Andrew Sullivan supports Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination. That’s a good thing. But he spends a considerable amount of time talking about how the war in Iraq has been lost… Perhaps, trying to convince himself.
Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare. And we have also empowered the Iranian regime and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it was in 2003. Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency?
McCain, for all his many virtues, still doesn't get this. Paul does.
First of all, the Left can neither stomach, nor afford, a victory in Iraq. Too much of the Left’s time, effort and momentum has been invested in our defeat in Iraq. Let’s be crystal-clear on that fact.
The stated goals of the invasion have largely been achieved. The biggest goal being the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime.
It’s true that large stock piles of WMD’s were never found. But that makes no difference. Iraq is no longer able to produce WMD’s. So in that sense America was successful. The outcome would have been the same even if large WMD stock piles had been discovered.
Mr. Sullivan goes on to say we have not stymied Islamist terror, but rather stymied terror we helped create. Again, I’ll agree that the initial occupation of Iraq caused an increase in resentment of us, not less. But we have stymied Islamic terror in a very big way. Al Qaeda made Iraq its central front in its war against the West. And we’ve dealt them a mortal blow on two fronts: we’ve beaten them militarily, and American forces now occupy the moral high-ground. They’ve virtually given up on Iraq. An event that is well documented by bloggers and other journalists embedded with front-line troops for more than just a few days.
As for Iran, they are nearly surrounded on all sides by American forces. They obviously feel threatened, so I hope this President and the future President can resolve differences with that country without using military force. Besides, the men and women serving overseas need a well-deserved rest.
Our soldiers have done remarkable work in spite of poor post-invasion planning on account of the current administration, powder-keg politics in Iraq (and here), a biased media, troop-bashing liberals and blow hard politicians who put politics ahead of our national interest.
Read Mr. Sullivan’s entire piece: Ron Paul For The Republican Nomination.
Posted on:
December 17, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Elections 2008, Iraqi Freedom, Liberalism, Media Bias . •
No Comments • .
Another Example of How Progressive policies are “Socializing” our Country
h/t: Jawa Report.
I’ll always support law and order, and the men and women of law enforcement. But I won’t support oppressive government policies. With every new expansion of government, we take another step towards Nanny-Statehood.
It seems to me, the founding of our constitutional Rebuplic flew in the face of the European elites at the time. Ever since then there have been forces at work, both internal and external, to remake American society as a European-style socialist state.
America has a very unique system of government. Once the progressives have finished remaking the country in their own image, we’ll have no freedom left other than that which the government allows us to have. And America will be no different than any nation in western-Europe. The God-given right to have a government for the people, by the people will be lost forever.
Rant over.
Posted on:
December 17, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Domestic Politics, Liberalism, Socialism Watch, Videos . •
No Comments • .
From today’s New York Times:
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.
And the “money shot” quote:
Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington who characterizes the Bush administration’s policies as YOYO economics, based on You (Are) On Your Own, said the differences in income growth explained why so many Americans have told pollsters that they are feeling squeezed.
“A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,” Mr. Bernstein said. “It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.”
Umm… aside from the really stupid quote about baking a bigger pie, is anyone else getting that pre-rape tax-increase feeling?
Posted on:
December 15, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Domestic Politics, Liberalism, Socialism Watch . •
No Comments • .
Hmm… I thought only republicans were corrupt (sarcasm.) If Mr. Sharpton were a republican, the party would either force him to resign or refrain from running for office. Democrats, on the other hand, will probably encourage Sharpton to run for a Congressional seat or maybe advise the Hillary Clinton campaign.
From today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:
With a hidden FBI camera rolling inside a New York hotel suite in 2003, an unsuspecting Rev. Al Sharpton, Democratic candidate for president, spoke candidly.
Sharpton offered to help Philadelphia fund-raiser Ronald A. White win a multimillion-dollar business deal, if White helped him raise $50,000 for politics.
White offered $25,000. “If you bring my guys up on this hedge fund, and I have the right conversation,” White said, “I’ll give you what you need.”
“Cool,” Sharpton said.
The Inquirer obtained an account of the May 9, 2003, conversation, which was recorded as part of the Philadelphia City Hall corruption case. The tape helped spark a separate inquiry into Sharpton’s 2004 campaign and his civil-rights organization, the National Action Network. The FBI-IRS probe resurfaced publicly Wednesday, when Sharpton aides received subpoenas.
