Ascendancy

Marines Subject to Double Standard in Fallujah

2004-11-16T21:35:00.000-06:00

As the Marines clear out the terrorist hiding places in Fallujah, they come across evidence of atrocity after atrocity committed by the terrorists against civilian Iraqis and captured westerners. Civilians used as human shields were shot by the terrorists before retreating. A Polish woman captive is shot in the head, disemboweled, dismembered, and left in the street. A Marine was killed when he approached an apparently injured or dead terrorist -- it isn't clear which, yet -- and a bomb exploded.

Ho-hum is the reaction from the anti-war media. Most don’t report these facts; or if they do, the stories are usually very short and buried deep in the paper to avoid putting the terrorists in a negative light.

CNN did report the killing of the soldier, though they claim without proof that the terrorist was dead:

About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents.

In any case, obviously, terrorists are a mortal danger even when injured or dead. The next day a Marine from the same unit is filmed shooting an apparently injured terrorist, found in much the same situation as the booby-trap terrorist of the day before. In this case, however, the soldier had learned a proper lesson from yesterday’s booby-trap killing of his best friend and acts accordingly; but the cameraman is a rabid anti-war cipher and he helps the media make a page one major issue of it. The International Red Cross, that gutless bastion of leftist Anti-Americanism, is quoted at length about how America has unlawfully and inhumanely denied the terrorist captives their rights under the Geneva Convention.

Excuse me? Isn’t the Geneva Convention a set of rules of war that applies reciprocally only to the states that signed it? Hint...Yes. Now perhaps these apologists for terror can tell me, when or where the terrorists came out from behind the women and children they use as shields to sign the Geneva Convention? Of course they didn't, they never signed anything like it. They are stateless to begin with, so they couldn't be party to the Geneva Convention; and they prefer glorious death anyway, believing fervently in their reward in their own glorious heavenly whorehouse with virgins. (By the way, are 72 virgins enough for all eternity?)

It seems to me that the Marine is being treated unfairly for merely dispatching the terrorist to his longed-for destination.

Let the appeasers of the world weep for the "mistreated" terrorists while they ignore the overwhelming and real examples of terrorist atrocities. Let the soldier-haters keep trying to mimic John Kerry’s disloyal treachery against our fighting men. Let them then deny that the terrorists’ goal is to kill us all or die trying. The anti-war ostriches have been conspicuously irrelevant since 9/11.

And now will someone please take the cameras from those media lapdogs of the left and tell them to get the hell out of the war zones? What’s the point of allowing the MSM, who are clearly the psychological ally of the terrorists, to ride along and provide help to the terrorists in the jihad against us?

Reaping What They Sow

2004-11-16T21:04:00.000-06:00

The Boca Raton News had an editorial piece posing as news about the complaints of a psychology counseling group that Rush Limbaugh showed sarcasm toward those suffering from what they laughingly call Post Electoral Selection Trauma (PEST).

Sarcasm may not be the kindest response to the victimhood game played by people whose hatred of Bush has gone over the edge, but such people do make a mockery of themselves. Nobody doubts their imbalance. Hatred does that to people. Nevertheless, it is difficult to take them seriously in their weak, self-defeating, self-inflicted approach to life.

Had the Democrats concentrated on real issues instead of their hate, they might have had better success in the recent election. The real culprits here aren't the Limbaughs of the world who find the PEST issue to be nothing more than silly; rather it's the Democrat demagogues, Mooreons, and their media lapdogs who raised hate and deceit against the President to new levels, while supporting an uninspiring candidate with no discernible backbone.

Presidential Election 2004 Wrapup

2004-11-16T20:54:00.000-06:00

I have tried talking with several Kerry supporters over the last few months and often come away wondering what motivates those people to be so different in their outlook.

The War on Terror
A former soldier rails at length about issues that seemed important to him from his bad experiences as a young soldier in the Middle East, but what I really hear is the typical complaining of an immature and inexperienced young man who found himself temporarily in unfamiliar and hostile surroundings without the proper historical perspective to understand it all.A public administrator who laments 1,000 American deaths in the toppling and rebuilding of two terror-supporting nations, but is curiously unmoved by the tens of thousands of victims found in Saddam’s mass graves.
"We didn’t bring any of them back to life with our deaths."
"No, but we prevented many thousands more."
"You don’t know that."
"And you don’t know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow."

Some people seem completely unwilling to consider the fact that terrorism is a them-or-us proposition. They somehow believe you can have a productive negotiation with people who pump up their children and young men to murder us with promises of heaven as a whore house.
Some argue that there are past transgressions by the USA that could justify the 9/11 attacks on us, and that we have no right to retaliate. More generally, some think that terrorism can be legitimate and justified. The photos of the doomed, pleading innocents stranded at the windows of the WTC should be enough to silence that kind of stupidity.

