Stalemate

Tony Blankley wrote an excellent article in the Washington Times this week, describing the difference between the political sides that support the war against Islamic Fascism and those who oppose it. Paraphrasing, he says that those who support the war believe that Islamic Fascists present a threat to Western Civilization and those who oppose it think of terrorists as a dangerous nuisance, but not worthy of the attention they currently enjoy.

He adds that neither side is able to convince the other of their rationale. The fundamental difference in perception of the threat causes each side to conclude that the other is wrong.

I agree with his analysis. As a supporter of the war, the only thing that would convince me that we are wasting money and lives is that the threat is not real. I can also see how someone who believes the threat is merely a nuisance that only accounts for a few thousand lives per year (less than car accidents in the US), would think that the money taken from social programs and the injuries sustained by American soldiers are too high of a price to pay.

This debate has been battling for over 5 years. The arguments presented by those who oppose fascism, reinforce the beliefs of those who oppose fascism, but fall on deaf ears to those who appease it. Likewise, the arguments of the appeasers serve well to justify the position of appeasers and deniers, but do little to alter the opinion of those who recall history.

There are a small number of undecideds who may eventually be persuaded to take a side, but if they haven’t decided after over 5 ½ years since 9/11, it isn’t likely that there is an argument or idea left that could convince someone who has failed to yet form an opinion.

The two sides of the debate are at a stalemate and it appears that no argument can convince either side to join the other. Therefore, the next change in opinion on the Islamic War will be determined by events, not ideas. American opinion is critical in this global crisis, because America is the only country in the world with the ability to fight against a world wide jihad. If the jihad is a farce, like the appeasers think, American fire power need only stand down and the world will be at peace.

As an anti-jihadist, the only events that will convince me to change my mind would be for the jihadists to stop spreading their message of killing “infidels”. I would also like to see them withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Darfur, Somalia, Indonesia, India, Thailand, France, South America and everywhere else they incite violence. I would like to see them stop calling for the destruction of Israel and America, and I would like to see a majority, instead of a tiny minority, of Islamics denounce violence performed in the name of their religion.

For the supporters of appeasement, who believe that the jihadists present no substantial threat, I suppose the only thing that could change their minds would be evidence of Islamic Fascists doing what they say they want to do. Perhaps a biological weapon that spreads disease to several thousand people, or a series of Beslan-type sieges with hundreds of murdered school children, or a chemical weapons attack that leaves hundreds dead and thousands scarred for life, or maybe a nuclear attack that destroys a city.

We have reached a point in history where only an historical event will allow us to proceed. We need either the improbable event of Islamists denouncing 1400 years of tradition or the catastrophic event of massive human tragedy in order to advance the debate. It is a shame that discussion must take a back seat to action, but this is where we stand. I think it’s time to pop some corn.

Power Surge

I hate politics. However, like a driver rubber-necking a crash scene, I am infatuated. I watch politics like a NASCAR fan watches races, waiting to see a really cool wreck. I see a really cool wreck about to happen.

The Democrats in Congress continue to wrap themselves in a neat little box that will easily be shipped away in November 2008. They came to power in 2006 by running a campaign that successfully failed to address any specific issue. They ran on a platform of “change”, that didn’t identify any actual changes. I’m still not sure what they meant. In late 2006, interest rates were near record lows, inflation was stable, unemployment was low, the economy was growing faster than any developed country, and terrorists hadn’t hit a US target outside of a war zone in over 5 years. What exactly did they want to change?

The answer is obvious. They wanted to change the party in control. The Democrats are not interested in what is good for the United States. The Democrats are interested in what is good for the Democrats. This is painfully and tragically crystal clear in their opposition to the war on Islamic lunatics.

The Democrats have no Plan B for Iraq. They want to withdraw and yet not one of them offers an opinion of what will happen if the US leaves. Plenty of people who have a more clear vision of the Islamic War conclude that Iraq will turn into slaughterhouse, the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Democrats defunded support for our allies in South Vietnam. The Democrats don’t care about dead Iraqis. Those people can’t vote in US elections.

