Quote of the Day

From a Jennifer Mountjoy letter on Mark Steyn's Mailbox:

One thing about the Islamo-nutters, they don't bore everybody with diplomatic niceties - they say what they think, and they think what they say, more or less. It would almost be refreshing, except for the fact that all of us are somewhere on their "To Do" list.

Worst Fears May Yet Be Realized

Just as I was soothing my fears about the Consequences of the Election, we have this:

Iraq Al Qaeda Chief Says Democrat Victory A Step In Right Direction

I REALLY REALLY don't enjoy saying "I told you so" on this one. This is serious.

Dems, how will you step up to the plate?

Diversity Matters

Wow.

Apparently in Michigan there was a proposition on the ballot to end racial quotas in education and hiring in the state.

It passed 58%-42%.

Now... Democrats have taken over the house and senate in elections won mostly by razor-thin margins. This will be seen (by them) as a mandate to do whatever the Democrats feel should be done. Pull out of Iraq, impeach Bush. Charge everybody in the Pentagon with war crimes. Repeal the second amendment. Roll back all tax cuts. Fire John Bolton. Make people refer to gay unions as marriage. Hey, the people have spoken.

In Michigan, this initiative passed by a relatively wide margin. The "We The People" of Michigan spoke. And the elitists manage to argue that there is no mandate here to do what the proposition clearly stated.

Here is how the University of Michigan responded.

I don't know about you, but to me this little speech reads something like this:

Diversity matters at the University of Michigan. It matters because, it matters, and the manner of its mattering matters. The people are stupid. We know better. Because diversity matters. Our institution is great because diversity matters. And it matters more than it matters to the people who voted, because we will have no part of what the people have said. Because diversity matters.

It kind of reminds me a little bit of this famous passage:

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it." Amen.

The underriding tone is, "Screw the stupid hick voters. We know better. We're smarter than they are, and we'll make sure it doesn't happen." Nothing in her lengthy blather mentions the primary and obvious issue at hand; fairness demands that those who have worked hard academically and succeeded get in to school or get a job regardless of their race or gender. That's fairness.

In her rant, she basically says that this nebulous "diversity", which appears to be some sort of sacred and holy term, is the most important thing to the University. Without it, the whole university would just crumble from the inside and decompose into a dilapidated shell.

Of course, what this really says is that black people can't study and learn on their own. Which is basically saying that blacks are inferior to whites. Which sounds to me a whole lot like.... um... what's the word I'm looking for?

Oh yeah, racism.

It's time to play "Find the Racist Statement"

After getting into a bit of a pissing match with a troll on another forum, I've decided I've had it with so-called progressivism.

Ok, actually I'd had it quite some time ago, but something snapped. Again.

After describing his modus operandi when arguing with someone who actually uses rational thought as "WWJJD" (What Would Jesse Jackson Do?") -- and the answer to that question would be: to find some contorted perversion of logic through which he could call me a racist and therefore dismiss anything I said.

I knew what the response would be -- it was so predictable I shouldn't even get any credit for getting it right. And, predictably, his response proved my initial point.

"WWJJD? Ah, now we know who the real racist is!"

Now granted, I know this guy was a troll and just likes to see if he can get people's dander up. However, there are too many people -- most of them under 35, but there are millions of older ones as well -- actually buy this crap.

So here is my challenge:

Find the racist statement in the following:

1. Islam encourages violence
2. Jesse Jackson is a race-baiter
3. White people are racist
4. I am afraid to walk inner city streets alone at night

See how you do. And I'll make this an open-book test:

rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment

1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an
instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

What does it mean?

One thing the new Dem House and Senate should keep in mind if they start to think that this election was an anti-war mandate.

In blue Connecticut, the anti-war wing of the Democratic party kicked Joe Lieberman out for being pro-war.

Lamont, who beat him out in the primaries, won on his anti-war stance.

Leiberman beat Lamont as a principled independent in the actual election.

If this election were to be viewed as an anti-war mandate, why would the anti-war Democratic candidate in an extremely Blue State have lost?

