Thursday, June 30, 2005

What Is Being Left - v.7.0...


Approaching the fetid core, what is being Left is ultimately personified by the likes of Professor Ward Churchill. His own words and ideas speak for themselves... as they do for those Liberals and Democrats that support him, sponsor him, and invite him to speak to their sensibilities. Portland's
Independent Media Center, for instance. (HT. Michelle Malkin)

The Denver Post reports on the Professor's recent visit to Portland, Oregon to speak at an... Anti-Military forum? Indeed! What is being Left supports the troops, if they see fit to murder their fellow Americans.

"Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."

His remarks were posted Sunday on the
Pirate Ballerina blog site, which carries mostly anti- Churchill content.

On Wednesday, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly played a tape of the remarks. Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate.

He said that his remarks were being taken out of context and sensationalized in an effort to drive him from his job as a CU professor.

According to the tape, Churchill, while speaking about being a conscientious objector, asked his audience:

"Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

When one of the forum's attendees said that the impact such a fragging might have on the officer's family should be considered, Churchill replied, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"
The context of the Professor's thought process seems to be the solicitation of insurgency. Rather than simply withdraw oneself from disagreeable conflict in protest; in defiance, one might consider joining the U.S. Military with a deliberate intent toward murder and sabotage. This is sensational indeed, but not because of over-imbellishment. Such individuals were once referred to as fifth columnists. Today, their's is no different than the actions of terrorists, with similar motivations and intent as that of a fanatic enemy.

The solicitation of domestic butchers has begun. Today it is a grenade under a barrack. Tomorrow, tangential motivations might drive a car bomb into a Starbucks. That one at S.E. Division has been an especially popular target of violence for some of the very same people in attendance of the Professor's sensational encouragement.

Afterall, what is being Left might very well see the face of 'Little Eichmanns' not only in the being of American servicemen, but also in the faces of my blond-haired little boys playing by that window on a Saturday morning.

Do you agree with this Democrats? The Professor has been speaking on your behalf, informing America of what is being Left.

In disbelief? Jackson's Junction has video. (HT. BlackFive)

See also...
What Is Being Left v.6.0
What Is Being Left v.5.0
What Is Being Left v.4.0
What Is Being Left v.3.0
What Is Being Left v.2.0
What Is Being Left v.1.0

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Silent Frogs...


Matt over at Froggy Ruminations confirms the loss of fellow SEALS in yesterday's helo crash in Afghanistan.

MSNBC Reports 8 SEALs perished in the crash. That is an entire SEAL squad. This is now the largest single casualty incident in SEAL Team history. In Vietnam, 5 SEALs died in a helo crash. I just got off the phone with my father-in-law who was in the Teams when that happened.

He's still waiting to hear if they were more than just fellows. Please stop by an express your support and sympathies.

Matt recommends donations to the Naval Special Warfare Foundation and the Special Operations Warrior Foundation for the benefit of these families.

And do remember those valiant sentries standing guard on the frontier of chaos. Go sign up at SoldiersAngels.



"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of Coalition operations in Iraq — who is also senior commander at this base — General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability — and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying — and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why..."

- President of The United States of America, George W. Bush

(Excerpt - The full text of President Bush's June 28, 2005, remarks on the war in Iraq )

Unfortunately, I missed the President's speech last night. Being that we're still at work at 8pm est on the West Coast, I walked into a meeting just as he came on, and walked out just as news was playing the highlights. By the time I got home, had dinner with the family, walked Calvin and Hobbes, put the boys to bed, shared evening conversation with Mrs. Atos, and put in some study time... sleep followed shortly thereafter. And that is a normal day, with no extraneous surprises.

Parusing my news sources and blogrolls this morning, it looks as though I missed one great speech. The transcripts are good, but I suspect, they don't do the message justice. Despite the pokes, I think this President is a great communicator in his own right. In Texas, we don't need fluff. Just make the point and move on. If some don't get it, make it again. If they still don't get the point, heat up the branding iron.

I see, that from
Nancy Pelosi's reponse to the President's speech, she 'get's it!'

"As the President noted, it is only one year after the return of sovereignty, but it has been 27 months since the President launched his pre-emptive strike. Iraq is now what it was not when the war began - a magnet for terrorism..."

The problem is that she doesn't know it.

"... because the President invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell. The insurgency took root in the unstable conditions that have now existed in substantial parts of Iraq for far too long."

She is correct when she says,

"The American people understand what is at stake in Iraq and in the Middle East..."

Clearly she and and her fellow Democrats absolutely do not.

"That is why it is so disappointing that the President failed tonight, as he has failed consistently since the war began, to lay out specifics for success, including performance benchmarks. "

The President has been profoundly consistent all along. On the Campaign trail last year, The President reiterated the message that has been the basis of America's strategy in the war on Terror from the very beginning:

“We are fighting terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home."
Relate this to his State of the Union speech from 2002.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.
Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature...

... States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

Shazam, Pelosi! Our armed, trained troops are the magnet for terrorists on the frontier of chaos...

...So that our defenseless children are not terrorist's targets on our front porch.

The full transcript of The President's speech can be found here. Great analyses of the President's speech can be read here...
Hugh Hewitt
Captain's Quarter's
Carol Platt-Liebau

Rush has posted several links demonstrating the connecting between Saddam and Terrorism, here, here, here, and here.

Doug Tennapel points out that Lefties are horrified with our success. And they are clearly terrified of America recalling the truth that the War in Iraq has always been about 9/11; for everyone including the terrorists, as the President illustrated with profound clarity:
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”


Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Law & Order...


