Amnesty's International Disappointment

Amnesty International once arguably chronicled the effects of policies on people. This was useful, as it provided a sort of a benchmarking mechanism to tell the truly horrible regimes from the merely odious. This is all Amnesty International can do.

Somewhere along the way, Amnesty began to think that they mattered more than those they claimed to represent. They began to be as worried about fundraising dollars as much as they cared about accuracy, and by then accuracy wasn't as important as projecting the right message.

When I read of Amnesty International's William Schulz slamming the United States as, "a leading purveyor and practitioner of the odious human rights violations," I rolled my eyes, and lost what little respect that I still had for the organization.

Vice President Cheney rightly called Amnesty on their falsehoods and exaggerations, and cited a long and distinguished record of the United States freeing more people than any nation in the 20th Century, including 50 million just during the past four years.

Army Gen. Bantz Craddock, the individual in the best position to know what is actually occurring at Guantanamo Bay, flatly rejected Amnesty's characterization of the U.S. detention facility as a "gulag." Either Amnesty does not know what a gulag is, or they simply don't care to be accurate. Whether their excuse is ignorance or apathy, their image as an honest broker is now broken, their only true capital, credibility, destroyed in many eyes.

Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B Myers, called the Amnesty report "absolutely irresponsible."

I call it an end to credibility.

Austin Bay, Red State, and The Conservative Voice have more.

Buried Alive By Illegals

Quite an accurate title, don't you think? Sadly, that title could describe dozens, if not hundreds (or thousands, or tens of thousands) of situations across American today.

"Buried alive by illegals" applies literally in this case, and figuratively when discussing the gutting of American hospitals of billions of dollars by illegals swarming across our poorly controlled borders in an unchecked invasion divisions strong. The threat to the healthcare of legal American working men and women and legal immigrants became so overwhelming that taxpayers like you and I are paying a one billion dollar bailout of local hospitals nationwide.

This is money taken away from our children; money that could have been used to vaccinate our rural and inner city poor against crippling, potentially fatal childhood diseases, money that could have helped our working and middle class parents find quality affordable childcare so that they can be sure that their kids are in a safe and supportive environment while the parents work hard to give them a better life.

Every illegal alien crossing the border to abuse our overburdened public assistance programs is stealing from out poor, our weak, our needy--and many illegals steal far more than social services.

Among the legions pouring over our poorly defended borders are all manner of criminals, from shoplifters and petty criminals to rapists, murderers, brutal narcotics organizations and human slave-traders.

American jails are overflowing with the flotsam and jetsam of other nations. Attacks on Border Patrol agents are increasing at a record pace, and public safety for increasingly in doubt along the border. The situation is so bad that the U.S. State Department has been forced to issue warnings because of heavily-armed narcotics traffickers running drugs across the border.

What's worse is that the internal policies within government agencies hamper the apprehension of illegals to such an extent that Border Patrol agents are rarely allowed to pursue and capture illegal aliens in almost any situation.

“If anyone runs from us, we don't chase them,” said one California-based border patrol agent who requested anonymity. “We could have information that there is a nuke in the back of a van but we don't have authority to chase them,” the agent said. “We've had radiation pagers go off and we're still not allowed [by our supervisors] to give chase,” he said. “They are scared to death something will go wrong and there will be a huge liability.”

Shades of Norm Mineta.

Government bureaucrats and lawyers are so worried about liability lawsuits that they open the borders not only to criminals flowing over the borders, but terrorists potentially armed with vanloads of just about anything.

Bioweapons like anthrax, chemical weapons like cyclosarin, radiological "dirty" bombs--all of these can easily be driven into the heart of San Diego or other American cities and detonated, because elements of the government from the Border Patrol, to the Department of Homeland Security, to the House of Representatives, to the Senate, to the White House, have all made a conscious decision not to pursue illegal aliens, not to pursue potential terrorists, not to pursue vehicles even when they set off radiation detectors.

Please tell me what your threshold in dollars and blood is, Uncle Sam.

How much money should we allow illegals to siphon away from our childcare and education system, Senator Clinton? How many hospitals must close under the weight of illegal's unpaid medical bills, Dr. Howard Dean? How many Criminals are you going to allow to waltz across our borders and either sell drugs or detonate in our schoolyards, Director Chertoff?

How many Americans need to be literally and figuratively need to be buried alive by illegals before you'll act, President Bush?

American "Hostage" Indicted

Naturalized US citizen Mohammed Monaf was the sole American taken hostage with three Romanian journalists in Baghdad several months ago. A couple of weeks ago, all four hostages were released. Romanian prosecutors have now issued an warrant for Monaf's arrest on suspicion that he was involved in the kidnapping of the three Romanian journalists.

An inside job? Read all the rest all at the Jawa Report.

Larks and Poppies

In Flanders Fields Lt. Col. John McCrae, 1915

In Flanders fields the poppies grow
Between the crosses row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

Remember.

And Finally, They Came For Our Sporks

The English, long since too cowardly to trust their citizenry with firearms, have determined that in the interest of safety, citizens should also give up their kitchen knives:

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

So now the English are going to be forced to do without melons?

Then again...

that may not be much of a change...

Update: While I mock the English on one hand, American doctors seem to agree with the knife control theory... at least for this one blogger... okay, maybe two.

Confirming A Suspicion

Just one more bit of evidence proving that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms shouldn't be responsible for anything more threatening than recommending what kind of wine goes with well with a nice Cuban cigar after a nice day in the field with your L.C. Smith.

At least Laurence didn't end up like some of their victims.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Crapperquiddick : Fake, But Accurate...But Fake?

So we've gone from Newsweek's flushed Koran story being a supposed true story of religious intolerance that started a riot that left 15 people dead, to a fake story that didn't cause the riots that left 15 people dead, to a fake story that didn't cause riots that left no one dead.

I supposed all that is left is to tell us that Afghanistan itself was made up... Yup. It figures.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Republicans Back Off Restricting Women in Combat

Last week I wrote about a Republican-sponsered plan to limit the role of women in combat service and support positions. The House has now thoroughly defeated that proposal, 390-39, leaving those decisions in the hands of the Pentagon. I'm starting to have mixed feelings about this entire issue.

I had originally said:

Democrats rightly highlight that this could limit military flexibility, but I'd opine that their real reason for opposition to this bill is the inability of some of the American public to handle female losses in a combat zone. Republicans want women out of the combat zone for exactly that reason, as Rep. McHugh notes. It's about PR, not competency.

I concluded the post by saying:

American women want to serve. Some have died. More will die, whether we want them to, or not. If we've learned anything, it is that there is no frontline in modern warfare, and the enemy can strike a brigade-level base with mortar and rocket fire, as easily as they can a support convoy, or an infantry combat patrol.

My advice to Congress? Let them fight. America's female soldiers earned that right, even if you don't have the stomach for it.

As you can imagine, I got a few responses to this post. All of them were polite, but none of them were supportive of my position.

Several people responded in the post comments or in email with comments condemning the concept of women in combat positions on for several reasons. Some claimed a respect for femininity or motherhood, and others seemed to combine those feelings with a longing for more genteel times.

While I'm sensitive to those closely held beliefs, and realize that are probably shared by a majority of Americans, I find these sentiments to be a kind of soft, sweet bigotry.

It is a form of discrimination, and no less wrong than the once firmly-held beliefs that other minorities couldn't fight. It was wrong to be prejudiced against the "Fighting 99th" and the 332rd "Red Tails, " that never lost a single escorted bomber to enemy fighters. It was wrong to be bigoted against the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the highest decorated military unit in all of U.S. military history.

Some female soldiers can perform to the same level of physical and mental standards as their male counterparts. Admittedly, the number of female soldiers that can physically compete with men is just a fraction of female soldiers, but some can do it, nevertheless. With modern physical training methods, some female soldiers will undoubtably be in better physical condition than many frontline soldiers of previous wars.

For these reasons, I feel that female soldiers should be given the opportunity to serve as equal members of not just combat service and support units, but frontline combat teams. I just don't think that the military has thus far provided a sufficient level of training for female soldiers to carry out any of these roles competently on the modern battlefield.

There seems to be lesser physical standards and a general lack of advanced combat training for women, which would put them at a severe readiness disadvantage in the event of enemy action (I'm basing these on anecdotal evidence from a handful of veterans. Feel free to confirm or deny these in the comments if you have supporting evidence).

Othr anecdotal evidence shows that female soldiers are capable of performing well in combat, but until the military and politically correct collection of incompetents in Washington decides to present a uniform level of training standards and allow access to all military specialties based on ability instead of gender, they won't be able to.

You see, I was wrong. It is about compentecy. And we're standing in the way of it.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

An Interview With Zell (Part 2)

Part 2 of Red State Rant's multi-blogger interview with Zell Miller is up.

Go read it.

Prayers For Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

al Qaeda in Iraq is asking the Muslim world to pray for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who they claim has been wounded, "in the path of God." I'd like to make the observation that if al-Zarqawi was in the path of god, he'd be but a burnt cinder by now, or perhaps a burnt cinder covered with boils.

