Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Using It All Up

The Democrats have gone too far, too long. It's one thing to exercise "free speech" rights and to publicly debate the wisdom of going to war, when lives are sure to be lost. It's quite another to actively work toward the defeat of your nation. Some call it treason.

Of course, as soon as you impugn the integrity of a Leftist, they get all up in arms and begin spewing vitriol. And naturally, they impugn your integrity.

So, let's set aside the name-calling for a moment. Instead, let's invoke the null hypothesis and say the Democrats are entirely honorable. And then let's see if the facts support our hypothesis.

- Democrats, under Bill Clinton, approved surveillance of foreign spies and enemies without warrants. Bush did the same. Major difference: we are now at war, Clinton's administration was not.

- Democrats, under Bill Clinton, lied about WMD in Iraq. Or, did they? Iraq did have WMD, but Clinton did virtually nothing about it. Bush accepted the Clinton assessment and acted accordingly-- i.e. disarmed Iraq. Same intelligence, different action.

- Democrats, under Bill Clinton, conducted military operations in the Balkans without Congressional approval. Was this a violation of the Constitution? Bush is accused of conducting an illegal war in Iraq, despite specific Congressional approval. Moreover, he is said to have faked intelligence and to have lied to get us into a "war for oil". The Senate Intelligence Committee says otherwise, but try explaining that to Howard Dean.

- Bill and Hillary ordered IRS investigations of political enemies, and forced the FBI to conduct an investigation of the White House Travel Office, destroying lives and careers, all for political expediency. Not a peep of complaint about "domestic spying" from Democrats. Bush orders surveillance of actual enemies, here and abroad, and Democrats want him impeached. During a war, no less.

- Democrats want to "redeploy over the horizon" immediately. Well, not immediately, but very soon. But not today. But definitely out of Iraq, and pronto. 108 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to not support victory in Iraq, just the other day. In other words, Democrats want to give up on Iraq, but not until we lose a few more troops.

- Democrats "support the troops", but don't support "the policy". That is, they like soldiers but don't want them to succeed in their mission.

- Democrats insists victory is impossible. This, despite three free elections in Iraq in less than a year, and the embryo of the first functioning democracy in that region ever. Saddam Hussein is in jail, complaining of beatings while listening to testimony of his former victims, describing skin being ripped off other Iraqis at Saddam's behest.

- Democrats have paranoid fantasies about having their library cards spied upon, so decry the Patriot Act. This, despite the fact we have had no terrorist attacks on our soil since its passage. Meanwhile, Harry Reid crows, "We just killed the Patriot Act".

- Tim Robbins said, "There is a chill wind blowing...", as he claimed to be censored when he only encountered mild criticism for his blatantly anti-American rhetoric. Democrats and Leftist love to exercise their free speech rights, but cannot accept the same of the Right. When John Kerry ran for president, he asked us to judge him by his record. Not his legislative record, but his Vietnam record. Then, when a group of his wartime peers known as the Swift Boat Veterans wrote a book about the matter, Kerry actually asked a court to force the publisher recall the book-- i.e. censorship. Democrats don't like free speech when it is used against them. Conservative speech is "hate speech" and must not be tolerated, but anti-American Leftist vitriol is "free".

This could go on a while, to include nefarious campaign activities from the likes of Hillary Clinton, including accepting contributions from the Muslim Fund but labelling it the Museum Fund. And on, and on. Then having the gall to call Tom Delay "corrupt".

So let's stop here an see what we have. Anyone see a pattern here? Any conclusions? How is our null hypothesis doing so far? If I left out some act of Leftist/Democrat patriotism, please let me know.

What little credibility the Left ever had has long been used up. Gone. Kaput. They spent it on Vietnam, assuring us all would be well as North Vietnam took over the south. Then, when many thousands perished, the Left simply changed the subject. Now they want us to think "Vietnam" when we hear "Iraq". Well, we do. And we remember what they did.

So, to borrow from Ann Coulter, if they were traitors, how would they act differently?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Do I Spy With My Little Eye... Treason?

Let's pretend it is 1942, yet somehow we magically have 2005 technology. We are at war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Well, Italy too, but they don't quite count.

Suppose some Nazi in Germany called his secret agent spy contact here in the United States. Through the human miracle of technology, we are able to use speech recognition software, coupled with advanced neural network technology and some semantically intelligent processes. We detect the conversation and immediately, in real time, alert a U. S. Government intelligence agent-- the good guy, for you Democrats-- to the matter. The good guy listens for a bit to determine if the call is really about military matters or just someone's Christmas shopping list.

The call is about a planned attack, as far as our good guy can tell. The Nazi caller hangs up, and immediately his domestic spy places another call, this time to Japan.

Now, do we stop listening and start preparing a request for court ordered surveillance? Or do we act immediately against our country's enemies, this being a time of war? Should we have been monitoring the call in the first place?

Remember, this is not like the old movies, where some telephone worker had to tediously work racks of wires with a pair if alligator clips, listening for the mysterious caller. And you had to hope the call stayed active for five minutes or so while we "traced" the call.

No, with contemporary technology, we immediately know exactly what phone number is at each end of the call, and we probably know the physical location of the phones. Moreover, we may well know the identities of the phone callers, as well as something about them. We can react immediately-- far faster than a court order for wiretap surveillance can be prepared.

