While researching some quotes for my book I stumbled across this gem: 
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it".
 - - - George Orwell
I am always amazed at how the most obvious and simplest is so often the most profound. Quite obviously the Democrat leadership has not only read this quote but have adopted it as their strategy. 
 
Here's a supporting thought from Dr. Thomas Sowell musing about Speaker Pelosi and her recent freelance foreign policy trip:
 
"Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008."  - - - Thomas Sowell  

 
If you have any doubts, don’t take it from me or Dr. Sowell, take it from the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
 ``We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.''  

And apparently he just can't wait because late last week he said:

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week"

Never mind the troop surge has not even been fully implemented yet. That's just one of those dumb old facts interfering with a good story.

Call me cynical but to these gimlet eyes, the Democrat stance has evolved from full support when they voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war, to tepid support when the war was not executed in an error and casualty free manner, to actively agitating for our defeat. The one consistency in this evolution is that in each case they voted in accordance to the windsock of public opinion.

I am through with trying to reconcile the obvious contradiction in how certain people can spew crap like this and still consider themselves patriotic. Logic must exist in the first place, if it is to be found at all. But while the actions speak for themselves, it's the motivations that until now have left me bewildered.

I think I have finally figured it out. It takes more than mental contortion to hold two diametrically opposing thoughts simultaneously - - it takes the mentality of a fundamentalist. Too harsh you say?

Here is the Encarta definition:

1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles

I didn't read Ann Coulters Godless and am not familiar with her thesis, so I may be covering old ground here; but when you wonder about the motivation of defeatist Democrats, and remember the fundamental doctrine of any political party is to win elections, it all starts to make sense.

Like their radical Islamist counterparts, Dems are perfectly willing to both inflict and endure casualties for their cause. This explains how Reid, Pelosi, Feingold, et. al. have no compunction about aiding and abetting the enemy with their reckless, troop-endangering rhetoric.

If the result of their actions was only political this would not be so bad. As it stands however, the Democrats increasing pursuit of defeat does treble damage; increases the likelihood of higher casualties now, virtually guarantees massively higher body counts, both at home and abroad, in the future, and worst of all, imparts the most grievous insult possible to those who died trying to win.

But apparently this troubles not the fundamentalist mind, because it adheres to the cause of the fundamental doctrine - - winning the next election.

 

This has been such a week from he11 and there really is only one place to start.  A deranged jerk killed 32 people for no apparent reason other than to have NBC air his homemade video.  In one craven, ratings-driven, decision NBC managed to rub tons of salt in fresh wounds while at the same time glorifying the perpetrator in granting his dieing wish.  Lovely.  And that's to say nothing about the encouragement they offered potential copycats.

 

The only possible upside to this horrendously callous editorial decision is the backlash dealt a serious blow to a network in particular, and medium in general.  If actions like these don’t hasten the gushing exodus of eyeballs to better delivered, more reliable, and trusted sources I am not sure what will.   So, in the words of the Carl Spackler, we have that going for us.

 

And of course the massacres resurrected two very predictable reactions described by Neal Boortz at Nealz Newz.  Boortz is perhaps the best, if not only, libertarian personality working today.  His site is always worth a look.  The two predictable reactions; first, the Pavlovian gun control dogs were frothing at the mouth while the bodies were still warm.  Second, the blamethrowers were out in full force.  This is that group whose frustration at their own inability to understand the incomprehensible speculate, in hindsight, at how this might have been avoided and call for someone’s head.  As if… 

 

As to the gun control dogs; had VA Tech was not been a gun free zone, i.e. subjected to strict gun control laws, there would be a lot fewer funerals this week.  Period.  Guns don’t kill people; stupid gun control laws kill people.

 

As to the blamethrowers; get a life, or at least grant the courtesy of a grieving period to rethink the notion that firing someone in the heat of raw emotionalism is any kind of salve for the survivors.  While you are at it, try to grasp the reality that some things are, and will remain, inexplicable.  With that in mind recognize this will not be the last horrible tragedy and focus your passions more on preventing future events instead of condemning innocent bystanders at this one.    

 

I am not sure why but my hunch is that a study of this group would reveal it to be disproportionately secular.  Maybe because it seems consistent with those who require verifiable proof to believe something.  But that, as we say here in the Heartland, is a whole “nuther” matter.  

When we first moved to Milwaukee nearly 10 years ago Don Imus was on one of the two bigger stations during the morning drive time.  Perfectly fine for drive time, don't want to have to think too much and fairly reliable for a good chuckle.   The Richard Nixon and George Patton interviews were particularly funny. 

Soon thereafter he was replaced by a local duo who were equally entertaining.  Haven't really missed him and judging from occasional look-ins on MSNBC he hasn't changed much, or if he did, it wasn't for the better.   His shock jock act finally caught up with him.  So what.  I happened to see the game he was referring to and also commented on the appearance of the Rutgers team, though much more charitably of course.  I was amazed at all the tatoos and remarked it looked like they were getting ready for the NBA.  Was that racist?  I don't think so. 

A celebrity who abused their free speech got a deserving rebuke.  That would be fine if it stopped at the suspension and a personal apology to the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team.   But nooooo, the race pimps brought out the long knives to make an example of him, destroy his career, completely ignore the millions he's raised for charities.  Why?  Because he's white.  But how can you say that?  Well, because black guys, lots of them, mostly in the comedy and music, if you call rap music that is,  business, say much more repugnant things than this on a regular basis and none of them are losing their jobs, in fact many of them only have their jobs because of this shtick. Visit Michelle Malkins Hot Air site for her list showing lyrics to the top 5 rap songs on this weeks charts to see what I mean.  