Going to
PoliPundit by way of Dr. Sanity, one comes across a notably absurd statement by San Francisco Bay Area Demo-Congresswoman, Ellen Tauscher

You know, look, I didn’t go to law school but I have watched Law & Order for ten years, and I do believe we have the rule of law that we are not only, uh, adhering to in the United States as a very strong principle, but we’re also trying to, by the way, interject it around the world. And we need to stand for it. And not only because it’s morally right but because we have our own people at risk if they were captured …

Do let's ignor for a moment the "Law&Order" referential absurdity, in deference to what we have already established about the show and its writers. This statement of Rep. Tauscher is even more revealing...

"...we have the rule of law that we are not only, uh, adhering to in the United States as a very strong principle, but we’re also trying to, by the way, interject it around the world. "

Excuse me Rep. Tauscher, but I would presume that as an intelligent and informed lawmaker, you might recognize the fundamental error of that statement. Freedom, you see, is not derived from a principle of 'The Law." The Principle IS freedom as enunciated by the Declaration of Independence , and and it informs The Law as rendered by the Constitution of the United States in order to promote Order. The Principal that must first be exported is Freedom as a precept. The concept of Law can only follow in its wake and is, in fact, meaningless in its absence.

Try reading one of those documents instead of watching TV.

It seems that Rep. Tauscher's understanding of military tactics and practices is as questionable as her comprehension of fundamental principles. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee member, Representative Tauscher made a recent visit to Guantanamo as part of a 15-member bipartisan House group, reports the San Fransisco Chronicle. She found no evidence of torture or abuse during her visit, suggesting therefore, that improvements had been made...

"My belief is we are running a facility at Guantanamo that has no unlawful activities,'' the Walnut Creek Democrat said Monday after returning from a seven-hour visit Saturday to the prison at the U.S. Navy base. But she said that improvement over widely reported abuses at the prison probably has come about because questionable activities have been moved elsewhere.
and atrocities obviously exported...

"These things aren't happening at Guantanamo because it's gotten too hot for them,'' she said, referring to U.S. authorities responsible for interrogating recalcitrant al Qaeda terrorism suspects captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
Note the third personal plural reference to, "Them." Is it possible, Rep. Tauscher that 'these things' of which you speak, were never being done by "Us" at all. Perhaps she has been watching too much T.V. in this respect as well, believing herself to be the Geneva convention representative at Stalag 17 appearing just in time for the dispersal of mothball flavored blankets and the hamhockless lunch stew. She might review, instead her own Committee's briefings from time to time; especially those concerning Rendition, since she is so concerned about what she did not see at GITMO:

"I'm still troubled by press reports of this new thing they're doing that's outside the scope and reach of the law,'' said Tauscher, a House Armed Services Committee member who made her visit to Guantanamo as part of a 15- member bipartisan House group.

Tauscher said the reports of the renditions, along with earlier stories about mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, have undermined the U.S. effort in the war on terrorism. She said that although dozens of prisoners have been released from Guantanamo, it's time for the United States to allow the remaining Guantanamo prisoners their day in court.

The "New Tactic" of Rendition, as Michael Ledeen pointed out back in January (HT. Belmont Club) is actually an old tactic developed and used by the Clinton Administration.

the most controversial and ethically questionable method of all was developed during the Clinton administration in direct response to orders that came directly from the White House. "Rendition" was a Clinton creation, and was approved by Clinton's lawyers, with no apparent cries of pain either from the Justice Department or from anyone in Congressional "oversight" committees.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Tauscher is certainly in posession of the knowledge of these facts when expressing her criticism of this administration's "new" interrogation tactics. Is she being deliberately deceptive? ... or could she really be that stupid?

My guess is selective indignation with a slathering of hypocrisy. Perhaps there is a sprinkle of stupidity given that she spends her time watching T.V.

Is it possible, Representative Tauscher, the ruthless contracted interrogators with which you and the San Fransisco Chronicle are concerned, are simply a fence away manning a Cuban gulag in that '... country where torture allegedly is a common questioning tactic?' If so, we'll certainly never know about it.

She further notes that,

"Guantanamo has become a lightning rod, a rallying point, for people committed to harming Americans.''
Indeed. Guantanamo has become a rallying point for people committed to harming Americans. Consider yourself included, Rep. Tauscher.

Over the watercooler today, Dueler makes a great point after reading this post. representative Tauscher goes to GITMO on behalf of her concerns about torture and prisoner abuse on the order of Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin according to her Senate Colleagues. She finds no evidence of it, and concludes that those operations have been moved elsewhere. Dueler says, 'Could it be that the accusations were a complete fabrication?'

Sure! Most likely. But, given a congruent situation, Democrats believe that no WMD threat existed in Iraq. Could those weapons have existed and been moved elsewhere (say to Syria) prior to the invasion? No! Absolutely absurd! Of course there wasn't.

Well, could it be that there has been no torture and abuse at GITMO? No! Absolutely absurd! Of course there was.

Given the choice of the benefit of a doubt. Democrats like Tauscher are willing to extend those benefits to world butchers, and this nation's enemies. But, the condemnation of guilt is presumed where America's precious defenders are concerned, even when the evidence to support it is nowhere to be found.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Men Behind The Curtain...


Over at Belmont Club, wretchard has posted a sobering commentary on the man behind the efforts to pressure the closing of the U.S. Military's Guantanamo prison facility in Cuba. The relationships are both overt and disturbing. The focus is on Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-author, with political journalist Ellen Ray, of the forthcoming book Guantánamo: What The World Should Know. Indeed, what the world should know can be revealed by a look behind the curtain of indignation surrounding the Left's continual efforts to undermine America's struggle against Islamic Fascism..