Nevertheless, I am hoping that al-Zarqawi survives his wounds. I want him to fully recover, for I have other prayers for him.

I pray al-Zaraqwi leaves Iraq, and slyly retires Devon, England to jog through gorse bushes on Woodbury Common.

I pray his desire for a vacation leads him to scenic Uige, Angola.

But most of all, I pray for al-Zarqawi, stuffed on eastern NC barbeque and drunk on Manischewitz, to be caught as the "bottom" in Pam Anderson/Tommy Lee-type video with the brutish Muqtada al-Sadr. I pray that the video is broadcast on al Jazeera--just after al-Sadr is diagnosed with both Chlamydia trachomatis and an untreatable and highly-contagious form of scrapie.

Perhaps al Qaeda should be more specific in their prayer requests.

An Interview With Zell

Red State Rant was able to secure an interview with famous (or infamous, if you're liberal) Senator and former Georgia governor Zell Miller, and graciously offered several influential bloggers (and me, believe it or not) the opportunity to ask him questions. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first multi-blogger interview of a political figure on the national stage.

Read it.

Part 2 will be posted at Red State Rant tomorrow.

My Congressman Is--Well, You Know...

The problem with having a Congressman like Maurince Hinchey is that you can title just so many posts, "My Congressman is an Idiot."

Check out Federal Review to see Hinchey once again blame Karl Rove and the evil Republicans for something stupid he's done. Hinchey's $160,000+ in questionable travel junkets makes Tom Delay's "scandals" (all of which have proven baseless so far, I may add) look like child's play at corruption.

Perhaps Delay could take notes from Hinchey...

I'm Not Dead Yet...

A lame Python reference is better than none right?

It is official: Confederate Yankee is now (though it always sort of was) a red-state blog. North Carolina is now my official base of operations, and you know what that means... live hurricane blogging! And a whole new crop of politicians to harrass... life is good.

Sorta.

After a relaxing 1,220 mile round trip over the weekend from NC, to NY, and finally back to NC, I'm home. Or as close to "home" as it will be until my daughter finishes school and she and my wife can finally follow me down in six weeks. Without them, no place is home. Once they get here for good and we're finally moved in to our new place 4th of July weekend, life indeed will be good. Until then, life will be exhausting, and a bit of an unknown.

Madre y padre have let me bunk up in a spare room until my new place is ready, and so I'll have nice 168-mile round-trip commute five days a week until July 1.

I should have been a trucker.

The commute, as you may imagine, is to my new job. I start tomorrow. I won't blog about that much, if at all. Blogging about work tends to get people in trouble, as I've seen on more than one occasion.

Anyhoo, while I adjust to my new schedule, blogging will be sporadic and light. I'm not dead yet, but getting used to dancing to a new tune.

Un-Unemployed

Now I have the honor of saying, with sadistic glee, the scariest sentence in the English language:

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Give Them Equality

Via CNN:

...In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat.

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.

"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-New York, who sponsored the amendment.

It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.

"We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said.

Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military.

"We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas.

Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem."

The Democrats are right in opposing this bill, but more than likely for the wrong reasons.

Democrats rightly highlight that this could limit military flexibility, but I'd opine that their real reason for opposition to this bill is the inability of some of the American public to handle female losses in a combat zone. Republicans want women out of the combat zone for exactly that reason, as Rep. McHugh notes. It's about PR, not competency.

Nobody wants women coming home in body bags (or men, for that matter), but Democrats and Republicans alike are simply using this bill as a weapon in political infighting. Cynical anti-war Democrats want women in combat, because their deaths (and assured overblown media hype surrounding the same) can be used as political pressure against the war effort.

Republicans in Congress know this, and, being just as cynical as their foes across the aisle, seek to limit enemy contact so that women in the military so that can't be used as political pawns against them. The American public doesn't like the thought of women being wounded or killed in combat. Perhaps more importantly, we saw with the Jessica Lynch incident that the American public cannot stomach the depraved treatment that women face if captured alive.

Gang rape, sexual torture... these are some of the horrors that people do not want to directly mention by name, but flow through the dark recesses of our minds when we think of women in combat--and it is a risk. Yet while we prefer not to think of it, many of these same dangers are also faced by male American combat forces.

For how many years have we been told that rape is about power and domination more than sex? Women are perceived as being more at risk for this kind of treatment, and with just cause, but the fact remains that all of our soldiers know that this is a risk if they are captured, and yet they still lace up their boots, armor up, and do their duty.

And never, ever forget, women can fight.

For example, Raven 42.

On a Sunday afternoon in March, a convoy of 30 civilian tractor trailers ran into an ambush by an estimated 40-50 heavily-armed insurgents at Salman Pak, Iraq. Three armored HMMWVs of MPs from the Kentucky National Guard that had been shadowing the convoy, charged into the kill zone, upset the ambush, and turned the tables on the Iraqi forces despite intense return fire.

Seven Americans (three of them wounded) killed a total of 24 insurgents and captured 7 others. The ambush was completely routed; the vast majority of the attackers wiped out. Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian.

One female E5 claimed four killed terrorists killed directly with aimed shots, and the other sergeant claimed she killed another with an aimed M-203 grenade. Who wants to be the one to tell her that she did, "all right... for a girl." Not I.

And it isn't as if American women in combat are a brand-new phenomenon. They've been there, from the beginning. And women have ably served well in other countries, in other wars, both in support roles and on the front lines.

Large numbers of women served in the Soviet Army during World War II--nearly one million-- to great effect. Most did not see front line combat duty, but many did. They flew bombers, performed as snipers, and fought a guerilla war behind German lines. They served, and they served well.

But this isn't about other countries. This is about America.

American women want to serve. Some have died. More will die, whether we want them to, or not. If we've learned anything, it is that there is no frontline in modern warfare, and the enemy can strike a brigade-level base with mortar and rocket fire, as easily as they can a support convoy, or an infantry combat patrol.

My advice to Congress? Let them fight. America's female soldiers earned that right, even if you don't have the stomach for it.

Michael Moore's Latest Project Thwarted

Already broken in mind and spirit and abandoned by the Democratic Party, Michael Moore's latest documentary project was disrupted in New York City by an alert citizen. "Fahrengrate 88th and Lexington" was to be produced by Moore for these guys in exchange for a stale blueberry bagel, half a hoagie, and a bottle of the "red grape wine flavor" M/D 20/20.

Trump Must Build

When Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower design was accepted as a replacement for the World Trade Center, I felt a kick to the pit of my stomach. It was an impressive piece of architecture, but could not contain what the World Trade Center was, and should be again. The Libeskind design, though sincere, lacked even it's own soul. It was an empty shell, a skeleton, nothing more. If the WTC site has anything, it is souls--thousands of them.

Only one profile deserves to occupy the hallowed ground in lower Manhattan. No substitute, no matter how impressive, could ever be appropriate for all that was won and lost that day.

Thousands died that bright blue September morning, many of those because they simply got up, kissed their children goodbye, and went to work. Other's died in the most noble of human efforts, placing their very lives on the line in a gamble to help those who could not help themselves. For those victims that never had a chance, and for those brave men and women who turned toward the fire and ran into the inferno, there is only one fitting monument. There has only ever been one fitting monument.

Trump gets this visceral truth.

The people of New York and America at large, all wounded to some extent that day deserve, no demand, than a new Twin Towers rise like a phoenix from the ashes of the old; bigger, stronger, and better than it was before. The City That Never Sleeps should be home to nothing less than the Towers Than Would Not Die.

Manhattan can never move forward with a lesser skyline. Trump must build.

Note: Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam. Ace and Scott also have takes on the issue.

Update: Father Jim Chern also has a moving argument for rebuilding the Twin Towers.

Update: More details of the Twin Towers II design.

Further Update: Lawhawk has lots more.

Off The Deep End

Some people seem to think that I'm a bit hard and a bit unfair on liberals, but as Ace informs us, liberals tend to bend over backwards to make stupid and arrogant statements without any grounding in fact.

Norman Mailer is a case in point:

At present, I have a few thoughts I can certainly not prove, but the gaffe over the Michael Isikoff story in Newsweek concerning the Koran and the toilet is redolent with bad odor. Who, indeed, was Isikoff's supposedly reliable Pentagon source? One's counter-espionage hackles rise. If you want to discredit a Dan Rather or a Newsweek crew, just feed them false information from a hitherto reliable source. You learn that in Intelligence 101A.

Counter-espionage often depends on building "reliable sources." You construct such reliability item by secret item, all accurate. That is seen by the intelligence artists as a necessary expenditure. It gains the source his credibility. Then, you spring the trap.

As for the riots at the other end, on this occasion, they, too, could have been orchestrated. We do have agents in Pakistan, after all, not to mention Afghanistan.

Obviously, I can offer no proof of any of the above.

I have a strong suspicion that Mailer spends his afternoons servicing blind syphilitic Filipino dwarves with a patched and worn Love Ewe while drinking Miracle-Gro cocktails to feed the potted geraniums growing out of his rectum while listening to Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute, though obviously, I can offer no proof to any of the above.

Update: This Norman Mailer is probably more reliable, and accurate.

