A Brit Gets It (Mostly)

Filed in PoliticsTags: Military

From the Times Online comes this commentary, which basically points out America's historical reluctance to exercise its military might until forced to do so:

But the critics, in their eagerness to denigrate the country they regard as irredeemably simplistic, miss its complexity. There is another history of American military intervention which points to rather different conclusions.

Americans have proved to be extremely reluctant warriors...

The author points out - quite rightly - that the US does not exercise its superpower status indiscriminately. (And the author does not go into great depth that the American public is equally historically impatient when the American military is engaged. Even World War II did not enjoy unquestioned, unending support from the American public.)

Interestingly, the author comes to the following, three-point test for American support for war:

History suggests that for the American public to continue its support for a protracted struggle, three conditions must be met. They must be convinced that their cause is a noble one. No country in the world is as animated by ideals as Americans. But idealism alone will not suffice. Even Americans won’t in the end fight for abstract principles, or for somebody else’s freedom.

The second condition is that a war must be seen as being conducted against a threat, immediate or emergent, against Americans.

Thirdly, Americans will back a lengthy war only if they believe their leaders have a clear strategy for winning. In the end it was not lack of faith in the cause in Vietnam that undermined support for the war among a majority of the US population. It was a steadily strengthening conviction that their leaders had given up believing the war could be won.

In his own way (and likely, unbeknownst to him), the author has found yet another litmus test between Red and Blue America:

  1. Red America will fight for noble causes and for idealism, and will sacrifice for someone else's freedom. Blue America does not support American military action for any cause, save the most egregious, and despises any action taken under the Stars and Stripes rather than the UN flag. (Consider Afghanistan: Red and Blue America supported the action, but Blue America - led by such disgraces as MoveOn.org - called for understanding and restraint. Consider also Iraq: for Blue America, the liberation of 40 million oppressed Iraqis was not inherently sufficient reason for ousting Saddam Hussein.)
  2. Red America understood the clear and present danger of the regimes of both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and supported the President's policy of hunting down terrorists and those who support or harbor them Further, Red America understands that the liberation of 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq is not merely a beneficial side-effect, but a significant strategy in changing the global terror climate. Blue America keeps clamoring about a lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. (Ignoring or denying the obvious and proven connections between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida - as if such a link were even required, since no credible person will deny that Hussein supported and harbored terrorists, and continually violated not only the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf War, but also the several UN sanctions and resolutions passed since then.)
  3. Red America understands that war is violent, painful, and lengthy - especially the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which Red America understand will take not days, weeks, months, or years - but decades. Blue America was shouting, "Quagmire!" before the first boots were in the sand in Afgnanistan; "Quagmire!" in Iraq weeks after Coalition forces first entered Iraq (and, fittingly ironic, only days before Baghdad fell); and continue to try to turn our efforts in Iraq into another Vietnam - a comparison that finds no basis in reality, and which serves only to advance Blue America's true agenda: to undermine the American military in order to prove the ultimate illegitimacy of the action, and of the Commander in Chief who leads it.

Blue America will deny even the truth of this statement by the author:

Iraq today still meets criteria one and two. It remains a noble cause, in keeping with the highest American ideals — liberation of a people from a hideous tyranny. And it is a fight in defence of America’s interests. Establishing a democratic base in the Middle East remains the key to overturning the ideologies of fundamentalist hate that are the root causes of terrorism.

Red America understands these two fundamental truths about America's action in Iraq. Blue America has become so rabid in its anti-Bush rhetoric that it finds itself in the untenable position of arguing against these truths.

However, the author somewhat misses the mark with his conclusion:

It is fulfilling the third condition that may be hardest now. Americans wonder increasingly whether their political leadership has a clear idea of where the struggle in Iraq is headed. At times they wonder whether their leadership actually knows or understands what is going on. No one can set out a detailed path to victory against an insurgent enemy. But the Bush Administration needs to demonstrate a commitment to getting the job done. That means not only protestations of resolve, but actions to back it up; specifically more troops if needed. Otherwise the steady attrition of support will gather ominous momentum.

