rather than our own. Jack Murtha and others who delight in bad news in Iraq are a disgrace.

May 13, 2006

Paper Tiger

Let me take this moment to assail Hilary Clinton. I saw a brief clip of Ms. Clinton quickly sniping President Bush regarding the latest round of the NSA wiretapping controversy. I’m trolling the net to find a transcript or at least some reporting on her comments made today in what looked to be some sort of informal press conference. I cannot find a single news story about Hilary’s latest dressing down of the Bush Administration, and I am left with the question: Where is Hilary on these issues of national security? What is her policy on the wiretapping of terrorists for example? Who would Know?

No one knows the answer to these questions. No one on earth can honestly ascertain what this woman’s stance is on almost issue that she routinely snipes at the Bush administration over.

As far as the her position in any kind of political spectrum…again, who knows? Is she a centrist? An independent, a Republican, a Democrat? I don’t think she even knows. Like the most cynical of politicians, rather than having a core set of values that hold true in fair weather or foul, she would rather indulge her own desire for power, and only choose her stance when and if it is politically wise to do so.

April 27, 2006

"A Day without an immigrant"

Apparently the "immigrant rights" advocates are planning a nation wide work stoppage and boycott of businesses and schools for this coming Monday May 1st, 2006. Perhaps you have not yet heard of this planned “day without and Immigrant” event. As is pointed out on SayNoToP.C.B.S. this planned work stoppage is being kept a secret from those of us evil English speaking Americans: “We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California.” Said Professor Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos… ". Most likely, you will not hear about this boycott in liberal media outlets because they largely share the same contemptuous and secretive agenda with the illegal immigrant rights advocates. Here's a novel idea for liberal "journalists": just objectively report the news to everyone regardless of their agenda. For the liberal MSM that is apparently too much to ask.

I love how the event is being referred to as the “day without an immigrant”. Of course, not all immigrants share the same agenda as the illegal immigrant rights advocates, but the illegal immigrants right advocates have to conflate the concept of “illegal immigration” with all “immigration” in order to advance their agenda by suggesting that being in favor of immigration reform is the same thing as being against all immgration. Then come the tired charges of racism and xenophobia. Of course, the new laws being proposed that are the cause of this illegal immigrant uproar do not effect those people who have legally immigrated to this country, but why let logical distinctions get in the way of this mob rule bum-rushing of the rest of the legal tax paying citizenry?

Here in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, local small businesses are essentially being intimidated into not opening their doors on Monday. Groups have been going around and “recommending” a la Tony Soprano not to do business on Monday in order to “demonstrate their solidarity” with the illegal immigrant population. How a local American citizen owned deli closing demonstrates “a day without an illegal immigrant “ is beyond me and if I owned a local business I would not be intimidated by thugs to not participate in commerce. However, local businesses are citing "repercussions" as the reason that they will comply with the wishes of the illegal immigrant population. It is a sad state of affairs when American businesses are subject to the whims of foreign nationals that find themselves within our borders.

If illegals don't want to attend work or school, not use the internet or cell phones and not make any purchases on Monday May 1st that is absolutely fine with me. My only question is: why stop there? If illegals want to boycott every aspect of American society on Monday why don’t they do us all a favor and boycott America itself by leaving it? Of course, that will not happen because it would require an actual sacrifice as opposed to simply sitting on their duffs for 24 hours and collecting the benefits of the various social programs that they have managed to scam their way into. This situation has gone way past ridiculous a while ago and I hope that there is considerable backlash to the planned "day without an immigrant" work stoppage planned for this coming Monday May 1st.

April 26, 2006

April 21, 2006

The United Conflations

The erstwhile, United Nations, has appointed Iran to vice-chair the “disarmament commission”. I wish I was surprised or shocked, but I've come to expect this sort of thing from the well intentioned, but deeply misguided outfit known as the United Nations.

While Iranian diplomats are busy citing international accords in an effort to defend the “peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology” The Iranian President Aminijijad is busy posturing, excitedly announcing the development new advanced weaponry, and generally sabre rattling. At this point, despite Iran’s diplomatic protestations/delaying tactics, does any serious person imagine that Iran is not actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weaponry?