Defending Robert Spencer

Via a link from Instapundit, I find a post titled "Tiananmen, Uzbekistan?" from Bidisha Banerjee, which a Slate roundup of today's blog news with the inspired title of "today's blogs: The latest chatter in cyberspace."

Uzbekistan has been in crisis since protestors raided a prison and government offices over the arrest of 23 men in Andijan, and the government apparently responded with Stalinist tactics, shooting hundred of people, seemingly at random according to some reports. If you noticed, I've provided very few links, as truly credible information is very, very difficult to come by due to a near press blackout.

Among the bloggers mentioned in the report is Robert Spencer, a Muslim scholar and founder of Jihadwatch.org, a site dedicated to:

...bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. By shedding as much light as possible on these matters, we hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.

Robert gets ripped by blogger Serdar Kaya at Socioeconomics for this post, in which Mr. Spencer opines:

Learned analysts have long insisted that Uzbekistan was a bastion of Islamic moderation. I have responded the way I always do: by asking how these moderates counter jihadist recruitment. The response: silence or abuse. But it looks as if the answer these learned analysts did not want to give was: they don't, and they can't -- except by force of arms.

Kaya states:

Robert Spencer (of Jihadwatch.com), who devoted his site to the loathing of Muslims in every possible way, preferred to call this a 'Muslim riot'.

Because, to him, a Muslim, first of all, is a Muslim; and Muslims are people who do only wrong; and if a Muslim is involved in a violent incident, then he must definitely be the one who is responsible for it - since Muslims never suffer; they exist only to make others suffer.

This is quite an analogy to run a web site.

It would be... if Kaya's description of Spencer or Jihadwatch was true. But these descriptions are false, verging on outright lies.

I've been a reader and commenter of Jihadwatch for over a year, and Kaya's heavily-biased description of Mr. Spencer could not be further from the truth. Robert Spencer, and by extension, Jihadwatch, are dedicated to counterbalancing the Muslim holy war doctrine known as jihad.

Jihad takes many forms. On a personal level, jihad is a struggle within the self to live a devout Muslim life, and is in many ways analogous to the personal struggle within many faiths to lead a more pure life. The another type of jihad has become synonymous with the word "jihad" in western eyes, and that is the militant struggle for Islamic domination of the world at the expense of all other world religions and secular governments.

This theofascist jihad is Spencer's chief complaint, which has been thoroughly documented in a substantial body of articles and books in addition to his web site that would , if Kaya took the time to read them, clearly show Spencer is against the radical Islam of terrorists and tyrants, and clearly for an Islamic moderate Reformation.

Spencer has not "devoted his site to the loathing of Muslims in every possible way;" quite the contrary, Spencer's family has roots in Islamic countries, and Spencer's first book Islam Unveiled was written to counter some of the misconceptions about the religion after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America.

Does Spencer hate Islam, as Kaya intones? Spencer's FAQ answers that question directly:

Q: Do you hate Muslims? A: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. I am only calling attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources I quote, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them. It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. And I think that those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.

Q: Do you think all Muslims are terrorists? A: See above.

Q: Are you trying to incite anti-Muslim hatred? A: Certainly not. I am trying to point out the depth and extent of the hatred that is directed against the United States, because I believe that the efforts to downplay its depth and extent leave us less equipped to defend ourselves. As I said above, the focus here is on jihad; any Muslim who renounces the ideologies of jihad and dhimmitude is most welcome to join forces with us.

Spencer's comment in the disputed article, is entirely correct, in context:

Learned analysts have long insisted that Uzbekistan was a bastion of Islamic moderation. I have responded the way I always do: by asking how these moderates counter jihadist recruitment. The response: silence or abuse. But it looks as if the answer these learned analysts did not want to give was: they don't, and they can't -- except by force of arms.

But Kaya prefers to take Spencer's statement out of context in order to practice a bit of taqiya.

Spencer does clarify his point in an update:

The presence of jihadists in Uzbekistan, which is still disputed by some, does not justify the brutal and bloody response of the Karimov regime. Uzbeks are between a rock and a hard place. My condolences to the victims.

Perhaps Spencer is unclear and imprecise in his skepticism towards a situation with decidedly uncertain facts and unclear press coverage, but for Kaya to says Spencer, "looks quite OK with the Muslims being indiscriminately killed when all they want is a better life," is not only intellectually dishonest, but a full and willing misrepresentation of Spenser's body of work and the educational goals of Jihadwatch.org.

Note: I'd further add that Mr. Spencer's educated hunch about a militant Islamic jihad arising in Uzbekistan appears to be correct on some level.

Update: Serdar Kaya has now linked in with a response (via trackback) on his/her blog that is anything but an actual targeted response to the points I made in this article about his criticism of Spencer, specifically refusing to support Kaya's five contentions that:

• Spencer devoted his site to the loathing of Muslims in every possible way;
• Spencer thinks Muslims are people who do only wrong;
• Spencer thinks if a Muslim is involved in a violent incident, he triggered it;
• Spencer thinks that Muslims exist only to make others suffer;
• Spencer is okay with Muslims being killed when all tehy want is a better life.
  

These were all Kaya's constructs, not mine, and once again he refuses to make a case for any of his arguments, though his refusal is rather long-winded, off-topic, and tedious.

Kaya's defense for his apparent libel of Spencer is a series of emails he says he sent to Spencer--though he never explains why his opinion of Spencer, expressed to Spencer, matters. At best, this would establish a nonsensical, "You're guilty becuase I sent you a letter saying your guilty" defense of his accusations.

Kaya never establishes any sort of credible defense for any of his five claims.

When someone makes a claim such as those above, he has a duty to provide evidence to support his claim. Kaya provides no factual support of the five key claims he made above.

Period.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Hinchey: "Castro is harmful to no one"

The New York Sun carries a report of Cuban-American anger at six New York Democrats who were among 22 Representatives who voted against a measure expressing American solidarity with Cuba's democratic activists. The resolution, H.R. 193, passed 392-22.

Among the Congressional boneheads was my favorite communist-coddling congressmen Maurice Hinchey, who last graced Confederate Yankee when he was the keynote speaker for a Marxist anti-war group on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

What did gems of wisdom did Hinchey have to offer?

Mr. Hinchey, too, said he objected to the language of the legislation, which he said "originates with the descendants of the Batista regime, who trace their origins back to the 1950s."

"It does nothing to improve the situation in Cuba ... it just continues the same old worn-out, tired, silly policies," the upstate Democrat said.

"Castro is harmful to no one," Mr. Hinchey said.

"To the extent that any harm is being done, it's the continuation of this policy over the last five decades now," he said, referring to the American embargo. An aide to Mr. Hinchey later called to clarify the congressman's statement, saying the Cuban strongman had done no harm "in a national security sense."

Three words: Cuban Missile Crisis.

In 1962 Castro and Khrushchev plotted to place Russian ICBMs with nuclear warheads within 90 miles of the U.S. mainland, which led to a standoff that nearly ended in global thermonuclear war. Perhaps Congressman Hinchey might have come across this tidbit of information at some point in his life?

But beyond the possible incineration of billions by nuclear fire that Castro almost triggered, we can look to the very real tens of thousands of deaths caused by the man Hinchey claims is "harmful to no one."

NoCastro.com lists the following in a November 27, 1998 Washington Post Letter to the Editor:

In a book in progress by Dr. Armando Lago an attempt is being made to list Castro's deaths. With Castro still in power, obtaining information is very difficult, but, so far, the deaths of 97,000 persons have been counted, each confirmed by at least two sources. Some 30,000 executed by firing squad, 2,000 judicial assassinations, 5,000 deaths in prison due to beating by guards and denial of medical care and 60,000 deaths while trying to escape Cuba by sea.

Among the victims are 20 US citizens: Armando Alejandre, Jr., Howard Anderson, Rudolph Anderson, Jr., Leo Francis Baker, Carlos Costa, Mathew Edward Duke, Robert Ellis Frost, Robert Otis Fuller, Wade Carrol Gray, August K. McNair, William Alexander Morgan, William Horace Patten, Bill Paterson, Mario de La Pena, Rafael del Pino Siero, Mike Rafferty, Thomas Willard Ray, Anthony Salvard, Riley W. Shamberger and Allen Dale Thompson (the remains of some are on display in Cuban museums). He has also found 6 Spaniards, 1 British, 1 Dane and 1 Haitian.

NewsMax reports that Castro was not only a Cold War threat to the world, but also a major supporter of international terrorism, and participated in a war against at least one U.S. ally:

Since very early on Castro has been involved in arming, training and offering sanctuary to terrorists from all over the world. Dr. Ehrenfeld says in her paper that the 1979 edition of the "Soviet Military Encyclopedia" recommends "the use of biological weapons, narcotics, terrorist activities, poisons and other methods. This definition accords with a decision made at the Tri-Continental Conference of world revolutionary groups held in Havana in January 1966. The decision called for the planned destabilization of the United States and explicitly detailed such activities as the exploitation and undermining of American society through the trafficking of drugs and promotion of other corrupting criminal activities."