Only Blue America - led by the seditious partisanship of the American Mainstream Media - continually questions the "Plan" for Iraq, and GWOT. Red America knows beyond doubt that the Administration in general - and President Bush in particular - understands depth and breadth of global terrorism, and the devastating consequences of pursuing any course other than taking the fight to the terrorists in the heart of the breeding ground of international terrorism.

Let us not forget: a mere seven months ago, a record number of Americans voiced their opinion of Bush's grasp of GWOT - and overwhelmingly (and by both a record number of vote total and difference) indicated support for the President. Red America - and make no mistake, America has made a decided shift from blue to red in the past 10 years - stands in support of military action in Iraq, in support of America's overall effort to eradicate international terrorists and regimes that harbor them, and to defend America's borders from ever suffering another 9/11. Red America is in it for the long haul - and Red America has unending belief that America - and freedom - will prevail in the end.

Just Desserts

Filed in PoliticsTags: Judiciary

Michelle Malkin mentioned this bit of ironic justice yesterday:

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

File this one under "adding injury to insult."

And in an attempt to drive home the message:

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

I would love to see this request make its way to the Supreme Court...

REVIEW: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Filed in Politics, ReviewsTags: Books



In classic Savage Style, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder brings to a conclusion the author's trilogy concerning defending America from Liberal assault.

Dr. Savage poses several problems facing America, and from his unique perspective presents "Savage Solutions" for each. Savage takes on such hot-bed issues as Iraq, Islamofascism, illegal immigration, assault-by-litigation on American businesses, revisionist history, the ACLU, and current American political shifts.

Savage holds no punches from either the Democrat or Republican parties, and reserves none of his disdain for lack of true political debate from the "Demicans" and "Republicrats" that run Washington. While the rhetoric is occasionally over-the-top, the underlying truths are undeniable for most of the issues covered in the book.

I am disappointed, however, that Dr. Savage has apparently bought into the liberal media's propagandist views on Iraq, and takes a decidedly negative outlook on the eventual outcome - an outlook with which I wholeheartedly disagree.

That issue aside, I consider Savage's views to be the far-right boundary, without being too extreme for reasonable debate - practical solutions to the issues addressed may or may not include his Savage Solutions.

In the final tally, Savage is right more often than he is wrong (in fact, his take on Iraq is the only one with which I take major issue). The book is a fun read - especially for the reaction it ilicits from Liberals who might happen to catch you reading it.

REVIEW: Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man

Filed in Politics, ReviewsTags: Books



Tired of the hypocritical lifestyle and propogandistic, out-of-context, mis-informing, mis-directing, and outright-lying work of Michael Moore, authors David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke penned Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man to expose and refute this Liberal poster-child.

The book is painstakingly researched, tirelessly footnoted, pointedly critical, and brutally revealing; the book exposes the truth of Michael Moore's life, lifestyle, beliefs, and work history; and most importantly for those taken in by the filmmaker and author's work, the book uncovers the truth about Moore's works, from Roger and Me, to Stupid White Men, Bowling for Columbine, Dude, Where's My Country, and the pinnacle: Fahrenheit 9/11.

The book is a damning revelation of Moore's complete lack of scruples, loyalty, or integrity in his life and work. From deceptive camera angles, to taking quotes and speeches out of context and chronology, to manipulation of sequence, to subjectively choosing facts, to intentional deception, and outright lies, the book unfolds the truth behind Moore's manipulation and lies.

For anyone tired of defending the liberal non-arguments posed by Moore's propogandist works, this book brings much-needed context and firepower to disarm Moore's blind followers on the Left.

