Sunday, October 12, 2008
Bill Ayers has never been put to judgment
Bill Ayers has never been put to judgment for a number of left wing bombings in America. He admitted, on inadmissible tape, his conspiracy and even being the inspiration for weathermen underground extremism. But where is the outrage?
In the end Ayers got off on technicalities, and yet he has never apologized for the atrocities to the victims. In a cover photo, Ayers stands on the American flag, his anti-Americanism notably and appallingly unrepentant; his arrogance is pompous as he elaborates his leftist rhetoric.
Ayers’ idea of educational improvement is the radicalization of elementary schools. Serving as the Chairman of the Board of Ayers’ foundation, Mr. Obama distributed hundreds of millions to ACORN. Are we to believe what President Clinton says is “The biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen.”
That is what makes the idea from Mr. Obama ridiculous that he thought “Bill Ayers had been rehabilitated.” Bill Ayers admits of having “not done enough.” And although he says he disagrees with the means, obviously Mr. Obama, agrees with Mr. Ayers ends - he lives the philosophy as the most liberal member of the Senate.
It may be concluded that Mr. Obama forgives Mr. Ayers for his atrocities because he believes it was, after all just misguided means to politically correct left-wing ends. Ayers’ acts are mitigated in Mr. Obama’s mind because the intentions were right. It is rationale that once again brings Mr. Obama’s judgment into question.
This socialist “end” has been instituted among many nations of the world, on numerous occasions and it has always failed. It survives only with extreme despotism, e.g. Cuba & China. But even with tyranny, left-wing philosophy fails, because when put into practice it destroys incentive and competition. Incentive and competition are the double-dynamo that powers the prosperity of capitalism.
In the end Ayers got off on technicalities, and yet he has never apologized for the atrocities to the victims. In a cover photo, Ayers stands on the American flag, his anti-Americanism notably and appallingly unrepentant; his arrogance is pompous as he elaborates his leftist rhetoric.
Ayers’ idea of educational improvement is the radicalization of elementary schools. Serving as the Chairman of the Board of Ayers’ foundation, Mr. Obama distributed hundreds of millions to ACORN. Are we to believe what President Clinton says is “The biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen.”
That is what makes the idea from Mr. Obama ridiculous that he thought “Bill Ayers had been rehabilitated.” Bill Ayers admits of having “not done enough.” And although he says he disagrees with the means, obviously Mr. Obama, agrees with Mr. Ayers ends - he lives the philosophy as the most liberal member of the Senate.
It may be concluded that Mr. Obama forgives Mr. Ayers for his atrocities because he believes it was, after all just misguided means to politically correct left-wing ends. Ayers’ acts are mitigated in Mr. Obama’s mind because the intentions were right. It is rationale that once again brings Mr. Obama’s judgment into question.
This socialist “end” has been instituted among many nations of the world, on numerous occasions and it has always failed. It survives only with extreme despotism, e.g. Cuba & China. But even with tyranny, left-wing philosophy fails, because when put into practice it destroys incentive and competition. Incentive and competition are the double-dynamo that powers the prosperity of capitalism.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin Shock and Awe
In the affable manner so familiar to the mid westerner, Governor Palin blew away her critics. Somehow the SNL mocking humor will have to overcome the antithesis of what the good governor laid down tonight. But I am sure they will find a way. Indeed the hatred meter inside liberals is pinned past the red line.
I admit that I tuned in expecting to see a bumbling idiot. I plead guilty to believing the main stream media that she is out of her league. But that was such an inversion of the truth I am staggered, shocked and awed. It truly put a smile on my face and renewed my faith in the judgment of John McCain.
Washington is truly quaking under the prospect of a dynamo like this. Shaking things up in the established order is the most difficult thing of all, said Machiavelli. And Washington is the most difficult establishment of all. But if there is any duo that can do it, this pair can.
In the affable manner so familiar to the mid westerner, Governor Palin blew away her critics. Somehow the SNL mocking humor will have to overcome the antithesis of what the good governor laid down tonight. But I am sure they will find a way. Indeed the hatred meter inside liberals is pinned past the red line.
I admit that I tuned in expecting to see a bumbling idiot. I plead guilty to believing the main stream media that she is out of her league. But that was such an inversion of the truth I am staggered, shocked and awed. It truly put a smile on my face and renewed my faith in the judgment of John McCain.
Washington is truly quaking under the prospect of a dynamo like this. Shaking things up in the established order is the most difficult thing of all, said Machiavelli. And Washington is the most difficult establishment of all. But if there is any duo that can do it, this pair can.
Friday, September 19, 2008
It is very scary to libertarians like me, but the conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie goes back to the man on the ten dollar bill – Hamilton, creator of the central bank. Many consider him the premier American economic genius who understood the configuration of the most powerful economy on earth and capitalism itself. He was ahead of his time. A powerful Fed making mitigating moves would have his approval.
The Bush Administration handling of the economy is decisive. The moves have been effective, and calming to the markets. And thus the markets have made an orderly retreat to lower levels. In spite of the real estate melt down, the political season and the credit crunch, there has been no recession.
Fannie and Freddie have deteriorated into hybrid semi bureaucracies with many closets needing cleaning. Clinton crony appointees mishandled and ruined the agency with reckless and mercenary management. They scored millions for themselves and as the piper shows up to be paid, they can be found as advisors to Obama campaign.
I would counsel them that the loss of innovation is the curse of bureaucracy. The engine of incentive and the hunger for innovation is lost within taxpayer supported establishment. It breeds things like tenure, seniority and mediocrity and most importantly irresponsibility. The sub prime debacle simply brought that weakness to a head.
Fannie and Freddie were so bureaucratized; they could not go below their current rates. No matter how low fed rates went, mortgages were anchored to the cost of bureaucratic waste and big-time commissions for management. Fannie and Freddie were sapped of competitive capability by government secured complacency.
Sub prime loans were sub prime for a reason. They were made with liberal lending rules that succumbed to the needs of real estate over-development. For their troubles, sub prime lenders got a great deal more interest for taking that risk. We can say that they have already received their due.
Irresponsible rhetoric of an impending Great Depression aside, there has been only one month (December ‘07) of contraction. Though the first had a small expansion the last quarter shows a robust 3.3% growth and an unemployment rate that for the last six years has been consistently lower than the last four decades. Too bad for the big tax and spenders, the tax cuts must be given credit for the economy’s strength in meeting these headwinds. Now is not the time for big tax and spending suggested by candidate Obama. I would argue there is never a time.
But the political season has descended into politically correct hyperbole like; “Everyone is suffering and we are descending into a Great Depression.” has alarmed everyone and destroyed public confidence. Still, while the sub prime debacle reverberates all over the world, the American economy retains strong fundamentals. There is historically low unemployment, interest rates and last year’s inflation rate is not excessive compared to recent history.
But consumer confidence has been driven into the ground by politics. But confidence is really the only thing this market needs to meet the challenges brought on by excesses of overdevelopment and risky mortgages.
I also take issue with the term “bailout.” Considering the exact term “bailout,” the rhetoric is hyperbolic. A Resolution Trust Fund has its assets backed by real estate which is exceeded only by gold as collateral. The real value of property investing is in its intrinsic value.
And it is real, it regains its value when it is put back on line as housing for either buyers or renters. If these homes are not allowed to become derelict, investors would do well to back a privatized Resolution Trust Fund that has a competent property management component to put the property back online. This is a job for a real estate manager of the highest caliber.
We must remember that unless fraud is proven and people are prosecuted for misleading borrowers, the unqualified and defaulted buyer are the specific party that breeched the contract by failing to make payments. In many cases buyers received that privilege without down payment and without a good credit report. These buyers lived in a house they could not afford. And they walked away when they could not make the usury interest rate payments . . . Duh? But the most important question is why were taxpayers guaranteeing such instruments?
Fannie and Freddie are partly private businesses, just like any bureaucracy, Fannie and Freddie descended into complacency. Instead of responsibility in buying sub prime mortgages there were “agreements” padded with winking eyes that every bureaucratic administrator knows about. By the time it was disclosed that sub prime mortgages were risky, it was too late. But being outside the competition makes one rusty and feeling secure. In the bureaucracy one hand washes the other that has grease for the palm. Well, the party is over.
For those who could not afford sub prime loans, the foreclosed, they will have to claim bankruptcy if necessary; then if they want their own home they must get to work rebuilding their credit and building a real down payment. But for now they are a perfect rental market (perhaps lease purchasers) for the Resolution Trust Fund. That will create affordable housing from existing housing, not from over development.
The Bush Administration handling of the economy is decisive. The moves have been effective, and calming to the markets. And thus the markets have made an orderly retreat to lower levels. In spite of the real estate melt down, the political season and the credit crunch, there has been no recession.
Fannie and Freddie have deteriorated into hybrid semi bureaucracies with many closets needing cleaning. Clinton crony appointees mishandled and ruined the agency with reckless and mercenary management. They scored millions for themselves and as the piper shows up to be paid, they can be found as advisors to Obama campaign.
I would counsel them that the loss of innovation is the curse of bureaucracy. The engine of incentive and the hunger for innovation is lost within taxpayer supported establishment. It breeds things like tenure, seniority and mediocrity and most importantly irresponsibility. The sub prime debacle simply brought that weakness to a head.
Fannie and Freddie were so bureaucratized; they could not go below their current rates. No matter how low fed rates went, mortgages were anchored to the cost of bureaucratic waste and big-time commissions for management. Fannie and Freddie were sapped of competitive capability by government secured complacency.
Sub prime loans were sub prime for a reason. They were made with liberal lending rules that succumbed to the needs of real estate over-development. For their troubles, sub prime lenders got a great deal more interest for taking that risk. We can say that they have already received their due.
Irresponsible rhetoric of an impending Great Depression aside, there has been only one month (December ‘07) of contraction. Though the first had a small expansion the last quarter shows a robust 3.3% growth and an unemployment rate that for the last six years has been consistently lower than the last four decades. Too bad for the big tax and spenders, the tax cuts must be given credit for the economy’s strength in meeting these headwinds. Now is not the time for big tax and spending suggested by candidate Obama. I would argue there is never a time.
But the political season has descended into politically correct hyperbole like; “Everyone is suffering and we are descending into a Great Depression.” has alarmed everyone and destroyed public confidence. Still, while the sub prime debacle reverberates all over the world, the American economy retains strong fundamentals. There is historically low unemployment, interest rates and last year’s inflation rate is not excessive compared to recent history.
But consumer confidence has been driven into the ground by politics. But confidence is really the only thing this market needs to meet the challenges brought on by excesses of overdevelopment and risky mortgages.
I also take issue with the term “bailout.” Considering the exact term “bailout,” the rhetoric is hyperbolic. A Resolution Trust Fund has its assets backed by real estate which is exceeded only by gold as collateral. The real value of property investing is in its intrinsic value.
