The Real Democratic Uprising

The news this week that NATO strikes and Libyan rebels killed Muammar Gadhafi was a blip on the radar at the Ever Red State Network.

That’s mainly because this trumped-up conflict was nothing, if not nebulous, from the beginning.

For starters, Libya retreated from its adolescent posturing eight years ago, quaking in fear when US troops stormed into Baghdad and overthrew Saddam Hussein.

Gadhafi agreed to renounce Libya’s development of weapons of mass destruction the following year, and then became a global joke – a rambling, bizarre-looking head of state more deserving of the title “tail of state.”

Almost under their breath, one leftist rag had the temerity to acknowledge the real democratic uprising of the Middle East this week: Iraq’s first elections conducted entirely without US supervision or support.

William Shawcross of the UK Guardian did his best to tuck these horribly humiliating words at the very bottom of his story:

“Iraq may yet even become a model for democratic change in other Arab countries. If so, who deserves some credit? The much maligned President Bush. And Tony Blair.”

As Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow learned on Sunday, success is the best form of revenge. But the wisdom of George W. Bush and Tony Blair is hardly the juiciest morsel of vengeance in this article.

According to Shawcross, the Iraqi elections boasted none of the sectarian or ethnic boycotts of 2005, to include Iraq’s Sunni Muslim minority.

Pause and start a drum roll in your head for all the Democrat politicians who said this would never happen – Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc.

But we’re not finished.

Shawcross reports that ALL of Iraq’s Islamist parties lost parliamentary numbers, including radical backers of Moqtada Al-Sadr (eight percentage points). The Islamic Party of Iraq, the Sunni extremists, were wiped out completely.

(Again, drum roll and name-and-shame all the Democrats who said THAT would never happen, especially if we kept Guantanamo Bay open and escalated our military presence in the Middle East.)

The Guardian would not publish this if John McCain were president. It’s obvious that this is to persuade the paper’s leftist audience of what they already believe – the only way for the US to resolve the Iraq issue was to elect a left-wing leader.

But Shawcross reveals a glaring ignorance of who did the heavy lifting in this war – the US military, most of all, followed by coalition troops from all over the world.

Over 4,400 American soldiers died. Thousands more were wounded, and untold hundreds of thousands rotated in and out of Iraq throughout its eight-year campaign to ensure its success.

Not one US soldier was conscripted into service. None were forced to reenlist, although many did endure the hardship of stop-loss/stop-movement policies. No matter the impulse or reason to hesitate, Americans walked into US military recruiting offices year after year to end up in Iraq.

We know the futility and darkness of war.

We know the painful ignorance of non-participants to its grisly, monotonous and hopeless nature.

We know that lives get taken, ruined and changed irrevocably. The soldier does not walk a happy road when he is called upon to do his real job.

But at long last, with lackluster fanfare only an unconscionable leftist could muster, our perseverance and professionalism is vindicated. Publicly. In print. For the record.

For a US Army sergeant who fought in two tours of Operation Iraqi Freedom, it’s a prouder moment than you can imagine.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

George H.W. Bush’s Second Loss

I have never met any of the presidential candidates, personally. There’s no sense in putting hope in a single officeholder when mulling your vote for president.

As a constitutional conservative, what amazes me the most about our founding charter is the myriad of ways it intentionally prevents the three branches of government from absolutism.

You can have a genuine, articulate conservative in the White House, a horde of them on Capitol Hill, and a judiciary stocked with them – and government can still achieve very little.

Normally, we’d be mistaken to view government gridlock as a deficiency. It is a blessing.

Likewise, we have been warned of the dangers associated with political parties, by none other than George Washington himself. We have longed for leaders with character, courage and wisdom, and the two-party system has proved scarcely sufficient.

Yet, we could always assume to a reasonable degree that both parties would remain opposed to each other, squabbling over power, money and image, with brief flashes of cooperation on matters of vital national interest.

Needless to say, now is not the time for cooperation. But it’s also not the time for gridlock. Permit me to explain.

Gridlock is good until January 20, 2013. That’s the day we get our executive branch back. Government shutdowns, budget cuts and standstills on unconstitutional programs are just fine with me until then; people need to see how well they can function without the federal government.

But on January 21, 2013, cooperation is critical, and that means cooperation from the GOP-controlled House, and another electoral sweep that we cannot afford to lose – a GOP-controlled Senate.

And what are we to do with those two legislative bodies, where the leadership is still made up of establishment Republicans, assuming we keep the one and recapture the other? It is already clear that Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are no pair of crusading, constitutional right-wingers.

The House is more clear-cut; the Tea Party Caucus is of a formidable size that it can steer the debate. Assuming even more Tea Party-backed conservatives win seats in 2012, the House and a conservative president could bracket an establishment Senate into passing a lot of good legislation.

The Senate’s Tea Party contingent is small, consisting of old patriots like Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann and James Inhofe, along with new blood like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Mike Lee. On the whole, however, the upper chamber is still loaded with RINO turncoats.

With President Hussein dethroned and the left back squarely in the minority, I can’t see much to look forward to, particularly if the Republican in the White House is Willard Mitt Romney.

Now for all of you Consensitive Mod Squad types out there, fear not: this is not a personal attack on Romney.

It’s a professional one.

To know the stock from which Romney comes is to understand why I describe a Romney nomination as George H.W. Bush’s second re-election loss.

Long before he enacted the first statewide socialist health care law in the union, Romney worked on his father’s failed 1964 primary campaign for the White House.

Then as now, the Romney moderate Republican brand battled against its conservative nemesis, represented by Barry Goldwater. John McCain-style party-bucking is a Romney family tradition.

