Tag Archives: Africa

Have We Forgotten?

With the elections of November 2006, the overall victorious party, the Democrats, claimed they’d been given a “mandate” regarding many issues, particularly the War on Terror. They claim the American people have spoken and that the only allowable course now is withdrawal and defeat. Though they speak specifically of the Iraqi War, their master policy is reflective of their general disenchantment with the whole war against terror. This belief in a “mandate”, the word du jour for giving credence to the questionably credible, does seem to be born out by the recent polls, as reported on CNN and the BBC, showing 2/3 of Americans don’t see a good plan for winning the War in Iraq.

While it is only barely debatable that the Iraq War is not going the way we’d hoped, not even complete failure is a viable reason for ever giving up, especially in this war where it is our homes, families, businesses, our way of life, and our lives themselves which are at stake. After all, this war began, at least this current phase, with the enemy attaching us, on our turf, killing our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, innocents all. Even many jihadists agree that non-combatants, civilians, and innocents are off-limits to any kind of attack. But attacked we were, and though it has now been several years since that attack we vowed we’d never forget, it was neither the first nor will it be the last, the danger is little abated. Is there then reason for throwing up our hands collectively, defeated?

Liberals would say emphatically “Yes!”

The current strategy, according to liberals, is not working, and therefore we must tuck tail and run. Defeatism leading to disengagement, with the ultimate goal of isolationism. An island we will be, literally and figuratively. And we having cried “uncle,” the rabid dogs hounding us around the world will allow us a gracious defeat and will let us be, alone. A final Vietnam this will be, America will no longer find the will to project itself and then indeed others will take the reins of power in the world. Except for several things, but first: Where in our governing documents and illustrious history do we the people determine the minutiae of war policy?

We expressly give the President power to direct and wage war as necessary and as he sees fit to protect our interests. This is, in part, why it is so very important that there be people of Character in high office leading this great nation. There cannot be a part-time person of character, for if at the first change of wind that person reassesses and changes their position, they are not truly a person of character. President Bush, for all anybodies disagreements with him personally and politically, has not changed course. He has stated his goal simply: to defeat terrorism whenever and wherever it is found, and has not changed. Whether agreeing with him or not, one can know what President Bush will continue to do. And the job is not finished. Far from it. The very fact of our experiencing difficulties in Iraq should be cause for us to redouble our efforts, reaffirming the need for such a battle now, before it is too late. And resolving to continue the fight we did not start in order to destroy the enemy who would destroy us.

For that is their goal whether we leave or not. The militant, radical, extremist Muslims, or Islamo-Nazis or Islamo-Facists, who began this war have a very public goal which they are not loath to tell, yet which we seem to have forgotten, it would seem. That goal is shouted by radical Imams (preachers or prayer leaders) and written officially as Fatwahs (edicts) and published to their adherents around the globe. America is the Great Satan and it and other nations which do not submit to their extreme Islamic theology, philosophy, and government must be destroyed, period. For them there is no discussion, no arguing the points and possibilities of peaceful coexistance. If we give up in Iraq and the other fronts of the War on Terror we are signing our own, our childrens’, and out entire futures’ death warrants. They will be utterly defeated or they will rule the world, there is no third option for them, and therefore there isn’t for us either.

So then, the only choice for us must be to continue to face them in classic American projectionism. To battle evil is the calling and constant duty of the good. Evil at different times and places takes different faces. Consider the World Wars of the last century. What if we’d given up because too many were dying? What if we’d accepted defeat at the hands of the Nazis? It is likely all of Europe would be enslaved to this day by them or another despotic regime along with most or all of Africa and the East. Prior to our engagement in that war it was the Republican Party arguing for isolationism against engagement, just to show how times and ideas change.

Just as in the World Wars, others are depending, both admittedly and unadmittedly, on our success. The United Kingdom continues to be our staunchest ally, showing classic British, Scottish, Irish and Welsh pluck and courage and an indomitable spirit. Mr. Blair has perhaps been more eloquent in his defence of the War and has used his bully pulpit more often explaining the rationale for our continued involvement in this fight than President Bush. Spain has given up after suffering great pain and loss of its own on its own shores. Instead of steeling its resolve as the London Train Bombings did for the United Kingdom, Spains’ Madrid Train Bombings broke the resolve of Castilla. Regardless of the allies individual or collective spines, though, if we fail, Spain will once again become a Moorish conquest, and this will not be an Islamic Kingdom such as that of the Moors of old who valued art and learning and to whom we owe a great debt for their careful preservation and translation of many priceless works of knowledge and beauty.

So if America were indeed to falter and fail, and retreat within its borders, who would then take the lead in the world? Who has the strength and ability, and more importantly the moral fiber and the national will?