And it is real, it regains its value when it is put back on line as housing for either buyers or renters. If these homes are not allowed to become derelict, investors would do well to back a privatized Resolution Trust Fund that has a competent property management component to put the property back online. This is a job for a real estate manager of the highest caliber.
We must remember that unless fraud is proven and people are prosecuted for misleading borrowers, the unqualified and defaulted buyer are the specific party that breeched the contract by failing to make payments. In many cases buyers received that privilege without down payment and without a good credit report. These buyers lived in a house they could not afford. And they walked away when they could not make the usury interest rate payments . . . Duh? But the most important question is why were taxpayers guaranteeing such instruments?
Fannie and Freddie are partly private businesses, just like any bureaucracy, Fannie and Freddie descended into complacency. Instead of responsibility in buying sub prime mortgages there were “agreements” padded with winking eyes that every bureaucratic administrator knows about. By the time it was disclosed that sub prime mortgages were risky, it was too late. But being outside the competition makes one rusty and feeling secure. In the bureaucracy one hand washes the other that has grease for the palm. Well, the party is over.
For those who could not afford sub prime loans, the foreclosed, they will have to claim bankruptcy if necessary; then if they want their own home they must get to work rebuilding their credit and building a real down payment. But for now they are a perfect rental market (perhaps lease purchasers) for the Resolution Trust Fund. That will create affordable housing from existing housing, not from over development.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
That’s being a hypocrite.
They call themselves Democrat, but they have not accepted the edicts of democracy since the year 2000. Their goal is to win at any cost, even if it takes fighting every democratic decision by the majority.
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
If they lose, they fight the elected official in a way that subverts or defaces the official or even democracy if necessary. They offer every excuse to not follow the path, to smear and slime the democratically elected President, a man who pursues democracy in an attempt to free us from nuclear fear.
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
No democratic country has ever attacked another. Think about that . . . And while you are at it think about the lesson of Japan. Yes, we occupied that nation after Hiroshima but there was no need. They would have done anything we said to avoid another bomb, even if is took coercion with their own standing army, a fanatical kamikaze military.
Look at Japan now; they have their freedom, they are prosperous and there is no inference in their affairs. Is that “imperialism” as “Democrats claim?
That is not being democratic – that’s being a hypocrite
Iraqis and Afghanis are our friends as well. Only a fraction is religious extremist and radicals are quietly being rejected by newly born Iraqi democrats who, in spite of threats, bravely show their purple fingers and thumbs at the polls.
It also takes brave elected men and woman who follow the rule of law under constant threat of assassination, soldiers, the police and first responders who directly confront this evil. It will take a few election cycles to get the better leaders, although it seems with Maliki, they have done well for themselves. One thing we do know – no man rises by the gun in democracy. And we fear no democracy no matter how they are armed.
Hypocrisy is rationalizing that says even though while proudly calling themselves “democrat,” they contend that Arabs do not deserve freedom. They try to sell us they are better of with tyranny. They contend George Bush is a fool trying to free the world. But is it not the noblest goal of all – especially if it brings peace and security?
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
America has brought sixty million people their freedom with democracy in the Middle East. Today they have a constitution, representation and the rule of law, remarkable in just five years. But Democrats have fought freedom the whole way. How much more could we have done with unity? But if you call them on it they would say they voted for it. They were for it before they were against it.
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
As nuclear proliferation rolls out, it is dictators we fear with these awesome weapons, not democrats. Many of us are in denial, but nukes in the hands religious fanatics are untenable. Small watercraft is capable of carrying Hiroshima sized bombs, easily disguised and nearly impossible to defend against perfectly. Run it aground and pull the trigger. Every single beach is a highly populated target. One mistake by the Coast Guard and it is over.
The destruction caused by atomic weapons is intolerable beyond what most understand. If just one is detonated, even at sea, panic will ensue; the terrorists will have gained credibility. And there is no return address. There will be great fear as the coercive power of that situation would inevitability be fatal. Face it, we cannot kill every terrorist. Yet democrats argue against democracy, the one thing that can eliminate nuclear fear.
That not being democratic – that’s being a hypocrite. And some may argue it is heracy.
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
If they lose, they fight the elected official in a way that subverts or defaces the official or even democracy if necessary. They offer every excuse to not follow the path, to smear and slime the democratically elected President, a man who pursues democracy in an attempt to free us from nuclear fear.
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
No democratic country has ever attacked another. Think about that . . . And while you are at it think about the lesson of Japan. Yes, we occupied that nation after Hiroshima but there was no need. They would have done anything we said to avoid another bomb, even if is took coercion with their own standing army, a fanatical kamikaze military.
Look at Japan now; they have their freedom, they are prosperous and there is no inference in their affairs. Is that “imperialism” as “Democrats claim?
That is not being democratic – that’s being a hypocrite
Iraqis and Afghanis are our friends as well. Only a fraction is religious extremist and radicals are quietly being rejected by newly born Iraqi democrats who, in spite of threats, bravely show their purple fingers and thumbs at the polls.
It also takes brave elected men and woman who follow the rule of law under constant threat of assassination, soldiers, the police and first responders who directly confront this evil. It will take a few election cycles to get the better leaders, although it seems with Maliki, they have done well for themselves. One thing we do know – no man rises by the gun in democracy. And we fear no democracy no matter how they are armed.
Hypocrisy is rationalizing that says even though while proudly calling themselves “democrat,” they contend that Arabs do not deserve freedom. They try to sell us they are better of with tyranny. They contend George Bush is a fool trying to free the world. But is it not the noblest goal of all – especially if it brings peace and security?
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
America has brought sixty million people their freedom with democracy in the Middle East. Today they have a constitution, representation and the rule of law, remarkable in just five years. But Democrats have fought freedom the whole way. How much more could we have done with unity? But if you call them on it they would say they voted for it. They were for it before they were against it.
That is not being democratic; that’s being a hypocrite.
As nuclear proliferation rolls out, it is dictators we fear with these awesome weapons, not democrats. Many of us are in denial, but nukes in the hands religious fanatics are untenable. Small watercraft is capable of carrying Hiroshima sized bombs, easily disguised and nearly impossible to defend against perfectly. Run it aground and pull the trigger. Every single beach is a highly populated target. One mistake by the Coast Guard and it is over.
The destruction caused by atomic weapons is intolerable beyond what most understand. If just one is detonated, even at sea, panic will ensue; the terrorists will have gained credibility. And there is no return address. There will be great fear as the coercive power of that situation would inevitability be fatal. Face it, we cannot kill every terrorist. Yet democrats argue against democracy, the one thing that can eliminate nuclear fear.
That not being democratic – that’s being a hypocrite. And some may argue it is heracy.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Fanni and Freddie Conservativeship
The Bush Administration handling of the economy is dazzling. The moves have not only been effective, but also calming to the markets. And thus the markets have made an orderly retreat to lower levels.
But tn spite of the real estate melt down, the political season and the credit crunch, there has been no recession. While the sub prime debacle reverberates all over the world, the American economy still has strong fundamentals.
The irresponsible rhetoric of an impending Great Depression aside, there has been only one month (December) of contraction. The last quarter shows a robust 3.3% growth and an unemployment rate that for the last six years has been consistently lower than the last four decades. Too bad for the big tax and spenders, the tax cuts must be given credit for the economy’s strength.
To libertarians it is very scary but the conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie goes back to the man on the ten dollar bill – Hamilton, creator of the central bank. Many consider him the premier American economic genius who understood the configuration of the most powerful economy on earth and capitalism itself. He was ahead of his time. A powerful Fed making mitigating moves would have his approval.
The loss of innovation is the curse of government (politically correct) regulated industry. The engine of incentive and the hunger for innovation is lost within taxpayer supported bureaucracy. It breeds things like tenure, seniority and mediocrity. The sub prime debacle simply brought that weakness to a head. These loans were sub prime for a reason. They were made with liberal lending rules that succumbed to the needs of real estate over-development.
The unqualified and defaulted buyer got to live in a house he could not afford. And, sub prime lenders got a great deal more interest for taking a risk. We can say that they already received their due. In many cases buyers received that privilege without down payment and without a good credit report. They walked away when they could not make the usury interest rate payments. But why were taxpayers guaranteeing such instruments?
By the time it discovered sub prime mortgages were too risky, it was too late. Even though they are partly private businesses, just like any bureaucracy, Fannie and Freddie descended into complacency. Instead of competition there were “agreements” padded with winking eyes that every bureaucratic administrator knows about. Being outside the competition makes one rusty and feeling secure while one hand washes the other that has grease for the palm.
Fannie and Freddie deteriorated into hybrid semi bureaucracies with many closets needing cleaning. This duo could not go below their current rates because they were sapped of competitive capability by regulation and thus inefficient. No matter how low fed rates went mortgages were anchored to the cost of bureaucratic waste. Well, the party is over.
But tn spite of the real estate melt down, the political season and the credit crunch, there has been no recession. While the sub prime debacle reverberates all over the world, the American economy still has strong fundamentals.
The irresponsible rhetoric of an impending Great Depression aside, there has been only one month (December) of contraction. The last quarter shows a robust 3.3% growth and an unemployment rate that for the last six years has been consistently lower than the last four decades. Too bad for the big tax and spenders, the tax cuts must be given credit for the economy’s strength.
To libertarians it is very scary but the conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie goes back to the man on the ten dollar bill – Hamilton, creator of the central bank. Many consider him the premier American economic genius who understood the configuration of the most powerful economy on earth and capitalism itself. He was ahead of his time. A powerful Fed making mitigating moves would have his approval.
The loss of innovation is the curse of government (politically correct) regulated industry. The engine of incentive and the hunger for innovation is lost within taxpayer supported bureaucracy. It breeds things like tenure, seniority and mediocrity. The sub prime debacle simply brought that weakness to a head. These loans were sub prime for a reason. They were made with liberal lending rules that succumbed to the needs of real estate over-development.
The unqualified and defaulted buyer got to live in a house he could not afford. And, sub prime lenders got a great deal more interest for taking a risk. We can say that they already received their due. In many cases buyers received that privilege without down payment and without a good credit report. They walked away when they could not make the usury interest rate payments. But why were taxpayers guaranteeing such instruments?
By the time it discovered sub prime mortgages were too risky, it was too late. Even though they are partly private businesses, just like any bureaucracy, Fannie and Freddie descended into complacency. Instead of competition there were “agreements” padded with winking eyes that every bureaucratic administrator knows about. Being outside the competition makes one rusty and feeling secure while one hand washes the other that has grease for the palm.
Fannie and Freddie deteriorated into hybrid semi bureaucracies with many closets needing cleaning. This duo could not go below their current rates because they were sapped of competitive capability by regulation and thus inefficient. No matter how low fed rates went mortgages were anchored to the cost of bureaucratic waste. Well, the party is over.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin and liberal despair
Governor Palin has brought desperation on the liberals, a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach. They look like Pee Wee Herman sitting on a park bench after he lost his bicycle over-acting a rapid decline into depression and despair. Liberals ponder how dumb voters are and think: “Change means socialism, doesn’t it? Americans can’t be stupid enough to vote for Republicans are they?”