Romney also has a little-known, but fully exploitable, history of having avoided the Vietnam War with student deferments. Although an honest media would not permit President Hussein – who never came close to signing up for duty in Grenada, Panama or Desert Storm – to criticize this shortage of military service, I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House tried to level the charge:

“He enacted universal health care and dodged Vietnam … why vote for a phony Bill Clinton when you can get the real deal in Barack Obama?”

With this background, it’s no surprise that Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and for the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002 as a moderate, pro-choice Republican, and when elected, governed as a Democrat-lite.

To hear some tell it, Romney only served from 2003 to 2005; he spent nearly two-thirds of his final year in office traveling around the nation, fundraising and glad-handing. He’s an expert at getting people to part with their money – but to the end of electing him, so he can require them to part with even more of it through the force of law.

Mitt Romney would make a fine fundraising partner with Sarah Palin, who has also ducked the 2012 election. He could sweet-talk the Republican Party’s Consensitives, while Palin could court its conservatives.

But for the hour and the day, with the exceptions of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and the laughable Jon Huntsman, Romney is the last person we should choose to defeat Hussein.

You see, we are approaching the end of Jimmy Carter’s second term. Carter was defeated for a host of reasons, but primary among them were prolonged recession, stagflation, inept foreign policy, weakness before our enemies, a bruising primary challenge from Kennedy and a third party candidate who peeled away Carter votes when everyone thought they’d be peeled from Ronald Reagan.

The Carter Years are back, and they are as unpalatable as ever. But nobody in the 1980 election thought that Bush, who lost to Reagan in the primary, had much to offer in the way of alternatives. It was not the time for a moderate Republican who would agree with half or more of what Carter said, and treat many of his asinine criticisms as valid.

I might argue that no stage of history really beckons a Bush 41 presidency, but especially not this one. So it is with Mitt Romney.

We need to be reminded that since 1960, the Republican Party has fielded only two genuine conservative candidates for the White House – Goldwater once, and Reagan twice. All of the others have been varying degrees of moderate – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bush 41, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and McCain.

Of those moderates, the only winners were Nixon and Bush 43, whose ardent national security stances during times of war made up for some terrible domestic and economic decisions.

Nixon squeaked into the presidency in 1968 by a vote split between the Southern Dixiecrats and the rest of the Democrat Party, while Bush lost the 2000 popular vote but won the electoral college.

It is, as Reagan famously said, a time for choosing.

If this opinion counts, let’s remind the GOP establishment – the ones who did survive the tidal wave of 2010 – that they were not spared because of how marvelously they get along with Democrats.

And please, for goodness’ sake, let’s nominate someone other than Willard Mitt Romney.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

A front-runner with a discernible Negro dialect

It’s a classic Wesley Snipes punchline from the 1992 suspense thriller Passenger 57:

If you follow the Ever Red State Network fan page, you may have noticed that I use the phrase to compliment Herman Cain when he makes one of his pithy, well-placed comments: “Always bet on black.”

But let’s be honest: we loved his candidacy and his message, and sighed because we never thought he’d make it as far as he has.

I certainly did. That was why I liked Donald Trump’s brief flirtation with the race, because he was the only person polling high who could fearlessly stick it to President Hussein.

Now, we see the front-runner status diverging among three candidates. One of them is a clever career businessman with a master’s degree, a proud military record, the favor of the Tea Party, immunity from the race card (though it has been tried), and (perhaps best of all), dark skin and a discernible Negro dialect.

And he too speaks fearlessly in confronting the president.

Were they not such pigheaded fools protected by a compliant media, Harry Reid and Joe Biden could be taken to the woodshed for their blatant hypocrisy and bigotry by this measure alone.

Come to think of it, an awful lot of the media who protect Reid and Biden wondered aloud and in print whether President Hussein was “black enough” to relate to the issues and concerns of American blacks.

And now that the president has revealed that Obama couldn’t care less one way or the other, black leaders are hectoring his aides into uttering the word “black,” as though it has been made a byword in America.

You have to read all of this in context, bearing in mind that blacks have now held some of the highest government offices in the land, including the presidency, heads of the Justice and State departments, national security advisor, House majority whip, Supreme Court judgeships, leadership of the Republican National Committee and (in an irony of few equals) headship of the Democrat Party.

But in the political chaos of the Age of Obama, nothing turns the left’s narrative on its head like the emergence of a black front-runner, chosen from the Tea Party, with eloquence on par, yet boasting the meaningless genetic and hereditary elements liberals yearned for in their false god of 2008: slave blood, dark skin and a Negro dialect.

Now don’t get nervous. You know I have never been shy about race, mostly because I have plenty to answer for without God’s mercy and nothing to lose otherwise.

And you know I could care less about color, because you know that a person’s skin color is perceived by the eye rather than actually beheld – an image of light bouncing off of an object, refracted by the human eye into the opposite of what it actually is.

At least, you ought to know that. But you may have attended public schools, so we’ll go easy on you.

Wouldn’t it be the mockery of mockeries – in this, of all election years – to nominate Cain to run against the clean, articulate black man, the light-skinned one with no Negro dialect, unless he chose to have one? I can think of nothing more destructive to the left’s stranglehold on the black vote than a Cain presidency.

More importantly, Cain’s ascendancy would re-establish Reaganism at the helm of the Republican Party.

Whereas Mitt Romney would embody George H.W. Bush’s second term, and Rick Perry would do likewise as George W. Bush’s third – leaving us on shaky footing when it comes to defending or standing for what the GOP does – Cain’s election spells doom for establishment Republicans.