Wretchard cites a Frontpage Magazine article by Rocco DiPippi from June 16th that looks closely at this salacious attorney who is leading the way in recruiting elite lawyers to defend the enemy combatants being interrogated at Gitmo.
But Ratner is a long-time leader of two pro-Communist and anti-American organizations who have for decades have lent aid and comfort to America's enemies in the Cold War and beyond. Michael Ratner is a lawyer who began his legal career in the late 1960s at the National Lawyers Guild, a Soviet created front group which still embraces its Communist heritage. He worked his way up through the NLG’s radical ranks to become its president, then moved on to hold the same position at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which share's the NLG's anti-American radicalism and was founded by pro-Castro lawyers Arthur Kinoy and William Kunstler. Among its many outrages, the CCR has defended domestic and international terrorists, and has honored Ratner's NLG colleague and convicte terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart, a modern Legal Left idol. Since 9/11, Ratner and his comrades have attempted to extend undeserved “civil rights” on Islamist murderers with notable success. On this front, Ratner and the Legal Left have dealt America its few setbacks in the War on Terror.

Enter stage Left another familiar world Socialist,
The George Soros-funded Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundation, and other leftist support groups began heavily funding Ratner and CCR’s anti-Bush, antiwar, anti-American agendas.

Among other affiliates of Ratner, wretchard points to the New People's Army of the Phillipines and its leader, Jose Maria Sison". Jose Maria Sison, as noted in his post, is also the leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Ratner has signed petitions of support for this man and his murderous organization. It is not the first time Michael Ratner has found himself among questionable company in the global struggle between Democracy and Collectivism, as DiPippi further notes.
Ratner’s odd view of “justice” stems from his decades in service to the radical cause. Ratner’s pro-Communist, pro-terrorist views are perhaps best illustrated by his affinity for Cuba’s totalitarian regime and by his love of the man who set up Castro’s KGB-inspired prison system, Ché Guevara. Guevara – who was known for taping his victims’ mouths shut to avoid hearing their screams as he tortured and murdered his way through Cuba – is, despite his real life incompetence, a hero of mythical proportions to the Left. Ratner chose to sing Che’s praises in a1997 book:

…for many of us seeking to change our society, Cuba was a desirable model. And it was Ché Guevara, more than any other figure, who embodied both that revolution and solidarity with peoples fighting to be free from U.S. hegemony…Ché has remained my hero ever since.

Last week, Karl Rove was excoriated by the Left and Democrats in Congress for noting that,"liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'' As I said then, actually, Rove's only error is in his use of the term indictment. The Left is, in fact, preparing the enemy's legal defense. The actual indictment Communists and Socialists like Ratner and Soros have prepared and funded since the 9/11 attacks and prior to the next major enemy attack on this nation... is an indictment of the United States of America itself.

The old 'Cold War' with the Soviets may be over. But, the same kind of men are still behind the curtain organizing America's destruction.

Friday, June 24, 2005

What Is Being Left - v.6.0...

Mr. Atos

Chronicling the concentration of the filth that is what is being Left in the aftermath of the collapse into absolute insanity of modern liberalism, has become an effort of thoughtful consideration. You see, in order that I not come across seeming as rhetorically hyperbolic and unbalanced as they, I dare not relay the raw content of their statements and actions. To the uninformed, unfamiliar with what is being Left (ostensibly because they rely on the Old Busted Media for information) I run the risk of sounding 'unhinged' myself. But,
just review some of the dialog that one finds when one goes "dumpster diving in the fever swamps" of the Left, as Okieboy so rightly puts it over at Okie on the Lam.

But, the juvenile ranting from the mudbanks is far less concerning than the howling coming from the trees. Senator Dick Durbin was merely the most recent example of the concentration of the Leftist fringe among the Democrat party.
His recent condemnation of the U.S. Military as being among the most evil regimes that has ever existed on this Earth, reflected an honest assessment of the sensibilities of what is being Left. Apologies could not be made, because what he said represents the reality of what is being Left. Durbin did not make that obscene accusation to be deliberately controversial. He meant it. His subsequent failure on two occcasions to effect a meaningful retraction of his obscenity illustrates the inability of the Left to comprehend why the majority of this nation (both Democrat and Republican) found it to be so profoundly offensive.

Ted Kennedy yesterday, offered another glimpse of the septic character of what is being Left. His stench has been there all along. Radioblogger has posted transcripts of his statements on the floor of the Senate Thursday as he declared defeat in Iraq, denigrated the efforts of the U.S. Military, overlooked their success, expunged their sacrifices, demonized their leadership and command, fabricated facts, misrepresented information, professed conjecture as intelligence, hurled insult, and offered blanket demoralization from the highest reaches of the American establishment regarding a war against the malevolence that butchered some 3000 of our citizens on our soil on a quiet Tuesday in September of 2001. Ted Kennedy did all of this while inviting the insurgency in Iraq to provide him with a concerto of violence against Iraqi's and Americans alike. Well they did just what Senator Kennedy requested of his surrogates. They delivered carnage this morning to help him punctuate his message of defeat and withdrawal.

What is being Left in Congress has stepped up its attacks of the President, the Administration, Military Leadership, and the Troops themselves in the last few months. Coincidentally so has the insurgency. AP is reporting, convienently, Iraq Car Bombings Kill 580 Since April.