And how much more completely upside down could it be than to have Al Sharpton, a convicted libeler, sit in judgement on public commentary?  This is a guy who ruined who knows how many lives by championing the false rape accusations of Tawana Brawley.   And his style was hardly the restrained and reasonable tenor he feigns to advocate now.  This courtesy Ben Stein:

...when the Central Park Jogger rape case was in court, Sharpton picketed outside the office of the New York sex crimes prosecutor, Linda Alice Fairstein, in Manhattan. "Day after day," Linda -- a dear friend -- told me, "he would shout out to me and call me a 'Jew b!tch.' He never even remotely apologized." For this man to be sitting in moral judgment on anyone at all is incomprehensible. For the media to take Sharpton seriously is unbelievable.

If we are looking for a word to describe something way beyond irony maybe we could use sharpton.  The disproportionate response to this is so over the top it is almost laughable, and would be, if it wasn't used as a bludgeon to destroy an otherwise good guy.  I may not like his politics but he doesn't deserve this.  Al Sharpton, on the other hand, does.  One wishes the equality and justice he's always harping about would come into play about now. 

Looks like the Bug-Eyed Sack caught a lot more unflattering attention than mine.  And for those who were unsure of my Logan Act reference, I think the Wall Street Journal fact checkers should put the matter to rest..


 WSJ: 'Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus'...
USA TODAY: Pelosi steps out of bounds...

Have a nice holy day.

 

The British hostages are free.  What about the rest of us?  Not so much.  No, obviously we are not being held captive, paraded in front of cameras in a hostile country, being forced to wear silly headwear and say silly things. (Nancy Pelosi doesn’t count because she does all those things voluntarily).  We are captive in our economic vulnerability.  If we were not energy dependent this could not have happened.

 

This whole episode is a perfect microcosm of the relationship between the West and the Mideast.  The only reason significant parts of Iran are not smoldering piles of rubble is because Western leadership decided it prudent to keep the supply line to 20% of the worlds oil in tact - - this time.

 

That begs the ever more troubling question; what about next time?  Good question, and nowhere posited more eloquently than by Dr. Victor David Hanson, to paraphrase; “if the west is so easily manipulated now, what’s it going to be like once Iran goes nuclear?”

 

A little fascist in a leisure suit has just showed us he has the nutsack of the global economy in his hand, and he gave it a squeeze.  This was only a test.  Is there any doubt that with atomic backup this twerp won’t squeeze until the whole planet turns purple in the face?  

They keep marching to their goal of worldwide Sharia law or nuclear Armageddon, indifferent to which comes first.  We, bless our well-intentioned, economy-preserving, humanitarian hearts, believe they can be dissuaded from their goals through appeasement disguised as diplomacy.  We dawdle in this approach, at most only delaying their march, when we should be getting about the business of destroying their path.  

If we’ve learned nothing else, we have learned every aggression not responded to in kind is seen as a sign of weakness and virtually guarantees more aggression. 

 

So long as our addiction to oil goes untreated we remain vulnerable and can only expect more squeezing.   We are left to trust the good faith of a holocaust denier to handle the global family jewels with care.  Call me squeamish, but somehow I am not altogether comfortable with this arrangement. How long before the sleeping giant, only dreaming those jewels are being coddled, wakes to find them missing altogether? 

Sadly most of Europe and far too many here consider this fate deserved.  That truculence translates into total indifference to the fate of democracy in the Mideast, you know the little “d” democracy that is allegedly the philosophical foundation of big “D” Democrats.  It’s no wonder why so many of us think so many of them are crazy.  But hey, I’m open-minded; maybe I’m the crazy one, I keep expecting coherence from Democrats.  

 

 

 

 

I just love when the planets align with a scheme so simple in its elegance that it borders genius presents itself.  This one has the added appeal of solving two problems at once, the Alberto Gonzalez problem and the Nancy Pelosi problem.

Say what?  Two words "Logan Act" which reads as follows:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

As for fines or prison or both, I like both, and just to be fair, fine the Republican Congressmen who went along a couple hundred bucks each too.

Now, for legal language this is pretty straightforward.  So straightforward that even a heartland dunderhead like me can see Nancy Pelosi written all over it.  The way I see it the one possible loophole she has to slime through is that this law applies to "citizens" not royalty er, I mean legislators.  Trouble is, you bug-eyed sack, in this particular government, so far at least, the legislature is comprised of citizens.  

Another possible loophole is the private correspondence caveat.  Fine.  Subpoena her for records on every syllable uttered, footstep taken, meeting attended, etc. etc. etc.  Everything she fails to deliver should be spun as something she is trying to hide - you know the old Democrats tactic of guilty til proven innocent, or as in the Scooter Libby fiasco, keep badgering until contradictions materialize and nail her on perjury.  Yeah, that's the ticket!. 

I have no doubt that if Attorney General Gonzalez were to file charges, personally but under his authority, while it lasts, as the chief law enforcement officer, not only would his problems with the firings non-scandal be swept off the front pages but her exposure as a traitor, even if only alleged, would be cemented in history.  Beautiful.  One can dream.   Too bad Republicans insist on playing nice.