Chicken Farm

You have to wonder, deep down, what folks like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Rosie really wanted to happen this weekend in New York.

I mean, think about it. From all of the rhetoric of the antiwar left, we've got to believe that George W. Bush and the U.S. millitary are the terrorists, right? That 9/11 couldn't have really been caused by Islamic Fundamentalists who hate anyone who isn't an Islamic Fundamentalist, especially Americans. And so the thwarted Kennedy plot was probably just that a$$ Bush offing some innocent people who maybe pissed off his big oil buddies, right?

How can you go through things like this weekend and NOT believe that we need to be now, more than ever, involved in the global War on Terror?

Truly, though, I think we have been a little too PC in this whole thing. The "war on terror" is one method to describe the current international conflict between millitant Islamic fundamentalism and the rest of the world, especially Western Democracy. Why does millitant Islam hate Western Democracy? Well, Western Democracy is made up of two very divergent and opposed ideologies: namely, what remains of Christian Rationalism and Modernist Liberalism. Millitant islam hates Christian Rationalism because, of course, millitant Islam hates Christianity. It hates Modernist Liberalism because Modernist Liberalism is decadent.

This is not all that dissimilar to the conflict that occured at the nation's founding. What remained of Catholicism (i.e. France) was in conflict with the Biblical Christianity/Rationalism alliance, represented by England. Our little war of revolution was just a small part of that bigger conflict, just as Iraq, for example, is a smaller part of our larger conflict today. To miss this is to completely miss reality.

A parting shot.

Cindy Sheehan is going home.

I've always given my support to freedom of speech, even when I disagreed with it. I have always supported Cindy Sheehan's right to get out there and display her beliefs. As long as free speech doesn't mean violence or subversion, I'm quite glad to hear that there are a variety of voices out there. Even when others say things I don't like, I see it as an opportunity to express my own views.

Now, on her way out of public life, Cindy Sheehan has exercised her freedom of speech once again to say something quite interesting:

""Goodbye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I cant make you be that country unless you want it."

You see, I've said before that antiwar folks very often just hate America. When I say something like that, everyone else gets up in arms and says "you can't question my patriotism just because we disagree!" Historically, I've backed down, because I really am not comfortable challenging someones motives. I can challenge their beliefs or actions, but motives are internal, and between them and their God.

But when someone like Cindy Sheehan puts it all out there, you've got to wonder: how many people on the left really do hate America, and feel like it has to be made into a better country through things like protest? Cindy Sheehan will do a lot more towards making America better now that she's going home, trying to mend her family ties and, one hopes, become a hard-working productive citizen.

UNITED we stand.

I knew then, on September 15 of 2001, when I first saw the goofy liberals printing "United We Stand" bumper stickers that the waves of emotion would eventually die down and they would return to their American-hating ways. I knew they'd wind up accusing Bush of warmongering, even though war in Iraq was over a year and a half away. I kept silent, because I believed that I should have given them the benefit of the doubt.

Boy, was I wrong:



You see, the fact of the matter is that good politicians say things that are politically expedient. I know that should seem obvious, but sometimes I forget. You know, like when our country was attacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists. Does anyone out there on the left remember that?

I believed then (naively, it would seem) that just because people like John Edwards didn't agree with me on most political issues didn't mean they didn't love their country, or that they wouldn't prefer their own country to their country's enemies. But to declare how united we are in the midst of the crisis, it would seem, was just another bumper sticker for John Edwards.

O'Reily knew it then. This is one of those times I wish he'd been wrong.

What the Brits Don't Get

Tony Blair has suffered major political fallout for his willingness to stand up against Sadaam's regime of terror. As such, we know that the UK is pulling troops out of Iraq, and won't be there much longer at all. In the minds and words of many liberal anti-war activists, being in Iraq only makes the UK a target for terror. So, if the UK pulls its troops from Iraq, terrorists will not target the Brits.

But the don't get it. Radical fundamentalist Islam is, at the end of the day, a movement that attacks based not on a demonstration of strength, but a demonstration of weakness. The Iranians capturing British soldiers, detaining them, and, one assumes trying them and eventually killing them (if London doesn't do something drastic). No, this move to take troops away from the War on Terror only makes the UK look more vulnerable.

The same thing happened with the train bombings in Madrid. It was obvious that Spain was on the edge about whether or not it would stand up against these thugs and murderers. Radical Muslim extremists blow up a train and the next thing you know Spain is out, AND they have a new shiny socialist government.

It's the same thing that Bin Laden figured would happen on 9/11. It's been well publicised that Bin Laden saw the U.S. as a "paper tiger" that would fold under pressure. But, the opposite happened, at least initially. And thank God for George W. Bush's steadfastness in the war on terror, too.

Of course, now the Democrats in the house are trying to fulfill Bin Laden's prediction, if a bit late. They are demanding we get out of Iraq, and are, like much of the rest of the world, demanding that a millitary solution to Iran's nuclear crisis be taken off of the table.