Does it ever occur to leaders like Congressman Durbin and Kennedy, Byrd and Pelosi, Kerry and Clinton, Schumer and Biden that the reason the insurgency is as strong as it ever has been, that the car bomb and suicide attacks happen with greater frequency, that suicidal zealots keep pouring across the Iranian and Syrian borders, that U.S. recruitment is down, that public opinion is low, that Troop morale is waning, that International support is diminishing, that the reconstruction in Iraq is so difficult, the reason that there are fewer Iraqi forces than expected, the reason that Iraqi's are being slaughtered by the thousands, and peace has not yet been established...

... is because they continue to encourage the carnage? Either way they are truly guilty of one of the greatest atrocities in history; out of sheer stupidity or actual malice. Because what is being Left has been filling the killing fields of humanity for centuries to afford them their lust for power and prestige. And whether Kennedy and his cohorts are participating by proxy, or with clear intent, what is being Left clearly needs the blood of the innocent and the valorous alike to paint for them the mirage of their congential kleptocracy.

Over at Froggy Ruminations, Matt is clearly no fan of the closest thing the U.S. Senate has to Baron Harkonnen.
Kennedy himself and his liberal colleagues in Congress are waging an ill advised war against the United States that is most certainly a quagmire. The DNC is dying. Ted Kennedy is a deadender. He is a suicide bomber but his munitions are low order detonations that destroy the bearer and leave only a mess for bystanders to gawk at.

Congratulations again, Matt on the extension of an honorable lineage!

See also:
What Is Being Left v.5.0
What Is Being Left v.4.0
What Is Being Left v.3.0
What Is Being Left v.2.0
What Is Being Left v.1.0

Confiscation, Inc...

Mr. Atos

In her novel,
We the Living, Ayn Rand chronicled in fiction, her recollection of the Communist Revolution in Russia. One sobering aspect of that event was the use of the tactic of property confiscation and eviction as a tool of political retribution. If one was not loyal to the cause, one's home was posessed by the state and was provided to a more affable subject. The previous owners were provided alternate available housing. If they were particularly disagreeable, they were provided no alternative. Do let's be clear that this is not going to be the immediate effect of yesterday's Supreme Court decision, Kelo vs. New London. But the door has been opened to a new realm of dangerous possibilities.

Vodkapundit is considering this along similar lines down the slippery slope,

Imagine this. What if you were in an unrelated fight with your local city council over something. Maybe you had a problem with your kids' school, or a tax dispute, or you were complaining about a dumb law, or you just spilled a drink on some councilman at the local bar. This ruling would literally give them the power to throw you out of your house and put up a strip mall in its place. And that doesn't even touch on the prospects of developers making campaign donations--or outright kickbacks--to local politicians.

As someone who has experience with cities, zoning, permitting and building construction, VP's concern is dead on. The labyrinth of bureaucracy can conceal innumerable injustices. And there is very little recourse in the courts with the SCOTUS decision offering a shield of legal precedent. What is afterall the nature of "public use?" By the time you litigate that semantic conundrum, your home, farm, ranch, business will be demo'ed and regraded... or simply designated a 'Natural Area.' What is to keep Corporations from being established, whose specific purpose is confiscation for public use? Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned about Wal-Mart, Intel, or even Pfizer. Ultimately they must face the wraith of public opinion expressed on the market by the flow of capital. But, Confiscation, Inc. maintains its funtional viability by means of political patronage. And that is a dangerous condition of extra-legal insulation. Justice O’Connor clearly recognized this danger, when writing her dissent:

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings for public use is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property and thereby effectively to delete the words for public use from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent...

...Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.

I'll let the lawyers analyze the details of the ruling and its long-term legal ramifications. Personally I cannot help but wonder how this ruling will be interpretted by cities like Portland, Austin, Boulder, San Fransisco, Seattle where issues of 'social justice' and 'social equity' have become synonymous in the political lexicon for 'public use.'

Read, Conservation Economy: The Architecture of Statism and let your mind linger a bit on the ramifications of yesterday's ruling applied in the context of sustainability... and politics.

For more meaningful analysis, see also:
Institute for Justice
Stones Cry Out
OKIE on the Lam in LA

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Oh Really?!...


Democrats demand a retraction and apology from Rove.

Democrats are drafting a formal letter to the office of the President calling on Karl Rove to retract his remarks and demanding that the President, "immediately repudiate Karl Rove's offensive and outrageous comments.''

According to the Guardian's version of the AP story, (HT: Freeper Tumbleweed_Connection)

Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'' Conservatives, he said in the speech to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.''
My comments to follow. Meantime, the words of Howard Dean, Charles Rangel, and Dick Durbin hang out there in perpetuity as part of the public record and evidence of who the Democrats recognize as "The Enemy."

Ongoing update:

Michelle Malkin punctuates Rove's point as succinctly as possible.

"Apologize? For what? For distilling the fundamental difference between the left and the right's approaches to terrorism in the wake of 9/11."
Radioblogger has the transcripts of Hugh's recent interview with the Erwin Chemurinsky discussing his defense, on behalf of the Left and the ACLU, of the enemy combattants at GITMO. Actually, Rove's error is in his use of the term indictment. The Left is, in fact, preparing the enemy's legal defense.

The reality of the Left's scewed outrage in this matter juxtaposed against their silence regarding Dean's demonization of American Christians, Rangel's ongoing comparison of Bush to Hitler and the War on Terror as a new Holocaust, and Durbin's view that U.S. Military bears a striking resemblance to the Khmer Rouge, is a profound condemnation of the Left's inability to comprehend the danger of the enemy, much less confront it. It confirms everything that Rove has said, and it is about time that more notable Republicans - and please Democrats - say it.