Some continue to think that France and Germany would be important in the ground war against terror, despite our having over 100,000 of our troops in their countries to defend them (against what, I might ask, their moribund economies?); and despite their saying they will not help, no
matter who is the President of the USA.

Some ignore the complicity of the UN and nations like France, Russia, and Germany in the Oil-for-Food scandal that turns out to be the real reason for those counties' objections to our deposing Saddam. The thousands of mass graves and horrible mass tortures at Saddam’s command don’t matter to the corrupt UN.

Fabulist Accusations Against a Sitting President in Wartime
Some think it is perfectly alright for the media to manufacture falsehoods against a sitting president in wartime, as CBS did; and that it’s perfectly alright for their candidates to undermine America’s footing in this largely psychological War on Terror by falsely misrepresenting our purpose and success in this war – all with the fawning complicity of the MSM.

Some like to say the President lied about WMD, even though the UN, England, France, and Russia still say Saddam had WMD, even though Saddam acted like he had them, even though every intelligence agency in the world knew he had them.

Some say the President lied about there being an imminent threat and about the War on Terror being very short; ignoring the plain fact that he has said exactly the opposite and that he even explained his rationale for war in light of the threat being not yet imminent and the likelihood of the war being very, very long.

A retired school teacher raves on in the boorish, adolescent fashion of Michael Moore, only able to repeat the propagandist nonsense from media and union demagogues. I never hear a straight fact, accurate portrayal of historical reality, or honest assessment of policy from her. Just one misinformed rant after another.

Divisive Issues
Some think that when a small, but highly vocal coterie tries to undo the basic concept of marriage -- the natural building block of all societies, which has survived unchanged since pre-history -- then anyone who opposes them is creating a wedge issue that divides America, as if it wasn't this special-interest coterie that is driving the wedge it created for itself.

And so it is on many issues. Some call the President a divider, who has split the country and the world in two, as if the person who identifies a cancer and has the courage to fight it is somehow also responsible for the cancer. Yes, it’s natural to want to avoid the ugly truth; but sometimes it’s deadly.

Meanwhile, in typical hypocritical irony, the democrats start spreading rumors around college campuses that there will be a military draft, scare blacks with charges of voter intimidation, and claim that Republicans are depriving wheelchair users of the ability to walk. Then, to underscore their divisiveness, the losing leftists now threaten to secede from the union --a childishly impractical thing, of course; and so telling of who the real practitioners of divisiveness are.

Leftovers From 2000
Some still lament that Bush stole the 2000 election with the help of the SCOTUS, ignoring the fact that all the SCOTUS did was tell the Florida Supreme Court that they could not rewrite Florida’s election laws. Bush haters also happily ignore the fact that every recount of the Florida votes, even the recount done by the MSM, put Bush ahead. Granted, Bush’s rare oddity of an Electoral College win, despite having a second place finish in overall votes, is a bitter pill; but this is a Republic, and the states are sovereign entities. The Constitutional separation of the electorate from the electoral college was specifically intended to prevent the large states from overwhelming the smaller ones. So Bush was a legitimate President. He just didn’t have a majority in 2000; but then, neither did Clinton, who had only a plurality in each of the 3-way races he won.

Of course, if we all want to agree that Bush was selected, not elected, to his first term, then he could run for President again in 2008, since the Constitution states that a person can be elected twice! Not that I really believe that train of thought, but it’s useful for giving democrats the heebie jeebies.

Haters and Phonies
Speaking of mental illness, it seems a large number of "Prozac Progressives" (a term coined by Duane Speight, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110005890 ) are sick with hate, and are seeking professional help for their post-election depression -- a depression brought on by having mostly hatred of Bush and little positive to vote for in Kerry. They have fallen into their own passionate negativity. Hatred really does eat people up.

The savage venom of Bush hatred generally makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with these people. Of course, just as Republican hate-Clinton tactics did nothing to defeat Clinton, hate-Bush tactics also fail to convince. This election seems to indicate that Democrats may have wanted to get even for what Republicans did to Clinton more than to win this election. Unfortunately, it was American prestige and the Office of The President that were damaged in both cases, more than Bush or Clinton. The demonization has to stop. Ideas really do matter, and too few of them got any attention in this election.

Predictably, now that Democrats have slipped even further from control of national government, Democrats are all asking themselves their "ultimate question" – "how can we change what we appear to be, so that we are seen as moral on social issues and strong on defense, without actually changing from our superior, cultured, self-righteous, benevolent, libertine, military-hating selves?" Naturally, they are unaware of their intellectual arrogance, somehow it masks itself from them -- once again proving the old saying that "they don't know what they don't know." It never occurs to them that their efforts to reinvent their image cannot work. The unwashed majority effortlessly sees them for what they are -- delusional intellocrats parading in the invisible cloth of naked ambition, while unable to see it themselves – or, in red state terms, the Democrats are phonies.