One would think, at this stage of the game, that the Consensitive Mod Squad would be laying as low in their opposition to Tea Party leadership as they do to Democrats. After all, didn’t they just lose a huge swath of their numbers in the 2010 primaries? Democrats running for re-election have more horse sense than these RINOs.

Cain has risen as a favorite of the Tea Party to begin with. He has no career record as a politician, but is instead the “citizen-legislator” (or in this case, “citizen-executive”) the Founding Fathers envisaged.

Cain has never stood for anything but Tea Party conservatism, to include low taxes (such as the 9-9-9 plan), opposition to socialized medicine, and border security (without tuition discounts for the children of illegals).

There’s still a long way to go before this is over. But let the record show that long before the Democrat Party ever got close to nominating a black man with a strong accent …

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

Speechless in Seattle

Air Force One landed at Boeing Field earlier today, carrying an individual visiting one of the few corners of the nation where he still enjoys broad voter support and approval: Seattle.

Few Americans reading that President Hussein visited the Hemorrhoid City would stop to wonder whether it was a fair-weather campaign stop. Along with big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago and (until recently) New York – Seattle is a place where liberals congregate in huge numbers.

But if you know the history of Seattle over the past twenty years, beginning with its pop culture “grunge” revolution in the early 1990s, you might raise an eyebrow or two at the president’s poorly planned remarks at a fundraiser in the Paramount Theater.

“We are a people who write our own destiny,” he said. “And it is fully within our power to write it once more.”

Now, leaving aside the obvious dishonesty of the statement, you have to wonder who the president is trying to please here. He’s not talking to a group of undecided, independent voters. The people attending this function are Democrat loyalists, and on top of that, they are Seattle Democrat loyalists.

Has the president no familiarity with the nihilistic outlook Seattle liberals have on life in general?

Somebody needs to tell the White House speechwriting staff that words like “destiny” and phrases like “fully within our power” do not feature prominently in the code of Northwest lefties.

For that matter, Washingtonians living up and down the Puget Sound area tend to be pessimistic regardless of their ideology – and I include myself in that category, at least when it comes to weather.

“Destiny” is not the word of choice in Seattle. “Fate” might suffice, “sentence” would definitely click, and “your lot in life” says it all. But not “destiny.”

Secondly, Northwestern people know that whatever is “within our power” is not “fully within our power.”

For example, it might be within my power to want to go outside and enjoy the day when it is sunny.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s fully within my power to do so, because the sun will disappear behind the clouds and it will begin to rain as soon as I do. Other Americans do not live under such inevitable unpredictability.

With the president’s unbalanced supporters in Seattle, the same is true in the political sense.

Despite supermajority control of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion, with a shored up liberal voting base including plenty of illegal aliens and dead people, and a bottomless socialist pit in the state’s largest city, Washington remains in permanent gridlock.

Over this weekend, Gov. Chrissy Gregoire once again called the legislature into special session to fix yet another state budget shortfall.

In 2008, campaigning against Dino Rossi for her first legitimate term as governor, Gregoire denied that there was a budget shortfall.

She then took office and switched the story around to admit that there was one, but added that a recession was no time to raise taxes.

In 2009, with full party control of the legislature, Gregoire switched the story around again to admit that not only was there a budget shortfall, but that the only solution to the problem was to raise taxes.

So the Democrats enacted taxes on soda, candy and bottled water, and attempted to circumvent a statewide initiative requiring a 2/3 supermajority to raise state taxes.

Washington back-handed Gregoire and her ilk in 2010 with resounding, landslide anti-tax initiatives repealing the new ones and making it even more difficult for Olympia to raise them again.

This kind of mindless bickering over public money and authority might seem more likely across the state, but it is no less prevalent in the one-party rule of Seattle.

The Hemorrhoid City’s impotence in resolving the trumped-up crisis regarding the Alaskan Way Viaduct is reminiscent of the Hussein’s latest childish political stunts.

He poses for idiotic photo-ops in front of Ohio bridges, taunting the House Republicans while deliberately refusing to submit the “American Jobs Act,” which he says is the only way to save our nation’s economy (but which, if he does not submit it, will supposedly lead to the bridge collapsing).

The endless quibbling between radical socialist Mayor Mike McGinn, Seattle labor unions, Gregoire, the Seattle City Council and the state legislature over how to repair or replace the viaduct caught the attention and mockery of the New York Times earlier this year.

To date, McGinn has finally assented to the building of an underground tunnel to replace the viaduct.

But the debate over replacing it began in 2001, which means that the decision to begin building the tunnel, counting inflation for political grandstanding, should be made in about 2025.

And even today, in a state where there is a strong undercurrent of social liberalism, lawmakers hesitate and operate quietly behind the scenes to push through a full vote on the definition of marriage.

So, knowing that my advice will go unheeded, I nevertheless extend to President Hussein a word of caution: don’t try to inspire Seattleites with ideas like “destiny” and “fully within our power.”

As little as you blush about speaking with brazen dishonesty, Mr. President, do please remember that these people are irreversibly insane. They actually believe you when you promise them sunshine and lollipops, and if you should somehow pierce the bubbles in which they live – well, it would be devastating.

So, be more pessimistic when you talk to Seattleites.

Tell them, “You are a people who write your own obituaries, and it is fully within your power to fulfill it, especially because you have a Death With Dignity law.”

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

ERS Network Update

In case you missed it, the Knightly Show and the Ever Red State Network are entering a transitional phase.

Due to time and personnel constraints, I announced last week that the Knightly Show podcast would go dark, for an undefined period of time.

Since then, I have given thought to ways of keeping it alive in segments, such as in daily, recorded 24-minute segments that could be combined into a 2-hour podcast at the end of the week. No decisions have yet been made.