Of course the MSM is all over this, 'controversy.' ABC Radio is covering this story at the top of the hour. Good! So where was their outrage to Durbin's comments - Where IS their coverage of it. The issue are not remotely similar in that Rove's comments lend voice to America's defenders, while Durbin's, Rangel's and now Schumer's lend comfort to America's enemies. We are still waiting for parity from the propaganda engine dedicated to the favor of the political Left as much as Al Jazeera is the mouthpiece for Islamic fascism.


Hugh Hewitt is right, Mehlman bushwacked Congressional Democrats! He and AnkleBitingPundits nail the Left, just as no doubt, Karl Rove intended. Never walk into a box canyon with a six shooter when your opponent commands the high ground with a Winchester.


Okieboy has a good summary of today's dogfight.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Visualize Effective Leadership...


Yes... reflect for a moment on the chimera of effective Republican leadership; or just meaningful representation. Imagine what it would be like, if Washington D.C. Conservatives had a political spine that would both support a sturdy framework from its foundations and convey consistent messages to the body politic. Maybe it could even manage a few punches back now and then. Imagine how effective Republicans could be for this nation if they were as unified and adamant at progress as their Democrat counterparts are at obstruction?

Take for instance, Social Security reform. Today the House GOP is said to have crafted revised Social Security Legislation aimed at averting the pending crisis of insolvency in that program. But, the approach abandons the President's calls for privatization and once again cowers before the rhetoric of Democrats, and the pressure of special interests. According to reports, the new approach refuses to address the interests of younger Americans for more personal control over their retirement investments. It does not deal with the issue of insolvency. It merely avoids the tough issues of reform altogether - curbs on benefits, higher taxes or changes in the retirement age needed to achieve long-term financial stability. The approach seems to merely avoid all conflict (or resolution for that matter) while attempting to appear to address the issue.
Bush got a firsthand glimpse of the difficulties confronting him during the day, when Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, informed him that he intended to introduce legislation omitting private investment accounts funded through Social Security payroll taxes.

Bennett favors the accounts, but has long been considering dropping them from legislation in hopes of prompting Democrats to join in bipartisan talks on steps to shore up solvency.

"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said of Bush. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."

Bennett's bill also includes steps to place Social Security on a stronger financial footing. It would curtail promised benefits for middle-and upper-income wage earners of the future, while protecting benefits for those who made less money during their working lives.

Bush's spokesman, Trent Duffy, told reporters that despite Bennett's plan, the president is not retreating on his insistence for personal accounts.

Clearly, Rep. Bennet is more than a little confused according to the AP story (albeit taken from AP with a salt lick).

Later, in remarks on CNN, Bennett said that while Bush had spoken favorably of steps to achieve greater solvency, he "didn't specifically say, 'And it's a good thing you're dropping private accounts.' Frankly, that didn't come up," said the senator, who supports individual accounts.

Duct tape would be more effective than the silk string the GOP is using to thread a delicate compromise. And yet for all of that concession, Democrats still delivered a firm rejection, coated in the familiar obstinant rhetoric,

Despite the differences from Bush's proposals, Democrats quickly attacked the legislation, which is emerging in different forms in the House and Senate.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a smaller version of a bad idea. That bad idea is private accounts."

"They can twist themselves into any pretzel shape they want," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "As long as privatization is on the table, there will be no compromise on Social Security."

Social Security is not going to fix itself. And Democrats are clearly going to do nothing to fix it. The truth is becoming increasingly clear that Democrats interests are best served by the insolvency and failure of America's economic foundations. The failure of Health Care and Social Security are a quick means to that end. The New Deal ponzi scheme that has help to cultivate a new political aristocracy in Washington will finally break the economic spine of this nation by the time the next generation begins to assume its financial liabilities. A tax burden in excess of 60% for our children will represent an obligation beyond confiscatory altruism. It is slavery... forced labor for the benefit of those in power and the entitlement of degenerate masses.

We can not allow this. Two generations now have the responsibility to relieve the nation of this mortal burden. As I have stated here before:

Do YOU hear me, Dear Benefactors?!

You may ask me to pay for your benefits, because that was the nature of the contract that you had with the People according to the Federal plan.You may expect a limited committment to that decrepit system - ponsey scheme that it was.You may relax now on your expectation of entitlement. But, you may not demand that I conform to your choices when it comes to my life, my future, and the lives of my children. The time for private accounts is at hand, and it is the choice that We want to make. Accept your own slavery to patronage for the peddlers who offer you crumbs for your souls. We, the generation that is poised to wipe your dependent rear ends, will do so gladly for the promise to release our shackles and the indentured servitude of our children when you are passed and forgotten.You have it in your power to be remembered for helping Us make the right decisions when change was demanded. Or you can be remembered for your self-centered cowardice, when our spite becomes the ink for your eulogy.How will you be remembered through Us by the generation that We cherish. The choice is yours now. Make it!

Our children will be forced with the choice to shrug in defiance or submit at the point of a gun. Unless we maintain the fortitude to dissassemble that burden here and now.

Do you here me, Republicans?

Thursday, June 16, 2005

What Is Being Left - v.5.0...


I am speaking again tonight to Democrats as much as Republicans, asking them to contemplate the recent statements and actions of their Congressional surrogates in both houses - Senator Richard Durbin (D. Illinois) and Representative Charles Rangel (D. New York) - and ask yourselves if they represent you, your values, and your viewpoints. Because, I submit that what is being Left is increasingly at odds with the sensibilities of the majority of both the Democrat Party and the people of America.