No, this election was about revenge against Bush, and dissatisfaction from the Repubican base due to their abandonment of the principles that got them elected in the first place.

Post-Election Manners Matter

I've tried to say it. The Captian's tried to say it. Michelle's tried to say it.

Bill Whittle says it best.

I wish to tell my friends to be cheerful and especially to be of good will. Disappointments come and go, but moments of courage and integrity in dark hours will be there when the stars grow cold. We have lost the election, so let us maintain our determination, our dignity and our sense of humor, and let us take this moment to reflect upon how our actions have fallen short of our ideals. And then, finally, let's act like the Americans we are, roll up our sleeves and start rebuilding. We who have survived Civil War, the Nazis and the Communists can probably manage to find a way to preserve the Republic in the face of Speaker Pelosi.

America is not only much, much stronger than you imagine; it is stronger than you CAN imagine.

On being genuinely anti-war

Having overwhelming military force on your side, and letting your enemies know that you have the guts to use it, is being genuinely anti-war.
- Thomas Sowell

As the dust clears...

It looks like the Democrats will have majorities in the House and Senate. I heard an analyst on the news say that this always happens in the 6th year of a two term Presidency and was completely predictable.

Obviously, from my perspective this is a disaster, for several reasons.

The top reason is that the Islamists will view this as vindication of their world view and strategy. America is weak. She has no stomach for a fight. If they just dig in and trickle casualties every day, the headlines will drive the American People to pull out.

Even if we don't pull out -- which we probably won't until 2008, the signal has been sent as clearly as the Madrid bombing and that subsequent election. The West has a weakness that can easily be exploited. It's going to take a couple more 9/11's to drive that point home to the West, if it ever can be driven home.

The other reasons have much more to do with domestic economic and social policy. In a nutshell, I believe in limited government, Democrats do not. Republicans at least pay lip-service to it.

Anyway, I will join my other conservative collegues in not moving to France or Barbados, not going out into the streets and burning things, not chanting mindless slogans, not saying "'f' the coasts", etc.

Even if Republicans had held on to Congress, I would not be sending emails like the one some twit sent Michelle Malkin.

Conservatives, in general, have much better manners than "Progressives" in general.

For a little demonstration of "un-hinge-itude", see the "Talent Butt-Boy" thread over here starting with the "Sullivan will keep me from voting a straight R ticket" post -- while it lasts (it'll expire in a couple of weeks).

Yup. That's me. Talent Butt-Boy. They're SO tolerant. And polite!

Whine early, Whine Often

Remember the Democrats' Election Day Litigation Strategy from 2004?

Looks like maybe it's the Modus Operandi now.

Imagine a Democrat who wanted to make such a charge -- how could he do it? How could they make sure they get it on tape.... hmmmm....

Could a Democrat possibly call a phone number, claiming to be from the Virginia Board of Elections, and leave such a message? Then the Democrat on the other end could make sure the message was recorded and post it to the web to get nice, wide dissemination.

Nah. Democrats would never do anything like that.

Democrats oppose Voter ID

Why, again, do Democrats oppose voter ID laws?

Here's a clue:

Considering the fact that a Republican couldn’t get elected trash collector [in St. Louis], it is absolutely amazing the amount of fraud which occurs. Remember the election of 2000 when 247,135 of 258,532 [St. Louis] adults registered to vote? This 95.6% voter registration is a ridiculous number,

Another Moral Authority Card

Conservatives, get out and vote

To all my conservative friends and family, please make sure you vote today.

To all of my Leftist friends and acquaintances ... remember, it's really more how you feel that's important.

Whittle Alert!

Bill Whittle's Back.

'nuff said.

An Even Better Take on that Mystery Box

From Mark Steyn's "Drifting Along" - a great read...

Look at the nearest we’ve got to a specific campaign pledge from Speaker-Presumptive Pelosi. In her “first hundred hours”, she’s pledged that she’ll enact every single last proposal by the 9/11 Commission. Why? She’s elected as a legislator in order to legislate, isn’t she? Doesn’t she have any ideas of her own? Apparently not. What His Holiness the Pontiff Thomas Kean says is infallible and all must accept it as such.