REVIEW: Letters To A Young Conservative

Filed in Politics, ReviewsTags: Books



Letters To A Young Conservative, by Dinesh D'Souza, is, as the title implies, a collection of letters from the author's correspondence with a fictional Conservative college student. The letters touch most of the major issues.

Since each chapter is a letter, the result is episodic with a logical progression from one topic to the next. The content can be consumed in chunks, or read easily in a few sittings - or even in a single sitting.

This book was my first exposure to D'Souza, but assuming it is indicative of his other writing, it will certainly not be my last. D'Souza has a firm, foundational, and eloquent grasp on the issues he addresses. His wit is nearly as acerbic as Ann Coulter's, but his style, paradoxically, is disarming.

As part of the Art of Mentoring series, the book is comprised of 31 short chapters (ranging from 4-16 pages, with most less than 10), written as letters addressed to a fictional college student named Chris. Each "letter" addresses a different issue, beginning with modern definitions of Conservativatism and Liberalism, and continuing with Libertarianism, how D'Souza - from an Indian immigrant family - became a Conservative, political correctness, multiculturalism, classical literature, Ronald Reagan, government as a societal problem, class warfare, affirmative action, feminism, post-modernism, liberal academia, media bias, judicial activism, gun rights, debating liberals, liberal mis-education, Abraham Lincoln, self-esteem, environmentalism, gay marriage, family values, abortion, anti-globalism, immigration, anti-Americanism, the Republican party, and why Conservatives should be cheerful; and ends with an exhaustive book list for Conservatives.

Given the short, letter-style chapters, and D'Souza's eloquence, this book is an easy and enjoyable read. While certainly geard toward 18-30 year olds, I would recommend this book to anyone as a primer on modern Conservatism from the mind of a young Conservative leader. To understand What modern Conservatism is, where it is, and where today's generation of young Conservatives is taking it, you need look no farther than D'Souza's Letters to a Young Conservative.

Blogshares

Filed in MiscellaneousTags: Internet, Web Site

What is this?

Classic Rottie Fisking

Filed in Politics

Darth Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler brings us a classic Rottie fisking of more liberal clap-trap:

You better believe it. Every morning when we wake up in the Imperial Palace, we jump out of bed and set off to smother anything remotely resembling a sense of social well-being, whatever the Hades that might be.

Then, after a half a gallon of coffee and a dozen cigarettes, we're off to a hard day's work of shoving grannies in wheelchairs down stairs (having made sure to steal their Social Security checks first, of course), kicking puppies and writing long and indignant letters to PBS, demanding that they immediately send the entire cast of Sesame Street to Gitmo on charges of subversive activities.

And that's just before lunch.

The afternoons are typically spent converting everybody in sight to Christianity at gunpoint by uttering deadly phrases such as "G-d Bless You" at unsuspecting secularists.

Read the whole thing; he holds no punches deconstructing this liberal waste.

Liberals Admit: Fascism Far Left

Filed in PoliticsTags: Judiciary

As Michelle Malkin points out, the 'sphere has been up in arms in reaction to this week's usurpation of the Fifth Amendment by SCOTUS in Kelo v. City of New London.

Amazingly, the Left and Right sides of the 'sphere seem to have found one of those rare issues on which to agree. However, as is to be expected from the Blame Bush crowd, the Libs - such as Bree Walker writing at the already blaming Bush for this decision:

Probably no one is really surprised at how The Supreme Court pushed its' "eminent domain" authority to the limit with this latest ruling which gives cities unprecedented power to bulldoze even "non blighted" areas for local revenue. In fact, we should all be used to our growing Fascism by now. Corporate rule of government will continue under this administration because there's no one out there in mainstream media allowed to call it what it is; Fascism, plain and simple.

[Skipping over a bunch of filler crap...]

It's probably just a matter of time before we bloggers get our gag orders first from the D.C gang and then ultimately, from China, once the Administration finds a way to sell us all out. Another sad day in America. But hey, at least those Chinese know how to run a government, even if it's the opposite of Fascism. Who knows? Maybe American Communism is the court of last resort for our droned out, dumbed down, tuned out, Hippie Capitalist population. I know I'm damned tired of watching the alternative loom larger everyday.