According to Irving Louis Horowitz's Preface of David J. Kopilow's 1985 paper "Castro, Israel and the PLO," this Tri-Continental Conference, heavily attended by more than 500 delegates from radical leftist groups and terrorists, led "a series of moves ranging from Cuban co-sponsorship of the U.N. General Assembly resolution condemning 'Zionism as Racism' to manifest training and support for PLO efforts." Castro provided tank crews that fought alongside the Syrians against Israel in the 1973 Syrian-Israeli "war of attrition." At a point, Cuba had 3,000 troops deployed in Syria.

Wikipedia offers:

Cuba supported communist movements throughout Latin America (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and Chile, among others) and Africa (Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia). In Angola alone, Cuba had over 50,000 troops.

Please explain, Mr. Hinchey, how a man who once nearly triggered a global thermonuclear war, who was and is a major state sponsor of terrorism, and has provided material support and soldiers to communist insurgencies across Latin America and Africa is "harmful to no one" or as your aide later backtracked, "no harm, in a national security sense."

We know you don't have the correct answers, Mr. Hinchey.

You never do.

Note: Slant Point is also providing coverage of this story.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Olbermann Establishes His Stupidity Credibility

Newsweek runs a story with flimsy factual support, and 15 people die as a result of the riots that every major news organization agrees was triggered by the Newsweek story. Obviously, someone should be fired for this travesty of journalism.

Only a pseudo-blogging pseudo-journalist could be stupid enough to insist that the person fired should not come from Newsweek, but from the White House.

Only a buffoon would call the White House "treasonous" for not stopping journalistic flops, as if there was a First Amendment exception so that the White House could countermand the freedom of the press, in just those instances that freedom might make the press look bad. Or in Olbermann's case, perhaps it was just wishful thinking, coming far too late in his career.

In any event, thank you, Keith Olbermann, for further cementing America's dwindling respect for the credibility of the liberal media.

Remember kids,

"Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People."

Fox Squeals When Trapped

I don't care what you say Vincente, this is still an excellent idea.

And despite what you might have heard from Newsweek, while Fox did make comments saying American blacks were lazy, he did not try to flush them down toilets.

A Comment on the "Religion of Peace"

When I hat-tipped Austin Bay's article yesterday as the inspiration for my Michael Isikoff/Lyndie England comparison, I did so after writing a comment that later I deleted before publication.

That comment was in response to comments such as these that Austin compiled from Muslim comments around the web:

“If the report proved true, it would become important that an apology be
issued and addressed to Muslims all over the world to avoid increasing the
hatred between nations and followers of religious faiths as well,” the Shoura
said in a statement.

The Shoura said it considered the incident an attack on Muslims all
over the world. “The council considers it as an attack on the feelings of
Muslims and their sanctity… and a violation of international law and human
customs,” said the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency…

*****

In Afghanistan, a group of clerics threatened to call for a holy war
against the United States in three days unless it handed over military
interrogators who are reported to have desecrated the Qur'an.

*****

“The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do
not take care of the sanctity of other religions,” Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the
Pakistani chief of a coalition of radical Islamic groups, said Sunday.

So Muslim leaders are worried about religious tolerance and disrespect?

Quite frankly, let them go to hell.

Islam is responsible for some of the largest human slaughters in human history, precisely for reasons of religious intolerance. Islam is the only religion that has proudly named a mountain range after one of their more serious crimes against humanity, and is responsible for more religious-based genocide that any other single religion that has ever existed on Planet Earth, genocide that continues to this very second in conflicts around this planet.

Perhaps I might have a bit more sympathy for a religion that didn't codify lying as a religious duty and often boasts about a 1,400 year track record of murdering those that had different ideas. Islam may be a lot of things and it may have some peaceful adherents, but if there is one thing Islam that can be said with absolute authority about Islam, it is that Islam is not now, nor has it ever been, a "religion of peace."

Journalism Safety PSA

"Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People."

Kids, remember to follow these simple rules if you find a journalist:

STOP AND DON'T TOUCH IT.
LEAVE THE AREA
TELL A RESPONSIBLE ADULT WHAT YOU FOUND

The adult should NOT touch the journalist either.

Even if the adult is familiar with journalism safety rules, the journalist should not be handled.

The journalist could be essential evidence that could be used in a solving a crime and the mere position of the journalist could be important. Not to mention footprints, fingerprints, clothing threads, blood, tire tracks or cartridge cases that might be in the immediate area.

If you are alone, remember exactly where the journalist is.

Carefully leave the area without disturbing anything.

If possible, post a sentry or responsible person to keep everyone away from the area.

As soon as possible, bring a police officer to the journalist. Don't pick it up and bring it to the police station.

Thank You.

(with apologies to http://www.savetheguns.com/safety_rules.htm)

Note: If anyone has a "Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People." tee shirt or bumper sticker for sale other their site (hint, hint), let me know and I'll link it in.

Update: Vilmar has an intersting take on this story defending Newsweak... sorta.

The Indepedent's Incredible Self-Fisking Mr. Buncombe

The UK-based Independent (Robert Fisk's employer) is running an Andrew Buncombe story reporting an "AWOL crisis" as a result of the War on Terror, with this lede:

As the death toll of troops mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's military recruiting figures have plummeted to an all-time low. Thousands of US servicemen and women are now refusing to serve their country.

The problem is, the Independent don't have any figures to support that contention, and the one set of hard numbers the author provides at the end of the article suggests just the opposite; a significant reduction in desertions since 9/11.

Welcome to the self-Fisking of Andrew Buncombe.

Instead of interviewing credible expert witnesses, the Independent reporter stoops to using unsupported these third-party anecdotes:

Staff who run a volunteer hotline to help desperate soldiers and recruits
who want to get out, say the number of calls has increased by 50 per cent since
9/11. Last year alone, the GI Rights Hotline took more than 30,000 calls. At
present, the hotline gets 3,000 calls a month and the volunteers say that by the
time a soldier or recruit dials the help-line they have almost always made up
their mind to get out by one means or another.

"People are calling us because there is a real problem," said Robert
Dove, a Quaker who works in the Boston office of the American Friends Service
Committee, one of several volunteer groups that have operated the hotline since
1995. "We do not profess to be lawyers or therapists but we do provide both
types of support."

In other words, the author is relying upon uncorroborated information from biased sources that readily admit to providing services for which they are not qualified (other than Congress).

In addition to collecting hearsay evidence from these amateur therapists, the Independent author also interviewed three soldiers who went AWOL:

• Jeremiah Adler: who admitted to lying about being homosexual to get out of boot camp;
• Jeremy Hinzman: a Fort Brag paratrooper who's application for amnesty was rejected by Canada;
• Kevin Benderman: a Bradley IFV mechanic that claims to have seen acts that would constitute war crimes... if they turn out to be real.

These three soldiers were the only ones interviewed, but what about the growing thousands of other soldiers that are deserting according to the Independent? They don't exist. The preceding 20 paragraphs of Buncombe's thesis were completely undone by his final three lines.

It turns out that the number of soldiers deserting is on a significant decline:

The Pentagon says it does not keep records of how many try to desert each year. A spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, said the running rally[sic] had declined since 9/11 from 8,396 to the present total of 5,133.[emphasis added --ed.] She added: "The vast majority of those who desert do so because they have committed some criminal act, not for political or conscientious objector purposes."

I think I'm going to become of conscientious objector myself, at least as it relates to Mr. Buncombe's shoddy and eventually self-defeating brand of journalism.

Michael Isikoff: the MSM's Lyndie England

Newsweek's liberal--oops, I meant libel--has managed to kill 15 people so far as a reporter intent on tarring the government and the US military ran a story that now seems rooted in...

Almost nothing.

According to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, a "trusted source" told him the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book, was defaced in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two other sources Isikoff asked about the incident did not support the allegation, so what did Newsweek do?

They ran the story.

In the resulting uproar, 15 are dead, and westerners in the Muslim world are now at a heightened state of risk, all because of a half-baked rumor in an incomplete draft report that someone might have heard about. Great sourcing, guys. Glad to see you learned a lot from Mary Mapes.

When an idiot by the name of Lyndie England exhibited foolish, unprofessional behavior that embarressed people, she was charged with crimes that could eventually land her in prison for a decade or more. As Michael Isikoff's foolish, unprofessional behavior got 15 people killed and scores wounded, I can only assume his prison term will match that of any other person who incites multiple murders (h/t: Austin Bay).

Banning Books

When books are banned, only criminals will have books (h/t: Instapundit).

A Letter to His Sons On the War

This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004. My father forwarded it to me earlier this year, and it bears re-reading.

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President

Roosevelt - WWII:
President Truman - Korean War 1950;
President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961);
President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961);
eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 -1991);
President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998).

So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001.

The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

• Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
• Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
• Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
• Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
• First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
• Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
• Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
• Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
• Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
• New York World Trade Center 2001;
• Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else..

The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements -killing all of us infidels.

I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam.

This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.

The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed
their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war.

For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.

Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,
Dad

Dereliction of Duty

Jerry Seper of the Washington Times is reporting this morning that the federal government has ordered Border Patrol agents to avoid making arrests of illegal aliens, because higher-ups felt that an increase in the number of apprehensions would prove the effectiveness of the Minuteman Project.