You know, I’m betting that if you asked Mrs Pelosi to name the five most urgently needed 9/11 Commission proposals that had not yet been enacted, she wouldn’t be able to. This is essentially intellectual outsourcing – or, as Madam Speaker would put it, “As a mother and a grandmother, I’m very concerned about safety. In fact, I’m too busy expressing my concerns about it to do anything about it.” Saying we need to work through the UN more on Darfur, and with our European “allies” on Iran, and that we need to send Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright out to Pyongyang to sign a bilateral agreement pledging massive US investment in Kim Jong-Il’s nuclear
powered leisurewear plant, these are all also forms of outsourcing: let’s fly somewhere, hold some meetings, sign some agreements, do nothing.

What "the Kerry thing" says about the Democratic Base

Morgan sums it up tidily in his post from this morning. Summing up the comments from the established news media and from "progressive" blogs:

Senator Kerry didn’t say it. But if he did, everybody knows he’s right. Everybody thinks what he said…which, really, he didn’t say. Senator Kerry doesn’t believe what you think he said, which he didn’t actually say, because he’s very well educated and he’s one of those troops, so it’s patently silly to think for a minute Kerry would say this thing, that he didn’t really say, which everybody knows to be true anyway. Kerry is right about this thing he didn’t really say. Everyone agrees. And he doesn’t.

Go read the whole thing. It may be long, but it's a good read.

Monopoly Card for Democrat's Campaign

In keeping with the spirit of my last post and integrating this idea into it, I give you my "Chance" card for the Democrats. This pretty much sums up their platform this election season.

update: as that might be a little too subtle for some -- here's an alternate version:

Change

Saw an Anti-Talent ad last night where a bunch of veterans (complete with wheelchairs) railed against Talen for voting ... however many times ... "against" veterans.

Taking a little side trip here, first of all, if somebody put up a bill that says "we're going to give all veterans $5 million apiece, and someone voted against it ... this would be tallied as voting "against" veterans.

So they never tell you what bills they're talking about or let you consider what might have been in those bills to warrant voting against them -- a vote against giving them something they are not currently getting, or voting to repeal a bad program that shouldn't have been passed in the first place, or maybe getting something that many are abusing, or even voting for something that might curtail that kind of abuse... it doesn't matter. It was "against" veterans if it means that even some veterans might not get what they would be getting if the bill passed.

And let's not even mention the fact that the Missouri VFW endorses Talent for Senate. (Ooops. Cat's out of the bag now.)

But back to "Change". At the end of the spot, they put the words "We Want Change" on the screen and show their faces.

Once again, the Democrats are running on "change". Just generic "change".

Give me the box that has the contents listed on the outside, please. The Democrat's box simply says "Something Else" on the outside.

Be careful what you ask for.

Bandwagon

In 8th grade, our teacher ran us through a two or three week course on advertising techniques. At the time I thought it was an odd thing to teach in 8th grade. In retrospect, I think this was to tip us off to the angles advertisers use to get your brain to come around to thinking that you need their product.

The very first one was called "Bandwagon". Show that "everyone else" is buying it, "everyone else" thinks it's great, you should, too.

Propaganda is advertising.

Now not all advertising is dishonest. Nor is all propaganda. That's one thing I hate about today's political arguments. If you don't like it, you call it "propaganda" and dismiss it without having to address it's substance. Kind of like saying "extremists" or "conservatives".

More and more people are switching to....

More and more people are dissatisfied with the way Bush is handling the war. Ever increasing opposition to the war. Growing dissatisfaction with the Republican-held congress. For at least a couple of years.

If we repeat these things often enough and long enough, people -- in moments of weak mind, may start thinking -- man, if everyone else is thinking this, what's wrong with me? People crave other people's approval. If I make a "brave" anti-war statement, all those people will cheer and pat me on the back. I'll be in. People will look up to me.