Look, appeasement didn't work when we tried it with Hitler. It didn't work with Stalin, either. These maniacs don't respond to guestures of kindness; they only respond to a show of force. If we back out of Iraq and refuse to disarm Iran of its' nuclear program, that will send a clear signal to the terrorist organizations, as well as rogue states, that we don't have the will to see it through. We will have many more 9/11's, and eventually one of them will be nuclear.

I would love to blog about something other than Hillary

But when she declares that she'd keep troops in Iraq just weeks after telling Bush he'd better get the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, I can't let it go.

One of two things is going on here: Either Hillary just says whatever the hell she feels like saying depending on her audience or the direction the wind is blowing, keeping her real agendas secret, or maybe 2 + 2 really does equal 5, as long as Hillary says so. In the end, the logic of her position demands it..

The Lunatic Fringe

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

Now, I don't know who the editors are at the Las Vegas Review Journal, but it is nice to see that someone else out there gets it. I mean, for crying out loud, if Republicans had sworn off every left-leaning media outlet, there would be no White House press corps.

What is it that these nutjobs at Moveon.org are afraid of? They claim that Fox News is not a legitimate media outlet, yet the bureaucratic mouthpieces of NPR and PBS are somehow direly needed. Moveon.org claims to want NPR and PBS to be free of "partisan meddling," but they just don't get it: ANY outlet that is controlled by government is, by its very nature, partisan.

It's like the same loonies that think that funding elections publicly will remove corruption from the process. Hello? Is there any government-funded program that is not inherently prone to corruption? These dingbats disparage our Armed Forces during a time of war, and seek to defund our mission in Iraq.

Look, I'm all about liberty. Really, I am. I believe that we get the government that we deserve. But the fact of the matter is that there are a hell of a lot of really, really stupid people out there on the left, and they've got a much sexier message than those of us on the right.

After all, what sells better to the working class: "We want to raise your wages through the force of law," or "if you work harder to improve your station in life you can?"

The truth isn't always easy, and it isn't always popular, but it is still the truth.

Why the Dems want a timetable

Democrats want us out of Iraq. That's not news. A millitary withdrawal would make for the ultimate black eye on any administration. Just ask LBJ's ghost, he can tell you all about that.

But, this timetable thing is especially interesting. Hillary, of course, previously said that Bush shouldn't leave Iraq for his successor to clean up. That would mean, then, that we should be out of Iraq by January of 2009, right? Nope. The Democrat timetable for the pullout of Iraq is August, 2008. Why?

It is simple. The Dems don't want the war on terror to be an issue in the 2008 campaign. The fact of the matter is that, unless Lieberman decides to run for prez as a Dem, they don't have one candidate on the block that is strong on defense. And the Republicans are overflowing with them. And, while I don't personally like McCain because of his encroachment on free speech (which was initiated and executed by the Democrat Feingold, by the way), you damn well better believe I'd rather have him at the helm during war than Barry or Hillary.

The Democrats know it. Even if support for the war is at an all time low, none of their candidates can get elected if we've got troops deployed in an active conflict zone.

This is also, by the way, the same reason the Dems want to negotiate with a guy who denies the holocaust ever took place. God forbid that we should be in active conflict with Iran in August of '08, just three months before the presidential elections.

What's wrong with this country is what's right with this country

So, the other night, I was writing a blog post on some nutbag professor who seems to be guilty of treason. My wife, who conveniently sits at the computer next to mine, was doing something else. Just as I finished my post, she turned to me and said, "Well, they finally buried Anna Nicole Smith."

I stared blankly in the pretentious way I'm known to do and I said, without thinking "You know, you are what is wrong with this country. We're in the middle of a war, and our college professors are giving training manuals to our enemies. But somehow, it still matters to you where some dead celebrity is buried!"

Just this morning, she started speaking to me again.

I've had a lot of time to think about things while I was getting the silent treatment, and I think I've figured something out. Maybe, just maybe, it's not all that bad to be concerned with Anna Nicole, or with Paris, or Britney, or TomKat or whatever the flavor of the day is. Even in a time of war. These kinds of distractions are, in some way, a nice little fanciful escape from the cold hard reality that surrounds us. It may well be that we need these kinds of stories to keep us sane at times.

Add something else into the mix. America is the one place in the world where you don't, for the most part, have to worry about the Government running your life. Sure, there are incursions that we strive to beat back every day. But we still enjoy a relative amount of liberty in the United States. Our obsession with Anna Nicole, while a sign of our decadence to the parts of the world that hate us, is in some ways a representation of our freedoms. We have a right in the United States to escape from the serious issues every now and again, or even to not give a flying crap about the serious issues.

However, I have to agree with Drew: it's not news. It's fark.

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Mike Adams has an interesting piece at TownHall.com today.

It amazes me what goes on in the name of intellectual freedom. Like I said before, there ought to be few limits on the freedom of speech. It comes down to the issues of relatively minor violations of the law (in the case of libel) or relatively major ones (in the case of treason).

So, would you think that someone who provides training manuals and videos to our enemies would be guilty of treason? Apparently not in Ohio. There, they let you teach at Kent State.