Their faces are made even longer by the necessity to feign worry. They told us the economy would collapse eighteen months ago. Nevertheless no recession has occurred. There has been just one month of retraction, in December 2007. Last quarter the economy grew a robust 3.3%. Liberals just grow more shrill and disbelieving and have resorted to personal attacks.
The money changers liberalized lending practices to satisfy the need for over-development customers. That turned out to be a bad idea as money was lent to unqualified buyers without a down payment. And with no stake in the home they walked away. As a result the sub prime crisis reverberates all over the world. Nevertheless our economy has remained strong.
And now the risky mortgage companies have been driven from banking and construction tradesmen have morphed into repairmen. Soon they will go to work on the infrastructure. Governor Palin has shown the way with her 30 Billion dollar Alaskan Gas Pipeline project. This is a project which will put many to work making America energy self sufficient. And that is enough to depress any liberal.
Their faces are made even longer by the necessity to feign worry. They told us the economy would collapse eighteen months ago. Nevertheless no recession has occurred. There has been just one month of retraction, in December 2007. Last quarter the economy grew a robust 3.3%. Liberals just grow more shrill and disbelieving and have resorted to personal attacks.
The money changers liberalized lending practices to satisfy the need for over-development customers. That turned out to be a bad idea as money was lent to unqualified buyers without a down payment. And with no stake in the home they walked away. As a result the sub prime crisis reverberates all over the world. Nevertheless our economy has remained strong.
And now the risky mortgage companies have been driven from banking and construction tradesmen have morphed into repairmen. Soon they will go to work on the infrastructure. Governor Palin has shown the way with her 30 Billion dollar Alaskan Gas Pipeline project. This is a project which will put many to work making America energy self sufficient. And that is enough to depress any liberal.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
McCain said Thursday, "A change is coming.” Indeed there is a tsunami crashing over this nation, a tidal wave that draws its elemental power from left wing extremist egalitarian class warfare.
In spite of the public knowing it, the left wing will not admit to being socialist – or even Marxist to honor the father of their philosophy. They prefer to be called the audacious distortion: “progressive.”
Socialism is redistribution, the philosophy embodied by Obama. It has been called “shared poverty.” Coercing money or property from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful is a scheme that is not only failed – it is wrong. Although sharing is a good thing, when it is coerced, it is nothing less than larceny imposed by tyranny, a world allegorized by Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Taking what does not belong to you is stealing. Your mother taught you that it is wrong; it defames both the giver and the receiver. And it must be rejected for what it is, theft of private property. But this is the essence of the Marxist philosophy of Ayers, Obama and Clinton. Socialism is an old idea that fit into the Industrial Age but has failed miserably wherever it has been imposed simply because it destroys incentive and inhibits innovation.
To many of us the charade has been obvious, but we have had no champion to stand against it. Now we do, and it is a she . . . Sarah. Americans will flock to vote for Governor Palin. She is the ultimate role model for children of either gender, because she is no-nonsense. I will be thrilled to vote for her and watch that so-called “glass ceiling” shatter. She fights with the most formidable forked weapon – truth and light.
Liberals have seized on every difficulty to discredit our leaders and blame America first. Divisive and arrogant, they believe they have shouted us down. They think we have given up; it is over. But we will not surrender to their bully tactics. Indeed, change is long overdue. McCain / Palin will bring reform that will mark the end of special interests with great power and public mandate. There will be a tsunami of change that will overwhelm and crush the Democrats because their leadership has defaulted to the extremists of their party.
.
In spite of the public knowing it, the left wing will not admit to being socialist – or even Marxist to honor the father of their philosophy. They prefer to be called the audacious distortion: “progressive.”
Socialism is redistribution, the philosophy embodied by Obama. It has been called “shared poverty.” Coercing money or property from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful is a scheme that is not only failed – it is wrong. Although sharing is a good thing, when it is coerced, it is nothing less than larceny imposed by tyranny, a world allegorized by Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Taking what does not belong to you is stealing. Your mother taught you that it is wrong; it defames both the giver and the receiver. And it must be rejected for what it is, theft of private property. But this is the essence of the Marxist philosophy of Ayers, Obama and Clinton. Socialism is an old idea that fit into the Industrial Age but has failed miserably wherever it has been imposed simply because it destroys incentive and inhibits innovation.
To many of us the charade has been obvious, but we have had no champion to stand against it. Now we do, and it is a she . . . Sarah. Americans will flock to vote for Governor Palin. She is the ultimate role model for children of either gender, because she is no-nonsense. I will be thrilled to vote for her and watch that so-called “glass ceiling” shatter. She fights with the most formidable forked weapon – truth and light.
Liberals have seized on every difficulty to discredit our leaders and blame America first. Divisive and arrogant, they believe they have shouted us down. They think we have given up; it is over. But we will not surrender to their bully tactics. Indeed, change is long overdue. McCain / Palin will bring reform that will mark the end of special interests with great power and public mandate. There will be a tsunami of change that will overwhelm and crush the Democrats because their leadership has defaulted to the extremists of their party.
.
Monday, September 1, 2008
2012, Hillary VS Sarah
Liberals are trembling over Sarah Palin because she brings with her their biggest fear – that women, especially the young, will hear both sides. Many will conclude that liberal ideas are wrong and are taking America in the wrong direction. Women will have a choice in the quest to reach White House gender parity.
It takes chutzpah to finger the VP choice as inexperienced when the liberal’s front runner has no command track record at all. They attack Palin on her experience when she has been making command decisions as a governor since November 2006. This is exactly two years longer executive experience than Obama. Palin has held elective office for eighteen years with six years as an executive.
And if change is what America wants, Palin is the choice that will keep on giving. She was a thorn in the side of the Republican machine in Alaska. She took them on and went public after they tried to elbow her out. Alaskans kicked out the governor and elected her. She has an 80% favorable rating.
She is a sporting woman who takes on gender excellence in much more than the obnoxious job of career politician. She hunts, snowmobiles and is an avid ice fisherman. Her dynamics are inspiring. She put the governor’s private plane on EBay and got rid of the gourmet kitchen in the governor’s residence. She rejected the famous congressional pork fest “Bridge to Nowhere.”
And though she comes from the working class she is a fast learner and politically savvy. She calls her husband the “First Dude” of Alaska. If McCain is dead in 2012 as liberals claim, he will have instructed her in the fine art of diplomacy that includes homeland defense. Under the excellent of John McCain she would have a fine training for the top job. Something neither Obama nor Hillary can claim. It will be no contest.
Palin is central to liberal anxiety and panic. Her candidacy with McCain could easily transform itself into twelve, perhaps twenty four years of conservatives in the presidency. If John is not dead by then (he will have reached his energetic mother’s age), certainly a few of liberal Supreme Court judges will be.
Liberals are trembling over Sarah Palin because she brings with her their biggest fear – that women, especially the young, will hear both sides. Many will conclude that liberal ideas are wrong and are taking America in the wrong direction. Women will have a choice in the quest to reach White House gender parity.
It takes chutzpah to finger the VP choice as inexperienced when the liberal’s front runner has no command track record at all. They attack Palin on her experience when she has been making command decisions as a governor since November 2006. This is exactly two years longer executive experience than Obama. Palin has held elective office for eighteen years with six years as an executive.
And if change is what America wants, Palin is the choice that will keep on giving. She was a thorn in the side of the Republican machine in Alaska. She took them on and went public after they tried to elbow her out. Alaskans kicked out the governor and elected her. She has an 80% favorable rating.
She is a sporting woman who takes on gender excellence in much more than the obnoxious job of career politician. She hunts, snowmobiles and is an avid ice fisherman. Her dynamics are inspiring. She put the governor’s private plane on EBay and got rid of the gourmet kitchen in the governor’s residence. She rejected the famous congressional pork fest “Bridge to Nowhere.”
And though she comes from the working class she is a fast learner and politically savvy. She calls her husband the “First Dude” of Alaska. If McCain is dead in 2012 as liberals claim, he will have instructed her in the fine art of diplomacy that includes homeland defense. Under the excellent of John McCain she would have a fine training for the top job. Something neither Obama nor Hillary can claim. It will be no contest.
Palin is central to liberal anxiety and panic. Her candidacy with McCain could easily transform itself into twelve, perhaps twenty four years of conservatives in the presidency. If John is not dead by then (he will have reached his energetic mother’s age), certainly a few of liberal Supreme Court judges will be.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Follow up letter to Uncle Alex
8/13/2008
Dear Uncle Alex
I write to apologize if you were angered or felt embarrassed by my debating style. I am careful to never use personal insults against my debate opponents, or even political figures that are discussed. I did not disrespect you; I gave plenty of time to reply. If you were embarrassed, I really do not understand why, unless it was my style –forgive me.
I have resolved to no longer accept, ad hominem attacks on President Bush without response. If you are going to attack the Commander in Chief with a personal attack I will demand specifics. I want evidence. One cannot argue with a non specific defamation. It is no secret that I am in the fight for democracy; I am a democrat I take my duty seriously and I work hard with the pen and free speech to win. One does not need to call me a patriot; we are all patriots.
If however it was the context, you are embarrassed because you realize, that despite your passion and conviction in the bashing of this George Bush, that I speak the truth. I am convinced at this point that the only thing wrong with this President is that the public believes the personal attacks and repeats them. But it is baseless defamation of character. It has been very costly and divisive.
Perhaps you noticed; I never bring politics up. Because I am in training for political debate continuously; I avoid debate like a boxer avoids a fight in a pub. I carry heavy artillery. But if someone in a discussion brings it up I will not allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. I have studied rhetoric and civil affairs for half a century. I argue aggressively. I am a trained public speaker, teacher and an instructor’s instructor for many years.
I do not think I have a corner on the truth, but I will not allow rhetorical technique or dialectic without attribution of fair value and weighting of each consideration. If one engages me in politic, I give fair warning to be prepared for passion to match the moment . . . but never anger.
I agree that I am a tough opponent; it seems hard to win an argument and convince me without exacting facts. My wife says that is so because I capitulate immediately and without fanfare when I am shown that I am wrong. Conversely, I prosecute when the matter is important, as it is today with war. I will not allow a debate opponent to change the subject. It is essential to colloquy.
Now, I would be truly honored if you would engage me in colloquy. . . . please return my letter. As Patrick said at dinner – it takes a lengthy discussion to vet with precision. But let us answer each other’s questions without anger or embarrassment. There should be little room for such things given humility, something I consider as the cornerstone of integrity; go ahead and show me where I am an idiot; its no problem..
I can see passion with one’s views but you will never see anger in me. I love you too much. We can agree to disagree if it comes to that point. But it can be refreshing to open one’s mind; it can extinguish anguish and fears with unity and the coming together. Perhaps we can come up with a plan to win the war for democracy that I can articulate on the web or the media.