Seper writes:

More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.

"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."

Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.

If true, these allegations by veteran law enforcement field officers of the Border Patrol point to actions by Border Patrol management that is almost certainly criminal in intent.

Answers.com provides the primary definition of "dereliction" as:

Willful neglect, as of duty or principle.

By ordering field agents of the Border Patrol to willfully neglect their duties as law enforcement officers, Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar and other senior staff of the Border Patrol have asked law enforcement officers to commit a crime to cover up the incompetence and apathy of the Federal government towards illegal immigration.

It takes no great stretch of the imagination to think that this conspiracy runs in a direct line from the Border Patrol though the Department of Homeland Security, directly to the White House and George Bush, a man who once called the Minutemen volunteers peacefully and legally planning to watch the border for illegal activity "vigilantes."

The article added:

...Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, yesterday said "credible sources" within the Border Patrol also had told him of the decision by Naco supervisors to keep new arrests to a minimum, saying he was angry but not surprised.

"It's like telling a cop to stand by and watch burglars loot a store but don't arrest any of them," he said. "This is another example of decisions being made at the highest levels of the Border Patrol that are hurting morale and helping to rot the agency from within.

"I worry about our efforts in Congress to increase the number of agents," he said. "Based on these kinds of orders, we could spend the equivalent of the national debt and never have secure borders."

Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, blamed the Bush administration for setting an immigration enforcement tone that suggests to those enforcing the law that he is not serious about secure borders.

"We need to get the president to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem," he said. "I know he doesn't like to utter the words, 'I was wrong,' but if we have another incident like September 11 by people who came through our borders without permission, I hope he doesn't have to say 'I'm sorry.' "

That is my fear as well. The Bush administration, starting with President Bush himself, is setting a horrible example for border security; one that may cost American lives. It amazes me to think that a man who has such a vision on Middle Eastern issues could be such an incompetent clod in securing his own nation's borders against foreign invaders.

President Bush is proving to be a Winston Churchill abroad, and a Neville Chamberlain at home. His acquiescence to the will of Vincente Fox and Mexico's government-sponsered illegal invasion is the untalked about Munich Agreement of American/Mexican politics.

As I've mentioned before in Border War:

1.1 million illegals were captured along the 2,000 mile southern border last year, with half of those captured coming through Arizona. Among the majority millions of illegals that crossed successfully last year were violent Central American gang members and 25 suspected Chechen terrorists in July that to this day have not been captured...

...In 2004, the equivalent of 160 12,500 military divisions simply walked northward across the U.S.-Mexican border to disappear into our country's interior. Opposing them is an apathetic federal government, a complicit media, an overworked Border Patrol, and now, the militia the Constitution intended.

The Minuteman Project is firing a very public media shot across the bow of an apathetic, perhaps complicit, White House and Congress. Hopefully this negative exposure will force the government to shore up our borders.

Apparently not, or not yet at least. Instead, Bush lends support to illegals with a medical supplement (in order to quiet calls for reform from a medical sector being bled dry by illegal aliens), and John McCain partners with Ted Kennedy to champion a law that includes an amnesty program that encourages more illegal immigration.

Quite frankly, if we suffer a second 9/11/01 because of President Bush's apathy towards the issue of border security, I will be among the loudest of voices calling for his impeachment.

When George W. Bush took his oath of office both times, he spoke these words as laid out Article II, Section I of the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By willfully neglecting to protect the borders of the United States, George W. Bush is dangerously close to breaking that oath.

Update: This Blue State Conservatives article on the same topic is worth a read, as is this attempt at "Mexicanizing" America.

Avenger Red Six Rolls Back Into Action

After a well-deserved break, Silver Star-winning milblogger Neil Prakash is back in his Abrams turret at Armor Geddon, pouring out the gritty details of what the battle for Fallujah was really like from someone who experienced it.

Carpe Bonum did an excellent bit of public service and created an article index of Avenger Red Six's experiences in the assault on Fallujah from November 5-12, 2004. Future articles in the series seem imminent.

A sample:

"Red 6, Phantom 6. I want you to move to a position where you can observe the city. Ramrod 6 wants you to call for indirect. Adjust your first round. After that, it's ‘Fire for effect. Drop 50, fire for effect. Drop 50, fire for effect. And just keep doing that until someone tells you to stop, Got it?"

Yeah I got it alright. Wipe out a grid square. The task force commander wanted me to level the city.

Milblogging don't get much more tense than Armor Geddon.

Blogger For Hire

In the event some hiring manager types are reading this, I'd like to mention that I am looking for a job in RTP, North Carolina, preferably a position that takes advantage of my technical writing education and experience, and my background in web design, marketing, and usability.

I would also like to help companies interested in developing blog strategies for customer service, media relations, internal communications, and damage control, in addition to helping them set up acceptable-use blogging policies for their employees.

I can be contacted at confederateyankee@hotmail.com.

Roger & Me (and the United Nations), Part Deux

A wonderful quality of stupid people (from a blogger's perspective) is their inability to shut up when they've already lost the argument.

The folks at UN Dispatch come back for more abuse as they attempt to save face for their disastrous attempt to go after blogger Roger L. Simon for his attention to the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal.

The John Kerry fanboys write:

Not surprisingly, our previous post about Roger L. Simon's hyper-focus on the Oil-for-Food controversy elicited a strong response from the UN's blog critics.

And not unexpectedly, the responses were largely dismissive, derisive, and betrayed a shallow reading of the original post.

One is forced to remind UN Dispatch that their original post was dismissive (of the gravity of the Oil-for-Food scandal), derisive (of Roger and his choice of subject matter), and betrayed a number of shallow spots at UN Dispatch, including an understanding of the magnitude of the Oil-For-Food Scandal and its newsworthiness, and understanding of the way the news cycle works, and a general misunderstanding of the workings of the blogosphere.

Simon and literally hundreds of other bloggers and members of the international news media are on the Oil-For-Food scandal because it is perhaps the greatest example of international organized crime in the history of the world. Period.

This crime spans the world, potentially breaches thousands of laws in dozens of countries, and trades billions of dollars for power, at the expense of who-knows-how-many thousands dead.

20% of his time is too much? I'd argue the rest of us aren't paying enough attention to the scandal.

The authors then go on to condemn this blog among others:

Finally, an unfortunate reaction from some bloggers is their willingness to simply shrug off the examples of UN-related issues listed in the original post. It's clear that many of these bloggers have become accustomed to knee-jerk attacks and are unwilling (or unable) to engage in a reasoned debate.

Want a reasoned debate? Name the topic, and fire the opening salvo. I'm waiting.

Notice that UN Dispatch does not attempt to debunk any of the comments made by any of the bloggers they disagree with, Confederate Yankee included. Apparently, readers of UN Dispatch are supposed to simply believe them and disagree with us, simply because they...

Well, they don't exactly say why we should see things their way (perhaps they have a plan?). We just should, you know?

UN Dispatch ends this sad post with:

For the record, we'll re-post the issues we think warrant attention and let readers decide:

Newsflash: They already did.

Once again, the UN turns a blind eye to things they would rather not see.

Update: I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Bronx Coward Convicted

Via Michelle Malkin, I found out that Navy deserter (and Bronx native) Pablo Paredes has been convicted and now awaits sentencing. For those of you not following the story, Petty Officer 3rd Class Paredes was in the Navy when he refused to honor his commitment and report to his ship in San Diego for a tour. Because of his selfish act, another sailor was required to take Paredes tour.

Citizen Smash, a San Diego Naval Reserve officer/milblogger who has already done a tour in the region, wrote this open letter to Paredes (who responded), and later had a few words with him in person.

I hope Paredes enjoys his Chomsky in prison.

Update: This observation by Lawhawk is too good to leave buried in the comments:

The ship that Paredes was supposed to be on was on the vanguard of the US tsunami relief. Instead of helping save lives of tens of thousands of people affected by the tsunami, Paredes could think only of himself.

Now, he'll have a year to think about his actions. In prison. Where he belongs.

I'm sure that the sailor who took Paredes place was pissed to have to be called upon to do the work of Paredes, but will probably remember this particular mission with honor and a sense of pride of being there to help people far less fortunate than himself.

Democrats Claim Political Balance on PBS is ILLEGAL?

According to Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, and Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Michigan, attempting to have political balance on PBS should be illegal. Obey and Dingell are accusing Center for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson of "pushing a Republican agenda."

Tomlinson has taken the "disturbing" and "extremely troubling" steps of trying to add balance to PBS programming, such as when he added Journal Editorial Report to counterbalance Now With Bill Moyers, a show with a notoriously biased liberal bent.

From an Tomlinson in On the Media:

"I don't want to achieve balance by taking programs that are the favorites of good liberals off the air. I want to make sure that when you have programs that tilt left, we also have some programs that tilt right so the viewer can make up his or her own mind...