On Tuesday, Senator Durbin chimed in with his latest denigration of the U.S. Military's actions in the War on Terror. During his recitation on the floor of the Senate of a particular FBI account of the interrogation of one of the 911 hijackers at GITMO - the so-called 20th hijacker - Durbin made the following outrageous observation: (HT. The American Thinker)

"On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ..... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Radioblogger has the actual Durbin audio and transcripts preserving the statements of the absurd Senator from Illinois even as he both stands firm on his point for the benefit of the septic fringe of his party, and tries to weasel out of its notable impact with mainstream America.

Hugh Hewitt notes that Durbin's hyperbolic and quite defamatory comments were quickly picked up by Al Jazeera's English operation, where it surely fuels the propaganda of the enemy in the Muslim regions where trust and impression are as critical as they are fragile.

“Durbin, like Newsweek before him, has handed our enemies a great propaganda victory, one that will echo through the years in madrassas and caves and whispered conversations among would-be killers of Americans. ("Even their highest officials admit they run camps like the Nazis and Pol Pot!" Hit audio.) Durbin is trying to defend his remarks but this pathetic excuse for a legislator can count on blowback for years, especially as word of how his asinine comparison is playing in the radical world gets back to our country.”

In addition, read Hugh's latest Weekly Standard Column "Real Religious Intolerance," and think about this. Congressional Democrats remained mostly silent when Janet Reno, with the full power of Federal law enforcement laid siege to American citizens (Christian ‘Extremists’) in Waco Texas. Those who did speak, defended the tear gas, the blasting of music, and the floodlights. After the Davidians were massacred by the Clinton Justice Department – immolated in the ruins of their home – Democrats defended the incident and the actions of the Federal Government, which had just killed some 80 American citizens. It had massacred American men, woman, and children without due process.

What did Dick Durbin and Charles Rangel say then? Did Charles Rangel call for the impeachment of that President as he
is doing now with this President during one of the most dangerous conflicts in the history of this nation? Do let’s hazard a guess. I’m confident we won’t be surprised as I’m sure that I do not remember any Democrat Congressman compare Bill Clinton to Pol Pot, nor Janet Reno to Joseph Goebbels. Because, what is being Left regards their motives and actions to be supreme beyond scrutiny. And that IS, in fact, the common precept that gave rise to every human atrocity that has plagued man throughout his history. Afterall, what is being Left insists on personally demonizing their political adversaries in order to construct witches for their own pyres, despite the danger it cultivates,...

... for an orgy of true malevolence that may soon be seen.

See Also...

What Is Being Left v.4.0

What Is Being Left v.3.0

What Is Being Left v.2.0

What Is Being Left v.1.0

UPDATE: 06.17.05:12:59

Matthew H. over at Froggy Ruminations takes Durbin and his Congressioanl cohorts to task for this latest obscenity. Hugh shows no sign of letting up until the Absurd Senator from Illinois is centured or resigns.

Meanwhile the septic fringe is proud as punch of their newest treasonous mouthpiece (HT. The Hammer)

Michelle notes that Cheney is weighing in on Durbin and has links to some great posts on this subject.

And don't miss Ralph Peters piece at the New York Post, "Gitmo Cocktail."

"There is a culture of torture in the world. Blessedly, America isn't part of it. When a few of our troops make mistakes, they're punished. Given the magnitude of our task and the unprecedented conditions we face, it's remarkable our errors have been so few.

What should enrage every decent citizen is that the real torturers — from Zimbabwe to China, from Syria to North Korea — get a pass from the political left. If terrorists behead defenseless captives on videotape, it's simply an expression of their culture. But if a handful of U.S. troops play an ugly round of Candid Camera, that's a new gulag.

As someone who takes human rights seriously, I'm appalled by the lack of sympathy the left feels toward the victims of any regime other than the Bush administration. Let's shout it to prisoners everywhere: If you're not harmed by an American, your suffering doesn't count.

The left's hypocrisy is immeasurable. The grandchildren of those who defended Stalin are mortified that Saddam Hussein will stand trial. By taking such irresponsible voices seriously, we grant our critics a strength they otherwise lack and simply help them keep their lies alive.

No matter what our country does, we will never please a global intelligentsia outraged that all their theories came to nothing. We can't satisfy al Qaeda, and we can't please those discontented souls who need to blame the United States for their personal inadequacies. It's time we stopped trying. "

Go back and read 'Sanctuary' by Bill Whittle over at Eject, Eject, Eject, where he too discusses what is being Left in his own very comprehensive and eloquent way.

Finally, OkieBoy asks, " Where are the rebukes to Durbin from the Democrats that haven’t yet lost their souls?" Indeed, where are they? Where is John McCain, a man who can attest to real torture? Where is the media in its typical quest for contoversy?... notably absent when the naked idiot standing on the soapbox is singing their tune.

But really, where are the sensible Democrats of America?... those who may disagree politically, but honor the memory of a century of honorable dead and the horrors that fell them on the frontiers of chaos defending light from darkness... those who vote differently from thier neighbor, but don't hate them... those who are proud of their sons and daughters, friends and relatives manning today's frontier... and those proud people of Illinois who know they may yet see one of their towers fall and several thousand of their children silenced?

Where are those Democrats that have more in common with America than the rancid slime that is what is being Left?

Friday, June 10, 2005

What Is Being Left - v.4.0...


