When idiots speak truths

When idiots speak truths, or: Why Democrats threaten our security

So what was Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden thinking when recently he said that—if Obama is elected—America’s enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months?

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. …Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

If Biden really understands the roots of the Cuban missile crisis to which he is referring, then this quote is startling. Because the missile crisis was trigged by the Soviet military decision to place ICBM missiles in Cuba in order to prevent a US intervention on the island. The tensions leading up to the crisis had been brewing for quite some time, but the Soviets were not likely to interfere until after a crucial historic turn of events.

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 had overthrown the US ally, General Fulgencio Batista. The revolution’s leader, Fidel Castro, and his brother, Raul, had promised to install a democratic government, but instead swiftly imposed a communist dictatorship. President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration had already put plans in place to deal a forceful blow to the fledgling communist government less than ninety miles from the US border. So that when John F. Kennedy replaced Dwight Eisenhower as president of the United States, he learned about the CIA plan to invade Cuba.

Kennedy, being a liberal Democrat, allegedly did not like the plans but he was afraid he would be seen as soft on communism if he refused permission for it to go ahead. Kennedy was also advised that the Cuban people would support the ClA-trained forces once an invasion had started.
Feeling pressure to show that he was tough, he went forward with the plans.

US planes bombed Cuba’s airfields, and merchant ships delivered 1,500 Cuban exiles to the Bay of Pigs. The failure of the plan caused the Kennedy administration great embarrassment and drove Castro to seek a deterrent for future attacks.

According to Elie Abel’s book, The Missiles of October: The story of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet leader Khrushchev met with John Kennedy in June, 1961, and “took Kennedy’s measure.” From that meeting, he “decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions.” His conclusion was that the Americans were “too liberal to fight”. This led Khrushchev to agree to provide Intercontinental Missiles to Castro, which in turn led to the missile crisis.

It is to this that Biden refers. And this is not a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama. America’s enemies—namely the Iranian and the Venezuelan regimes—have gloated over our current economic humiliation, and have repeatedly prognosticated the downfall of the country.

With the Venezuelans making overtures to the Russians and Chinese to bring their military forces into our Hemisphere, and the Chavez regime’s determination to spread revolution across the continent and create a continental army to resist “the empire” (USA), and considering the Russian irritation at American interference in their region (Georgia, Ukraine, Czech Republic), it is not unlikely that one or more of those nations may come to the same conclusion about Obama that Khrushchev did about Kennedy.

There is a key difference between Obama and Kennedy that makes our current situation even more dangerous: Kennedy was a World War II veteran, a commander of PT-109 who had seen combat and was recognized for his valor. Obama is an inexperienced city liberal, with zero experience commanding any army other than community organizers and the fraudulent ACORN voter registration volunteers. He and his Democrat friends have repeatedly insulted the United States military, undermined their morale and their mission. After today’s Democrats voted to give war authorization to the Bush administration, they systematically subverted the effort, gave comfort to the enemy and declared that America had already “lost” the war in Iraq and we should unilaterally pull out.

In short, this ship of Democrat fools has already telegraphed to the world that they are spineless cowards and pro-socialist ideologues who have proven Khrushchev’s theory that Americans are “too liberal to fight.” So, for once, Biden is right.

The village idiot has spoken a truth that should send shivers down everyone’s spine.

Response to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Obama

The most disappointing aspect of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama is not that he supports Obama, but that the reasons he gives are, for the most part, so patently absurd, that it calls in question the intellectual qualifications of a man I once greatly admired.

For example, Powell states that, while he admires McCain, he has “concerns about the direction the party has taken in recent years, it’s moved more to the right than I would like to see it…”
What is absurd about this statement is that McCain is notoriously centrist, and not a far right “radical”. In fact, his moderate stances have alienated him from his party. It is to this that he is referring when he says that he has stood up to his own party and has “the scars to prove it.” So, supporting Obama will do nothing to bring the Republican party to the center. Quite probably, the opposite is true.

Powell had questioned Obama and asked; “do you bring good judgment to the table.” He then states that he watched over this “final exam” of the candidates went through during the recent the economic crisis. “I must say that…in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure about how to deal with the economic problems, and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem…he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.” Secondly, on the choice of Sarah Palin, “I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States…and so, that raised some question about the decision that Senator McCain made.”

To start, I'd like to point out that, at the height of the crisis, I don't remember anyone that seemed sure of what to do. Not the Fed Chairman, not the executives, not the congress...and I certainly do not have any recollection at all of hearing anything substantial from Obama at that time. In fact, he stubbornly continued to promise to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, as if the worst financial crisis of the century were not actually happening. How does that demonstrate having any "grasp" of the economic problems we have had?

