Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

The Battle of Arizona

I promised a report two days ago, but I’ve been having monumental issues trying to upload the pictures to my computer…so here’s my report, with the pictures to follow. It all started last Thursday with Shakira showing up in Phoenix to protest SB 1070, the immigration bill that has the whole hemisphere buzzing.

More than a year ago, I plugged my iPod into the dock on my desk at work and turned on some music. I happened to be in the mood to listen to Shakira, and I had many of her songs – all of them in Spanish – on my iPod. I tend to like her better in Spanish because she sounds more confident in her native language. One of my coworkers, who is from Mexico, was shocked that I was listening to it; she asked everyone else before figuring out that it was me. This person saw me in a bit of a different light after that day.

Fast-forward to last Thursday. I’m furiously taking notes in an EMT refresher and recertification course (something all EMT’s have to do every two years) and trying at the same time to think of what kind of questions I’d like to ask some of the protesters, because I’m planning to go get some information on the protests since I’m at a training facility that’s barely 15 minutes from the state capitol. I remember being nervous about my tests (I’m a total perfectionist) and about how to word questions so as not to give away which side I’m on. The trouble is that if you offend the people you’re trying to get information from, they won’t let you stick around long. They certainly won’t answer your questions.

One man named Jose came with a group of 200 others from Las Vegas to protest the bill; they carried a professionally-printed banner of a photoshop of Jan Brewer in Adolf Hitler’s uniform. When I asked him why they thought supporters of the bill were Nazis, he replied, “oh, we don’t think they’re really Nazis. They just call us criminals and we want them to know how it feels to be labeled as something you’re not.” 46-year-old Angela, who didn’t understand a word of English and needed her 12-year-old daughter to translate, said that she heard about the bill and “it made me sad.” Ron, who didn’t wish to give his last name, carried a sign that said “brown is beautiful” and gave me an earful. He was nice enough to me. When asked if he’d read the bill, he said he’d read the “core components” (I guess the whole 25 page document was too long for him) and gave me points that weren’t even in the bill – in particular, he talked about being arrested for “associating with illegals.” That isn’t in the bill; knowingly hiring illegal day laborers or transporting illegal aliens, however, is. Something else he said that sticks with me was, “people are gonna get hurt, you know? If this doesn’t stop, people are gonna start getting hurt! I hate to say it, but it’s gonna happen!”

There were exactly two counter-protesters on hand, neither of whom had extreme messages but who were both being openly reviled by the rest of the crowd. Then, Shakira showed up, flanked by Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon and state representative Kyrsten Sinema (both are Democrats). She first addressed the crowd in Spanish, then in English. She said that the bill went against human dignity and civil rights, then went on to mock the law AND Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (whom I also don’t like, albeit for much different reasons). She said, “right now, I could go to jail because I didn’t bring my driver’s license. Mister Arpaio, are you gonna come and arrest me because I didn’t bring my documents?” The crowd cheered wildly and broke into chants of, “si, se puede!” There was a huge police presence at the capitol. When I left right around sunset that evening, I tried to talk to Sinema – who does know who I am and heartily disagrees with my politics – and she all but ran in the opposite direction. The event itself was pretty tame in comparison to others I’ve witnessed in the past couple of weeks.

Tonight, however, Al Sharpton drew a crowd of about 2,000, far more than Shakira. His visit coincided with both the Phoenix Suns’ use of an alternate jersey that read “Los Suns” and Drinko de Mayo (I’m sorry, Mexico doesn’t celebrate it, I don’t see any reason we do other than to drink). He gave a speech at a church less than a mile from the state capitol then led the mass to the capitol, where several speeches were given and are by all accounts still going on now as I type. I hurt my back yesterday while trying to lift heavy objects (what’s saddest of all is that I knew I was doing it the wrong way but I was in a rush), so I was in no condition to do two miles’ worth of walking to get a few pictures and maybe a few quotes. As I sat watching the footage, though, I wished more than anything that I could have gone. I wish I could have been there to give Sharpton a piece of my mind even though he’d never have the nerve to ever have a real debate with someone who disagrees with him. I’m sure the instant I got near enough to ask a difficult question I’d have been removed by force.

The same theme runs commonly throughout all of these protests: you can easily tell that none of them have read the bill.