The Ever Red State Network, meantime, is alive and well on Facebook and Twitter.

EverRedState.com is being revamped and re-designed to coincide with November 2011, exactly twelve months from the strategic date for which the network was established: Election Day 2012.

As a faithful audience you deserve to have some idea of where this is going.

Our goal with the Knightly Show is to expand it into a full-time, three-hour radio talk show on terrestrial and digital signals.

We need committed broadcast entertainment professionals to serve as producers, board-ops and content creators, in order to take the show beyond its current levels.

 The Ever Red State Network has become a legitimate social media phenomenon, with next to no advertising or promotion. Since its original launch in January 2009, the Facebook presence has amassed a following of nearly 7,000 people. Its content reaches hundreds of users every day, soliciting a constant stream of feedback and creating “regulars” among the visitors.

On Twitter, the following has grown from 47 in January 2011 to over 1,600 today, with a daily flow of retweets and mentions.

As for me, your host, I am thriving in this recession, by the grace and empowerment of Almighty God. I withdrew from my weekly radio hosting duties to resume working part-time in terrestrial broadcast media. It was, as is so often with Jesus Christ, an unsolicited, out-of-the-blue phone call with an opportunity no one in their right mind could pass up.

So, as we approach the benchmark of November 6, 2011 – exactly one year from the day we throw the tyrant down from his false footing – I snap my right hand in a crisp, U.S. Army salute to you, the Ever Red State Network.

We’re almost there. Do not get lazy, do not get complacent, do not take our momentum for granted. But also do not forget how ominous things were in the lowlands of February 2009, when the Tea Party was still a subject of U.S. history.

Quietly, in your mind’s eye, recall the scenes of crowds swelling in the first bailout protests …

Let the pride overwhelm you as you recall the shouting and rancor of ObamaCare town halls …

Remember the stunning victories in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia …

Think fondly of the political raids we flew over Arizona, the BP oil spill, the Ground Zero mosque and the Bush tax cuts …

Remember with full clarity the colossal landslide of November 2010 …

Let your souls be stirred by this year’s heroics in Wisconsin and the suitcase nuke explosion of capturing the seat formerly held by Anthony Weiner ..

Do not forget that this was done largely without the leadership of the Republican Party; it was done many times in spite of their heel-dragging, hand-wringing, treacherous style of surrender, which to this day shrivels in gutless terror every time its foe so much as sneezes.

None of this would have happened if we’d left it up to the Grand Old Farties.

Take in this rugged journey, examine and re-examine it, for it is yours, and it is precious.

It is the full satisfaction of a bloodless reenactment of the American Revolution, led not by a single, unifying leader, but as our currency motto says, “Out of many, one.”

Our Founders did not rest alone on the strength of George Washington, but on the shoulders of many towering forces – Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Patrick Henry – and those are just the ones we’ve read about.

The milestone we now approach is the day of which we dreamed when the Ever Red State Network surfaced on Facebook.

It is not to be taken for granted, but it is closer and more tangible than ever, and for that, we give praise to God Almighty and we thank Him for all of you – a true generation of American warriors, just like your forefathers.

See you on Election Day. Victorious.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

We Never Gave War A Chance

I wouldn’t blame people on any day, but particularly this past weekend, for tuning out the liberal media.

Nonetheless, you ought to read some of what they wrote in the days leading up to Sunday, the tenth anniversary of the most devastating, consequential attack on US soil in our nation’s history.

The left, represented here by E.J. Dionne, seized the occasion to demand surrender from the right, while the schism of the Republican Party and the conservative movement played right into their hands.

Failed CNN talk show host and Consensitive Mod Squad cheerleader Kathleen Parker took the occasion to bash Americans in the Washington Com-Post for both airing and suppressing emotional outbursts.

In her column, “An America That No Longer Knows Itself,” Parker lamented Americans’ refusal to confront the divisiveness and internecine hostility 9/11 supposedly brought on us.

Then she hectored us for occasions when we do give vent to it, such as when Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at President Hussein.

It sounds as though the cure for denial is primal screaming, while the cure for primal screaming is denial. But it was yet another stupid attempt to reach across the aisle to people who hate our guts by agreeing with their feigned interest in “civility” and bashing one’s own, supposed side.

The onslaught then degenerated into an outright assault on the memory of 9/11 by Dionne, with a piece titled “Time To Leave 9/11 Behind.”

“The last decade was a detour that left our nation weaker, more divided and less certain of itself,” Dionne pretended to weep, before proceeding to berate George W. Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The implication, of course, is that Bush squandered the opportunity to rebuild from the terrorist attacks by committing our nation’s resources to wars, with a perpetual reference to 9/11 as the pretext.

“Our country and the world were never threatened by the caliphate of [Islam’s] mad fantasies,” Dionne continued, ignoring the painfully obvious truth that the World Trade Center no longer exists precisely because of the caliphate of Islam’s mad fantasies.

He concludes that the heated, partisan and divisive political and cultural battles of the day are the results of responding to radical Islam with military force rather than diplomatic grace.

(Translation: President Hussein is having a hard time in re-election polls because Bush fought back against radical Islam.)

“It was often said that terrorism could not be dealt with through ‘police work,’ as if the difficult and unheralded labor involved was not grand or bold enough to satisfy our longing for clarity in what was largely a struggle in the shadows,” Dionne sneered.

Of course, that obscures the fact that until the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorism was dealt with through police work and in the shadows, with multiple legal walls erected between intelligence, law enforcement and military departments preventing them from sharing information with each other.