This guy needs to be arrested publicly (not in the middle of the night, like the Taliban would do), given a fair trial (unlike what would have occured under Saddam), and given a death sentence (Via a relatively painless lethal injection, unlike Nick Berg's death sentence) if convicted of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Can anyone honestly defend this guy? I'd love to hear anyone try it. Please. Five bucks (via Paypal) to anyone with even a slightly reasonable argument.

Jimmy Carter needs to shut the frack up, and go back to building houses.

I am so fracking tired of Jimmy Carter.

I was four when he was elected president. I still remember sitting in line for over an hour for gas at the height of his presidency. A seven year-old in a 1974 Buick in the middle of summer with no AC is an unhappy seven year-old. I was tired of Jimmy Carter by the age of eight.

I don't remember the hostage crisis, per se. I do remember them getting off the plane after being released, though, and someone saying how great it was that Reagan got these folks home (the conventional wisdom holds this to be true; Iran was afraid of the incoming administration, who they believed would have used force to get the hostages. And they were right to do so.)

Carter's recent book was, of course, more than a little bit of a fiasco. The moment you start comparing Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa, you've gone down a bad road. People are going to get sick of that really really quick.

But here's what is sticking in my craw today. Carter has never believed in the long-standing tradition of ex-presidents shutting the frack up, and once again he's decided that he needs to criticize the current administration. This time his invective is aimed at Dick Cheney (my hero, by the way; he shoots from the hip, political future be damned. He can be honest politically, because he just doesn't care to be elected to anything ever again).

And, just for the record, the Camp David Accords were not Carter's doing. They were a combination of the groudwork laid by Kissinger and Sadat's trust of Kissinger. What's especially telling here is that Kissinger got his nobel peace prize in 1973, and Sadat and Begin in 1978. Carter's was awareded twenty four years AFTER Sadat and Begin.

Since when should any particular diplomatic option be off the table?

It amazes me, truly. What exactly is it that Blair and the democrats (minus Lieberman) in the US think that it is that will stop Amacrazynutjob? Sadaam, for all of his bravado, was more dedicated to Lenin than to Allah. If UN threats couldn't move him, they won't move Iran. Especially if there is no threat of force.

TR would have invaded Iran by now. Actually, if TR had had nukes, there probably wouldn't have been an invasion, but instead the newly liberated Iraq would have a brand new parking lot, albeit a glowing one.

Reagan bombed Lybia (Qadaffi, actually, was the target) for blowing up ONE disco. Lybia now has no problem cooperating with UN rules about WMDs.

We know now that the Iranian millitary has been supplying bombs to terrorists in Iraq on many occasions. Why is Ahmadinejad still alive? I want to see pictures of this clown on my TV either inside of a pine box, or at least with a bruise above his left eye and a blood-soaked turban on his head, just like Qadaffi in 1984.

It's getting scary.

According to some poll, Americans would like to see either Clint Eastwood or Oprah as president.

Dirty Harry (no, not THAT one) I can see, although his radical Libertarianism (Angie would love him!) goes too far, and he's been opposed to the war on terror (Iraq theatre). But Oprah? Say it isn't so.

However, those things pale compared to one little tidbit that goes by almost unnoticed:

Apparently, 27% of people think Hollywood is, politically, neutral. OK, fair enough, a quarter of people are morons. I get it. 42% of people recognize the truth: Hollywood is decidedly left-wing. But here's the really scary thing today: 5% (that's one in twenty for you other humanities majors) of respondants said that most hollywood films lean conservative. Who are these people, and which movies have they been watching?

The vast majority of Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq based on the "faulty" WMD intel. Now, of course, they tell us they were duped by the President, that they never would have voted for the war if they had known that there were no WMDs.

Meanwhile, today, Iranian president Akillinfidelsismyjob admits that Iran is pursuing NUCLEAR (not chemical, not biological, but freakin' NUCLEAR) capabilities. Iran is run by kooks who are far more radical than Sadaam, and probably guilty of even more crimes against humanity than he was.

OK, the question for the day for all of my liberal friends is this:

If democrats supported the invasion of Iraq because of suspicion of WMDs in the light of Sadaam's thumbing his nose at the UN Security Council resolutions, why are they so anxious to prevent any action against Iran?

What do YOU think? Yes or no? Should we give Iran the full-court press, up to and including an invasion?

Tony Blair is an interesting figure.

On the one hand, he is as left as they come in terms of British politics. As leader of Labour, he's going to naturally be to the left of most Democrats in the United States on social issues as well as economics. Yet, he has been a staunch ally of the United States and President Bush in the war on terror.

Until now.

I can't fault the man for falling to political pressure. The fact of the matter is that, if a Democrat in the US had faced the same kind of opposition that Blair has faced in the UK, we'd have been out of Iraq before you could say "fat bloated bastard."

I guess it speaks to the testicular fortitude of George W. Bush that we haven't announced a timetable.

Hillary, however, has.

If you haven't got 'em, you just haven't got 'em.