By contrast, Powell says that, “on the Obama side…he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity and a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this…and picking a vice president that truly is ready to jump in and be president on day one. And also not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.”

There is irony in this that Powell apparently missed. It was McCain who immediately suspended his campaign in order to try to get Republican support for the “bail out” plan. While Obama continued to enjoy the praise of his cult following, McCain tried to rally the troops.

It is McCain, not Obama, who has it very clear in his mind that the origin of the cause of the crisis lies squarely in the Democrat policies that led to the Community Reinvestment Act. It was the Republicans, led by John McCain (and others), who warned of the imminent financial meltdown, but their efforts at reform were thwarted by Obama and Chris Dodd.

The Republicans are not free from the blame: it was Bush’s support of the continuation of the Community Reinvestment policies through the Ownership Society that perpetuated the momentum toward the crash. It should be noted that this sort of social engineering is not a conservative policy, and should be considered to be additional evidence that the failure of the Bush administration was that it was not conservative enough, rather than—as Powell said—that the party had moved “too far right”.

Powell goes on to criticize the Republican Party again by saying that their approach {in the election} “has become narrower and narrower, while Obama … is crossing lines, racial lines, ethnic lines, generational lines…and I’ve been disappointed about the approach that the McCain campaign has taken… If Mr. McCain says that William Ayers is a washed up terrorist, then why do they make the connections with him all the time? And the party has moved even farther to the right and I have problem with that.”

This is probably one of the most astonishing things Powell could say. It was John McCain who reached across racial lines to try to find a fair and just solution to the immigration issue that split the Republican Party over the past few years. And even Powell cannot deny that there were more minorities in high-level posts under the Bush administration than under any other administration in American history!

As for the accusation that the Republican party has been saying that Obama is a terrorist: that is false.

What the party has been saying is that one can examine the kinds of friends that Obama keeps, and from that draw conclusions about how he actually feels about the country. Obama’s “friends” include the felon John Resco, the domestic terrorist William Ayers, the stridently anti-American and anti-white reverend Wright, among others.

Was that not a reasonable thing to ask?

Ask yourself the inverse, to test the proposition:

What would happen if John McCain had befriended the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph? If he had launched his political career from his living room? If he had written a forward and endorsement for his book?

We would all agree that, given the hypothetical situation I outlined above, it would be very reasonable question McCain’s judgment. So why isn’t it allowed to apply that logical question to Obama?

Because he’s black?

To say that the media has “given Obama a pass” is an understatement. But now even Powell has decided that Obama has somehow demonstrated “good judgment”, in spite of his associations with some very seedy individuals.

It is difficult to take Powell at face value. When his reasoning seems so shallow, so contradictory, we must ask ourselves if maybe—just maybe—Powell was not the intellectual that we had thought. It is possible that Powell was brilliant in terms of military issues and is an intellectual midget when it comes to social and economic issues.

Or, perhaps, he was the intellectual we believed, but now finds himself swayed less by political loyalty than racial loyalty.


Why should we believe that he is picking Obama for any reason other than race? Is that unfair to ask?

When the Democrats constantly attack every white voter who says he or she can’t vote for Obama, when they say that they must therefore be racist, they are drawing the conclusion that the only logical reason why a white person can’t vote for Obama is because of his race.

So why would it not be fair to apply the same “logic” to Powell? Since none of the reasons Powell gave actually make any sense, the only logical inference is that Powell is actually voting for Obama because he is black.

Is Christopher Buckley an idiot, or a traitor?

It’s one of life’s tragic realities: sons of great men rarely live up to their father’s standards.

None of John Lennon’s sons turned out to be much, musically. In fact, none of the Beatles’ kids have made any impact. None of the Kennedy kids have produced anything of note, although they continue to ride on their father’s coat tails. I could go on, but I won’t.

The point I’m about to make brings me to Christopher Buckley, son of the late (and great) William F. Buckley. Bill Buckley was, by all accounts, the father of modern conservatism. He influenced Reagan, who influenced so many others.

Chris Buckley, who proclaims himself to be a “conservative”, announced yesterday that he is resigning from the National Review magazine his father created, and that he now supports Barack Obama’s candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.

He said:

"While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer
have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands
for…Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national
debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy
Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of
breathtaking arrogance.” –Chris Buckley

The stupidity of this comment is shocking.

Conservatism can be divided into multiple facets: Social (or Libertarian) Conservatism, Cultural Conservatism, Religious Conservatism, and Fiscal Conservatism. By all these standards, the past eight years has been a failure of conservative values. It must be recalled that Republicans are not always “conservative”, and John McCain is the poster child of that truism.

But how does one come to the conclusion that, because some Republicans have failed Conservatism, the logical alternative is to turn to socialism?