Comments about racial profiling, arrests for simply associating with illegals, calling the bill immoral and misguided, accusations of racism, hate and Nazism…all of it is the product of a misinformed, extremely emotional group of people. Rather than asking what’s in the bill they’re making assumptions based on hearsay and every single assumption they’re spouting is 100% wrong. In fact, the bill is made of word-for-word verbiage from both federal immigration law AND the civil rights act. I’ll get into the specifics later, but the bill both provides the ability to local officers to enforce laws that the feds have refused to enforce and provides protection from racial profiling.

As if what’s gone on isn’t bad enough, Ricky Martin has weighed in, several California cities have as well, and Sharpton has called on Major League Baseball to cancel the planned All-Star Game in 2011 at Chase Field. I will tell you here and now, the stars and race-baiting politicians who are getting involved know absolutely nothing about the actual bill; they’re saying things that are not true in order to gain a little more publicity.

It’s beginning to make us mad. When Arizona was boycotted in the early 1990’s over their refusal to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday as a holiday, there was some – SOME – justification in it. Here there is none, because none of those who are protesting the legislation understand what’s in it. To those of you who have seen fit to stick your proverbial nose in our politics, remember one thing: the truth always comes out. We’re not racists. We’re certainly not Nazis. The problem is simple: we don’t know who is coming across the border, but we know that a fair number of them are the bad guys that our immigration process is designed to weed out. In the past two years the Valley of the Sun has lost two police officers to illegal aliens and a multitude of victims’ lives have been upended by illegals through a plethora of crimes, including burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, rape and murder. The drug trade thrives here because Arizona is so close to the border.

Something had to be done. And I have to say this, too…it’s highly self-aggrandizing to hold yourselves, the Latino community, up as the sole group who will be impacted by this bill. If anybody is a racist group here, I’d say it’s YOU.

Escaping the Sean “Bell” Jar

Since the judge’s decision this morning to rightfully acquit the officers who shot Sean Bell, I have been anticipating all of the left-wingers running out (particularly those who are supporting Obama) and playing the race card.  Much like the death of Jerry Falwell where his name always followed “whether you agreed with him or not” we hear the same regurgitated prelude to the point of Bell’s death: “Just before he was married, Sean Bell was tragically killed by a round of 50 bullets.”

It’s a fact that Bell and his two friends were having a bachelor party the night of the shooting.  It’s a fact that witnesses heard his thug-friend; Joseph Guzman yell “yo, get my gun!”  It’s a fact that Sean Bell had been arrested previously for crack-cocaine possession.  It’s a fact that Guzman and Trent Benefield (the other thug-friend) had been arrested “nine and three times, respectively” and each having at least one of them for illegal possession of firearms.  (Where are the gun-control liberals, incidentally?)

It’s a fact that Bell and his friends refused to obey police orders and “freeze” choosing to speed off while incredibly intoxicated plowing into a police vehicle in pursuit of their getaway. 

It’s a fact that unto approaching the car of thugs, police testify that Guzman made a gesture that led them to believe he was reaching for a gun.

Now, let’s throw all those facts out the window. 

Let’s recharacterize “after getting trashed and flirting with prostitutes, yelling “yo, get my gun!”, disobeying police orders to “freeze”, violently driving into a police vehicle while grossly intoxicated, and making a phony gesture which led police to believe Guzman was reaching for a gun, police shot Sean Bell which tragically ended his life” to “police shot and killed Sean Bell 50 times the day before his wedding.”

To all the race-card playing, Obama-supporting, Reverend Wright-Al Sharpton imitating liberals of the world, escape the “Bell” jar already.

Rather than suing the NYPD, Bell’s family should bring a civil suit against Joseph Guzman and may want to raise the rest of their children to avoid selling crack-cocaine and hanging around gun-toting criminals.

Who’s Stopping Him From Getting the Hell Out of Here, Anyway?

Obviously, this Kevin Sites “journalist” had nothing negative to write on the war in Iraq this week since even liberals now have to admit the success of the troop surge and the massive decline in violence.  It kills ’em, doesn’t it?  This week, he chooses to showcase an Arab with a chip on his shoulder about the FBI investigating him after having good reason to do so.

The Arab in question is 35-year old Hasan Elahi who was investigated by the FBI after the agency was given tip about a storage shed he had rented which was believed to have been filled with explosives and emptied right after 9/11. 

After being investigated, Elahi was cleared of suspicion by the FBI.  Now; of course, he has a chip on his shoulder about it and has decided to videotape every single moment of his life and share it with us all on the web.  So; in other words, he’s violating his own “right to privacy” now.