News, the way it's gone since Bush II was first elected has been a 6 year Democratic Party infomercial.

What the jihadists have to say about the American election

What the jihadists have to say about the American election.

Anyone who votes for a Democrat for Congress has his head in the sand.

Our Country

I heard John Mellencamp's "Our Country" in the background of a Chevy commercial during the World Series. I'm a Mellencamp fan, and I like what he's done with his sound, especially with this song.

So I wanted to go out and find the lyrics and see what he's talking about. Most of them are generic enough, but there are a few subtle digs (room enough in here for science to live and room enough in here for religion to forgive) which I assume are aimed at religious opponents of embryonic stem-cell research (now called "stomatic" stem-cell research... sounds so much more sterile ... but I digress.)

In the song, he calls for a utopia everyone can get behind. Bigotry is seen as obscene by all, everyone thinks poverty is ugly, and everybody understands everybody. Niiice. Birds, butterflies, flowers, green grass.... ahhhhhhh.

"And the ones that run this land help the poor and common man." This reveals a crack in my appreciation for the song. This argues that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the poor, and hints at a world view that the common man needs help. Really not part of my world view, nor do I believe it was a part of our Founding Fathers' world view.

Anyway -- by and large, I don't have too much problem with the song outside of that line because he kept the rest of it civil enough, and I commend him on it.

However, in looking for the lyrics, I also ran across an open letter to America he and his wife wrote back in late October, 2003.

Great, I thought. This'll give us some insight into what's on the blue collar, rural America rock hero's mind. I was a little leery, but... knowledge is important.

He starts out by complaining that those who are against the war have been labeled as "unpatriotic". I can understand where he's coming from -- one should not be labeled unpatriotic simply based on whether or not he opposes fighting a particular war... particularly if he can make a well-reasoned argument explaining his position. And there are such people and such arguments. I think they're wrong, but I don't think it means they're unpatriotic. And I'll grant that there are some who would label them so on the basis of their anti-war position. They'd be wrong, too. But that's not where the bulk of anti-war people stop.

He goes on talking about all the things that nobody likes about any war. All the deaths. The cost. The number of bombs. And from there he decends into a screed of leftist talking points.

• War is to benefit corporations
• Loss of respect in the world (especially with the U.N.)
• need for public health care program
• government "provides" jobs
• failing economy
• there are poor people (and it's all the rich people's fault-implied)

After that, he's worked up a full head of steam and hits the moonbat pitch

• Bush lied
• failed to secure our borders
• Bush lied (2)
• Thousands died
• Bush stole the election
• Bush should be impeached
• Blood for oil
• corporate greed
• Bush lied (3)
• "terrorized" by our own government
• "no dangerous dictators captured"

Ok, so this was written in Oct, 2003 -- two months before Saddam Hussein was captured and 6 months after his government was toppled and went into hiding. And no matter how many times they say it, the facts are behind Bush -- he did not lie. Contrary to the blood-for-oil mantra, no oil fields were captured. Indeed, this out of Iraqi President Talibani (to the French) just today:

"Your oil companies can come to Iraq ... Americans didn't interfere (in our oil)
and don't have any right to interfere." (Reuters)

Show me a law-abiding U.S. citizen who was "terrorized" by our government. Recount after recount showed that Bush won the 2000 election. The economy is definitely not failing by any standard economic measure. And I wonder if he'd care to name a few of the "thousands" of troops coming home to cut benefits, health problems ignored, jobs gone, and families living in poverty? Who? Let's go check out their real stories.

Then John asks, "Who is to say what is or isn't 'Patriotic'?"

I'm gonna take a wild stab and say "John Mellencamp", for he then proceeds to tell us what isn't patriotic.

"Do the flags that wave from every minivan really offer any support?"

YES THEY DO! Ask a soldier. I'm a step-father to one who went there and thankfully came back. He can probably hook you up with tons of soldiers who would say most definitely, 'yes'.

And check this one out:

"... some still resist the open mindedness that is the very foundation of this country."