The eight years of the Bush administration were not eight years of a conservative government. Indeed, Bush’s immigration policies, fiscal policies, military policies, were the antithesis of conservatism. Conservative pundits—true conservatives—such as Rush Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, and Newt Gingrich, have lambasted the Bush administrations repeated failure to adhere to true conservative principals. It was this failure that cost the Republicans control of the Congress in 2006, because they simply would not control spending, reduce government, resolve the immigration policy, and listen to the Generals (instead of Rumsfeld) about when and how to wage a successful war.

It is therefore fair to say that Bush failed to follow or enforce conservative values. So how can you blame the current political situation on conservatives, when the guilty parties are not conservatives at all?

If we are to criticize “entitlement programs” (and please, let’s!), we should note that the worst of these—known as the Community Reinvestment Act—was the result of Liberal Democrat policies. The only failure of Republicans was that they had failed to put a stop to it, and Bush (who is not a conservative) was certainly guilty of having continued the policy as part of the “Ownership Society”. But, Christopher, exactly how will supporting Barack Obama reign in “entitlement programs”? Afterall, this is the socialist who recently said that our tax system should be designed to “spread the wealth around”. That’s hardly a philosophy that Bill Buckley would have recommended!

Regarding the “ill-premised war”, it should be noted that the war authorization was bi-partisan, and that the entire world’s intelligence on Iraq was flawed. As for the war being “ill-waged”, it should be noted that the war went “swimmingly”; it was the peace that was flawed, and it is certainly fair to accuse Rumsfeld of “breathtaking arrogance” that caused it to be seriously (but only temporarily) bungled. Yet certainly the Democrats were no less tainted by their back stabbing, traitorous behavior. It was the Democrats who openly provided comfort to our enemies by publicly declaring that the enemy was winning, the war was lost, and we should just “run away!” like that ludicrous knight from the Monty Python skit.

It is true that Obama opposed the war. But Obama has already promised to sit down—without preconditions—with some of the worst political thugs in the world. It is Obama who claims on the one hand to be a supporter of Israel, while simultaneously palling around with anti-Zionists and promising to meet with Ahmadinejad—yes, that fellow who called Israel a stinking corpse and said it should be wiped off the map. Christopher, how would an Obama presidency make us safer?

As for the “bridge to nowhere”, whose principal sponsor was Alaska Republican Ted Stephens, that pork barrel project was sunk by other Republicans, including John McCain, Tom Coburn, and Governor Sarah Palin. And when it became clear that corruption was rife in Fannie and Freddie, it was Republicans who tried to reform those GSEs, while it was Obama and his Democrat pals who stopped them. Christopher, how will an Obama presidency reduce corruption and resolve our economic crisis?

So, if Chris Buckley actually thinks that he is a true conservative, and that Republicans have lost their way, then he should join the ranks of other conservatives who have been calling for a renewing of the Reagan values that brought greatness to the party for over a decade. Or, he could run for office himself, and try to reinvigorate the party and lead by example.

Contradictorily, he instead runs to embrace the candidate and party who are the exact opposite of the values he claims to espouse. They will not correct the "wrongs" that have apparently driven Buckley away from the Republicans. No, they will instead expand the programs and continue to take us in the wrong direction.

If I were a Christian, and I attended a church, and found out that the Minister was a sinful adulterer, I would not switch religions, I'd switch churches!

The failure that we all lament is not a failure of the creed, but a failure of leaders to stick to the creed. The creed continues to be right, and it is the leaders who should be replaced. But it would be stupid beyond belief to replace the "Christian adulterer" with an Atheist adulterer, and think that the Atheist will provide the moral direction that the minister did not!

The answer, as if it weren't obvious, is to find a virtuous leader who shares the creed you value, and promote him!

Or is it that you never shared the conviction of your father's creed, but instead were simply riding on his coat tails, as long as it gave it you glory, recognition, and power...and now that you sense a change of political fortune, you are willing to adopt any new creed that will give you access to the new power?

I wonder if your Father, in heaven, is not in this very moment lamenting:

Et tu, Brutus? Et tu?

The acceptable hate

I’ve received an interesting commentary—indirectly mind you, the person did not post it on my blog—in response to my post about the Congressional Black Caucus’s involvement in the housing debacle that has helped topple our economy.

Here is the response:

“This kind of malarkey doesn’t even deserve a response. Next thing you
know, Blacks will be blamed for slavery and the Holocaust will be blamed on the
Jews…. What I am saying, if people want to place blame on Democrats then so be
it. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when you start spouting “Black
Democrats” “Jewish Democrats” or “Latino Democrats” etc… that’s when it’s a
problem. When you start placing racial ethnicity in from of the word
Democrat then that is where I have a problem. There’s no such thing
as a Black Democrat. There’s no such thing a Jewish Democrat.
There’re Democrats period. There’s no need to add racial undertones to
politics and government – there’s enough of that already and then some. No
need in adding more fuel to the fire.”