"...I am for good investigative journalism in the tradition of "Frontline" and "60 Minutes." I have no objection to politically tilted programs. Will there be times when reporting supersedes the issue of balance? Absolutely. The public understands what it is. People here in Washington understand what it is. They can see the tilt. And what I want to do is, I want people not to regard public broadcasting as the voice of one particular ideological side in this country. I want them to hear the voices of America, the diverse voices of America on the public television." [ed.--emphasis added]

Tomlinson was an appointee of President Bill Clinton to the Center for Public Broadcasting board, after serving as the Director of the Voice of America from 1982-84 under President Reagan, and was confirmed as a member of the CPB Board in September 2000.

This is not the first time Democrats have looked to restrict free speech in recent memory.

I'm rather certain it will not be the last attempt, either.

Update: The LA Times now has an article up on the subject.

Roger & Me (and the United Nations)

Poor Roger L. Simon.

Screen writer, blogger, and one of the founders of Pajamas Media (full disclosure: I've signed on to PJ Media as well), Roger is being attacked by a United Nations blog run by a couple of John Kerry fanboys.

Simon's crime?

20% of Roger L. Simon's blog entries during the month of April make reference to the Oil-for-Food controversy.

0% of Roger L. Simon's blog entries during April make reference to the following UN-related issues:

They then go on to list a bunch of issues that that think build the case for how successful the United Nations is, apparently in an attempt to show that Roger is unfair. Let's look at some of these, shall we? I'll use their links of "successes" from their blog, and then comment as it seems appropriate.

Tackling the threat of transnational organized crime

After reading of the massive amounts of corruption I've read about involving the Oil-For-Food scandal and kickbacks involving the French, the Russians, and various UN diplomats and hangers-on including the UN chairman's own family, I think the UN could rightly be defined as "trasnational organized crime" itself, couldn' it?

Are they trying to debunk Simon's claim, or are they piling-on themselves?

Shipping supplies to millions of Iraqi schoolchildren

This was instead of shipping freedom to Iraq, which the United States eventually did (against UN wishes). Unfortunately, the delay left more than a few Iraqi schoolchildren in mass graves still being discovered.

Controlling the Marburg virus

If UN peacekeeping was worth a damn, perhaps Angola wouldn't have been at war for decades and their hospitals might have been better prepared to handle a disease easily contained by basic protective measures. Through apathy, the UN helped create conditions that made the outbreak so severe.

Again fanboys, you aren't helping your cause too much...

Building thousands of homes for tsunami victims

The UN contributed $36 million to build (they haven't actually built them mind you, but they will) 9,000 homes. That is nice, but the victims are still homeless five months later while UN officials live in air-conditioned hotels and drink imported wine with local teen hookers. Doubt that? Read The Diplomad, blogged by men who we actually there to see the UN's ineffectiveness and corruption among the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

BTW, how much do you want to bet that the bulk of that $36 million was part of the more than $500 billion contributed by the people of the United States?

Partnering with the private sector to meet humanitarian needs

I didn't actually read this link, but it sounds like it could be describing more UN sexual abuse of children. I can see Pierre crying out, "Hey Lay-deez... I'll give you twenty francs and a food voucher if you'll let me borrow your daughter to satisfy the "humanitarian needs" of my "private sector."

Reducing child mortality rates

Again, didn't read the link, but the answer is simple.

Keep children away from AIDS-infested UN pedophiles.

Of course, it might also have been nice if the UN stepped in in Rwanda, or Darfur, or Bosnia, or... well you get the picture. Stopping genocide (which involves children) is a pretty effective way to combat child mortality rates. Perhaps they should try it sometime.

Rehabilitating Iraq's marshlands

Yep, just as soon as they dig up all those Kurds that Saddam gassed, shot, and bombed while the UN turned a blind eye, the marshes can return to its pristine natural state.

There are more examples provided by the fanboys, but you get the picture. You can splash all the perfume you want on a turd, but it doesn't change it's basic composition.

U.N.-Loved Update: The UN stooges actually decided to spoonfeed this gem of a story to more established bloggers via email. Can you believe their stupidity? I had to find out about it on my own. I guess I need to get more famouser.

And yes I was an English major... why do you ask?

Update: They just keep coming back for more.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Bush Attacked By Complaints Dept

A grenade found near where President Bush gave his speech in Tblisi,Georgia was found to be a non-active training grenade with neither explosives nor a detonator. CNN reports that the device was merely placed in the crowd, and not thrown, and that it was most likely placed in the crowd to scare people and attract media attention.

A suspect was quickly apprehended based upon videotaped footage of the crowd.

The would-be assassin was asked for a statement as he was whisked away by Georgian Security forces, but could only be heard mumbling something about "my stapler."

*****

When asked for comments about the apparent assassination attempt, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Lusional) simply muttered, "The loser."*

It was unclear who he was referring to.

Some liberals were quick to place the blame on--you guessed it--Karl Rove. Yet other Democrats were outraged that someone might have threatened the President's life overseas, when they'd prefer to have him assassinated at home.

* Accurate, but not necessarily true.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

IMAO: Cat Blog?

There is something to be said for great parody blogs.

Though this isn't half-bad, either. Besides, it's about as close as I've gotten to be on Frank J.'s blogroll so far...

Moveon.org Starts New Voter Registration Drive

They're recruiting the same voter population as always, it appears (h/t: Drudge).

Sooner Than Expected

I knew it was only a matter of time before the moveon.org wing of the Democratic party would start to show their socialist roots, but I must admit that I didn't think that they would start openly supporting socialists so quickly after running moderate Democrats out of the party (h/t: Drudge).

After making the endorsement of Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean pointed out that that "We've got a few things to work out with Bernie", but Sander's radical socialist politics were apparently enough for a Dean endorsement.

I wonder which part of Sander's platform Howard Dean liked best:

• National socialized healthcare
• Military disarmament (ours)
• Higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses
• Pro-abortion
• Against death penalty
• More social program spending

You can almost hear the economy crashing with those ideas, can't you?

Lies by Omission

In a syndicated article aptly titled "Final Insult," liberal NY Times columnist Paul Krugman proves once again why he is a columnist, and not a reporter or an economist. Reporters are supposed to present facts, and economists are supposed to be good with numbers. In this column Krugman proves he is good with neither facts nor figures.

Krugman writes:

Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits.

If the plan really would do that, it would be worth discussing. It's possible - not certain, but possible - that 40 or 50 years from now Social Security won't have enough money coming in to pay full benefits. (If the economy grows as fast over the next 50 years as it did over the past half-century, Social Security will do just fine.) So there's a case for making small sacrifices now to avoid bigger sacrifices later.

It is certain that Social Security will not have enough money to pay full benefits to retirees. For Krugman to deny this is either transparently dishonest, or it displays a pathetic ability to do basic math. There is no "protection" under the current system.

When Social Security was set up, more than a dozen people were paying into FDR's Social Security Ponzi Scheme for every person that drew benefits. As the Baby Boomer Generation retires, and lives far longer after retirement than previous generations, as few as two people will be paying into the system for each person drawing out, and each person drawing out will be pulling out far more money than the two working people put in. The system is unsustainable, based purely upon the hard numbers of those working versus those drawing on the system.

Krugman's not-so-artful dodge using the red herring of historical economic growth does not support his position. Economic growth is irrelevant to the hard numbers of people paying into the Social Security system versus people drawing for the Social Security system. Good economy or bad economy, people are going to grow old and retire. His argument is completely irrelevant to his position...

...But it provides excellent support for Bush's plan to allow people to privitize part of their savings and invest it into the economy through conservative investments. The economy has not only grown over the past fifty years, but over the past 100, including the Great Depression. Long term investments in government bonds, index funds, and other diversified investments will yield a much higher rate of return that pouring money into the hole of Social Security. How much would it mean to you? Figure it for yourself.

The difference for my decidedly-middle class family is a net gain of $1,570/month more under the Bush Plan, which throughly trumps my projected benefits under Social Security's current guise. Of course, the current Social Security program will be out of money by the time I retire, so actual returns under Bush's plan look far better than the calculator would indicate.

Krugman then goes on a disingenuous attack, claiming that Bush's plan would cut taxes, but cut benefits far more. But Krugman only provides part of the story, and lies by omission; he doesn't apparently include in his calculations the private accounts that are a key component of the Bush plan. In short, he presents all the negatives of the plan, without any of the positive.

When all you tell someone is that you are going to cut out their diseased heart, you are telling them they are going to die. By leaving out the key fact that you are going to put back in a stronger, more vibrant heart, you give them a prognosis 180 degrees away from the truth. Yet this is exactly what Krugman does, while have the gall to say, "I'm not being unfair."

You're not only unfair Mr. Krugman, you're blatantly dishonest.

America's Weakest Terrorist Targets

The TSA keeps us safe from breasts, corkscrews and old Methodists in wheel chairs when we fly. Government databases hassle those trying to rent moving trucks. The Department of Homeland Security keeps a close watch on the bord--well, let's not go there.

But if you want to infect 100,000 or more with chemical or biological weapons, take your WMD-armed RV to America's #1 spectator sport, and you can pay for VIP parking to the slaughter without any significant hassle at all.

Welcome to super-terrorism, NASCAR-style.