The Clinton Administration dealt with terrorism in precisely that manner, prosecuting the first World Trade Center bombers in 1993 and issuing bench warrants, unserviceable outside US borders, for the arrest of terrorism suspects. When US interests were attacked overseas, such as the USS Cole or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Clintonistas did virtually nothing in response.

Parker and Dionne diagnosed symptoms rather than disease. It’s akin to visiting your doctor with a cold, and having the doctor inform you that you are sneezing, coughing, have a sore throat and a temperature.

“I already know that, doctor,” you reply. “But is it a cold, the flu or something else?”

Parker and Dionne are in flat denial as to the nature of the disease – because they are infected with the disease, and don’t want to be exposed to the treatment. So we, the audience, get haughty sighs of disappointment with our persistent immaturity, as though we are children being scolded by the few adults left in this country.

The real problem facing America is that our liberals have spent fifty years ridiculing, denigrating, questioning, attacking and undermining every military conflict we’ve entered since the 1960s.

We are conditioned in school, in culture and in our interpersonal dealings to be polite, harmless and easily manipulated. If we do happen to disagree with the liberal dogma prevalent in our society, we are dismissed as backward, narrow-minded bigots or Nazi stormtroopers.

Parker is right, but only in her headline: America no longer knows who we are. But this is not because we cannot learn who we are; it is because we’ve already been taught that who we are isn’t worth spit.

We’ve spent our school years hearing about how horribly our forebears treated Indians, blacks, women, gays and other minorities.

We’ve been lectured on the importance of kindness, gentleness, compassion, civility, interpersonal dependence, equality, social justice and empathy – feminized and emasculated.

We don’t remember who we are because socialist radicals despised who we are and sued to prevent us from remaining so.

We’ve become a culture that mocks and eschews values, right and wrong, and standing on principle and honor. We rebelled against the character and morals of the World War II Generation, and replaced them with immoral, relativistic, slippery ones.

It is little wonder that our nation is so divided between the people who listened to our forebears and those who did not. Any skilled infiltrator working in intelligence or special operations will tell you that the quickest way to destabilize a society is by confusing the norms and moral codes, turning natives against one another.

“We know now, as we should have known all along, that American strength always depends first on our strength at home,” Dionne closes – “on a vibrant, innovative and sensibly regulated economy, on levelheaded fiscal policies, on the ability of our citizens to find useful work, on the justice of our social arrangements.”

This argument sounds very reasonable, except when you consider that we already had all of those things on September 10, 2001, and none of it did us any good.

Income taxes were higher on 9/11 than they are now; the deregulation of which Bush is constantly, falsely accused had yet to take place; we had a strong dollar fiscal policy and a balanced budget, and greater upward social mobility than we’d ever seen.

And still, 19 Muslim fanatics slipped easily past our politically correct airport security systems to board three aircraft for a suicide mission that changed the world forever.

“As we reflect on the events of 10 years ago, it would be nice if all sides could resolve to invite America’s better angels back to the huddle,” Parker sighed, channeling President Hussein and Rodney King. “Another terror attack would put things in perspective, all right, but our survival ultimately depends on our willingness to marshal reason and restraint against the emotional terrorism that surely will bring us down.”

It would be nice if that were all it took. But this isn’t Full House, and no amount of emotional pseudo-wisdom from the Olsen Twins is going to turn the clock back to September 10th.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

Which Came First? The Mission, Or the Troops?

It’s Patriot Day this coming Sunday, a name which fails to register with most Americans if you mention it. “What day is that?” they ask.

Like most of you, I remember exactly where I was on the morning of September 11, 2001. I lived in a beachfront apartment in Santa Monica, Calif., with my mentor, a quadriplegic multi-millionaire. It was a rent-free apprenticeship in exchange for help with tasks the man could not physically perform.

We woke up around the same time every day, but I recall hearing the sound as he switched on the television. It was the sound of a television newscast, with footage of a city, but without narration. All you heard was the normal ambience sound of a city – the hum – and sirens. I was in the next room and could not see the screen.

We weren’t sure what had happened. By now the events were a good thirty minutes old, and the immediate reports had been swallowed up by the wall-to-wall coverage we would see for the next several weeks. But we sat in silence and disbelief, absorbing what had happened.

It bears mentioning that, as a young, arrogant leftist, I thought to myself, “Well, this was bound to happen sooner or later. It’s what happens when America sticks its nose where it doesn’t belong.”

But for whatever reason, that all changed six weeks later when I joined my family to visit my sister, who was living in Jersey City, N.J., at the time.

She had rushed to the waterfront of the Hudson River and watched the towers collapse before her very eyes, and traveled into the city to help with the rescue efforts.

We ascended the Empire State Building, and as we walked about the observation deck at the top, I could not help but look down.

I tried to imagine being so choked out by smoke from the explosion that I would actually leap to my own death.

I also remembered that the 9/11 attacks had struck close to my sister’s life and livelihood, and they had also struck 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Penn., where my parents lived at the time.

One year later, I raised my right hand and became a United States Soldier.

You know the general story from then on; the US invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq; the global left rebelled against the war and spent the next seven years undermining, badmouthing and opposing it.

Then the American left recaptured Congress and the White House, and now they can’t get enough of the war. They love it so much that they’ve launched a new offensive in Libya, just to show us how it’s really done.

We’re still waiting for the White House to request approval from Congress and the United Nations, but the French are very impressed; in fact, they’ve led the offensive.

You may recall the mantra of anti-war liberals during the years when George W. Bush was commander-in-chief of our nation’s armed forces: “I support the troops, but not the mission.”

And perhaps you’ve heard lately of rapper Soulja Boy, a microcosm of anti-American liberalism, who has come under fire for his song “Let’s Be Real,” in which he vomits, among other choice phrases, “F–k the troops.”