There are few countries indeed who do not have the desire to lead the world the way America has led. The relevant question really is not would they, but could they and should they. The UK has perhaps the nearest moral fiber (nationally) to America. Willing to take unpopular stands around the world in what they see as preservation of good. However, by size they are physically unable to produce enough to lead economically. A leading nation must be able to produce enough to be nearly self-sufficient if necessary. They must be an economic powerhouse challenging all others to give it weight enough for it’s word to mean something. The European Union has shown it does not have the moral fiber to stand against evil at crucial times. Like the UN, when it comes to actual meaningful action, the EU is hampered by it’s own universality, someone is always involved with the enemy and therefore no one can do what must be done. Further, being based on “old-world” economies, it does not produce or consume enough, even collectively, to give it’s word weight beyond it’s member n ations.

In Asia, both China and India have the size, and economic and political/military might and/or potential. However, China is hampered by an immoral, communist quasi-dictatorship, and even if democracy or some less greedily repressive and philosophically backward form of government than comunism were to take over immediately, the people would not soon be ready for world domination and protection. India perhaps has the best chance of becoming a or the world dominant nation, post America, but even they suffer under a socially restrictive religion, social order, and government.

African and South American nations suffer almost universally under corrupt, despotic governments and appear too busy enriching their own upper crusts illegitimately to worry too much about their being the trailing end of the nations of the world. Russia seems unable to throw off cronyism and corruption in business or the siren song of a communist government.

Those nations among our allies in the Middle East have their hands much too full trying to set their houses in order without offending any of their geographical or theological brethren, and many of them officially support ideologies as destructive and evil as any of their more violent neighbors who we’re now in struggle against

So that leaves America. Oh, and not to offend anybody, but who’s heard anything out of our northern neighbor Canada recently? I’m told it’s a beautiful place and the people there are special and nice and kind, but they appear to be content, in a global perspective, being frosting, a whole lot of white stuff, on top of the United States. That and trying to win the title “More Socialist Than France While Still Drinking Beer (Wine Is For Sissies).” So here we are, the lone strongman holdout against the encroaching darkness, to whom all others cling. Some more grudgingly than others. But this is what we are fighting for, the whole world. This is the responsibility that comes with being the nice big kid on the block: We have to face every bully. And if we don’t win, this particularly bully is a rapist.

End Of January Election Links

Obama and Hillary being childish
Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.

With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.

McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)

McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.

It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.

Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?

Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.

Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:

Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.

(From the American Thinker)

Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…

I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.

…and endorses Romney.

Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.

And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:

After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.

I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.

I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.

And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.

I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.

Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.

Riehl ponders:

Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain – an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?

We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:

“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”

(From Copious Dissent)

My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.

This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.

Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:

  • He can win
  • He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
  • He believes America’s best days are ahead of it

And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?

So where did McCain differ from the ACU?  The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration.  There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.

Why Us?

A friend asked me a question last night which caught me by surprise. I had honestly never considered this question and am still digesting it’s implications.

Rather than give an answer right away, let me pose the question to you:

Why did such wide forms of progress (societal, scientific, medical, moral, religious, economic, governmental) occur in Europe (during times such as the reformation or the renaissance) and not in Africa?

This question is of especial importance for several historically cultural and certain current events. The legendary Dr. Watson (not of Holmsian fame but of DNA) has recently raised news and hackles with his claim that Africans have lower intelligence. (If you want an opinion of this event showing the ugliness of the evolutionary philosophy and relativist philosophy while making several very valid points, read here). And radical Islam, in it’s eons-old battle against light and right, spread rapidly across North Africa, preventing much exploration based on over-land expeditions.

Is this just an ethno-centrist or xenophobe who doesn’t appreciate the fear which prevented most Europeans from learning more about the dark continent or the difficulty of mounting a meaningful expedition to enlighten the interior? I think not. While there was general human progress, the tribal structure enjoys a mutually supportive relationship with human evil, allowing jealousy, avarice, and greed to rule. There were medicinal benefits, but none along the lines of antibacterial discoveries and exploration of the human body such as Europe enjoyed. It would seem that scientific and cultural progress happened in spite of, instead of because of, any passing of time in these two vast cultures.

And what of Asia? How does Asia affect this question? Was Asia a superior culture to Europe or not? Why?

I don’t have answers to all these, but as I continue to ponder the nature of this beast I hope to write a few bits here and there.

Quick Takes, October 15th, 2007

Democrat House staffers recommend getting full immunizations before going to NASCAR events. Recommended immunizations include the Hepatitis B (an STD) vaccine. Apparently their caricatured idea of NASCAR fans include homosexual and promiscuous hicks of varying degrees of uncleanness openly engaging in sexual acts in the stands and infield.

…either that or they think conservatism is transmittable. Heh, they have no idea.

(Ain’t worth a)Hill(of beans)ary Clinton says that for African Americans, she’s going to be Clinton.

…and how long ago did she drop Rodham?

…and that means they should vote for her, why? The inscrutable logic simply does not follow.

…and for all the Chinese- and Mexican-, and German-, and British-, Australian-, Swedish-, Spanish-, Brazilian-, and every other (hyphen) Americans, who will she be? Urkel?