Even as '
Syndrome' Dean continues to monologue around the soles of both shoes, extreme Leftist Democrats continue to congeal from the fringe toward their septic center.

RadioBlogger has posted the audio of Syndrome's latest gaff. Dean-Christians.mp3
"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much...they all behave the same. They all look the same. Its pretty much a white Christian Party."

I give you, the face of Republicans...

Again, let's recall that this man, Howard Dean, is the selected and official spokesman for the Democrat Party. And he operates in that capacity still today. And he is defended quite strongly in that regard. Afterall, vitriol is the fodder of politics if your movement lacks the spine of virtue.

Bigotry is born of successive exagerration. So are atrocities...

In a Monday radio interview on the WWRL-AM morning show with Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, Democrat Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, compared the Iraq War with the Nazi Holocaust. The New York Daily News reported his statement as follows:

The Iraq war "is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. ... This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed," the 74-year-old Harlem Democrat insisted during a Monday radio appearance on the WWRL-AM morning show with Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "The whole world knew and they were quiet about it because it wasn't their ox being gored." When interviewer Malzberg challenged Rangel's analogy, the congressman replied: "I am saying that people's silence when they know things terrible are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust."
There is something even worse than silence, Mr. Rangel. When pundits, journalists and agenda driven politicians like yourself, even with the perfect hindsight of history, conceal atrocity with a diversionary cacophony of false charges, hyberbolic rhetoric, and seditious accusation. That is much, much worse.

What is being Left is willing to forfeit the lessons of history as encapsulated in truth for generations cursed then to forfeit the virtues and repeat the vulgarities.

See also:
What Is Being Left v.3.0
What Is Being Left v.2.0
What Is Being Left v.1.0


Dueler has become a junky of wretchard's comments section, and I don't blame him. There is often more wisdom and intelligence expressed there alone than by some blogs. He pinged me to the comments of this accomplished blogger, whose latest post deserves a mention on this post and a trackback to this series. Check out Dr.Sanity and the "The Consequences of Enabling Terror." This point says it all,

Likewise, I find that what the MSM, the Left, Feminists, and various other assorted groups I choose to comment on all wittingly or unwittingly enable, support, or facilitate terror and terrorists.

Personally, I have ignored the Women's movement for about 25 years now , having outgrown them in my 20's. But, in their current toxic iteration, they, along with the Leftist remnants of totalitarian collapse; the MSM, liberal academia; many folks in the Democratic party are engaged in all three behaviors that provide aid and comfort to the greatest threat to civilization in our history. Whether their behavior is conscious or not, I really don't care. The results are the same.

And, if you don't think that their behavior has caused considerable death, destruction and other serious consequences, then you are not looking at the whole picture of what is going on in our world today."

Indeed. Welcome to the blogroll, Dr.Sanity.

What is being Left marches the rain-drenched streets of Portland, Oregon this evening spitting through a megaphone, the names of soldiers killed in action on the frontier of chaos; making them unconsensual advocates for the miserable and short-sided stupidity of anti-America. Those who will never spend a drop of sweat or blood defending the comfort of their duplicity, steal the glory of the dead to build a shield of self-righteous indignation as they parade their defiance toward the proud Navy vessels tied along the waterfront for Rose Festival. Men better than they will stare quietly tonight, enduring the wretched rhetoric and unearned insults of fools and followers. Because what is being Left demands that which they don't deserve from those whom they don't respect.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

What Is Being Left - v.3.0...


This week the concentration of filth continues. Last month, the
Old Busted Media nearly tripped over one another to report the so-called 'tongue lashing' that British Parliamentarian, George Galloway delivered to a US Senate Sub-Committee investigating the criminal U.N. Oil For Food Scandal. The Washington Post noted his use of "fiery rhetoric and clever phrases," as he called upon the talking points of American Democrats and Islamic fascists alike denouncing his inquisitors as, "a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists." The Fringe Left cheered his insolence in the face of the freshman Senate pitbull from Minnesota, Norm Coleman. In his unorthodox defense, Mr. Galloway chanted the Moore-ish scripts that the Senators were attempting to "divert attention from the crimes [the U.S.] supported" in Iraq. According to the Washington Post, Galloway denounced the prewar sanctions, the U.S. occupation, President Bush and Halliburton, but never directly answered the charges made against him in the subcommittee's report.

His obstinance notwithstanding, Galloway stands accused of profiting - like many international grifters - from decades of insidious corruption pioneered by Kofi Annan's UN mafia, described by Claudia Rosett of Opinion Journal quite appropriately as follows:

"... a corrupt and craven crew... who hid the rebuilding of Saddam's resources, who preferred to give Saddam an 18th chance. It is important to understand that while the U.N.-approved investigation into Oil for Food, led by Paul Volcker, has focused narrowly on questions of whether anyone administering the program violated U.N. procedure, the deeper horror was the assurance of the U.N. that all was well--while Saddam skimmed billions and used some of that to buy weapons and restock the war chest that certainly helped fund his military in 2003, and is very likely funding terror in Iraq today. Federal prosecutors have mentioned two unnamed high-ranking UN officials alleged to have taken bribes from Saddam; this is a matter not only of venal and corrupt behavior among those entrusted with serving the public good, but of U.N. officials with blood on their hands."

Indeed the U.N. and Annan have blood on there hands as do Leftist grifters like George Galloway... the current champion of Western Leftists.

Despite his brazen self-righteous mulishness in the face of the American Senate, in a recent interview on the campus of the University of Dhaka, Mr. Galloway called for global unity between Islamisists and forces of the world Left.

"Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims."