Propaganda, in its most pejorative form, is a tool that is used to gain an advantage over an enemy. It matters not if a patriot utters it, the result is the same. It can be defined as opinion without substance designed to disrepute. Many are convinced, in ignorance of the truth, and they purvey this disinformation innocently. One must admit that it is divisive at best. However it does not work with me. I will blitzkrieg propaganda assertively.
It is fair to persist asking the same question where there is no reply; it is fair to point out continuing refusal to answer a query. It is fair to point out when the participant persists in changing the subject, making rambling opinion based arguments or displaying anger. Non-sequitur is a form of manipulation and is unacceptable in these “times that try men’s souls.”
Believe me, I want to be convinced that plausible nuclear coercion by a stateless cabal is unlikely but I have yet to be given the answer to my questions. China will be just as helpless as we are. Even China has no answer for the Jihad for they will not know where the shooter is. Nuclear suicide warfare removes the need for delivery vehicle and stateless warriors are effectively invulnerable without coordinates. It is the only thing that I blame the President for - not convincing the public of this massive threat.
But are we to not to believe a dictator’s threats when he is about to go nuclear? What is the price of this alternative reality and denial? Is not Islamic revolution and religious coercion what the Islamists say is their aim? And how do we respond to a stateless cabal nuclear attack on any beach or even miles out to sea? What is our responsibility and what is our duty?
Because it is so important, I will never be satisfied by digression. If I am to be convinced that I am wrong, I need facts. The side that wants to win the war is instead bombarded with attacks on George Bush from folks who will not answer a direct question – What are the charges and what is the evidence? Did he lie? Did he break the law? Did he perpetrate the attacks himself on 9/11? Is he the enemy? Are not the attacks on George Bush a digression from the real threat?
We have every pejorative invention and personal attack, even obscenities, to describe the Commander in Chief. It is common – and it is a shame that the public has been fooled. It reminds me of Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people, some of the time and all of the people some of the time . . .” But that tension is the beauty of democracy where no man rises by the gun. Give the women the vote and there is peace
To get to a point of understanding, it requires that we get past the sliming of the President: If I ask, “What is the reason for the “bastard” ad hominem, the reply is another ad hominem “he is arrogant.” It is maddening; the President does what he must do under the law to preserve freedom for posterity. We who fight for liberty will not allow this chicanery any longer.
It is the Commander in Chief’s responsibility to act decisively as the elected leader under Article Two of the United States Constitution. And it is his duty to act in response to his perception and direct the armed forces to defer threats. This requires decisive action during war. It is not arrogance when a leader takes charge. Unlike other presidents he does not wither under pressure from the opposition who lost the last election. And they call themselves democrat?
An ad hominem argument, argumentum ad hominem, (Latin: "argument against the man") is a rhetorical device used to sidestep an issue by attacking a person rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. “The process of proving or disproving an issue is thereby subverted.” President Bush is not a “bastard” nor is he any of the other slanderous words used to describe him by people without evidence against this honorable man. He will remain in my mind as a great hero and a rare example of courageous leader. He will be greatly honored.
In my view the only way the opposition could have possibly destroyed the credibility of this Commander in Chief is to slime him and disparage his reputation by repeating the lie that he is a liar over and over. This swindle is nothing new; the opposition has used it since the Great Depression to Katrina to seize power during American catastrophe. When implemented during war it is despicable.
The President is not a liar and evidence cannot be delivered that he is a liar. These and other slurs are ad hominem propaganda, a devious instrument of rhetoric. I submit it is an attempt to capitalize on events with distortion and divide the people for the gain of power. I am chagrined. But I am not angered; please do not be angry with me because I debate with passion.
I appreciate good colloquy and the vigorous vetting of ideas. If revelation can be accomplished then all can benefit from the reciprocal enhancement of knowledge. But there must never be anger. If a man is offended, and if it makes a man angry to be wrong, then I advise that man to not discuss politics. I take my own advice. But if, on the other hand you would like a sparring partner to sharpen both our skills then please return my letter.
With respect and affection,
Neil
Dear Uncle Alex
I write to apologize if you were angered or felt embarrassed by my debating style. I am careful to never use personal insults against my debate opponents, or even political figures that are discussed. I did not disrespect you; I gave plenty of time to reply. If you were embarrassed, I really do not understand why, unless it was my style –forgive me.
I have resolved to no longer accept, ad hominem attacks on President Bush without response. If you are going to attack the Commander in Chief with a personal attack I will demand specifics. I want evidence. One cannot argue with a non specific defamation. It is no secret that I am in the fight for democracy; I am a democrat I take my duty seriously and I work hard with the pen and free speech to win. One does not need to call me a patriot; we are all patriots.
If however it was the context, you are embarrassed because you realize, that despite your passion and conviction in the bashing of this George Bush, that I speak the truth. I am convinced at this point that the only thing wrong with this President is that the public believes the personal attacks and repeats them. But it is baseless defamation of character. It has been very costly and divisive.
Perhaps you noticed; I never bring politics up. Because I am in training for political debate continuously; I avoid debate like a boxer avoids a fight in a pub. I carry heavy artillery. But if someone in a discussion brings it up I will not allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. I have studied rhetoric and civil affairs for half a century. I argue aggressively. I am a trained public speaker, teacher and an instructor’s instructor for many years.
I do not think I have a corner on the truth, but I will not allow rhetorical technique or dialectic without attribution of fair value and weighting of each consideration. If one engages me in politic, I give fair warning to be prepared for passion to match the moment . . . but never anger.
I agree that I am a tough opponent; it seems hard to win an argument and convince me without exacting facts. My wife says that is so because I capitulate immediately and without fanfare when I am shown that I am wrong. Conversely, I prosecute when the matter is important, as it is today with war. I will not allow a debate opponent to change the subject. It is essential to colloquy.
Now, I would be truly honored if you would engage me in colloquy. . . . please return my letter. As Patrick said at dinner – it takes a lengthy discussion to vet with precision. But let us answer each other’s questions without anger or embarrassment. There should be little room for such things given humility, something I consider as the cornerstone of integrity; go ahead and show me where I am an idiot; its no problem..
I can see passion with one’s views but you will never see anger in me. I love you too much. We can agree to disagree if it comes to that point. But it can be refreshing to open one’s mind; it can extinguish anguish and fears with unity and the coming together. Perhaps we can come up with a plan to win the war for democracy that I can articulate on the web or the media.
Propaganda, in its most pejorative form, is a tool that is used to gain an advantage over an enemy. It matters not if a patriot utters it, the result is the same. It can be defined as opinion without substance designed to disrepute. Many are convinced, in ignorance of the truth, and they purvey this disinformation innocently. One must admit that it is divisive at best. However it does not work with me. I will blitzkrieg propaganda assertively.
It is fair to persist asking the same question where there is no reply; it is fair to point out continuing refusal to answer a query. It is fair to point out when the participant persists in changing the subject, making rambling opinion based arguments or displaying anger. Non-sequitur is a form of manipulation and is unacceptable in these “times that try men’s souls.”
Believe me, I want to be convinced that plausible nuclear coercion by a stateless cabal is unlikely but I have yet to be given the answer to my questions. China will be just as helpless as we are. Even China has no answer for the Jihad for they will not know where the shooter is. Nuclear suicide warfare removes the need for delivery vehicle and stateless warriors are effectively invulnerable without coordinates. It is the only thing that I blame the President for - not convincing the public of this massive threat.
But are we to not to believe a dictator’s threats when he is about to go nuclear? What is the price of this alternative reality and denial? Is not Islamic revolution and religious coercion what the Islamists say is their aim? And how do we respond to a stateless cabal nuclear attack on any beach or even miles out to sea? What is our responsibility and what is our duty?
Because it is so important, I will never be satisfied by digression. If I am to be convinced that I am wrong, I need facts. The side that wants to win the war is instead bombarded with attacks on George Bush from folks who will not answer a direct question – What are the charges and what is the evidence? Did he lie? Did he break the law? Did he perpetrate the attacks himself on 9/11? Is he the enemy? Are not the attacks on George Bush a digression from the real threat?
We have every pejorative invention and personal attack, even obscenities, to describe the Commander in Chief. It is common – and it is a shame that the public has been fooled. It reminds me of Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people, some of the time and all of the people some of the time . . .” But that tension is the beauty of democracy where no man rises by the gun. Give the women the vote and there is peace
To get to a point of understanding, it requires that we get past the sliming of the President: If I ask, “What is the reason for the “bastard” ad hominem, the reply is another ad hominem “he is arrogant.” It is maddening; the President does what he must do under the law to preserve freedom for posterity. We who fight for liberty will not allow this chicanery any longer.
It is the Commander in Chief’s responsibility to act decisively as the elected leader under Article Two of the United States Constitution. And it is his duty to act in response to his perception and direct the armed forces to defer threats. This requires decisive action during war. It is not arrogance when a leader takes charge. Unlike other presidents he does not wither under pressure from the opposition who lost the last election. And they call themselves democrat?
An ad hominem argument, argumentum ad hominem, (Latin: "argument against the man") is a rhetorical device used to sidestep an issue by attacking a person rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. “The process of proving or disproving an issue is thereby subverted.” President Bush is not a “bastard” nor is he any of the other slanderous words used to describe him by people without evidence against this honorable man. He will remain in my mind as a great hero and a rare example of courageous leader. He will be greatly honored.
In my view the only way the opposition could have possibly destroyed the credibility of this Commander in Chief is to slime him and disparage his reputation by repeating the lie that he is a liar over and over. This swindle is nothing new; the opposition has used it since the Great Depression to Katrina to seize power during American catastrophe. When implemented during war it is despicable.
The President is not a liar and evidence cannot be delivered that he is a liar. These and other slurs are ad hominem propaganda, a devious instrument of rhetoric. I submit it is an attempt to capitalize on events with distortion and divide the people for the gain of power. I am chagrined. But I am not angered; please do not be angry with me because I debate with passion.
I appreciate good colloquy and the vigorous vetting of ideas. If revelation can be accomplished then all can benefit from the reciprocal enhancement of knowledge. But there must never be anger. If a man is offended, and if it makes a man angry to be wrong, then I advise that man to not discuss politics. I take my own advice. But if, on the other hand you would like a sparring partner to sharpen both our skills then please return my letter.
With respect and affection,
Neil
Monday, August 11, 2008
letter to uncle alex
8/11/2008
Dear Uncle Alex,
It is with great sadness that I say the following things. I have been presenting the plausibility of nuclear coercion without hostility for it is real and leaves us with a duty to posterity. I am a man of peace. I argued against the first Gulf war; it was for oil and I condemned it. But after 9/11 and with extensive study of the Islamic Revolution, I have come to the opinion that Iran is a deceptive and deadly foe that is on what it says is holy mission. That mission began in 1979.