There are eyes and ears in the sky, and we are at war. We need to use whatever tools we have available to thwart our enemies. Personally, I don't think we should even need to discuss the matter, but there are members of Congress who just don't take this war seriously. They used this "controversy", leaked ignominiously by the New York Times last week, to invoke a filibuster against renewal of the Patriot Act.

There are those who are convinced this administration is using its powers under the Patriot Act to actively spy on domestic political opposition. Of course, if Hillary Clinton was president, this would be a legitimate concern. It may be the best reason not to elect Hillary, but that is another matter.

Then, there are those who simply see short term political opportunity. Republicans, who are such in name only. Media whores like Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska. It's odd how Hagel is often to the political left of the other Nebraskan Ben Nelson, who happens to be a Democrat.

It's really pretty simple: we are at war, we need to win. We need our political leaders to help, not hurt. And for the press to avoid overt acts of treason.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Tookie Almost Took Us

Tookie Williams is a cold-blooded killer. He was convicted of capital murder in California, and is scheduled to die a few hours from now. After a full-court Hollywood press, Governor Schwarzenegger decided against granting clemency to Williams.

Good enough.

Oddly, Rainbow Push Coalition leader Jesse Jackson will be marching in protest. Jackson, of course, is famous for his defence of black "victims" of justice. He personally met with the Governor to plea the Williams case, saying on his web site:
Tookie Williams personifies what “Redemption” is all about. He has used his time in prison to reach others and save lives. We may not be able to quantify the number of children he has saved, but I am certain that there are children in this country and abroad that would not be here had they not received his powerful message.

Interesting perspective. Can we quantify the thousands of children who would be with us had Tookie Williams not started the Crips gang to begin with?

While I am personally opposed to capital punishment-- and I am not a Christian-- I must say this is not what redemption is about. Redemption begins with acknowledgement of one's actions, then asking forgiveness.

Williams has done neither. He simply claims not to have committed the crimes for which he was convicted. Nobody is asking on his behalf for a new trial, nor is evidence of his innocence being offered. Nobody seriously claims his innocence. They simply insist he is a better person, presumably for not admitting guilt and asking forgiveness.

Here is the strangest matter in this case: Jesse Jackson puts his energy into pleading for mercy for Williams, and protests the state's punishment. Yet, in all my years, I have no recollection of Jesse Jackson even once protesting anywhere on behalf of those unquantified victims of Tookie Williams' legacy of gang violence. He simply dances to the Tookie Williams tune of ignore-my-actions-but-listen-to-what-I-say.

Most of the victims of gang killings are black. Jesse Jackson purports to advocate for the black community, yet he has never, to my knowlege, marched against black-on-black violence anywhere.

For whom, then, is Jesse Jackson an advocate?

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Lucy, Howard and the Football

While on the topic of sucky jobs, I can't decide if Howard Dean has the best job or worst.

On the one hand, it must be thrilling to have the full power of the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and most news media behind you as you posit impossibility. Being at the helm of the losing party election after election, you have no real downside left. If things can't get worse, they must be pretty good, right? So, feel free to tell us how badly the war is going, we cannot win; how the President committed impeachable offenses. And while you are at it, completely rewrite history.

On the other hand, it has to be awful to have to put forth the proposition your country simply cannot win a just war, even as it is clearly winning that war. The only way your position can result in success for your political party is for your country to fail in its mission to protect its citizens from the largest organized pirate band in human history*. You have to preach failure, and so Howard Dean does. All in the name of morality and patriotism, of course.

Well, such a position would be awful, if you had any real sense of morality, and a rational understanding of history.

Dean still insists this war is exactly like Vietnam, and when we turned that war over to the Vietnamese, they simply could not hold on. Of course, the reality is the plan for "vietnamization" of that war called for substantial and ongoing support for South Vietnam after our troops left. That was the deal, and all was going well, with the ARVN troops dominating the battlefield until Ted Kennedy and his ilk chose to abandon them by pulling their funding. The Democrats in Congress reneged, and the Vietnam War lost.

Like Lucy and Charlie Brown, we snatched the football away just as our friends were kicking with all their hearts. This is what the Democrats are setting up today, in Iraq.

Yep, that is the lesson of Vietnam-- that abandoning a cause and an ally could mean loss of a war. And Howard Dean can only look good if we lose.

The Democrats hide behind "patriotism" and free speech. In fact, the only time the word "patriotism" is used, is when Democrats call for failure and insist their patriotism not be questioned. Yet, I never hear a Republican actually say any Democrat in not patriotic. Nobody calls Democrats' patriotism into question except the Democrats themselves.

But, when you use "free speech" to call for your country's failure and defeat in war, it isn't patriotic. It's treasonous.

* Mohammed did this when he invented Islam. More on this later.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Congratulations! You've Been Promoted!

Man, there must be no hell like being al Qaeda's number three guy. Seems like every week or so, a new top-level slot is being opened up by either the Marines or Army in Iraq, or an Air Force "Predator" in Pakistan.

Can you imagine what it must be like to get the "good news" from one of bin Laden or al Zarqawi's ragged messengers?
Dear Achmed-

Congratulations! Due to our tremendously successful martyrdom campaign in the jihad against the Great Satan, we have a top-level opportunity on our management team. After careful review of many resumes, we think you may be the perfect choice...

Anyway, having that number two or three job foist upon you by such circumstances must really suck. Of course, there are those 72 virgins waiting for you... but then, do you really want the virgins?

Subscribe with Bloglines Who Links Here Blogarama - The Blog Directory