Run, Al, run!

…anything to give the nutroots more choices. They are pro-murder “pro-choice”, right?

Speaking of running: Harry Reid may want to start running, along with Clinton, Schumer et al.

Democrats push through bill making sure we all know the Turks committed genocide 60 years ago.

I don’t deny it’s a good thing to be accurate, especially about such heinous events and crimes as genocide. But they’re our staunchest ally in the Mid-east region. And we need some clout with them to keep them from beginning a war on the northern border of Iraq with Kurd rebels who are taking shelter among some of our strongest supporters inside Iraq, the Kurds.

Either intelligence on the left side of the isle is lower than even I thought, or ego is even larger. Do we really have to lose at all costs?

It was aliens, I knew it.

Quote:

You do not negotiate peace until you’ve kicked somebody’s rear end.
~Rush Limbaugh

Hiding A Bloody Face

Abortion mill parent company Planned Parenthood, progeny of the racist white supremacist Margaret Sanger, has encountered an unexpected roadblock in the construction of a new abortion mill (aka. Planned Parenthood Clinic, or reproductive health clinic) in a suburb of my own beautiful Chicago.

The planned clinic in Aurora was being constructed by Weitz Construction when pro-life activists found they’d lied in their permit requests to the city. The structure was bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, and was to be used exclusively for that purpose. But on the permit filings Gemini Office Development listed the tenants as “unknown”.

In this city, opinion is never very far away, and there are a few telling opinions on this issue.

First, from the pro-abortion side. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn (the Tribune ran the original article revealing the true nature of the building project) begins his piece on the conflagration this way:

Well of course Planned Parenthood representatives didn’t tell the truth to Aurora city officials while they were building a new clinic in the western suburb.

Why is it such a matter-of-fact thing, Mr. Zorn?

Their goal was straightforward: To open a reproductive-health clinic on land zoned for such purpose.

Indeed, no one denies their goal, but still, why the secrecy?

But they had to use a certain amount of stealth because abortion is one of the services Planned Parenthood offers. And foes of abortion rights, longtime losers in the battle for public opinion, traditionally raise all kinds of rukus when Planned Parenthood comes into a community.

“Longtime losers”? If, as you say, the pro-life ideology is such a loser in the battle for public opinion why the hiding, the subterfuge, the concealment? There have indeed been cases of crazies causing physical harm to abortion doctors, in some cases killing, and destroying clinics. Such actions on the part of individual vigilantes are wrong and the perpetrators have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Those few cases are not a suitable excuse if, as Eric claims, abortion is such a universally accepted procedure. Hey, it’s only a baby.

In his smug pride, assured of the moral superiority of his position, he implies that Planned Parenthood and the services is provides ought to be as amoral as a Best Buy or Walmart. As if the killing of babies and the emotional and physical damaging of mothers, the admitted genocidal aims of abortion as issues are anywhere near the moral level of a big box store selling baubles and gewgaws. It makes me want to scream.

(P)oll after poll shows that, even after all the picketing and haranguing and hurling of moral opprobrium in the last 34 years, roughly 2 out of 3 Americans still support Roe v. Wade — the 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an early-term abortion.

Reading the other polls on the page, I see, not a losing pro-life ideology, but a closely divided America leaning to the side of further limiting the availability of abortions.

Responding to the news, the Reverend Dr. Johnny M. Hunter, DD. National Director of LEARN Inc., which claims to be the largest evangelical pro-life black organization, compares racial tragedies of true similarity. Unlike the sad Mr. Zorn, Dr. Hunter understands the proper order of morality and compares things which really ought to be compared.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed within 3 days by abortion.

Abortionists snuffs out the lives of 1,452 African-American children each day. This is womb-lynching, the implementation of black-genocide.

LEARN has been instrumental in providing an alternative voice in the African American community, speaking the truth when so many of their self-proclaimed moral leaders seem to fall completely for the thinly veiled eugenics plans of Sanger and her confederates.

Do they not have the wisdom, Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson, to know what Kimberly Jane Wilson’s father knew? That “not everyone who smiles in your face is your friend”?

Is their ignorance willful or blissful?

Racism in a white person is bad enough, but when you subscribe to a belief system whose known and stated goal is the control or extermination of your own race, is it racism still?

Back at the clinic building, the sides wait for the court hearings to proceed deciding whether Planned Parenthood broke the law in concealing their intent and what, if any, punishment there ought to be for such duplicity.

Mr. Zorn believes, as a good relativist, that there is no moral condemnation for breaking the law in order to achieve what he believes to be the greater good, the opening of a Eugenics Clinic. Also, as every relativist must, he believes he is right.

UPDATE: A Federal judge has just ruled that Planned Parenthoods rights are not being denied as it is being prevented from using it’s new clinic until the legal battles are over. The clinic will stay closed until all appeals are completed.