The first thing that I will offer is that if we are at war one cannot, with any intelligence, parse Iraq from the Middle East, the focal point of the war.
In 1979, I was geopolitical strategist and libertarian advisor for a gubernatorial candidate when the Islamic revolution began. The biggest concern for geo-politicians then was the Soviet client relationship with Iraq and its invasion of Afghanistan. The Reagan Administration worried aloud whether fundamentalism would be the result. At first we thought it would contain itself, but then 9/11.
I did not take Khomeini as a serious threat, but the Ayatollah created a revolution with world ambitions. He sent Revolutionary Guard, Quds forces around the world to commit atrocity. And his successor appointed by a revolutionary counsel of mullahs “The Grand Supreme Ayatollah” continues the world war to accomplish control of a world which, in the words of one terrorist, is obsessed with sex. And in the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, America is “The Great Satan,” and the source of this immorality.
Muhammad tells us in the Koran that the Twelfth Imam will rule the Final Caliphate - a world under Islamic law. "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs have been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." This is the scriptural basis by which the revolution recruits, not because we defend ourselves.
It does not take much research – simply google “Islamic revolution” and one finds the source of the extremism - The Grand Supreme Ayatollah of Iran. This Ayatollah is the dictator of Iran and he is the progenitor behind the continuing foreign policy mandates of Khomeini. That is atrocity by proxy and asymmetrical warfare by a revolutionary guard. The Ayatollah has warned that he, “. . . has 40,000 martyrs ready to die.” His puppet president, Ahmadinajad has mused out loud that “It is possible for “a world without the U.S.,” in one speech, and in another the incineration of Israel.
Should this mullah, who sends terrorists all over the world, be allowed to possess 2.2 pounds of highly enriched uranium, our freedom will be up to him. He is by selection a revolutionary, selected by a Revolutionary Counsel. It is with his blessing that his puppet President Ahmedinejad promises our demise.
There are foolish people among us who underestimate and stereotype Arabs. Nevertheless these revolutionaries are clever; the Arabs invented chess and our very number system. Of course Iran will not engage us directly, but through proxies. Despite them being called “tiny” and “no threat” by a presidential candidate, given nuclear weapons we can be coerced by subterfuge. If we just let them do what they are doing, we will leave up to them whether our children will face Kamikaze nuclear attacks.
George Bush realized this sad fact after 9/11. Thank God he did. Penetrations of spies from both the Afghan and Iranian border are making possible the replacement of this reckless regime that believes in the most incredible acts of barbarism the world has ever seen.
None of us thought there was a significant threat until 9/11. Certainly Carter did not, Reagan did not, Clinton did not, and Bush did not, until that fateful day. There are many Americans who still refuse to see this threat as morbid. Even as the dictator of Iran has 9,000 centrifuges making the fuel for Armageddon, there is denial. Traces of weapons grade uranium were reported there a year ago April by the IAEA!
To conclude that Islamic revolutionary activity will contain itself by some mystical barrier requires incredible mental gymnastics. It is not wisdom. It is rationalization and prevarication enabled by denial. It leaves liberty vulnerable. This head-in-the-sand mentality thinks the Jihad will somehow contain itself. They blame GW for the Jihad even though it began long before the invasion of Iraq.
Consider this AP report, just one of many to report this disturbing news:
.
Deposing before a Congressional Committee on Homeland Security on April 2, Charles Allen, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the director of Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence for the Department of Energy testified before this key Congressional committee on nuclear terrorism. Mowatt-Larssen divulged information about a prototypical Al-Qaeda nuclear attack plot. ''The nuclear threats that surfaced in June 2002 and continued through the fall of 2003 demonstrated that Al-Qaeda’s desire for a nuclear capability have survived their removal from their Afghanistan safe haven,'' he said. Observing that the Al-Qaeda’s nuclear intent remains clear, he said it obtained a fatwa in May 2003 that approved the use of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleyman Abu Ghayth declared that it is Al-Qaeda’s right to kill four million Americans in retaliation for Muslim deaths that Al-Qaeda blames on the United States. ''Osama bin Laden said in 1998 (emphasis mine) that it was an Islamic duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” (Why?) Dr. Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate for the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's School of Government said if a bomb goes off there would be blackmailing tactics from these terrorists' organizations.
''One has to recall that the moment after a nuclear bomb goes off, someone -- either the perpetrator or another terrorist group -- is going to call up and say, ''I've got five more, and they're already hidden in U.S. cities, and I'm going to start setting them off unless you do X, Y and Z.'' And one bomb having just gone off, they will have substantial credibility,'' he argued.''The prospect for panic, uncontrolled mass evacuation of our cities, economic chaos and disruption is, I think, very great.”Gary Ackerman, research director for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland said the efforts of non-state actors seeking to . . . “acquire and use nuclear weapons are growing in size and scope.”''Jihadists have, since the mid 1990s, made at least 10 statements advocating the possession or use of nuclear weapons, and there have been at least a dozen reports of jihadists' attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, fissile material or technical knowledge,'' he said.
Because of the potential for blackmail, just one detonation has the ability to coerce our military – a standing army. The Founders warned us about standing armies; they studied the history of standing armies. The Founders recommended “well regulated militia;” a standing army can coerce its own population. But we have ignored their wisdom and demonized by political correctness the very word: “militia.”
If nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and it is; the people must have a check on their leaders. Mothers of democracy teach their children to build careers not bombs, tolerance rather than a culture of violence and death. Given proliferation, there is no other viable strategy offered by anyone. Give women the vote and there will be peace.
I am continuously astounded at the ability of democracy to discourage militancy even when it is in self defense; our own democracy is a case in point. At the end of the day we all want peace. Because of the right to speak, assemble and vote, democracy cannot sustain violence for long. No democracy is feared even if they have nuclear weapons. This is the only hope for victory in this terrible war.
We can lose this war; that is the difference, and it is why I write. Nukes, in the hands of a dictator who believes that he is on a mission from God, are untenable. Dictators who support Jihad can never be allowed to control these terrible weapons. If a revolutionarily imam dictator get these things, we are highly vulnerable to their secret passing and use by stateless terrorists. The enemy of Iran’s enemies is their friend. The objective is the destruction of the West. They will plot and conspire together. Jefferson spoke of intrigues; foreign intrigues are nothing new.
It is true that Iran could secretly share nukes with Hezbollah, al Quaeda the Taliban and their ilk. But more likely and much more devious, as there are no requirement for Iran to actually give up control of the weapons is for Iranian agents to execute a surreptitious Kamikaze attack. All states will deny attribution.
And indeed, collusion will have determined which stateless group accepts and embrace public responsibility. The moment can not be characterized too melodramatically. Imagine the news report complete with video of the mushroom cloud in the distance. Hopefully it will be at sea. The panic that would ensue would rock the very foundation of this nation. The public will demand retaliation but we will have no location for Command and Control. There will me mass confusion and finger pointing. Only then will the profound consequences of our present denial be clear to all. Only then will it become apparent to all that we have no way to retaliate against a terrorist cabal. Suicide delivery by stateless warriors destroys the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Immediately those who have come to hate him will continue the denial and blame George Bush for the bombing. They will continue the denial that this revolution has been conducted since 1979 and the denial of 9/11. After all, Bush “the liar” chose to go to war; he pissed off crazy people! But the revolution was in motion long before President Bush.
Defending oneself usually kicks up the violence. The alternative is to watch Iran consume the Middle East and then wait for them to come here once again, only this time with nukes. The scenario is likely if we stand and watch them gather enriched uranium. I call it “plausible nuclear coercion.” But it would be argumentative at that point. Our own authorities will enforce Islamic Law after “Plausible Coercion.” The argument is moot; the authorities will have no choice. The orders will come from the top down - not very comfortable to contemplate.
What I call the “Katrina Precedent” mocked the Civil War Era, Posse Comitatus Act that GW obeyed and thus hesitated to assume authority over Louisiana. Because of this precedent, federal officials can now override state officials – very dangerous to freedom. It staggers my mind what implications this will have, after the “Plausible Coercion.” Previous to this, only in matters of national security could the feds override state officials. And the masses will think: Better Islamic than atomic-ed.”
Please, in all humility tell me why these things are not plausible and relieve my trembling soul.
Have you seen the bloodletting of the Taliban? And how shall this generation be judged after the loss of freedom, women disenfranchised, homosexuals hanged and adulterers stoned to death? I think a man like you knows the answer. I suppose we can argue about it now, but I visualize myself in the court comprised of our descendants, and I want to be acquitted of being the one who was idle, or worse, an opponent to the struggle.
Should there be a first detonation, we will not know where Command and Control is. And the forces of coercive capitulation will be as strong as they were for the Imperial Japanese military. They had no way to respond to Truman’s attack. Unlike them we will have the capacity, but without retaliation coordinates the result will be the same. It would be the Islamic fascist dream to capture the most powerful military in the world to advance the Caliphate.
During the Soviet nuclear threat, we would speak of ICBM throw weights and MIRV capability. But we knew where Russia was; we could retaliate. Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies because a stateless shooter is effectively invulnerable. Today missiles are unnecessary and neither is importation; small watercraft can carry a nine foot by two foot Hiroshima style bomb. Explode one on any shore, even at sea and coercion begins. It seems incredible to be living an Ian Fleming novel and Goldfinger or SPECTER (a cabal) is about to get The Bomb, but look alive.
This war is a different beast; should we default we can lose. The evidence and the fiend are incinerated with the blast; attribution to a state will be difficult. We cannot bomb everyone.
Because of this paradox, the time is right for freedom. Again, we fear no democracy for it breeds peace. The strategy: Terrorists will disappear into the safety and abundance man finds in democracy. To be safe in a nuclear world we must rid the world of tyranny, kings, despots and dictators.
The evil released by Truman with the nuclear coercion of Japan, took just two blows. Today it will take only one because now the world knows that without the ability to retaliate, the victim is defeated. Japan capitulated and surrendered their powerful military to Macarthur without a shot fired. Yes, there was an occupation; but when one thinks about it, there was no need. The tremendous coercive capacity of atomic weapons would have them do anything commanded to prevent another blast.
Truman required that Japan adopt a virtual clone of our Constitution. And look at them now; there is no interference in Japan’s affairs. They are unabridged friends. We would not fear them even if they acquired nuclear weapons. Why? Because of a constitution, no violent man rises to leadership by the gun; the people have the power reserved to them by representation and the vote. And this is the legacy of republican democracy - freedom. It is essential in the Age of the Atom.
To have any hope of winning the war there must be a rejection of the denial that nuclear coercion is plausible, credible and even likely should we revert to isolationism as some propose that we do. To escape the consequences posed by suicide nuclear terrorism, we must recognize first that the enemy’s strategy is to blind us by empowering amorphous stateless groups like Hezbollah who will coerce us with the threat of a second detonation - checkmate from the people who invented chess.