Post-Election -- Contempt Unmasked
Post-election analyses by liberal and leftist writers drip with arrogance, condescension, name-calling, and outright dismay. Having already accepted as dogma that Bush supporters must be either stupid or co-conspirators in the "big lie" (whatever that might be), no effort is ever made to see the root reasons for the ascendancy of conservative thought in America, and the liberal elite are unwilling to see that conservative views have value.

Others arrogantly dismiss Bush supporters as the bible thumping, gun toting issue of unwashed peasant stock, as if the straightforward truths of an uncomplicated life have little value compared to the polished relativism of the cultured elite. The angriest democrats seem to be those who have made politics their god, raving incoherently about the brainwashed voters who believe in a higher God than politics. It never occurs to them that by grouping religious believers and conservatives in general as bigots and imbeciles, the democrats divulge their own elitist bigotry. They are openly contemptuous toward conservatives, dismissive of conservative ideas, and intolerant of any fair analyses of the issues. In short, they are true bigots.

Liberalism, Socialism and the failed Democrat Platform
As for stupid, I wonder why the sneering Kerry backers never notice that modern conservatism makes a lot more practical sense than any of the failed and failing attempts at leftist governance throughout history. Prosperity requires growth; but the convergence of socialism, high taxes, and bigger government – wherever it happens -- is anti-growth and anti-freedom.

Many point to the ills of both capitalism and rampant consumerism; but rather than look for natural solutions within capitalism, they embrace radical socialist schemes such as ruinous employee entitlements, stiff restraints on enterprise, and draconian environmental policies. While it is easy to agree that workers should have good living standards and economic progress should not dehumanize mankind or destroy the environment, these things can only be achieved through economic growth along with technological progress that together permit more and more discretionary income to be spent on enriching our lives and keeping our environment clean.

Granted, Enrons happen, but the perpetrators are punished and new rules are added to stop new abuses. More important is the fact that even dishonest and greedy capitalists often fuel overall growth and prosperity. There are exceptions, of course, as in the case of commodity and currency speculators like Soros and Lay; but they are exceptions, whereas dishonest and bloated governments always decline in corruption, with few winners.

It never occurs to liberals and leftists that their constant social tinkering never surpasses the simple reality of natural law. A well-governed nation requires a well-bred populace with strong families and strong ethical convictions. On the other hand, a nation of libertines is ungovernable, except by a police state, which is a feature of the most socialist governments. Obviously, you have to intimidate and terrorize people to get them to accept the daily reality of socialism. That may be one reason why the leftists are such apologists for terrorism.

But there’s more. It seems to me that those who voted for Kerry have fallen prey to the siren’s call of victimhood and all it entails. They want to have their cake (big government) and eat it (prosperity), too, even though old Europe is proving this to be impossible . But, they are selfish and want someone else to do the heavy lifting by expanding government to make it a complete nanny state. They plan to pay for this by taxing "only the rich", secretly defined as the upper half of the population – a demography calculated to assure that the majority of the voters will pay no taxes, so the beneficiaries of government largess will have all the power and none of the responsibility. It’s government as perpetual-motion-machine, a fool’s bargain and completely unstable.

In addition, many Kerry supporters share a spinelessness that comes from years of creeping moral relativism. One needs no backbone if one stands for nothing. I once asked a Massachusetts liberal how she could put up with Ted Kennedy as her Senator, given his long history of womanizing and worse. Her answer was simply, "Because he’s one of us." For leftists, that’s enough; and that says everything about the low level of their moral courage.

Too Close, Actually
It amazes me that the election had Kerry so close, given how unlikable he is, his history of dishonest self-aggrandizement, his laziness as a senator, and his outright acts of treason that very likely led to a dishonorable discharge that the MSM allowed him to keep secret. Indeed, some analysts allow that the left-leaning MSM was worth a 5 -15 point advantage to Kerry. By suppressing good news and always accentuating the bad news, real and manufactured, against Republicans, the MSM kept Kerry close to Bush, even at the end by manipulating the exit polls to give Kerry voters a psychological lift. Given these facts, it isn’t so amazing that the vote was close, after all.

So, I will not lambaste the manipulated and uninformed electorate for being stupid and unworthy. That’s the liberal angle these days, now that they’ve been widely beaten again. Rather, I am just glad that, despite having been brainwashed for years by liberal public schools and the left-leaning MSM, the electorate still managed to get it mostly right.

It strikes me as terribly worrisome, though, that the amalgamation of selfish victims groups, special interest groups, America haters, appeasers, pacifists, angry leftists, truly weird street demonstrators, and public sector unions -- also known as the core of the Democrat party -- managed to make the election so close. I am only happy that it wasn't as close as last time.