Throughout those wonderfully hypocritical years when the left relived their glory years of Vietnam, I heard plenty of people say the equivalent of “I support the troops, but not the mission.”

Here in the wayward land of Olympia, you could regularly observe the traitors gathered on the State St./4th Avenue bridge that crosses the port. They would display signs that read, “Support our troops … bring them home now.”

A close relative of mine declined to criticize me personally, trying to sound sincere by saying, “I objected to Vietnam, but I also thought it was horrible how they treated the soldiers when they returned home, and never approved of it.”

And when I criticized this doublespeak, I’ve been met with emotional responses that sounded too familiar:

“We support them and love them because they obey their orders and do what they’re told whether or not they want to or agree with it.”

Of all the people I’ve ever told that I served in Iraq, I estimate that roughly 75% of them winced, expressed morbid sympathy or acted as though I had to be handled delicately, as though I might at any moment explode or collapse in tears.

Unlike Vietnam, the left did not begin the Iraq War and mismanage it to the point that the Silent Majority stormed the polls to re-elect Richard Nixon in a 49-state landslide to correct a seven-year quagmire.

This time, they pointed fingers and cursed our military and our president until they won control, and now they’re busy undoing everything we fought and died for.

The odious fool who currently occupies the White House was among the Iraq War’s most vociferous congressional critics prior to his election. Now, he’s overseeing the extension of a US military presence beyond the withdrawal deadline. 

His running mate, our treasonous current vice president, is on record as having credited any success in Iraq to Iraqis, not American GIs, in 2007. Then, once his party controlled the government, he turned around and lavished praise on American GIs, recently dubbing us “the greatest generation of warriors ever.”

As one listener put it, it seems that before 2008, Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported the troops, but not the mission; and now that they control the government, they support the mission, but not the troops.

That’s two parts equal absurdity, I know, so let me expound. Just remember that in either case, the “mission” for Obama and Biden never was victory in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Supporting troops, if you believe that words have meaning and definition, implies supporting the mission.

Civilians don’t carry out the mission; they come over to take top-paying contractor jobs with Kellogg, Brown and Root, living in the best conditions and paying zero taxes. They cannot carry the mission out; they are not “our troops.” Only soldiers carry out the mission, and since the mid-1970s, only volunteer soldiers carry it out.

A person is not a “troop” or part of a troop until they enlist or commission as a member of the armed services.

In so doing, however, they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, obeying the orders of the president and the officers appointed over them.

The fact that every last one of our service members did what they did in Afghanistan and Iraq voluntarily, in a free and fair exchange with our government, gets completely obscured by the people who offer up the shallow, vacuous, weaselly retort, “I support the troops, but not the mission.”

Using that scurrilous logic, they may as well say, “I support people who’ve never been there and have nothing to do with it, but not the mission.”

President Hussein and his asinine sidekick Biden are the worst of them all. Not only did they not mean a word of what they said, but they now show up in front of battalions of soldiers and say the most wonderful things about us, as though they’ve long been our biggest supporters.

They now think that nobody will notice or say anything as they escalate and prolong the wars they swore to end, retaining all of the aggressive and effective postures put in place by the Bush administration to prevent another attack like the ones we suffered on that awful day 10 years ago.

So on this somber occasion, if you should hear that loathsome, adolescent mantra, “I support the troops, but not the mission” – and you won’t, because Bush is long gone – simply offer this in reply: “I support the mission, but not the troops.”

They’ll give you a puzzled look, or perhaps they’ll even dare to lecture you about patriotism.

But when you remind them that President Hussein’s mission is to win re-election rather than war, it will all make sense; you can support this particular mission (to elect a president) without supporting the troops (Hussein, Biden and their campaign staff).

And if that fails, just remind them that Hillary Clinton has already told us that dissent is patriotic, and that you would gladly support her in a primary challenge to President Hussein.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

Iran Paul

Perhaps we’ll see a rematch between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul over US foreign policy on Wednesday.

Before you hear Paul trash his country again for the origins of the conflict between the United States and Iran – it’s time for another Ever Red State Network History Lesson.

Paul is correct when he states that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 had much to do with radical Muslim hatred of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. It is true that the Shah was installed as Iran’s leader in 1953 by in a CIA-backed coup of the Mohammad Mosaddegh government.

But the assumption Paul makes when he originates the conflict at that moment of history obscures the real culprit behind this 58-year tale of tension. Not surprisingly, if the year was 1953 and the United States was on one side of the conflict, you can guess who was on the opposite side, operating by proxy.

Iran’s turbulent times in the early 1950s were the product of a tactic the West has been loath to comprehend, much less identify. But it can be found in the strategies of community organizers and leftist rabble rousers: find people who already have a degree of anger or hostility toward your enemy and make false, expedient allegiances with them.

This is the big secret of World War II that the American left would just as soon you did not understand: as awful as Adolf Hitler was, Joseph Stalin was way out in front of Berlin, Washington and London, playing the one against the other two and hoping to destroy all three in the process.

Anyway, this is about Iran. (Although if you research the name “Iran” you’ll find a curious coincidence with Nazi Germany: it means “Land of the Aryans,” and you’ll never guess the decade in which they changed it from “Persia” to “Iran”!)

The clues are often dressed up by the worldwide liberal media, but Ron Paul’s glib mudslinging at the US as imperialist meddlers is the first thing that should make your radar go up. Anyone who casually slanders America in the same way Osama bin Laden and Noam Chomsky do, while claiming to be a conservative libertarian and running for the presidency, is immediately suspicious.

The second step in detecting the truth about Iran is to remember that American history is written by its losers, the leftists who dominate academia, the press and the record-keeping bureaucracies around the world.