One wonders if Spain's Socialist President Jose Zapotero agrees on that issue with Galloway and his Muslim Fascist allies? Was the price of Zapotero's position worth the blood of a few hundred of his countrymen spilled on behalf of the Left's 'Galloway Doctrine?'

In his FrontPageMag article, Vindication: There Is An Unholy Alliance, David Horowitz puts the issue into razor sharp perspective:

"Last fall I published a book called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, which argued that the progressive left in the West was in a de facto alliance with the Islamic jihadists, an alliance that developed out of the left's support for the genocidal campaign of Palestinian jihadists against the Jews, and its global assault on the world capitalist system called "anti-globalization."

"...All this information is readily available and consciously ignored by the Times and other fellow-traveling media of the "progressive" left; this leaves the impression that the unholy alliance we have described in detail is somehow a figment of our imagination. No one actually reading these profiles could reasonably come to such a conclusion, but we are aware that laziness is an unappreciated factor in human affairs. So it was a welcome email I received from a friend the other day containing an Iraq News Network interview with British Laborite, progressive, Saddam ally and hero of such letwing websites as and, which should settle once and for all whether there are large numbers of pro-terrorist leftists out there who consciously think of alliance with the jihadists."

What is being Left embraces the belief that their ends justify any means. Sadly we've seen this before. And other champions of the Left made those atrocities both possible and practical.

And the Left's allies in Iraq continue to give them the carnage that they require in service of their ends.

See also:

What Is Being Left v.2.0

What Is Being Left v.1.0

UPDATE: 06.03.05:08.29

Yes, Filth! I chose the word quite deliberately. A movement, culture, or person is filthy when it slathers itself with septic ideas. The result of such poisoning, is purefaction and rot. It is exactly what is happening to the ideology of the Left... and those who choose to remain affiliated with it are just as rotten. This for instance, is the stench of filth. 'Syndrome' was at it again. (HT: AnkleBitingPundits) DNC Chairman Howard Dean, speaking at the Democrat's Take Back America 2005: The Conference For America's Future on Thursday, levelled a blanket denigration of Republican voters...

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives. "

Need I remind anyone that this man was a popular Presidential Candidate in the 2004 Election Campaign? This man intended to represent the Nation as its chief executive. He was the Governor of Vermont, and he was selected overwhelmingly by his party to represent them as their party chairman. I didn't have to be at the rally to know that he recieved the roar of approving applause for that divisive, hyperbolic and vitriolic statement. Nor do I need to read or hear anymore from Mr. Dean to recognize a profound similarity between he and George Galloway. No doubt, Dean too supports the 'Galloway Doctrine'... as then does the American Democrat Party by representative proxy. It might be a question worth asking, both of him and of yourself if you are a Democrat. Because what is being Left does not value amicability, and solidarity. What is being Left manipulates divisions, thrives on derision, and perpetuates bigotry, fear, and anger to cultivate political power via civil destruction.

Check Your Premise...

Mr. Atos

"Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

- Fransisco D'Anconia - Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Doug TenNapel has a legimitate argument against the stance of the Ayn Rand Institute on embryonic research. How can a philosophy of life, both recognize the value of life and ignore its inception? I must say, that even for a self-proclaimed Objectivist*, this opening statement makes absolutely no sense to me...

"In the name of the sanctity of human life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem cell research must be allowed to proceed unimpeded."

In the first place, the government is not, at this time, seeking to forbid research, but rather reject Federal funding of research that by its nature, destroys embryonic tissue. In the Second place, it has historically been the position of ARI and the philosophy of Objectivism to be fundamentally opposed to any government involvement in scientific research, just as with business ventures (Ayn Rand's own defense of NASA notwithstanding). To make an argument now, on behalf of one specific type of government intrusion is odd at best. The Institute stands opposed to Federal taxation for a number of reasons. Ayn Rand herself likened it to slavery and a veritable devaluation of life itself... (HT: The Binary Circumstance)

"Remember that there is no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights." No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the "right" to treat human beings as chattel."

The authors of the article argue that those opposed to embryonic research recognize the origins of life within these particularly unique specimens of human tissue by means of irrational faith. One might respond that to ere on the side of life is a profoundly rational position with regard to scientific unknowns. But the most absurd part of their point is the criticism of faith in life on the one hand, while espousing their own faith in (incomplete) knowledge as a source of an absolute ascertion. This is profoundly contradictory.

Mr.'s Holcberg and Epstein wrap up their argument by stating...

"If these enemies of human life wish to deprive themselves of the benefits of stem cell research, they should be free to do so and die faithful to the last. But any attempt to impose their religious dogma on the rest of the population is both evil and unconstitutional. In the name of the actual sanctity of human life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem cell research must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. Our lives may depend on it."

What is an imposing of dogma upon free-thinking people, if not the confiscation of the products of their efforts in opposition to their values in service of another's altruistic ends?

If you think that it is a moral contradiction that men can value the sanctity of human life, yet ingor its inception,

...that men who detest the State's intrusion into scientific research, lobby in favor of its federal subsidization,

...that men ethically opposed to the despotism of altruism, engage a defense of human sacrifice to demonize their opponents,

Then check their premises. You will find that many of them are wrong.

"Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive."- Ayn Rand

* Ayn Rand herself asked that those who do not follow the strict precepts of her Principles not call themselves "Objectivists." I am a Christian. And while I try not to guide my existence in a rational universe by means of my faith, nor use it to establish principle, I choose to honor her wishes in that regard. I write from the standpoint of Objectivism and I identify my philosophic position with that of an Objectivist.