In being interviewed by Kevin Sites, Elahi said:

We’re in this mentality where anyone who looks a little bit different is automatically a suspect.

NO!  The FBI was given a tip about a storage shed he had rented and merely followed through on it! 

You know when Ann Coulter talked about the Jersey Girls and the old Democratic trick of using “victims” as spokespeople?  Someone now who was appalled to be a suspect now feels compelled to share every moment of his life with us on a website?  Do the words “attention whore” come to anyone else’s mind?

I’m not sure if he’s checked the statistics but 100% of attacks overseas and on our own soil were committed by Arabs.  100% of the men who committed 9/11 were Arab men.  If 100% of the people killed overseas and in the World Trade Center on September 11th were all Arabs, perhaps I wouldn’t feel the same way.  But all people are falling victim to this lunacy.  All people are suffering because of a certain colored skin that manages to remain at 100% when it comes to calculating those involved in attacks with bombs strapped to their chest and simultaneously shouting “Allah Akbar!”  If it were up to me, more of them would be investigated while standing in line at airports but they are not.

While I completely agree with the notion that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, the fact becomes less vivid every single day when someone like this chooses to showcase his “peace” by attacking the United States government because it’s doing everything in its power to protect 300 million lives! 

Moreover; his claim of being looked at because of the way he looks is preposterous in his specific case!  The FBI were given a tip!  What did he expect them to do with it?

If overfed Polish boys were guilty of the same thing and someone had reason to believe I was a threat, I would expect nothing but the same thing that happened to Elahi. 

Taking into account the fact that 100% of Democrats’ hope that the U.S. would sustain an embarrassing loss in Iraq have diminished, I see now that certain liberal journalists have shifted the attention somewhere else.

Kevin “Drama-Queen” Sites; the magnificient journalist that he is, begins the article (which includes a video) by asking:

What would you do if you were suspected of a crime that could send you to a jail cell in Guantanamo Bay for untold years?

Well, I’d like to end this post by asking three things:

  1. Why in the hell was he allowed to stay in the United States when it was even suspected that he had explosives removed from a storage shed after 9/11!?
  2. If he doesn’t understand that there are 299,999,999 other people residing in this country that need protection from people that look like him, why doesn’t he use his P/R to attack the crazy lunatics that have brought this kind of embarrassment onto him?  No, somehow the U.S. Government is who he has the problem with.  If you ask me, the U.S. Government might need to take one more look!
  3. If he truly doesn’t understand why we have to be protected, why the hell doesn’t he just leave?

The sad fact is he was suspected to have had explosives stored in a rented shed AFTER 9/11 and he was still allowed to stay in the country during the investigation.  The moral of the story here isn’t that his life was terribly interrupted, rather that the Patriot Act isn’t harsh enough.

See Liberals, Terrorists Really Do Hate You!


As if poor Britney did not have enough trouble, a Muslim Extremist leader has threatened to behead both Britney and Madonna.  Well, there would go 90% of what makes the gay community wake up in the morning!  Finally, maybe they’ll be willing to fight.

Madonna, in particular has been especially vocal in her opposition against George Bush.  The terrorists know that she is against George Bush.  Doesn’t this debunk the Ron Paul arguments that if we just leave them alone, they will stop? 

Low and behold the terrorist’s name is “Muhammed.”  Why do I get the strange feeling that Madonna and her liberal (especially the gay ones) fans will finally begin to support profiling?

Mainly in response to Madonna and her Kaballah-reading, he says the following about both women:

“If I meet these whores I will have the honour to be the first one to cut their heads off if they will keep spreading their satanic culture against Islam”

There you have it liberals.  There you have it, Ron Paul!  If you believe in freedom, no matter how vulgar, you need to be converted to Islam, or you must die.

I wonder why this hasn’t made headlines?

Read more here.

CIA Review Released Today: Democrats’ Conclusion?

rockefeller.jpg Jay Rockefeller (D)

It’s George Bush’s fault!

“Sadly, the CIA’s 9/11 accountability review serves as a sobering reminder that the Bush Administration policies for the past six years have failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden”

That is what West Virginia Democrat, Jay Rockefeller had to say in response.

Every major news agency is reporting this tonight.  Basically it gives up everything we already knew:

–During the Clinton administration, we knew (or “suspected”) that Al-Queda wanted to attack us.  Some called this clever CIA intelligence, others were tipped off by the various attacks that Clinton did nothing about during his administration.