Take this piece, for example, written by Renato Redentor Constantino. You can tell by the way he describes what was taking place in Iran in 1952-53 that something went very wrong:

“The Iranian giant’s (Mosaddegh’s) commitment to social refoooorm was unrivaled in his country’s history, while his towering presence in the international arena as a voice of poooooor countries presaged the era of giants such as Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Indonesia’s Sukarno and the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba.”

“During Mossadegh’s time, Iranian peasants were freed from forced laaaaabor in their landlords’ estates, factory owners were ordered to pay beeeenefits to sick and injured workers, and unemployment compensaaaaation was established. The giant caused 20% of the money landlords received in rent to be placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as pest control, rural housing and public baths.”

“The giant supported women’s riiiiights and defended religious freeeeeedom and allowed courts and universities to function freely. In addition, the colossus was known even by his enemies as scrupulously hooooonest and impervious to the corruption that pervaded Iranian politics.”

You can tell where Iran was headed when Great Britain appealed to the newly-elected Dwight Eisenhower for a change of policy from the weak, diplomatic one pursued by Harry Truman. They were headed in the same direction as Argentina, China, North Korea and Guatemala.

But for the sake of argument, you assume that Argentina, China, North Korea, Guatemala and Iran – and then Paraguay, Cuba, Chile, Uruguay, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, and on, and on, and on … all of these countries wanted “democracy, women’s rights, peasants freed from forced labor, pest control, rural housing, public baths, unemployment benefits” and so forth.

Just like you now want them from President Hussein, right?

You know, or at least you ought to know, just from reading that article by an admitted Greenpeace environmental activist, that the people of these nations were swirling the same bottomless pit of Marxism you now swirl.

But you say, “Well, that doesn’t justify us meddling in Iran’s affairs.”

Au contraire, dear reader. It most certainly does, just as intervening with Saddam Hussein in 1990 to protect the world’s most petroleum-rich nation from being overrun did. The entire Western World is threatened every time Muslim and/or communist radicals attempt to seize control of the petroleum industry of the Middle East.

And Mohammad Mosaddegh most certainly did nationalize the British-controlled Iranian oil industry, among all the other developments he made that attracted backing from Moscow.

What’s that you say? You didn’t know that Mosaddegh was a leftist? Hell, you’re probably still wondering who Mosaddegh was! That’s exactly how the left would like you to think, because if you knew who he was, you wouldn’t buy the narrative that the Iranian Revolution is actually our fault.

Ron Paul didn’t tell you, either. He knows that most of us can’t be bothered to look into this, and so he uses it as a populist demagogue technique. He knows that he simply has to say it, and many of us will immediately think, “Well, that is true …”

That bastion of inviolable respect for private property rights, Ron Paul, fails to mention that Mosaddegh was the leader of the Iranian National Front Party, a coalition of – you guessed it – labor unions, communist radicals and Muslim fanatics.

Call me crazy, but those three groups don’t sound like people who believe in respecting private property.

The National Front built a strong power base in the Iranian parliament throughout the 1940s, gradually increasing their opposition to Western ownership and domination of their petroleum business. Mosaddegh’s predecessor, Haj-Ali Razmara, became prime minister in 1951 and pleaded against nationalization.

But the Iranian left made such a decision impossible, as their communist wing, the Tudeh, staged nationwide strikes and riots in “solidaaaaarity” with Iranian oil workers. Like good Wisconsin labor union leaders, the Tudeh and the National Front Party violated Ron Paul’s precious principles of untouchable private property rights by trashing and destroying private property. Eventually, they also confiscated the private property of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Then as now, the left understood in every country where they operated that nature abhors a vacuum. The news from around the world was that socialists and communists were winning everywhere. The Soviet Union was developing atomic weapons. China and North Korea had fallen to the reds. Their only strategic foe, the United States, seemed powerless to do anything about it.

Until Dwight Eisenhower took office.

Ike was no transformational, anti-communist crusader like Ronald Reagan. But he had enough sense to know that Moscow could not be trusted, nor could they be allowed to operate unopposed, nor could their allies and clients in various countries be permitted to pretend no affiliation with the global socialist revolution.

So Ike backed the coup of the Mossadegh government, just as he backed the overthrow of Guatemala’s ragtag band of socialist rebels who threatened private agribusiness interests, and backed the Bautista regime in Cuba against Fidel Castro throughout the 1950s. He established greater ties with Spain’s anti-communist dictator, Francisco Franco, and backed Paraguay’s counterpart, Alfredo Stroessner. After France abandoned Indochina (Vietnam), Ike began supporting the South Vietnamese leadership against its radicalized north.

How would this have turned out if Ron Paul had been President of the United States?

You might argue that at a minimum, all of these budding Soviet clients would have at least made the decision for themselves without US meddling.

But I submit to you, regular victims of leftist election-rigging as you are, that no such sovereign decisions were made in any of these countries. The radicals we overthrew became powerful through their own shenanigans. You ought to be able to discern that by reading again how Mosaddegh is described:

“The colossus was known even by his enemies as scrupulously honest and impervious to the corruption that pervaded Iranian politics.”

 There just aren’t any leftist politicians – or politicians in general, for that matter, but especially left-wing politicians – who measure up to such standards.

And judging by the absence of context to his demagogue arguments about Iran, Ron Paul is about as viable of a candidate for the American presidency as Mohammad Mosaddegh or Barack Obama.

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

The Zapato’s On the Other Foot

A deliciously ironic story from the Associated Piss via the Seattle Pre-Intelligencer, with a hat-tip to Right Wing News.