Nevertheless, conservatives must not rest. We have more work to do in effectively countering the MSM and in wresting the schools away from leftists.

Admitting Mistakes

2004-11-04T16:57:00.000-06:00

Several times during the 2004 presidential campaign, President Bush was asked what mistakes he had made as President. I suppose there are at least two reasons for such a question. The most obvious, given the trenchant demagoguery of the left-leaning media, would be to get some free, self-inflicted wounds to rub salt into. The second might be to ..... what? Give the President an opportunity to show his leadership skills by pointing out changes he’s made to counteract past mistakes and prevent future ones? Given that the question always comes from "journalists" known to be pro-Kerry, it is hardly credible that the latter reason could be it.

There may be some positive reason for the question, but I can’t think of it. In fact, the question struck me as unforgivably impertinent and demeaning when I first heard it. How dare some media flack question the United States President in such a way? Not only is the question inherently (and quite biased), but the person asking it needs to be taught some common rules of respect. Such impudence as the "journalist" displayed is not at all necessary during presidential interviews.

I suspect that the question angered Mr. Bush, but he was too polite to show it; choosing instead to brush it off, which seems to be his habit when confronted by witless questions and comments -- as in the first debate. I suspect his staff might have provided him, shortly thereafter, with a "kiss-off" response to the mistakes question --one that sounded like an answer -- just to get through the moment a bit more smoothly next time the question was asked. But Bush never did answer it in a polished way, maybe because he refused to consider it a legitimate point of discussion.

He had doubly good reasons for treating the question with scorn. First of all, has anyone publicly asked a president that question before? And if so, what kind of answer was given? Secondly, in the highly psychological War On Terror, it makes no sense for our President to show a single hint of self-doubt. Far better the world, especially the radical muslim world, think oh him as a rigid, unreflective ideologue, unwavering in the face of setbacks.

The very fact that the media, leftists, and John Kerry did not get this point is proof that this is no time for them to lead our nation.

Bush's Victory and The War On Terror

2004-11-03T04:00:00.000-06:00

Let us not forget that, without the spin, suppression, and extreme negativism of the mainstream media (MSM), the victory by George W. Bush in 2004 would have been a huge landslide.

The main issue for most voters was the War On Terror, though the MSM is now spinning the election as a referendum on values. Maybe so, but since they have been so consistently wrong for the past year, I'll stick with the war issue as being #1. In this regard, our rate of progress in Afghanistan and Iraq has been unequalled in the history of warfare. For the media and politicians to spin these successes as failures is to betray ignorance of military history and to indulge in irresponsible demagoguery.

American and civilian deaths in the War On Terror are dwarfed by the military and civilian losses in previous conflicts. Daily losses in WWII were sometimes many times more than the annual losses in the War On Terror. Gross errors and incompetence in WWII seem outrageous in comparison to our minor "mistakes" in Iraq or Afghanistan. In former wars, soldiers were sacrificed stupidly and civilians were regularly bombed, shelled, and burned in their homes, even though few enemy troops hid among them.

Terrorists play the game differently, cowardly hiding among civilians in order to avoid retaliation; and taking many civilians with them if they are attacked and killed. The media always spins the bloody results against those who route out the terrorists, no matter how surgical the attacks are; and the media always falls for ruses by terrorist sympathizers who claim more civilian losses than there actually are.

You do have to wonder why civilians let terrorists hide among them. Civilians certainly bear some responsibility for letting terrorists mix in like that. I suppose terrorists sometimes hold families hostage; but in general, it seems reasonable to assume that those in harms way because of the proximity of terrorists-in-hiding ought to do something to reduce their exposure to danger. Indeed, word from Fallujah as the USA prepares to eliminate the terrorists hiding there, is that most civilians have left the town. Good!

It is also worth noting that America is fighting the War on Terror out of its back pocket. The level of effort is miniscule compared to the wholesale national mobilization of WWII. Anti-war people often have no sense of perspective in this regard, largely because the MSM makes a major issue out of every minor hiccup, and portrays ordinary developments as proof of huge mistakes. There is also an element of impatience, almost as if wars need to be timed and packaged to fit the evening news for just one season cycle.

Sometimes it seems the terrorist leaders have a point. Americans may be too lazy and self-centered to be able to sustain the War On Terror to complete victory. But I hope they're wrong.

2004-11-03T03:49:00.000-06:00

YES!!!

When the final history is written, Kerry will be seen for the pathetic, traitorous, attention grabbing, self-absorbed, money grubbing, glory-seeking, faithless, lazy, indecisive, wavering, poll-driven, soldier-hating, thin-skinned, poor-loser pawn of the fossilized Left that he is.