Before I go any farther, let me just point out President Bush's consistent stance on the Judiciary (as excerpted by ConfirmThem):

[A]s Chief Justice Hughes has said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” The Court, in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions, has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress — a superlegislature, as one of the justices has called it — reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there and which were never intended to be there.

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution — not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

I want — as all Americans want — an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written — that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power — amendment by judicial say-so.

President Bush has consistently stated that he wants - and has nominated nominated - strict constructionists on the bench.

[EDIT: Mea culpa. I should have followed the link. The quote above is actually from an FDR fireside chat. Here's a quote from President Bush, during one of the 2004 presidential debates:

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words under God in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

(That's the first quote I came across in a quick search; point being, Bush's views are the same as what was excerpted from FDR above.]

Once more, for the record, this abomination came down to a 5-4 decision - FOR: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Beyer; AGAINST: O'Conner, Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas. In other words, those ideologically aligned with the current Administration OPPOSED the ruling, while those ideologically aligned with Bree Walker formed the majority opinion.

I'll agree, infringing on personal property rights in such a manner is fascist. (Actually, eminent domain for private-sector use is more correctly socialist, given the redistribution of property. The underlying judiciary fiat, on the other hand, is clearly fascist.) However, to blame the fascism through Judicial fiat on Conservatives in general, and President Bush in particular, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.

Bush keeps sending up judiciary nominees to protect our republic from such judicial activism, and the Liberals' sole litmus test is the nominee's stance on Roe v. Wade - a SCOTUS decision that , ironically, clearly was a result of gross judicial activism, and something the Senate Judiciary Committee is being forced to discuss, given the expected Supreme Court vacancies upcoming. The bottom line is, this action by SCOTUS is clearly in line with the Liberal view of the Judiciary. I was taught in high school History (excuse me, Social Studies) that Communism was the extreme of the Liberal POV, and Fascism was the extreme of the Conservative POV. Of course, I argued against that alignment even then. The extreme of the Conservative POV would more rightly be Anarchy, since the "spectrum" in question is one of balance of power and responsibility between the individual and government/society. If the left extreme is no personal freedoms, and complete control by society/government, then the right extreme is unchecked personal freedoms, and no control/existence of government/society.

But I digress... my point is this: Bree Walker just admitted - perhaps unknowningly - that Fascism is, in fact, an outcome of the LIBERAL ideology.

Need any more reason to implore President Bush to keep nominating strict constructionists (especially to the Supreme Court), and also to implore your Senators to support Bush's nominations?

Breaking: Explosion in St. Louis

Filed in MiscellaneousTags: Missouri, Saint Louis

Right now I'm watching coverage of an explosion at Praxair Distribution in south St. Louis (Jefferson and Chouteau).

Early coverage from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

The blaze began around 3 p.m. at Praxair, a gas and tank company at 2210 Chouteau. As of 4 p.m. a policeman at the scene said no injuries had been reported. Explosions had slowed to perhaps one per minute from the frenetic pace of earlier in the afternoon. More than a dozen emergency vehicles were at the scene.

As I write this, Highway 40 is being shut down between the Poplar Street Bridge and Kingshighway - though tonight's Cards game is not expected to be interrupted.

Additional coverage: KSDK News Channel 5 (including photo gallery), KMOV News Channel 4

Just For Fun

Filed in Politics

(HT: Travis Benning)

Liberal/Conservative

Your Political Profile

Overall: 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal
Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Ethics: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Worldview

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

Cultural Creative

63%

Fundamentalist

50%

Existentialist

44%

Idealist

44%

Modernist

38%

Romanticist

31%

Postmodernist

25%

Materialist

19%

What is Your World View? (updated)
created with QuizFarm.com