–From 1998-2001, the CIA refused to do enough to track Al-Queda’s every move to keep us safe here in America.  (But at the same time, liberals would not have allowed us to throw suspicious Arabs out of the country, profile them at airports, or create a Patriot Act back then.)  Democrats cry over the Patriot Act post 9/11, we are supposed to believe they would have supported the CIA taking more serious measures in monitoring Al-Queda before it happened?  Would liberals have supported NSA wiretappings before 9/11?

Suffice it to say that with liberal policies and crazy rules and regulations delivered by them to the CIA along with the fact that most of this “pre-9/11” surveillance occurred during the Clinton administration, I can see why liberals could blame this on George Bush.

The article goes on to clearly state:

“Yet the review team led by Inspector General John Helgerson found neither a “single point of failure nor a silver bullet” that would have stopped the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.”

So in conclusion we had a planning and tracking phase that the CIA could basically do nothing about thanks to half-baked liberal policies, a President in the White House who refused to do nothing in response to the largest number of attacks on America’s interests since it all began in 1979, and a report that basically tells us: they could have done stuff, but in the end none of it would have done any good anyway!

And Jay Rockfeller says this is a reminder of Bush’s policies that have kept us safe since 2001?

I swear, if they could get away with it they would find a way to blame George W. Bush for the stain on Monica’s dress.

They Never Seem To Answer the Debate…..

Whenever I see a lefty-moonbat blog-post about me, I wonder if they are actually going to refute a point.  Apparently, not this genius piece of writing.  As liberals most often fall victim to, it shows that he was not even able to understand the point with coherence.

In response to the video via YouTube I posted on Ann Coulter, he proclaims (intellectually and full of thought of course) “It’s all in the perception.”

He begins his post by stating:

“Via Gay Conservative (I’m laughing right now. Sorry. A gay person proud to be a Republican always kind of makes me think of a Jew joining the Nazi League for Jewish empowerment)”

For the billionth time, as long as folks like this can run around proclaiming that it’s perfectly normal to be “liberal-American”, I say there is nothing shocking about being a gay-Republican.  I could say a liberal-American equates a Muslim-terrorist minus the Koran and the energy to do anything about their hate for America.  Unlike the fella that wrote these things about me, I find liberals who proclaim to be American anything but funny.  It’s sad, and it’s kind of sick.  Particularly when they run around pretending to care about equality for gays and blacks, plus let’s not forget their phony concern for our troops as well as their convenient sympathy for Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls while they simultaneously support Stalin and the Taliban.  Perhaps I can direct this fine gent to my post regarding the liberal trick of “we like you more than they do.”

He goes on to say:

“Failing that, she then resorts to sarcasm and says that the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” wasn’t specific enough and shouldn’t have roused our Chief Executive to action on his vacation because it didn’t specify that it would consist of 19 Arab men boarding three different aircraft on September 11th and striking two specific targets by name.

In other words, since the PDB didn’t contain the gate and flight numbers on each of the 19 boarding passes, her idiot hero couldn’t have possibly had enough to go on. In other words, we have to spell things out for him in inhuman detail.

Naturally, Coulter didn’t want to go into the fact that Russia, Italy and Great Britain all warned Bush around the time of the G8 summit in Genoa that bin Laden would try to assassinate him or that the Hart Rudman report in December 2000 and Paul Bremer’s National Commission on Terrorism issued a report at about the same time that specified much the same massive threat or that Richard Clarke tried to warn the incoming administration of the al Qaida threat. Instead, Clarke was ordered to find a link between Iraq and al Qaida, despite Clarke telling the administration that it simply didn’t exist.”

First, he’s setting up a strawman to avoid the point.  He also avoids her point that Al-Qaeda is “still determined to attack.”  He mentions the President taking “action” but he doesn’t tell us — as Franken could not — what that action should have been.  The idea that post-9/11, liberals won’t let us racially profile men named Mohammed boarding planes speaking Arabic; and that they are still pretending that there was something George Bush could have done before the attacks is just preposterous.  When they are faced with these facts they jump right back to: “He was warned!”

If Bush would have held Arabs in preventative detention, thrown them out of the country, or directed airport security to give the attention needed, 9/11 would not have happened.  But liberals would have then said that Bush overreacted to the memo, that civil rights of Muslim fanatics should not have been violated, and that racial profiling is uncivilized.   Come to think of it, liberals along with the ACLU would have even had another made-up reason to impeach him on seeings as protecting the country is just not acceptable in their world of tofu and poetry reading.