By appointing Iran to the disarmament commission, The UN has officially abandoned all hope of being taken seriously by any intellectually honest observer.

April 20, 2006


Which one of these well qualified political figures will make a better White House spokesman?

April 13, 2006


According to the most recent Zogby poll, "...protests across the nation against immigration proposals in Congress – particularly to make it a federal felony to be an undocumented worker in America – have not persuaded a majority of U.S. likely voters across the country. [In Fact], More said they are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction."

More Americans are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction.

If you buy into this Zogby poll, which I do, it appears as though the waving of Mexican flags (along with other adversarial posturing) has been counterproductive for the "Immigration rights" advocates.

The poll went on to say, "A wide majority of those participating in the survey (65%) said they would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for some goods and services should that be the result of tighter control of the southern U.S. border and a resulting lower number of undocumented workers."

Count me in that 65%, and I imagine that we will see less Mexican flags at upcoming various demonstrations.

Go to the Insomnious Politico Vlog to Listen to Newt Gingrich on this flags issue and then watch Neil Cavuto battle an apologist reporter who does his best to white wash what is transpiring.

April 08, 2006

Insomnious Politico Vlog

I've officially launched the Insomnious Politico Vlog. This will still be my primary blog and all relevant and available video clips can be found at the new vlog.

It was recently brought to my attention by a left leaning friend that, Like Fox News, I am ignoring the so-called leak investigation regarding Scooter Libbey et al. Fox News is hardly ignoring the story and neither am I. Please go to the new vlog for a "damning" clip of the President and my commentary on the matter.

April 06, 2006

The Art of the non-Apology Apology

"She played the race card and failed", Charles Krauthammer said yesterday of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. He’s right, and this story would have been over a while ago if not for Ms. McKinney’s obvious attempt at race baiting and deflection. Also, it appears as though she has attended the Dick Durban School of non-apology apologies. I despise the non-apology. To me, it grates on all precepts of logic. Either apologize or don't apologize. If a person feels that they were in the wrong, then an apology is appropriate. On the flipside, if a person feels that they were the aggrieved party, as McKinney was initially suggesting, then they should not apologize. If only people like McKinney could speak as plainly as I have just indicated. Instead we get this Clintonion doublespeak non-apology/semi apology. On the house floor yesterday McKinney said, “I regret that this incident happened.” Right off the bat, when someone starts off with such a defensive and non-committal statement like that, you can tell that a true apology is not forthcoming. Saying, “I regret that the incident happened“ suggests absolutely no accountability or responsibility of wrongdoing. It is a generic comment, which is equal to saying, “I wish that the incident did not occur”. She went on to say, “There should not have been any physical contact in this incident.” Great…another non-committal remark. Does that mean: I should not have struck the officer? Or does that mean: The officer should not have placed his hand on my shoulder while I was in the process of ignoring security procedures? How can this be even considered anything approaching an apology? Clearly, when she says, "...physical contact should not have occurred” she is referring to the officer's conduct and not her own. Or is she being purposefully vague? What an annoying woman. She concluded with, “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize." First of all, to whom is she apologizing to at the end of her statement? Certainly, in this final apology she is not apologizing to the officer involved, otherwise she could have apologized to the officer in person, which she has not yet not bothered to do. It is not an apology to essentially suggest the equivalent of, “I’m sorry that you got offended” or "I’m sorry that you took my remarks the wrong way". It would be like using a racial slur against someone, and then pretending to apologize by saying, “I’m sorry that you got offended.” Expressing regret is not the same as apologizing. I've already heard from those on the left protesting any rejection of this so-called apology. They say, "She apologized, what more do you want?" To them I would point out that simply because the word apology is mentioned within a body of speech does not mean that an actual apology was offered. Rather than looking for certain keywords one should look at the sum total of her remarks, which amount to an apology couched within a defense. True contrition should not contain any defensive statements.

Dick Durban would be proud, Cynthia McKinney followed his model of finding contrition only after the public outcry and repercussions drove her to do so, and then offering a cover-all-the-bases apology non-apology. Couple this with her pathetic attempt to inject race into the matter unnecessarily and anyone can agree that she is either a racist or very stupid. Either way, she has demonstrated rank incompetence. This woman is a disgrace to the office that she holds and probably should just resign.