My first response was to re-examine my writing, and see if she was correct. Am I just “adding fuel to the fire”? Is it unfair, when discussing a Democrat’s policy and opinion, to point out their race?

Let me begin this analysis by stating up front my intentions in writing these blogs, especially those that deal with race.

First of all, I don’t consider myself to be a racist. I do not hate anyone for their race, nor do I hate any race of people, nor do I believe in any semblance of “White Supremacy” or any other similar bigotry.

That being said, I am quite sure that some of my beliefs and statements might offend some Blacks. They may very well feel that I am saying something that they think is wrong, a misrepresentation, a stereotype, whatever. I’m open to being corrected or instructed, which is why I have spent so much time reading books about Black History, race relations, etc.

So, why do I feel compelled to write about this issue? Because I am convinced, like Barack Obama and so many others, that the issue of Race is not a settled issue. It is not over, discrimination is still alive and “well”, and we as a country, regardless of our individual race, religion, or political perspective, have to work together to heal this festering wound.

However, I agree with Pastor Madding, the Black minister of ATLAH who points out that Whites have recognized the error of their ways, their policies, and laws that discriminated, and have begun a path toward reconciliation and redemption. I agree with the good Pastor who said that Whites living today know nothing of slavery, were not alive then, and played no part in it. Few Whites living today were involved in Jim Crowe, and a great deal has been done to rectify those laws. Affirmative Action, a policy that resulted from the Great Society, is the most recognized example of this attempt to help Blacks overcome the long legacy of discrimination. The “Ownership Society”—the plan promoted by the Bush administration to help minorities get loans so that they can enjoy home ownership—was another example. In my opinion, both projects failed miserably.

Alright, you may ask. If you really want to help with race relations, why in the world do your posts sound so angry and why do you attack Blacks?

First of all, I don’t attack Blacks. I attack some Black leaders. There’s a big difference.
Second of all, I’m attempting to point out that, as I stated before, bigotry is still alive and well today—but it’s not the kind of bigotry that was witnessed back in the days of public lynching, cross burnings and state-sanctioned discrimination. The form of discrimination today is much more subtle, much more insidious, and can be found on both sides.

What I’m seeing happening now is a new and dangerous movement. I’m not sure Blacks sense it, they may see it as business as usual. But in this period of our history, in which Barack Obama claims to be the first “post racial” candidate—and enjoys a very great likelihood of winning the Presidential election—and while he and his followers claim that Obama will bring America together, my sense is that the exact opposite is happening.

It’s as if Blacks, feeling poised so close to finally breaking through the last great barrier to the most powerful political position in the country (and arguably in the world), are now beginning to vent deeply held resentments and this is showing in a steady stream of subtle, race-based political propaganda punctuated by a periodic release of venomous invective.

I feel compelled to use my blog as a forum to state my opinion very clearly and forcefully about these race issues, because I sense that if the kind of wacky bullshit we see now—race based attacks and innuendo used to shut up white politicians and make whites feel guilty to blackmail them (us) accept policy that is unwise and destructive, then we’re likely headed toward racial conflicts.

Why point out the race of some of these politicians and Black leaders?

• When Black commentator Fatima Ali actually threatens that if Obama doesn’t win the election there will be race wars, they are using race and the fear of violence to sway public opinion. Does her race have nothing to do with it?
• When Black politicians like Cynthia McKinney say that the Department of Defense ordered soldiers to murder and then dump the bodies of 5,000 blacks during Katrina, you can’t say that race had nothing to do with that!
• When Black politicians perpetuate urban legends and distorted history based upon race in order to stoke the fires of resentment, that can’t be ignored.
• When Black congressmen (Alcee Hastings for example) attack White candidates—based solely on the candidate’s race—and try to imply that the White candidates “don’t care about Blacks and Jews”, you can’t ignore that.
• When Black congresswomen Maxine Waters actually defend riots and looting because “they” (the black participants) were “righteous” to take what they wanted and that it should not even be considered stealing—that can’t be ignored.
  

The amount of anti-White attacks, the level of the threats and insults, has increased. The hatred of Whites by Blacks has been excused, rationalized, and accepted, even promoted.

There can be no avoiding the discussion that many of these Blacks feel totally just in hating whites. They feel vindicated in looting and stealing. They have been convinced that they are soldiers fighting against the great White-Devil. And as they get closer to having their first Black president, the feeling that “we’re finally gonna take what’s ours” is apparently growing.
Will American Blacks, when they finally are in power, do to American Whites what Blacks in Zimbabwe and South Africa did to the Whites there? Are they going to wage war on their White countrymen?

Don’t tell me race has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it.