Liberal policies have been cleverly designed to hurt America, punish anyone who defends it, and silence anyone like Ann Coulter that exposes them and their idiotic ideology which has made it impossible for our CIA and President to protect us properly.  Liberals like Carter and Clinton let 20+ years of attacks happen all over the world and on our soil.  When it is thrown in their face like Coulter gave it to Franken, all they can say is: “Bush was warned!”

So I challenge any liberal-moonbat out there to answer this very simple question: what policy was available to Bush that would have enabled him to find out the specifics and what would they have supported him doing in response?  Most liberals out there as well as Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 conspiracy nuts continue to insinuate that America deserved 9/11. 

I’d be willing to bet this clever chap is against the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, holding terrorists at Guantanamo, etc.  We cannot even get them to approve of just one of Bush’s anti-terror policies post-9/11 and they continue this endless blather about “He was warned!”

I just couldn’t leave this last part out:

“Although I’m amazed that you didn’t see the delicious irony of Ann sarcastically saying that Bush should’ve just rounded up all Arabs and thrown them out of the country, which is exactly what Ann would ordinarily love to do with them and then some.”

Well sir, if he were allowed to temporarily restrain them or do something of that nature, I suspect that there would be 3,000 Americans still alive and there would not be a gaping hole in lower Manhattan.  Then again, that would be too Pro-America for your crowd, now wouldn’t it?

I have plenty of quarters, the trouble is your game and I’m sorry but it’s a bit rusty.

Ron Paul Clutching Reagan’s Coattails – Continued

In response to a post I wrote just minutes ago, a commenter left the following Reagan quote in response:

“In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.”

“In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

What I find hilarious is that the following paragraph was left out:

 “After the marines left Beirut, we continued a search for peace and a diplomatic solution to the problems in the Middle East. But the war in Lebanon grew even more violent, the Arab-Israeli conflict became more bitter, and the Middle East continued to be a source of problems for me and our country.” –Ronald Reagan

The main point of my post was in response to Paul supporters’ “do-nothing” policy to terrorism.  What Reagan said there was after the bombings had occurred when Congress (Democrats) was pressuring him to leave.

I wondered what he would have said after the Italian ship incident in 1985.  How about the disco-club bombing in 1986?  How about the 1988 Pan Am flight bombing? 

We had a President that did nothing in response to terrorism, remember?  His name was Bill Clinton.  The highest number of attacks happened during his tenure and Clinton never struck back (aside from the pathetic aspirin-factory bombing.)  Moreover; after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia, OBL told ABC that our troops were “paper-tigers” who ran in defeat.  He simutaneously was planning 9/11.

Eight years of “doing nothing” led to the worst attack ever.  Since then with Bush’s war policies and domestic policies like the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked on our soil nor has an official American interest been blown up.  His efforts have stopped terrorist plots against us and the foiled JFK plot and Fort Dixx incidents is proof that terrorists are running out of professional juice.

My only regret is we won’t fight harder within our own borders with stronger terrorism policies like racial profiling.  I also think that adding a few more bombs to our war strategy overseas could end the war a lot sooner.

We need to fight like we did in WW2 without Democratic yammering about civilians.  We need to fight like we did when we actually won wars and opportunists like Ron Paul and his supporters of conpiracy theorists did not exist.

Coulter Serves Franken His Ass….


Since these debates, Franken has used them to his advantage by proclaiming himself the winner of them. 

No wonder he hasn’t been anxious to get these out to the public!

This was after 9/11 and in the early days of the years when liberals were harping then like they are harping now about how Bush didn’t do enough for 9/11.

Listen to Coulter, and watch Franken get pissed when she points out the logic (or lack thereof) to this position of the left.

(Video Couresy of

John Doe Amendment Will Survive!

Two American victories in one day!

1.) Ward Churchill fired!

2.) Congress upholds the John Doe Amendment that Democrats tried to stomp on last week.

It means that Democrats have two things to complain about in the next week and it also means that the infamous flying Imams can finally throw their bogus lawsuits out.

I’d also like to point out that Michelle Malkin was the only mainstream conservative who brought real attention to this last week which led many Americans to contact their Representatives to voice opposition to the Democrats’ attempt to stomp the Bill out!