The change in power that occurred last November may be the best thing that has happened politically since Bush was re-elected in 2004. The re-election of President Bush showed the world that the American people still supported the fight. While it may have infuriated the lunatic base of the Democrat party, it showed the world that the US was on the side of freedom. The 2006 election sent a mixed message. The terrorists of the world rejoiced in the Democrats’ victory, thinking that their useful idiots were now closer to taking over the power of the Great Satan, thus furthering their cause of killing or enslaving the rest of the free world. However, the limited power entrusted to the Democrats last November has brought their ideals clearly into the limelight. All they need to do is be themselves and the American people will soundly reject them in the next election.

The Democrats have gone all-in for a defeat in Iraq. Their opposition to the war led to their slim majorities in Congress and they have no substance, other than war opposition, to keep themselves in the majority. The public did indeed vote for “change”, but the Democrats are grossly overestimating what the change was. There were plenty of RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) that deserved to lose. The Republicans lost their way from the Contract With America that brought them to power in 1994. The war was undeniably also going poorly and required a change in tactics. I was one of those who were dissatisfied with the war, but in no way did I ever support surrendering.

The fact is that Bush changed direction in the war. Rumsfeld has been replaced. The commander of CENTCOM has been replaced. The senior commander in Iraq has been replaced. Bush did more than fire people, he changed tactics. More troops are going to Iraq, which is something the Democrats suggested happen, up until the point when Bush proposed it. The new commander in Iraq is an expert in exactly the type of war we are fighting there, counter-insurgency. The additional troops are expected to stabilize Baghdad and destroy the safe havens of the insurgents. So far, 3/5 of the “surge” have deployed (the latest 1/5 only last week) and the results are already noticeable. Violence is down dramatically, even though al-Qaeda has launched a new campaign of suicide bombings over the past several days. When the final deployments arrive in early June, the US and its Iraqi Army allies will be ready to launch an offensive.

The Democrats are playing to their insane base by threatening to cut off funds to the troops. They have passed a bill that will certainly become George W. Bush’s first veto, as it contains a timeline for surrender. It is unimaginable that the Congress of the United States could ever undermine the Commander-In-Chief during a time of war, but it is currently happening. The enemies of America are not only in the Middle East. Some live right here. Some are college professors, some are journalists and some are elected officials. There are people who live in America, who were born in America, who want America to lose. I don’t think “traitor” is a strong enough word.

The people of the United States are not stupid. I get frustrated at times (remember, I hate politics) but in general, the system works. Bush deserved to win re-election in 2004 and the Democrats deserved to win in 2006 to show what they can do. What they have shown is only opposition to whatever the President recommends, a desire to surrender the fight that is the front-line of terrorism and nowhere close to home, and an amazing ability to avoid specifically defining what they stand for. I don’t think this will work 2 elections in a row. Especially when the second is a presidential election during a time of war.

The Democrats were handed a golden opportunity in 2006 and have successfully proven why they deserved to lose power in 1994. Its only taken them a few months. Congratulations are certainly in order. I see a train wreck coming for the Democrats. I can’t wait to see who Rosie O’Donnell blames it on.

Nappy-Headed Hoes

I find the Don Imus scandal, where he called the Rutgers women’s basketball team a group of “nappy-headed hoes”, very enlightening in regard to our modern culture. The usual suspects from the poverty-pimp crowd came out angrily denouncing Imus for his racist remarks. However, I wonder…how is a white man insulting a specific group of black women any different from a black man insulting black women in general? What is the real crime here? Which is the worse crime here?

If Chris Rock made the same statement, it wouldn’t have been news. It would have been “funny”. No one would protest. No one would demand an apology. The Rutgers women would have been just as insulted.

The statement by Imus is juvenile and revolting, but it is G-rated compared to the lyrics of today’s Hip-Hop stars. Google the lyrics to any of the current Top 20 Hip-Hop hits and you will find messages of using, abusing and killing women. It’s sick. Even the white rapper, Eminem, will have some serious explaining to do if his ex/2nd/ex-again wife ever ends up found dead in the trunk of a car. He’s “sung” about such a thing. Sick.