A house divided cannot stand. The credibility of the Commander in Chief is critical. To attack the credibility of our own leadership is suicidal. We are dividing ourselves behind the notion that our Commander in Chief is the opponent. The President has been impeached not by evidence or Congress, but by hyperbole such as “Bush is a war criminal, liar, butcher, Nazi, etc.
But George W Bush did not start this war; he is not the enemy. Demonized and inhibited by divisiveness and backbiting, his reputation is smeared and accomplishments obscured by slander and liable. Nevertheless the president has wisely moved the battlefront from NY, PA and VA to the Middle East. And because Iraq surrounds Iran together with Afghanistan, militarily the move is sound. At the same time, America has managed to free 60 million souls and create friendly countries in the most volatile region of the world. How much more could have been accomplished with unity?
I challenge those with real evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors; let’s see it and let it be vetted. Other than opinions without substance, impeachment rhetoric is allegation without fact and accusation without charge. It is divisive and hobbles the war effort. Thank God those in touch with reality can see this ominous specter rising in the east.
The majority has spoken; GW was elected twice. Derived from democracy, the Commander in Chief is critical to our defense, especially in war. But not accepting the democratic decisions of November 2000 or 2004, people who call themselves “Democrat” have disowned the CIC chosen by democracy – the ultimate hypocrisy. They tear this country apart in the gravest of moments. I pity those who do it for the gain of power.
First, to advance that the Commander in Chief is a liar because there were no WMD, assaults the intellect. It is like calling the weather man a liar for rain. If Bush was a liar, indeed, we would have found WMD a long time ago – if you know what I mean. The intelligence director chosen by the previous president called WMD a slam dunk and does to this day confess he and the world intelligence community agreed. GW never said there was WMD; demonstrate to me otherwise. One cannot. And yet, GW Bush is a liar? It is appalling during war time. But verily, the lie that Bush is a liar is a lie, and thus the liar is condemned by his own judgment.
Dissenters charge that a proactive invasion of Iraq is a violation of international sovereignty. But I submit that Hussein’s Articles of Surrender under Desert Storm gave us the right to enforce surrender terms. And after numerous and consistent violations and 12 UN resolutions over twelve years of trying to get Hussein to conform to those Articles, give testimony to international judgment. I would also suggest that Hussein’s attempted assassination of a sitting president is a direct act of war. Hussein’s use of WMD and potential for WMD was only one issue.
Impeachment advocates also name the failure to provide writ of habeas corpus to terrorists at GITMO. In answer to them, I say read Article 1, Section 9, Clause Two, of the US Constitution.
To those that cite the Patriot Act, I say it has no victim. And, so far, the ACLU cannot find a plaintive. The act passed both houses of congress twice. Congress can change the law if it had the will; it does not. Congress would be blamed should attacks recommence after such an irresponsible action as removing the right to tap terrorist phone calls as they come in.
Congress cannot usurp the Executive and tell the Commander of the armed forces what to do, as some rhetoric implies they can. It cannot micromanage the military. Separation of Powers must be recognized; Article 2 of the US Constitution gives the Commander in Chief designation to the President not congressmen. Congress can remove the funding for the war but it elects not to do so because it fears the truth will be revealed about how many of us really want to lose the friendly democracies we have brought to the Middle East.
History will show that GW was the first to take significant action against Islamic revolutionary fanatics. He knows that democracy can end nuclear fear; he knows it is the only viable solution. The cost of war is always far too great; but it is miniscule compared to the price of complacency.
There is no evidence he is not a good and honorable man who does what he says he is going to do. There have been errors committed but he has done an outstanding job with limited affect on our freedoms here at home. Attacks have soared all over the world while we have been free of terrorist violence. He is precisely the leader we need as the minority becomes shrill in promoting complacency, isolation and a pre 9/11 mentality. GW does not stick his finger in the air and obey whining dissenters. Opponents are furious at this essential aspect of leadership.
I believe it is heresy to call oneself “democrat” yet claim certain people are not worthy of democracy. The majority has spoken in Iraq; they have dipped their fingers in the polling station inkwell. They are our friends. Yes, they are still not strong and if we left they would soon succumb to the Iranian inspired insurgency. It is only a small minority of thugs who kill these purple fingered democrats. These terrorists hide behind the innocent of new born freedom. But they cannot do this for long in a stable democratic country. It will take a few election cycles for the people to elect better leaders. But democracy breeds peace.
I know that the anger and enmity towards GW is palpable and Bush-bashing common. I was disappointed to hear this personal attack from such an eloquent and influential man. But the majority felt the same way toward Lincoln in 1863. That does not mean those who think the Commander in Chief is wrong are right. It certainly does not mean that all the opposition thinks monolithically that we must leave Iraq.
Here is why and this is my prediction: Even though some say that all those who disagree want us to pull out of Iraq, the 66% who disapprove of GW are split in two factions, those that disagree because GW goes too hard, and those that think GW goes too soft, one that believes we are in a war of serious consequences and another who sees no need for hostility. These factions will diverge in the general election. That is profound.
In my view, neither faction realizes the gravity of the divisiveness.
Still, GW does have 30% approval of the people, who I believe are correct. Some of that faction supports him because they respect democracy; he was reelected after the invasion of Iraq. But I suspect that the great majority of that third of our population fears that if we revert to isolationism, it is only a matter of time before the enemy returns to face our children with nuclear Kamikaze warfare. I embrace that conclusion whatever people choose to call me.
However they mock me, I see the answer to nuclear proliferation as democracy; and democracy alone. If that requires being called names, I accept my fate. Call me “neo con” if it makes one happy. It is just ignorance. I embrace it if it means I want freedom for the masses.
I am by scholarly definition a classical liberal - one who believes in liberty enforced by the rule of law with representation. Now, if there were no such thing as nukes and their delivery by suicide bomber, the Islamic Revolution would be nothing more than atrocity. We should be so lucky.
There is some risk at being outspoken. There is no question that they have sent warriors here.
I am among the very few that are active for democracy. I have lived a long and prosperous life. I don’t have a lot of time left. I do not fear for myself. But I am afraid for my grandchildren’s liberties and those of posterity - your grandchildren and their grandchildren. I am a democrat and therefore I embrace democracy. To bring freedom to those suffering under tyranny is the noblest goal of all. And it is necessary in the age of the atom to bring tolerance and peace with liberty.
Arabs are upset with our support of Israel. But we must question: Are we to be coerced from supporting Israel? And would radical Muslims quit attacking Americans if we completely abandoned our allies there? A study of Islamic revolutionary rhetoric and the history of it since 1979 show otherwise.
McCain was corrected by dissenters for “repeating” the falsehood that Shiite and Sunni are enemies. But both Sunni and Shiite have attacked western interests and both are carrying out jihad against the West, sometimes in tandem.
The Arizona Republic Apr. 18, 2008 reports:
“Indeed, the critics of John McCain who contend the GOP candidate is "mistaken" in his comments linking the Sunnis of al-Qaeda to the Shiites of Iran would do well to re-read that report the (the 9/11 Commission). It includes, in Section 7.3 under the heading "Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al-Qaeda," the following: "Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures after (Osama) bin Laden's return to Afghanistan."”
With the history of Jihad, can we rely on the fact that they will not use atomic weapons offensively? Do we not believe what they repeat over and over? Can one leave liberty in the hands of a tyrant, a religious bigot and fanatic mullah? And, if there is an attack, where can we retaliate if bin Laden takes the credit for a detonation? Afghanistan – Pakistan? That is where we think he is.
This is the plausibility conundrum we face. And I ask, how shall you answer your descendents when they ask you if you did all you could do? When the purple fingers of democracy were weak will we let democracy die in its crib?
I am not saying that the Commander in Chief should not be criticized for error. I merely ask to suspend sloganeering against the President during apocalyptic times. “Impeach Bush” is an opinion. If there is “real” evidence of high crimes, I say back it up with evidence in an adversarial court with defense and counsel. Put up or shut up.
I do not agree with the aspersion, if I heard you right, that “If they can impeach Clinton for a tryst, we can sure impeach that bastard.” In my mind the use of the term bastard is simply a slur designed to demonstrate enmity. I am sorry for that because your ancestors will honor this man in a way most of us do not yet realize. Your opinion saddens me and makes me believe somehow you have the wrong information.
We can agree to disagree. My point is that the repetition of propaganda, although having no effect on me, will no doubt have an effect on others It is obvious that you are a respected and influential man. I say this in sincerity and respect.
I make no accusations of patriotism; are we not all patriots? Anyone is entitled to say anything in a constitutional democracy. But we must consider carefully of the value of unity during time of war. Rhetoric designed to damage the Commander in Chief obviously has its price. In my view, it is unwise at best.
Walk into the hallowed ground of the Jefferson Memorial, and you can see words cut in marble as big as one’s head that declare: “I swear eternal hostility to tyranny over the minds of men.” He did not say American men; his mind was far too great.
And yet we who believe in this goal are called “Neo-cons?” Well, let them have their witty pejorative. But it is simply clever sloganeering meant to slander, mock and condescend to a political view that promotes the progress of liberty as the solution to nuclear war – for all time!
We must be united. I implore you to join us; fight with your pen; start writing to media and whoever you can to support democracy. Persevere until Americans are united behind freedom. It is the solution to the madness regardless who is president. Call talk shows and email. Tell people that the only solution to nuclear fear is the purple fingers of freedom. Tell them that democracy is essential in the Age of the Atom. Forward the video I have produced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSptuRgSXoM
If I were John Lennon, my tune called “Imagine” would sing of a world with hundreds of states, all of them because of democracy as friendly as our own fifty. Democracy can do it.
With great affection and respect,
Neil
Dear Uncle Alex,
It is with great sadness that I say the following things. I have been presenting the plausibility of nuclear coercion without hostility for it is real and leaves us with a duty to posterity. I am a man of peace. I argued against the first Gulf war; it was for oil and I condemned it. But after 9/11 and with extensive study of the Islamic Revolution, I have come to the opinion that Iran is a deceptive and deadly foe that is on what it says is holy mission. That mission began in 1979.
The first thing that I will offer is that if we are at war one cannot, with any intelligence, parse Iraq from the Middle East, the focal point of the war.
In 1979, I was geopolitical strategist and libertarian advisor for a gubernatorial candidate when the Islamic revolution began. The biggest concern for geo-politicians then was the Soviet client relationship with Iraq and its invasion of Afghanistan. The Reagan Administration worried aloud whether fundamentalism would be the result. At first we thought it would contain itself, but then 9/11.
I did not take Khomeini as a serious threat, but the Ayatollah created a revolution with world ambitions. He sent Revolutionary Guard, Quds forces around the world to commit atrocity. And his successor appointed by a revolutionary counsel of mullahs “The Grand Supreme Ayatollah” continues the world war to accomplish control of a world which, in the words of one terrorist, is obsessed with sex. And in the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, America is “The Great Satan,” and the source of this immorality.