NASCAR is America's fastest-growing spectator sport, and the massive, high-banked superspeedways are the largest sporting events in the United States. Crowds far in excess of 100,000 screaming fans fill many of the larger venues. Many of these venues also encourage speciality vehicle parking: RVs and colorful, customized buses of hardcore NASCAR fans willing to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars in passes and tickets to park either close outside the track, or even in the track infield (area enclosed by the race course).

From Daytona to Charlotte and eventually Staten Island, NASCAR encourages fan attendance, and tracks profit handsomely off infield parking access for RVs and buses, with such speciality vehicle parking spaces garnering $750-$900 each at some venues.

But there seems to be little or nothing done to screen these infield vehicles for hazardous materials, even though they are large enough to easily hide enough chemical or biological agents to infect hundred of thousands, if not millions of people. Ever heard one bit about this potential threat from the TSA or Homeland Security? Me neither. I doubt they've even considered the possibility. Sadly, these infield vehicles are far from the only threat.

One or more RVs and buses parked outside of the track and upwind of the facility stand a chance of exposing far more people than an infield device, with a much smaller chance of the terrorists getting caught. With the incubation period of many biological threats being measured in days, millions of people could be exposed to bioweapons released at a NASCAR race and dispersed throughout the country by a hundred-thousand infected carriers before anyone really knew what was going on.

Homeland Security is doing a wonderful job of guarding us against minor threats. Too bad Bubba bin Laden isn't even on the government's radar.

Iraq the Casbah

75 terrorists were killed by coalition forces in the first day of an offensive near Obeidi in Iraq's Anbar province. Obeidi and other towns in the province the western Iraqi desert north of the Euphrates had seen little action by coalition forces, and had been allowed to become a haven for foreign forces and insurgents.

The sanctuary has turned out to be a trap, potentially the result of using a honeypot doctrine, a tactic that has proven effective both on strategic and tactical levels in the region in the past years.

This can't be good for morale.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Doing Laps

I'm currently in NC, heading back to NY tomorrow for a week or so, before coming back once more to find a tech writing or web-related job in RTP.

Ten hours of rainy-day driving, with a detour to drop off the last project I worked on for my integrity-challenged former employer just north of NYC . I doubt I'll get paid the severence pay I'm owed, but I'll be able to look myself in the mirror for doing my part, and I might even be able to drum up a bit of sympathy and a prayer for his family that things work out for their failing business. It doesn't pay to hate him.

I've got far more important people to think about, including a stunningly beautiful wife, and a pretty little blonde-haired girl with big blue eyes that wants more than anything to give her dad a smothering hug and big, smacking kiss. Yeah, I've got things I need to work on, but I have my priorities straight, and 600-odd miles of asphalt between me and them.

...I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep. *

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part IV

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part I Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part II

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part III

Part 4 of a series.

In the previous post in this series, I ended by saying:

...Liberal logic seems to almost function like this:

Bushilter's war is for oil, because gas prices are higher.
Republicans are racists, because they believe in equal rights.
Conservatives are imperialists, because they spread democracy.

Is this logical? Of course not, and at a deeper level of consciousness,
liberals must know this. The inherent illogic of this mindset contributes to
another not-so-startling conclusion...

Almost on cue, the very first comment to the article was this from a poster identifying himself as azboh20:

hey im glad you hate liberals so much. Republicans should rule the US alone, then it could be a true democracy, right? Why dont you put aside your hatred of liberals and understand that they can be patriots too. Remember we are all Americans and all of us believe in democracy, your intolerance of liberals and liberal ideology is both un-democratic and anti-American. Learn your basic American political theory, then you can write back...

As I was alluding to at then end of the previous post, and so wonderfully articulated by azboh20, the inherent illogic of liberal philosophy is always there under the surface, chafing at them like the proverbial burr under the saddle. This constant chafing that contributes to anger and isolation (examples of which are so obvious and self-evident they don't merit rehashing here), and other characteristics:

In addition to anger and isolation, liberals thrive on a stew of misrepresentation, indignation, and victimization.

Of course, we have our fair share of misrepresentation and indignation on the right, but victimhood is a daily specialty of the left, as our (un?)willing participant provides. I was going to link to a few examples instead of using original reader commentary, but when they leap right into your lap...

Let's dissect these very typical liberal comments by azboh20:

hey im glad you hate liberals so much.
Right away, our liberal goes for the misrepresentation that I hate liberals. I clearly explain in the opening paragraphs of this series that is far from the case. They do occasionally make me feel a bit like Dian Fossey, however.

Republicans should rule the US alone, then it could be a true democracy, right?
An intriguing house-blend of self-pity, arrogance, indignation, and sarcasm. Tasty. He of course leaves out that conservatives do recognize and value a strong two-party system, as do the millions of Democrats who voted for Bush.

Why dont you put aside your hatred of liberals and understand that they can be patriots too.
Misrepresentation, indignation and victimization, the trifecta of liberal sentence construction. Bravo! By the way, has you liberal patriot signed his promised Form 180 yet?

Remember we are all Americans and all of us believe in democracy, your intolerance of liberals and liberal ideology is both un-democratic and anti-American.

Again, he continues to try to establish the easily discredited "intolerance" meme, and goes for more victimization with the "remember we are all Americans" appeal. The comment that a dislike of liberal ideology is undemocratic or anti-American is simply absurd, and another weak, fading try at victimization... though his indignation seems to be wearing thin.

Learn your basic American political theory, then you can write back...
Gibberish, really. I'm not even sure that he knows what he means with that one.

So thank you, azboh20, for a wonderful lesson in how liberals immerse themselves in misrepresentation, indignation and victimization. Of course to see this work on a truly masterfully level, you have your choice of sites to choose from. My favorite is the Democratic Underground (any article or message board thread), the rank and file diaries of Daily Kos, or just about any other liberal outpost will do.

Next time, we'll examine how progressives create a narrowly-defined ideological demographic, and rigorously police groups or individuals who would stray from the cult that is the Left Branch Davidians.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mess With The Bull, Get The Horns

A U.S. Marine that killed a wounded terrorist in an illegally-fortified Fallujah mosque in front of NBC embedded videojournalist Kevin Sites will not face charges for that shooting, nor for two other terrorists he killed in the building that day when the Marine has reason to suspect the men were playing dead to launch ambushes.

"Based on all the evidence in the case, and the rules of engagement that were in effect at the time, it is clear the corporal could have reasonably believed that the AIF [anti-Iraq forces] shown in the videotape posed a hostile threat justifying his use of deadly force," said a two-page statement about the statement issued by Camp Pendleton.

I paraphrase it this way as a message for the troops from the Corps brass: if there is any question about who's life is more important, choose yours.

This has been the way of warfare, or for that matter, nature, for millions of years. I thought liberals usually favored Darwinism over creationism.

I guess that was until they got to see Darwinism at work.

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part III

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part I Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part II

Part 3 of a series.

So far, we've established that liberals:

• really do live in a "reality-based" community, as advertised
• practice taqiya, just like the terrorists they sometimes seem to support

Now on to another conclusion about liberals:

Liberals are inherently and illogically contradictory about their opponents.

In addition to liberals having a plethora of their own contradictions (discussed in some detail here and here so far), they also ascribe contradictory attributes to their opponents.

According to the far left, moderates and conservatives that disagree with liberals are widely viewed as buffoons, cretins, fools, idiots, morons... you get the picture. These are some of the milder comments they have for conservatives. Some aren't so nice (ed: nor intelligent. Site comments throughly debunked here).

And yet these same conservative buffoons, cretins, etc keep winning elections and tricking the American people at every turn. This is due in part, apparently, to the vast right wing conspiracy that somehow is completely idiotic and capable of world-class Machiavellian scheming at the same time.

The incongruous statements about their political opposites never seems to raise an eyebrow among liberals, and in some odd way, seems to simply reinforce the ability of liberals to thrive in a contradiction-filled, reality-based world.

From the outside looking in, it would appear that in their minds, the existence of so many contradictions, is evidence that their reality should be based upon contradictions. Liberal logic seems to almost function like this:

Bushilter's war is for oil, because gas prices are higher.
Republicans are racists, because they believe in equal rights.
Conservatives are imperialists, because they spread democracy.

Is this logical? Of course not, and at a deeper level of consciousness, liberals must know this. The inherent illogic of this mindset contributes to another not-so-startling conclusion about liberals covered in Among the Left Branch Davidians, Part IV.

Update: Political Yen/Yang riffs very nicely of the ideas in this post and provides a much-needed historical refresher.

Wish Me Luck...

I had a job interview yesterday that I think went well in RTP. I should find out about it tomorrow, so keep your fingers crossed for me, if you would. I'm staying nearby and checking out real estate tomorrow hoping this or another position in the area pan out, so blogging will be light.

My former employer has not yet deposited the last month's severance pay that he said he would into my account, and has not responded to the voicemail I left for him this morning, nor the email I sent at the same time. I'm not amused.

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part II

Among The Left Branch Davidians, Part I

Part 2 of a series.

So we have firmly established that Liberals are indeed part of a "reality-based community," and that by admitting that, they are conceding (whether they know it or not) to living in something of a fantasy world.

Once you begin to understand this basic concept, we can begin to understand a tiny bit about their psychological makeup, but we also need to understand some of the other obvious truths of liberalism, including one that is more an extension of reality-based thinking than a separate concept:

Liberals thrive on taqiya.