I wonder how many documents from the founding fathers you'd have to scour to find the phrase "open mindedness"? Fairness, yes. Liberty, yes. Open mindedness?????

You know, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. It just means you can't be thrown in jail for speaking your mind. If you're going to screech "first amendment" remember that street runs both directions. You call me a Nazi by calling Bush Hitler, I can call you unpatriotic for coming up with the anti-american angle on every little thing America does, anywhere, anytime. And neither one of us gets thrown in jail.

When you say this is "Our Country" and we need to "take it back", who do you mean by "Our", and from whom do ... er .... "they" need to take it back? Any way you slice it, half of us voted for Bush whether you believe he should have won or not. When you call him Hitler, you call us Nazis. Plain and simple. When you find ways to blame America for Islamists planting bombs to kill civillians... when you blame America for Islamists flying airplanes into our buildings, when you equate our POW camp at Guantanamo to a Gulag by distorting facts, setting insanely low standards for what defines "torture" or mistreatment, and you give more weight to what the enemy says than you do to what we say is going on -- yeah, you're unpatriotic in my book.

Maybe John hasn't said these things himself, but when someone repeats practically line-by-line the talking points of those who have said these things -- it is rational to assume that he believes them himself, and would agree if those "diverse¹" opinions were recited in his presence.

Anyway, I still like the song. I still like his music. I hope he comes around. But this is "Our Country", too.

¹Note that "diverse" means you disagree with a conservative point of view. Conservative points of view are not a part of "diverse". They can be dismissed out of hand simply for being "conservative". To the Left, "diverse" means "agreeing with us."

Kerry Apologizes (sort of)

If you call this an apology: "I said it was a botched joke. Of course, I'm sorry about a botched joke."

The latest Reuters headline:

Kerry Apolgizes for "botched" Iraq Joke

You know, the one he refused to apologize for yesterday because he was speakin' truth to power.

Now it was all a joke. Not only was it a joke, but his office came out with a bit of damage control they couldn't seem to find yesterday. In what looks suspiciously like a retro-active re-write to match the narrative being given by Chris Matthews et. al., they now said that he left out a few key words.

Kerry's office said the senator had misread his prepared remarks. They said he had intended to say, "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

(Red words were not spoken) Yep, if he had said that, then he would definitely have been talking about President Bush, and this wouldn't be near the flap it is.

But that's not what he said, and he made no attempt to correct it yesterday (or today, his office conveniently came up with this story today) -- and, in fact, went on the counteroffensive instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant to say, and somehow didn't.

Sorry, Kerry, not buying it.

This is damage control. Your party slapped you down, and your office is trying to cover your ass by what I'll bet is a lie about what you were "supposed" to say.

Thank You, Senator Kerry

You Dems have tried to make this congressional election about President Bush. I suppose turnabout is fair play.

Thank you for reminding us why we turned out in such large numbers against you in the presidential race, that we may have the same motivation to vote against those who share your world view.

Those who have been disappointed by Republicans in the last few years would do well to remember:

Republicans may be disappointing, but
Democrats are Dangerous

Keep them out of control of Congress.

Chris Matthews takes "Slant" to a new level

Perpendicular is more like it. You can't get much "slantier" than that.

Check out the video at the political pitbull.

For a little more on the AP story Matthews uses to defend Kerry, see this Malkin post. The AP story makes a "Michael Moore" style cut to make it appear that he was talking about the President.

As I said in my last post, I don't doubt he was taking a jab at the president -- that's what he does. But he did it through the troops with an extremely disrespectful comment. A comment he refuses to acknowledge the disrespect in and refuses to retract.

Anyway, you gotta love this from Riehlworldview:

Dem Congressman: Kerry Blowing It, Again
Evidently the Congressman didn't want his name attached to the quote. So much for this all being partisan spin.
A Democratic congressman told ABC News Tuesday, "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too."

Oh, and he cancelled today's campaign appearances. M-heh!

To me, though, this is less about the insult than it is revealing about the mindset lies beneath it.

I don't want these people running the country.