Muhammad tells us in the Koran that the Twelfth Imam will rule the Final Caliphate - a world under Islamic law. "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs have been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." This is the scriptural basis by which the revolution recruits, not because we defend ourselves.
It does not take much research – simply google “Islamic revolution” and one finds the source of the extremism - The Grand Supreme Ayatollah of Iran. This Ayatollah is the dictator of Iran and he is the progenitor behind the continuing foreign policy mandates of Khomeini. That is atrocity by proxy and asymmetrical warfare by a revolutionary guard. The Ayatollah has warned that he, “. . . has 40,000 martyrs ready to die.” His puppet president, Ahmadinajad has mused out loud that “It is possible for “a world without the U.S.,” in one speech, and in another the incineration of Israel.
Should this mullah, who sends terrorists all over the world, be allowed to possess 2.2 pounds of highly enriched uranium, our freedom will be up to him. He is by selection a revolutionary, selected by a Revolutionary Counsel. It is with his blessing that his puppet President Ahmedinejad promises our demise.
There are foolish people among us who underestimate and stereotype Arabs. Nevertheless these revolutionaries are clever; the Arabs invented chess and our very number system. Of course Iran will not engage us directly, but through proxies. Despite them being called “tiny” and “no threat” by a presidential candidate, given nuclear weapons we can be coerced by subterfuge. If we just let them do what they are doing, we will leave up to them whether our children will face Kamikaze nuclear attacks.
George Bush realized this sad fact after 9/11. Thank God he did. Penetrations of spies from both the Afghan and Iranian border are making possible the replacement of this reckless regime that believes in the most incredible acts of barbarism the world has ever seen.
None of us thought there was a significant threat until 9/11. Certainly Carter did not, Reagan did not, Clinton did not, and Bush did not, until that fateful day. There are many Americans who still refuse to see this threat as morbid. Even as the dictator of Iran has 9,000 centrifuges making the fuel for Armageddon, there is denial. Traces of weapons grade uranium were reported there a year ago April by the IAEA!
To conclude that Islamic revolutionary activity will contain itself by some mystical barrier requires incredible mental gymnastics. It is not wisdom. It is rationalization and prevarication enabled by denial. It leaves liberty vulnerable. This head-in-the-sand mentality thinks the Jihad will somehow contain itself. They blame GW for the Jihad even though it began long before the invasion of Iraq.
Consider this AP report, just one of many to report this disturbing news:
.
Deposing before a Congressional Committee on Homeland Security on April 2, Charles Allen, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the director of Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence for the Department of Energy testified before this key Congressional committee on nuclear terrorism. Mowatt-Larssen divulged information about a prototypical Al-Qaeda nuclear attack plot. ''The nuclear threats that surfaced in June 2002 and continued through the fall of 2003 demonstrated that Al-Qaeda’s desire for a nuclear capability have survived their removal from their Afghanistan safe haven,'' he said. Observing that the Al-Qaeda’s nuclear intent remains clear, he said it obtained a fatwa in May 2003 that approved the use of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleyman Abu Ghayth declared that it is Al-Qaeda’s right to kill four million Americans in retaliation for Muslim deaths that Al-Qaeda blames on the United States. ''Osama bin Laden said in 1998 (emphasis mine) that it was an Islamic duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” (Why?) Dr. Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate for the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's School of Government said if a bomb goes off there would be blackmailing tactics from these terrorists' organizations.
''One has to recall that the moment after a nuclear bomb goes off, someone -- either the perpetrator or another terrorist group -- is going to call up and say, ''I've got five more, and they're already hidden in U.S. cities, and I'm going to start setting them off unless you do X, Y and Z.'' And one bomb having just gone off, they will have substantial credibility,'' he argued.''The prospect for panic, uncontrolled mass evacuation of our cities, economic chaos and disruption is, I think, very great.”Gary Ackerman, research director for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland said the efforts of non-state actors seeking to . . . “acquire and use nuclear weapons are growing in size and scope.”''Jihadists have, since the mid 1990s, made at least 10 statements advocating the possession or use of nuclear weapons, and there have been at least a dozen reports of jihadists' attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, fissile material or technical knowledge,'' he said.
Because of the potential for blackmail, just one detonation has the ability to coerce our military – a standing army. The Founders warned us about standing armies; they studied the history of standing armies. The Founders recommended “well regulated militia;” a standing army can coerce its own population. But we have ignored their wisdom and demonized by political correctness the very word: “militia.”
If nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and it is; the people must have a check on their leaders. Mothers of democracy teach their children to build careers not bombs, tolerance rather than a culture of violence and death. Given proliferation, there is no other viable strategy offered by anyone. Give women the vote and there will be peace.
I am continuously astounded at the ability of democracy to discourage militancy even when it is in self defense; our own democracy is a case in point. At the end of the day we all want peace. Because of the right to speak, assemble and vote, democracy cannot sustain violence for long. No democracy is feared even if they have nuclear weapons. This is the only hope for victory in this terrible war.
We can lose this war; that is the difference, and it is why I write. Nukes, in the hands of a dictator who believes that he is on a mission from God, are untenable. Dictators who support Jihad can never be allowed to control these terrible weapons. If a revolutionarily imam dictator get these things, we are highly vulnerable to their secret passing and use by stateless terrorists. The enemy of Iran’s enemies is their friend. The objective is the destruction of the West. They will plot and conspire together. Jefferson spoke of intrigues; foreign intrigues are nothing new.
It is true that Iran could secretly share nukes with Hezbollah, al Quaeda the Taliban and their ilk. But more likely and much more devious, as there are no requirement for Iran to actually give up control of the weapons is for Iranian agents to execute a surreptitious Kamikaze attack. All states will deny attribution.
And indeed, collusion will have determined which stateless group accepts and embrace public responsibility. The moment can not be characterized too melodramatically. Imagine the news report complete with video of the mushroom cloud in the distance. Hopefully it will be at sea. The panic that would ensue would rock the very foundation of this nation. The public will demand retaliation but we will have no location for Command and Control. There will me mass confusion and finger pointing. Only then will the profound consequences of our present denial be clear to all. Only then will it become apparent to all that we have no way to retaliate against a terrorist cabal. Suicide delivery by stateless warriors destroys the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Immediately those who have come to hate him will continue the denial and blame George Bush for the bombing. They will continue the denial that this revolution has been conducted since 1979 and the denial of 9/11. After all, Bush “the liar” chose to go to war; he pissed off crazy people! But the revolution was in motion long before President Bush.
Defending oneself usually kicks up the violence. The alternative is to watch Iran consume the Middle East and then wait for them to come here once again, only this time with nukes. The scenario is likely if we stand and watch them gather enriched uranium. I call it “plausible nuclear coercion.” But it would be argumentative at that point. Our own authorities will enforce Islamic Law after “Plausible Coercion.” The argument is moot; the authorities will have no choice. The orders will come from the top down - not very comfortable to contemplate.
What I call the “Katrina Precedent” mocked the Civil War Era, Posse Comitatus Act that GW obeyed and thus hesitated to assume authority over Louisiana. Because of this precedent, federal officials can now override state officials – very dangerous to freedom. It staggers my mind what implications this will have, after the “Plausible Coercion.” Previous to this, only in matters of national security could the feds override state officials. And the masses will think: Better Islamic than atomic-ed.”
Please, in all humility tell me why these things are not plausible and relieve my trembling soul.
Have you seen the bloodletting of the Taliban? And how shall this generation be judged after the loss of freedom, women disenfranchised, homosexuals hanged and adulterers stoned to death? I think a man like you knows the answer. I suppose we can argue about it now, but I visualize myself in the court comprised of our descendants, and I want to be acquitted of being the one who was idle, or worse, an opponent to the struggle.
Should there be a first detonation, we will not know where Command and Control is. And the forces of coercive capitulation will be as strong as they were for the Imperial Japanese military. They had no way to respond to Truman’s attack. Unlike them we will have the capacity, but without retaliation coordinates the result will be the same. It would be the Islamic fascist dream to capture the most powerful military in the world to advance the Caliphate.
During the Soviet nuclear threat, we would speak of ICBM throw weights and MIRV capability. But we knew where Russia was; we could retaliate. Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies because a stateless shooter is effectively invulnerable. Today missiles are unnecessary and neither is importation; small watercraft can carry a nine foot by two foot Hiroshima style bomb. Explode one on any shore, even at sea and coercion begins. It seems incredible to be living an Ian Fleming novel and Goldfinger or SPECTER (a cabal) is about to get The Bomb, but look alive.
This war is a different beast; should we default we can lose. The evidence and the fiend are incinerated with the blast; attribution to a state will be difficult. We cannot bomb everyone.
Because of this paradox, the time is right for freedom. Again, we fear no democracy for it breeds peace. The strategy: Terrorists will disappear into the safety and abundance man finds in democracy. To be safe in a nuclear world we must rid the world of tyranny, kings, despots and dictators.
The evil released by Truman with the nuclear coercion of Japan, took just two blows. Today it will take only one because now the world knows that without the ability to retaliate, the victim is defeated. Japan capitulated and surrendered their powerful military to Macarthur without a shot fired. Yes, there was an occupation; but when one thinks about it, there was no need. The tremendous coercive capacity of atomic weapons would have them do anything commanded to prevent another blast.
Truman required that Japan adopt a virtual clone of our Constitution. And look at them now; there is no interference in Japan’s affairs. They are unabridged friends. We would not fear them even if they acquired nuclear weapons. Why? Because of a constitution, no violent man rises to leadership by the gun; the people have the power reserved to them by representation and the vote. And this is the legacy of republican democracy - freedom. It is essential in the Age of the Atom.
To have any hope of winning the war there must be a rejection of the denial that nuclear coercion is plausible, credible and even likely should we revert to isolationism as some propose that we do. To escape the consequences posed by suicide nuclear terrorism, we must recognize first that the enemy’s strategy is to blind us by empowering amorphous stateless groups like Hezbollah who will coerce us with the threat of a second detonation - checkmate from the people who invented chess.
A house divided cannot stand. The credibility of the Commander in Chief is critical. To attack the credibility of our own leadership is suicidal. We are dividing ourselves behind the notion that our Commander in Chief is the opponent. The President has been impeached not by evidence or Congress, but by hyperbole such as “Bush is a war criminal, liar, butcher, Nazi, etc.
But George W Bush did not start this war; he is not the enemy. Demonized and inhibited by divisiveness and backbiting, his reputation is smeared and accomplishments obscured by slander and liable. Nevertheless the president has wisely moved the battlefront from NY, PA and VA to the Middle East. And because Iraq surrounds Iran together with Afghanistan, militarily the move is sound. At the same time, America has managed to free 60 million souls and create friendly countries in the most volatile region of the world. How much more could have been accomplished with unity?