The philosophies of liberalism are in constant contradicting themselves, even to the point of using conflicting self-descriptions ("liberals" and/or "progressives") that they use interchangeably. This is somewhat analogous to the Shi'a practice of taqiya, which is concept best explained to American audiences as the idea of lying to protect your faith. The faith in question here, of course, is liberalism, which for starters, lies by calling itself "liberal."

Dictionaries tell us that a "liberal" is someone:

"characterized by broad-mindedness" and is personified as "having political or
social views favoring reform and progress," and is a person "tolerant of change;
not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition." (source)

These are the dictionary definitions, but when applied to liberal political ideology, these words--as they relate to their definitions--become their own antonyms. In present day politics, liberals are notoriously conservative, even regressive in policy.

Practical examples are legion.

"Progressives" in Congress are seeking to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," a barrier to freedom of expression killed in the 1980s that would enable government to threaten broadcasters (as my liberal congressman Maurice Hinchey reportedly did during a radio station break, to conservative radio and television host Sean Hannity) with revoking their broadcast licenses for speech they do not like. In practice this effort is targeted squarely at censorship of talk radio, hardly what one would consider a mark of broad-mindedness or tolerance, and is certainly an example of intruding authoritarianism, the very thing a true liberal should be against.

Liberals are also supposed to value "political or social views favoring reform and progress," but instead they have attempted thus far to stonewall any attempts to reform Social Security. Not only are they blocking moderate and conservative attempts at reform, (moderate private investment, as championed by Democratic centrist President Bill Clinton), but they have yet to offer any plans of their own.

Today's liberals offer very little in the way of reform or progress, instead spending most of their time fighting either against change (Social Security, the Middle East, the United Nations, etc), or for reverting to ideas previously discarded (the so-called assault weapons ban, the "Fairness Doctrine" for broadcasters, etc). Instead of a progressive ideology, today's liberals are actually regressive in policy, offering little or nothing new while attempting to subvert any change proposed by moderates or conservatives.

The far left has frequently had an unseemly relationship with Islamic extremists. Perhaps they get along with one another so well because they both speak the same common language of taqiya. That is just one more sad contradiction of many among the Left Branch Davidians.

Among The Left Branch Davidians

Part 1 of a series.

Despite the Fiberals article (and store), and a tagline that reads "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state," (and store) I don't hate liberals. If I did, I wouldn't spend so much time trying to figure out how and why they think the way that they do.

I've spent many hours surfing liberal blogs, holding email discussions with a few of the more coherent (to a point) liberal bloggers, and lurking at the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and other liberal online strongholds. I've also spent my fair share of time reading liberal columnists, watching liberal pundits and politicians on television, or listening to them on radio.

I want to understand them, becuase I've always felt that if I could understand the way that they think, then I might be able to understand why we are so very far apart on so many issues. After many months of trying to understand liberals I've come to a several disturbing conclusions, the first of which is this:

Liberals really do live in a "reality-based community."

On a strict linguistic level, "-based" simply means something similar to, but other than. Water-based paints have water in them, but the paints are hardly water. In this same way, the "reality-based community" has some reality in it, but reality is only a small component of their constructed world. This construct takes certain elements of the real world and blends them with strongly-held and rigidly self-reinforced liberal ideologies. In short, liberalism is exactly as advertised: not reality, but something loosely based upon reality, with plenty of fantasy included.

It is in this world of non-reality that the mainstream media has a nuetral or even a conservative bias, despite the fact that in the reality the rest of us inhabit, the media readily admits to its liberal bias.

In the reality-based community, the "evil conservatives," are uneducated white southern NASCAR-loving blue-collar idiots, who somehow find the time to balance their plate by being rich, imperialistic "rethuglican" fascists who rape the world as they run huge oil-guzzling multinational corporations.

Moderates are hardly viewed as being much better, with moderate Democratic and Republican voters derisively referred to as "sheeple," unable and unwilling to think for themselves.

To you and I, it would seem nearly impossible for someone to be an illiterate redneck and a rich corporate CEO, but the liberal conception of conservatives seems to be just that.

These strongly-held, unquestioned beliefs will be discussed in later articles in this series, and amount to a cult-like faith. Welcome to the reality-based confusion that is life among the Left Branch Davidians.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More DU Class: Calls Both Bushs Murderers

The repulsive liberals of the Democratic Underground posted this sickening graphic of First Lady Laura Bush today, supposedly holding the severed head of an Iraqi child:

The vast majority of DU posters on this thread were unintelligent enough to realize that their "news" source was in fact satire from a well known satire web site, The Swift Report.

Update: DU moderators finally realized the article was satire and locked the thread, but did not find the graphic objectionable, and did not remove it.

Old Hippies Protest, Are Ignored

There was a protest yesterday in New York City against the war in Iraq and against nuclear weapons organized by Marxist front group United for Peace and Justice. Did you hear about it? Did you care about it?

Judging by the lack of media attention, neither did anyone else.

I only found out about it from local television news, which seemed to highlight a graying attendence demographic more suitable for a free Metamucil giveaway than a thriving protest movement. The attendence numbers varied wildy based upon the source, with Fox claiming up to 40,000 while the NY Times story puts the number at just "several thousand."

National cable news channels CNN, CNN Headline News, and Fox News have all but ignored the story, (I found the link buried in the sidebar of the Fox News site). Even that seething bed of progressive indignation, The Democratic Underground managed only ten anemic comments about the protest; in contrast a demonstration in Kathmandu, Nepal garnered more attention.

Perhaps the media finally sees these protests for what they are; the ramblings and rantings of aging hippies that no longer warrant our attention.

The End of the Beginning for the Minuteman Project

Sunday morning, the month-long first phase of the Minuteman Project officially ended. At least 857 volunteers claimed a 98% reduction in illegal border crossings along the 23-mile stretch of the Arizona/Mexico border. At last count, 335 criminals were captured by the Border Patrol as a result of Minuteman calls, and an estimated 60,000 criminals were prevented from flowing over the border. Not surprisingly, the vigilante acts of violence foretold by the faulty oracles of (illegal) immigrant's rights organizations (and a cowardly federal government) never occured.

The only threatening act of the entire monthlong exercise was a death threat made against the Minuteman by a Santa Clara County (CA) Social Services employee from his work computer. Not surprisingly, the death threat was not reported by ACLU "legal observers" in the area, presumably because they couldn't see to report it through all the smoke.

The stoner ACLU volunteers were apparently the only Americans in the Naco/Douglas corridor over the past month who broke the law.

The Minuteman Project, which has now grown to an estimated total of 20,000 volunteers ready to patrol both our northern and southern borders, now heads to California.

Update: Welcome back, Charles and LGF! This is an archive post; be sure to check out the main page, and consider blog-rolling or bookmarking the site. FYI, I also think you'll really like the "Among the Left Branch Davidians" series of articles starting Monday.

Time for Review?

I like Stephen Bainbridge, and think he's often one of the more thoughtful bloggers out there. I was therefore saddened to see this post from him:

My post on Gov. Schwarzenegger's sudden decision to run to the nativist right on immigration drew the usual hostile emails and trackbacks. Give it up folks; I'm pro-immigration, legal or otherwise. Why? Because I'm a pragmatist on this issue. As long as illegals can make more money here than there, they'll keep coming. So my bottom line message is: Wake up and smell the coffee; California's future is Latino:

[chart]

The California GOP can either accept the demographic reality and start thinking about how to attract Hispanic voters - many of whom started out as illegals or children of illegals but share our social conservatism - or it can be seen as a party of apartheid. My preference would be for the former; my bet is that the California GOP will opt for the latter and once again deserve its name as the stupid party. And so I'm very sorry to see Schwarzenegger pissing away our best chance in years to turn California from blue to purple.

"Party of apartheid?" "Pro-immigration, legal or otherwise?" Bainbridge also referred to the peaceful Minuteman Project volunteers as "nuts" and "racists."

His comments are both illogical, and in open support illegal activity. His comments about the Minutemen also seem to have been made on a whim, with no supporting evidence. I expect this kind of commentary from others, but not from someone like Professor Bainbridge.

Perhaps Professor Bainbridge should take a step back and review the merits of his position, as it is not pragmatic as he claims, nor even well-reasoned.

Jennifer Wilbanks: Political Threat?

Jennifer "Runaway Bride" Wilbanks may be crazy... crazy like a political fox.

"This is one of the most selfish and self-centered acts I've ever seen," said Ryan Kelly*, owner of Park Cafe. "Obviously, she has the character to run for political office."

"I'm glad that she's alive and OK, but it was a dirty trick," said Louise McCoy*, waiting in line at the Duluth post office on the day Wilbanks was supposed to be married in a lavish ceremony that included 14 bridesmaids and 14 groomsmen. When asked about a possible political run, McCoy continued," You know, Jennifer has proven that she can waste huge amounts of money on a neurotic whim, so maybe she should be in Washington."

"I hear that kind of crazy has worked real well for Nancy Pelosi."

* Quotes creatively embellished.