The crime Imus committed isn’t degradation of women. Rap “artists” commit that crime in every song. Imus committed an offense worse than the Holocaust (according to the PC police)…racism. Whites aren’t allowed to acknowledge Blacks. Doing so, is “racism”. We should live in a “color-blind” society. Joe Biden, a Democrat no less, was taken to task for calling Barack Obama “articulate”. Personally, I would find that a compliment. I write a lot and if someone called me articulate, I would say “thank you”. Not so when a White gives a Black the same compliment. It “infers” that most Blacks are inarticulate, since it had to be pointed out that this particular Black is not. I would ask for a guide book to know the politically correct rules, but I really don’t give a crap.

Regarding the color-blind society, why is it that the poverty-pimps only show up when a White person commits the infraction? If we are ever going to be truly color-blind, then anyone who insults Black women should be called to task. The only “racism” I see here is coming from the Black community. Perhaps they should actually read what Martin Luther King said, instead of relying on others to tell them.

I noticed a couple of things while the Rutgers basketball team was basking in its 15 minutes (which turned into a 60 minute press conference) of fame. First, about a third of the team is White. Second, most of the Black girls had straight hair. Not nappy at all. Imus obviously never saw them play. (Of course, who can blame him as no one but alumni or parents watches the Women’s NCAA tournament). It hit me that Black women aren’t “nappy” anymore. Black women have adopted a style that makes them more attractive to…hold on here…White men.

For years, no one other than the KKK was more opposed to Black men dating White women than Black women. They were furious with their men for abandoning their community. Black women kept the afros, and the “nappy” hair, as a call to solidarity. Their men abandoned them. Black men went outside of the Black community for relationships, while expecting Black women to stay faithful to it. Today, Black women are asserting their rights. They are integrating with American culture because they want to be Americans, not African-Americans. Black women are on the front lines of racial integration and equality. Let’s not let their men keep them down.

The Road to Serfdom

The original Austrian Capitalist, Friedrich Hayek, wrote his masterpiece in the 1940’s as a response to the growing influence of socialism. Hayek argued that all forms of collectivism eventually lead to tyranny. He stated that "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule." In other words, a person who will go to any lengths to get what he wants is commonly referred to as a criminal. However, in order for a centrally planned economy to function, a government is compelled to commit crimes against its own citizens.

Hayek’s theory was proven correct over and over again throughout the 20th Century as the influence of socialism spread around the world. Even in the liberal West (“liberal” in its original meaning of “freedom”, not the hijacked meaning of today’s Leftists), freedom eroded as socialism was embraced. There are many things today that are crimes which didn’t used to be. It is illegal to smoke practically anywhere but ones own home. The right to bear arms and maintain a well regulated militia is all but gone. Even freedom of speech is being encroached. Did you know that the Democrats in Congress ended terrorism last week? Not the act, but the word. The terms “War on Terror” and “Long War” will not be allowed in the 2008 Defense Budget. Ahhh, I do love the deep thinking of today’s “Progressives”.

Hayek predicted that the free countries of the world would become slave nations if socialism continued to spread. There can be little doubt that he was correct, but I no longer think that economics will be our particular road to serfdom. It will be religion instead. Specifically, Islam.

People in the United States typically think I’m nuts when I say things like this. I’m OK with that response, because it means that the influence of Islam isn’t as deep in the US as it is in other places around the world. I would like to see it stay that way. However, if one looks toward our friends in Europe, things are not as good. There are actually No-Go zones in France where police do not enter. The “youths of North African descent” in these areas don’t allow it. These are sections of a Western nation and former US ally that are ruled under Islamic law. What will reverse it?

I don’t have a good answer for my own rhetorical question. Islam continues to spread and Muslims continue to emigrate. As Muslim populations expand in their host countries, they become less likely to assimilate to the native culture. As the divide between cultures widens, the Muslims make more and more demands for accommodation. If the Muslims don’t feel adequately accommodated, they break things and hurt people. This pattern of behavior has cowed our European friends into submission. I only see it getting worse.

Islam has taken the socialistic ideas of multi-culturalism, moral-relativism and political correctness, packaged them all nicely into their grievance theater of Islamopobes who want to discriminate against peaceful people, and successfully infiltrated formerly free societies. With the help from their Useful Idiots on the Left and their growing populations through continued immigration and high birth-rates, eventually Islamic law will make its way through the democratic process.

This is the road to serfdom upon which we currently travel.


AustrianCapitalist.blogspot.com