I challenge those with real evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors; let’s see it and let it be vetted. Other than opinions without substance, impeachment rhetoric is allegation without fact and accusation without charge. It is divisive and hobbles the war effort. Thank God those in touch with reality can see this ominous specter rising in the east.
The majority has spoken; GW was elected twice. Derived from democracy, the Commander in Chief is critical to our defense, especially in war. But not accepting the democratic decisions of November 2000 or 2004, people who call themselves “Democrat” have disowned the CIC chosen by democracy – the ultimate hypocrisy. They tear this country apart in the gravest of moments. I pity those who do it for the gain of power.
First, to advance that the Commander in Chief is a liar because there were no WMD, assaults the intellect. It is like calling the weather man a liar for rain. If Bush was a liar, indeed, we would have found WMD a long time ago – if you know what I mean. The intelligence director chosen by the previous president called WMD a slam dunk and does to this day confess he and the world intelligence community agreed. GW never said there was WMD; demonstrate to me otherwise. One cannot. And yet, GW Bush is a liar? It is appalling during war time. But verily, the lie that Bush is a liar is a lie, and thus the liar is condemned by his own judgment.
Dissenters charge that a proactive invasion of Iraq is a violation of international sovereignty. But I submit that Hussein’s Articles of Surrender under Desert Storm gave us the right to enforce surrender terms. And after numerous and consistent violations and 12 UN resolutions over twelve years of trying to get Hussein to conform to those Articles, give testimony to international judgment. I would also suggest that Hussein’s attempted assassination of a sitting president is a direct act of war. Hussein’s use of WMD and potential for WMD was only one issue.
Impeachment advocates also name the failure to provide writ of habeas corpus to terrorists at GITMO. In answer to them, I say read Article 1, Section 9, Clause Two, of the US Constitution.
To those that cite the Patriot Act, I say it has no victim. And, so far, the ACLU cannot find a plaintive. The act passed both houses of congress twice. Congress can change the law if it had the will; it does not. Congress would be blamed should attacks recommence after such an irresponsible action as removing the right to tap terrorist phone calls as they come in.
Congress cannot usurp the Executive and tell the Commander of the armed forces what to do, as some rhetoric implies they can. It cannot micromanage the military. Separation of Powers must be recognized; Article 2 of the US Constitution gives the Commander in Chief designation to the President not congressmen. Congress can remove the funding for the war but it elects not to do so because it fears the truth will be revealed about how many of us really want to lose the friendly democracies we have brought to the Middle East.
History will show that GW was the first to take significant action against Islamic revolutionary fanatics. He knows that democracy can end nuclear fear; he knows it is the only viable solution. The cost of war is always far too great; but it is miniscule compared to the price of complacency.
There is no evidence he is not a good and honorable man who does what he says he is going to do. There have been errors committed but he has done an outstanding job with limited affect on our freedoms here at home. Attacks have soared all over the world while we have been free of terrorist violence. He is precisely the leader we need as the minority becomes shrill in promoting complacency, isolation and a pre 9/11 mentality. GW does not stick his finger in the air and obey whining dissenters. Opponents are furious at this essential aspect of leadership.
I believe it is heresy to call oneself “democrat” yet claim certain people are not worthy of democracy. The majority has spoken in Iraq; they have dipped their fingers in the polling station inkwell. They are our friends. Yes, they are still not strong and if we left they would soon succumb to the Iranian inspired insurgency. It is only a small minority of thugs who kill these purple fingered democrats. These terrorists hide behind the innocent of new born freedom. But they cannot do this for long in a stable democratic country. It will take a few election cycles for the people to elect better leaders. But democracy breeds peace.
I know that the anger and enmity towards GW is palpable and Bush-bashing common. I was disappointed to hear this personal attack from such an eloquent and influential man. But the majority felt the same way toward Lincoln in 1863. That does not mean those who think the Commander in Chief is wrong are right. It certainly does not mean that all the opposition thinks monolithically that we must leave Iraq.
Here is why and this is my prediction: Even though some say that all those who disagree want us to pull out of Iraq, the 66% who disapprove of GW are split in two factions, those that disagree because GW goes too hard, and those that think GW goes too soft, one that believes we are in a war of serious consequences and another who sees no need for hostility. These factions will diverge in the general election. That is profound.
In my view, neither faction realizes the gravity of the divisiveness.
Still, GW does have 30% approval of the people, who I believe are correct. Some of that faction supports him because they respect democracy; he was reelected after the invasion of Iraq. But I suspect that the great majority of that third of our population fears that if we revert to isolationism, it is only a matter of time before the enemy returns to face our children with nuclear Kamikaze warfare. I embrace that conclusion whatever people choose to call me.
However they mock me, I see the answer to nuclear proliferation as democracy; and democracy alone. If that requires being called names, I accept my fate. Call me “neo con” if it makes one happy. It is just ignorance. I embrace it if it means I want freedom for the masses.
I am by scholarly definition a classical liberal - one who believes in liberty enforced by the rule of law with representation. Now, if there were no such thing as nukes and their delivery by suicide bomber, the Islamic Revolution would be nothing more than atrocity. We should be so lucky.
There is some risk at being outspoken. There is no question that they have sent warriors here.
I am among the very few that are active for democracy. I have lived a long and prosperous life. I don’t have a lot of time left. I do not fear for myself. But I am afraid for my grandchildren’s liberties and those of posterity - your grandchildren and their grandchildren. I am a democrat and therefore I embrace democracy. To bring freedom to those suffering under tyranny is the noblest goal of all. And it is necessary in the age of the atom to bring tolerance and peace with liberty.
Arabs are upset with our support of Israel. But we must question: Are we to be coerced from supporting Israel? And would radical Muslims quit attacking Americans if we completely abandoned our allies there? A study of Islamic revolutionary rhetoric and the history of it since 1979 show otherwise.
McCain was corrected by dissenters for “repeating” the falsehood that Shiite and Sunni are enemies. But both Sunni and Shiite have attacked western interests and both are carrying out jihad against the West, sometimes in tandem.
The Arizona Republic Apr. 18, 2008 reports:
“Indeed, the critics of John McCain who contend the GOP candidate is "mistaken" in his comments linking the Sunnis of al-Qaeda to the Shiites of Iran would do well to re-read that report the (the 9/11 Commission). It includes, in Section 7.3 under the heading "Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al-Qaeda," the following: "Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures after (Osama) bin Laden's return to Afghanistan."”
With the history of Jihad, can we rely on the fact that they will not use atomic weapons offensively? Do we not believe what they repeat over and over? Can one leave liberty in the hands of a tyrant, a religious bigot and fanatic mullah? And, if there is an attack, where can we retaliate if bin Laden takes the credit for a detonation? Afghanistan – Pakistan? That is where we think he is.
This is the plausibility conundrum we face. And I ask, how shall you answer your descendents when they ask you if you did all you could do? When the purple fingers of democracy were weak will we let democracy die in its crib?
I am not saying that the Commander in Chief should not be criticized for error. I merely ask to suspend sloganeering against the President during apocalyptic times. “Impeach Bush” is an opinion. If there is “real” evidence of high crimes, I say back it up with evidence in an adversarial court with defense and counsel. Put up or shut up.
I do not agree with the aspersion, if I heard you right, that “If they can impeach Clinton for a tryst, we can sure impeach that bastard.” In my mind the use of the term bastard is simply a slur designed to demonstrate enmity. I am sorry for that because your ancestors will honor this man in a way most of us do not yet realize. Your opinion saddens me and makes me believe somehow you have the wrong information.
We can agree to disagree. My point is that the repetition of propaganda, although having no effect on me, will no doubt have an effect on others It is obvious that you are a respected and influential man. I say this in sincerity and respect.
I make no accusations of patriotism; are we not all patriots? Anyone is entitled to say anything in a constitutional democracy. But we must consider carefully of the value of unity during time of war. Rhetoric designed to damage the Commander in Chief obviously has its price. In my view, it is unwise at best.
Walk into the hallowed ground of the Jefferson Memorial, and you can see words cut in marble as big as one’s head that declare: “I swear eternal hostility to tyranny over the minds of men.” He did not say American men; his mind was far too great.
And yet we who believe in this goal are called “Neo-cons?” Well, let them have their witty pejorative. But it is simply clever sloganeering meant to slander, mock and condescend to a political view that promotes the progress of liberty as the solution to nuclear war – for all time!
We must be united. I implore you to join us; fight with your pen; start writing to media and whoever you can to support democracy. Persevere until Americans are united behind freedom. It is the solution to the madness regardless who is president. Call talk shows and email. Tell people that the only solution to nuclear fear is the purple fingers of freedom. Tell them that democracy is essential in the Age of the Atom. Forward the video I have produced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSptuRgSXoM
If I were John Lennon, my tune called “Imagine” would sing of a world with hundreds of states, all of them because of democracy as friendly as our own fifty. Democracy can do it.
With great affection and respect,
Neil
Friday, June 6, 2008
It is strange to be in the middle of an Ian Fleming novel and SPECTRE (a cabal) is about to get The Bomb. A cabal is a conspiracy of men who are out to take over a government. Yes, it is strange to be living in a state of mass denial and Kamikaze nuclear warfare is about to become a plausible reality. It is strange but yet here we are. George Bush is to not to blame. We are lucky that he is not in denial.
“Ayatollah Khomeini” and “Islamic Revolution” googled together shows that this Islamic priest took over Iran by force in 1979, created a dictatorship and started an international Islamic revolution. Iran is now fighting a proxy revolution to convert the world. It plays slight of hand as it grows wider, and soon the Jihad will have nukes. We can deny it, but it is what the revolution says while their centrifuges enrich uranium.
The Jihad goes by many names, but the Ayatollah commanded Arabs to unite in Jihad. And if there is a Kamikaze attack, even intercepted at sea, the panic will be unbelievable as the public suddenly realizes the difficulty of guarding every shore from small boats carrying Armageddon.
If they manage any detonation, Hezbollah or al Qaeda et al will send us an electronic message accepting responsibility. The profound impact of our denial will then become apparent. We do know not where command and control is!. The implication is ominous.
Cornelius 05/06/08
“Ayatollah Khomeini” and “Islamic Revolution” googled together shows that this Islamic priest took over Iran by force in 1979, created a dictatorship and started an international Islamic revolution. Iran is now fighting a proxy revolution to convert the world. It plays slight of hand as it grows wider, and soon the Jihad will have nukes. We can deny it, but it is what the revolution says while their centrifuges enrich uranium.
The Jihad goes by many names, but the Ayatollah commanded Arabs to unite in Jihad. And if there is a Kamikaze attack, even intercepted at sea, the panic will be unbelievable as the public suddenly realizes the difficulty of guarding every shore from small boats carrying Armageddon.
If they manage any detonation, Hezbollah or al Qaeda et al will send us an electronic message accepting responsibility. The profound impact of our denial will then become apparent. We do know not where command and control is!. The implication is ominous.
Cornelius 05/06/08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)