In an interview yesterday, Sharpton said there is “absolutely nothing illegal” about tying business deals to fund-raising because he is not a public official.
“The tapes vindicate me,” Sharpton said. “They show that I did not talk about bribing a public official or paying money under the table.”
The video was recorded by an FBI camera hidden in a lamp inside Suite 34A at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan. Sharpton and White were introduced by La-Van Hawkins, a Detroit businessman.
At the time, FBI agents were investigating White and Hawkins, suspecting that they were involved in pay-to-play in Philadelphia - raising campaign funds for Mayor Street and others in order to win municipal contracts for favored donors. Later FBI agents in the case infamously placed a bug in Street’s office, but it was discovered before it recorded anything.
Read more: Videotape shows Sharpton cutting a deal.
“The tapes vindicate me,” Sharpton said. Vindicate??? Hey Al, you were caught on tape making a deal with two people who were being investigated for political corruption. Someone please explain to me how that vindicates Mr. Sharpton.
Posted on:
December 15, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Corruption, Domestic Politics, Liberalism . •
No Comments • .
Peter Foster, Columnist at Canada’s Financial Post, simply obliterates Global Warming in his piece entitled “Road to Bali”. In the very first paragraph Mr. Foster comes out swinging:
The fate of the Earth hangs in the balance in Bali, but the issue is not whether humanity will succumb to a “climate crisis,” or how the international community might craft a successor to the tattered Kyoto Accord (Let’s call it KyoTwo). The real theme of this United Nations gabfest — like that of its 12 predecessors, and of the hundreds, if not thousands, of related meetings –is whether globalization and trade liberalization will be allowed to continue, with a corresponding increase in wealth, health and welfare, or whether the authoritarian enemies of freedom (who rarely if ever recognize themselves as such) will succeed in using environmental hysteria to undermine capitalism and increase their Majesterium. Any successor to Kyoto will be rooted in hobbling rich economies, increasing the poor world’s resentment, unleashing environmental trade warfare, and blanketing the globe with rules and regulations that benefit only rulers and regulators. Bali is not about climate; it symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek — or pander to — political power under the guise of concern for humanity.
Awsome liberal pwnage; here’s my favorite excerpt:
Capitalism had once been the enemy because it was alleged to make people poor. Now it was the enemy because of the alleged side effects of making them rich.
And more:
Climate-change alarmism couldn’t be presented as simply a new justification for power-seeking, so it had to be cloaked–as social-ism has always been cloaked, both consciously and unconsciously — in concern for “the poor.” Addressing climate change has always been linked in the UN script with Third World development, even though it in fact represents the greatest threat to such development. Nevertheless, the prospect of more international redistribution has meant that poor countries’ corrupt and/or incompetent governments have become enthusiastic supporters of the Kyoto “process.”
I’m not sure I’ve ever read a more articulate and succinct written-piece calling Global Warming what it really is, veiled socialism on a grand scale.
Please read the entire article, It’s worth it.
Posted on:
December 6, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Canada, Global Warming, Liberalism, Socialism Watch . •
No Comments • .
Proof Bush Derangement Syndrome (“BDS”) is real:
Gallup.com:
Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
Read the rest: Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others.
Posted on:
November 30, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Liberalism, Miscellaneous . •
No Comments • .
American Thinker is featuring a collection of more than 600 links to media stories blaming everything but the kitchen sink on Global Warming. The collection has been put together by Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, on a web site he is calling Number Watch.
Posted on:
November 29, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Global Warming, Liberalism, Socialism Watch . •
No Comments • .
Liberal writers can really pack an article full of insight into their self-absorbed world-views.
From another “enlightened” elitist (liberal), Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist:
Give me sushi, give me death
This luscious tuna nigiri meets the ocean's plummeting fish stocks. Can you reconcile?
It's times like this I wish I was a heartless Republican.
Heartless republican? I know many republicans and few of them are heartless. Most do more for their communities than they are given credit for. “Evil” or “heartless” is how liberals like to label republicans. The truth is, it’s a myth and promulgating smears and negative characterizations is what liberals resort to when they don’t get their way.
It's times like this I almost wish I didn't really give a damn, that I lived in happy, savage denial of humankind's true impact on the health of the planet, that I didn't have much of a conscience and therefore felt the world and all its natural resources and all its cute little squiggly creatures were merely here for my enjoyment and my wanton exploitation, all here to feed my omnivorous appetites and to hell with environmental protections and respectful, restrained consumerism and, hey waitress bring me another order, oh what the hell, make it a double because hey, I'm an American, I'm entitled.