It was some time ago that United Auto Workers union executives, who bullied their way into ownership of General Motors and Chrysler, suddenly found themselves in the position of negotiating a new labor contract with their own union members throwing them out of the meeting because they demanded a salary cut.

That was one of the sweetest moments in the history of the left-right war in America. A bunch of thug leftists who made careers out of vilifying auto executives now found themselves with the shoe on the other foot, and lo and behold! They faced exactly the same kind of bullying and intimidation they so freely handed out. Turnabout’s fair play.

Now, the irony has spread to one of our nation’s minoooooorities – illegal alien Mexican farm workers in California’s Salinas Valley.

“Longtime residents,” as only willfully blind liberal reporters could call them, are up in arms as a huge new influx of indigenous Mexicans has flooded the region.

But these are not average, Spanish-speaking Mexicans; they are mestizos – descendants of the ancient Indian civilizations that existed before Hernándo Cortez showed up. And to hear these longtime illegal aliens tell it, they are some rowdy, dirty and unwelcome fellow Mexicans.

This story carries every element of what Americans have screamed from the rooftops of their Arizona ranches and Texas border towns since Ted Kennedy undermined border security with his Immigration Act of 1965 – except that the oppressed victims are now illegal aliens themselves, rather than American citizens.

“THEY SPEAK THEIR OWN LANGUAGES, not Spanish, THEY KEEP THEIR OWN CUSTOMS, such as arranged marriages, and, despite a longstanding tradition of sanctuary and tolerance in Greenfield, THEY REMAIN SEPARATE,” gasps Associated Piss reporter Gosia Vozniacka.

The hell, you say!

“In a town FEELING HEAVILY PRESSURED BY THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND GANG ACTIVITY, the influx of Oaxacans and their lack of understanding of U.S. customs has led to an ethnic clash.”

Get right out of town!

The only thing more ironic that the story itself is the author’s complete lack of awareness as to how it resembles the cries of Americans that the media has ignored for nearly fifty years.

“Rachel Ortiz became so displeased with the new migrants that, after more than five decades in Greenfield, she left her cul-de-sac home and moved to Salinas, 30 miles away,” it continues. “Ortiz and others in newly-formed community groups COMPLAINED THAT THE OAXACAN FAMILIES CLUSTERED IN OVERCROWDED APARTMENTS AND GARAGES, THREW TRASH INTO THE STREETS, THRONGED CITY PARKS, HELD LOUD PARTIES. SOME URINATED IN PUBLIC AND WERE INVOLVED IN BREAK-INS.”

No kidding?

“The new migrants RUINED THE TOWN FINANCIALLY, ‘DESTROYED’ ITS SCHOOL SYSTEM, CAUSED VIOLENT CRIMES AND WERE PART OF GANGS, which are pervasive in the Salinas Valley. The migrants, ‘invaders from the south,’ SHOULD BE DEPORTED.”

Please excuse me while I feel not one drop of sympathy.

Now here is the kicker of kickers:

“THE COMMUNITY GROUPS WERE, IN TURN, LABELED ‘RACIST’ BY THE PRESS AND MIGRANT LEADERS.

“An unfair label, Ortiz said, considering members of Beautify Greenfield are mostly Mexican-American. THE GROUP WAS NOT AGAINST OAXACANS PER SE, BUT JUST WANTED TO GET RID OF BLIGHT AND CRIME.“

Well, well, WELL!

You just can’t make this kind of thing up, ladies and gentlemen.

Mexicans – who are presumed to know nothing of class, race or sex bigotry because their entire nation is poor – are turning on other Mexicans because they don’t like their own racial minorities.

Mexicans – who are supposed to be unconcerned about wealth, totally selfless in their concern for their fellowman, family- and culture-oriented to a tee – are suddenly turning on their own countrymen because their community and individual livelihoods are threatened.

Mexicans – who are supposed to be universally hard-working, morally upright people with traditional family values, are threatening other Mexicans with drugs, alcohol abuse, loud parties, gang violence and neighborhood nuisances.

And in an effort to put a stop to it, one group of illegal aliens are leveling at another group of illegal aliens EVERY single charge that American citizens have been making against illegal immigrants for FIFTY years, and the liberal media is lapping it up and reporting it as though no one notices how utterly absurd they sound.

As a lawful immigrant and naturalized US citizen, I have only one thing to say to Mexicans being harassed by their fellow Mexicans:

“You really need to be more sensitive and accepting. After all … all these people want is a better life.”

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC

The Godless Mind

Every so often you receive a message from the hand of God that makes political blogging a complete waste of time.

That time is upon us; I offer you this transcript from a humorous summation regarding the secular liberal mind – the godless mind, for short. It is from British journalist Steve Turner.

“We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin. We believe that everything is okay as long as you don’t hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of ‘hurt’ and to the best of your definition of ‘knowledge.’

“We believe in sex before, during and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that taboos are taboo.

“We believe that everything is getting better, despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated, and you can prove anything with evidence.

“We believe there’s something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons; Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher although we think his good morals were bad.

“We believe that all religions are basically the same. At least, the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

“We believe that after death comes ‘The Nothing’ because when you ask the dead what happens, they say nothing. If death is not the end, the dead have lied. Then it’s compulsory heaven for all, excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.

“We believe in Masters and Johnson: what’s selected is average. What’s average is normal. What’s normal is good.

“We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.

“We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behaviour that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.

“We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

“We believe in the rejection of creeds.”

 

If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear ‘state of emergency,’ ‘sniper kills 10,’ ‘troops on rampage,’ ‘youths go looting,’ ‘bombs blast school,’ it is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

Happy Trails!

 

© 2011 Ed’s Voices LLC