It’s liberals like Mr. Morford who’ve done more to foster the “I’m entitled” attitude than anyone else. The liberal self-absorbed, entitlement mindset has done more damage to society than any republican has supposedly done to the environment.
Alas, that isn't me. It probably isn't you. Hell, it's not really even most Republicans. Just those in Congress. And maybe Utah. And Montana. But never mind that now.
Heh? Was that a hint of stereotyping I just read? I thought liberalism stood for tolerance and understanding? I guess not.
This time, it was all about the sushi. It was all about a fine lunch I was enjoying with a friend over at a raw fish joint in the Mission when it struck me that it was the third time in a week I'd enjoyed a fabulous sushi meal — not at all an unusual rate, I realize, for sushi-drenched San Francisco, and also increasingly common in America overall as mall sushi explodes in popularity — but still, not exactly a cheap way to live, especially on a (non) humble columnist's salary. But hey, you only live once, yes? Sort of?
This is the problem: Sushi has become one of those things. Like Cate Blanchett, like a Led Zeppelin reunion, like enlightened anal sex, there is simply nothing else like it, no other comparable cultural experience. Prepared well (as most San Francisco sushi is), sushi remains a unparalleled delight, so much so that it's nearly impossible to adore it and not at some point say out loud to anyone who will listen, "Man, this stuff is so effing good, if I could afford it, I'd eat sushi every single day. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
Except, of course, for the fish. Except for the nagging issue of the massive, unnerving collapse, for how report after report and new scientific revelation after dire international prognostication now says, with increasing alarm, that we are actually raping our oceans far more severely than we ever imagined, that researchers actually haven't been measuring all that accurately in the past and when we now seriously study the historic record, well, it appears that the overall volume of edible marine life is plunging faster than Dick Cheney's soul into the fiery pits of hell. Which, as you well know, is pretty goddamn fast.
In fact, a recent New Yorker piece (a profile of radical environmentalist and whaling ship-rammer Paul Watson), cited the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as stating that nearly 70 percent of the world's major fisheries are already "fully exploited" or "overexploited." One ominous report, appearing in Nature a few years ago, estimated that we've now lost a staggering 90 percent of our once-overflowing bounty of large predatory fish such as tuna, marlin and swordfish, and we're still hacking away.
It might very well not be that calamitous. Hell, it might only be, you know, 50 percent. Or the fish could all be lying. But no matter how you slice it, at the rate we're eating our way through the oceans right now, many scientists say that the seas could be nearly barren of most edible stock, from tuna down to calamari and sea slugs, by the time your toddler turns 40 and the ice caps finally melt and the sun turns black and God goes, "See?"
Read the rest if you can stomach it: Give me sushi, give me death.
Mr. Morford did say there’s nothing like enlightened anal sex… So raping the ocean should feel perfectly natural to him?
The problem is, most of the scientific “revelations” he mentions are based on consensus, not fact. Worse, they’re alarmist. Every liberal I talk to about the environment always refer to the consensus of the science behind the dire warnings. Science is not based on consensus, it’s based on fact. And so far the true facts just aren’t adding up.
I, like every republican/conservative/average American wants to do our part to be responsible stewards of the planet. And look how far we’ve come in the past twenty years:
- Voluntary recycling
- Innovative and better use of land-fills
- Cleaner manufacturing and processing of industrial waste
- More fuel efficient vehicles including affordable Hybrid, electric and fuel-cell power
- Free market race to develop alternatives to fossil fuel
- The list goes on…
The point is we’re moving forward. And it’s not because of our liberal friend, it’s because of the human need to innovate and strive to do better. This so-called global warming movement threatens to stifle true innovation by ushering in bigger government, more legislation, more rules and regulation for entire industries and people’s personal lives. That’s not a solution, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Mr. Morford and his liberal friends need to stop and think about the damage they’re doing to society by taking up the latest liberal craze “global warming” which doesn’t threaten to destroy the planet as their scare tactics suggest, it threatens to destroy the freedom most Western societies now take for granted.
Posted on:
November 22, 2007 , by
newyank • Trackback
Filed in:
Liberalism, Miscellaneous . •
No Comments • .
