Category — Patriotism

If this video doesn’t bring you close to tears and fill you with awe and pride for the military of this great country, then you should just pack your bags and move to France.

Higher quality video available here.

Visiting our families in Pennsylvania brought home just how little Barack Obama knows about small towns. They’re not bitter impoverished people clinging to racism, religion, and guns for solace. It’s not a place that can be dismissively referred to as “fly over” country like many liberal elites do.

It is populated by patriotic, God fearing people who love their families and neighbors. This was perfectly illustrated today by a local town. It held a chicken dinner for a cancer victim. A good old fashioned neighbor helping neighbor event that sold out in less than an hour. There aren’t any Whole Foods selling arugula to make an out of touch elite like Barack Obama happy, but it’s a place to love and respect none the less.

In the Fall of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a reporter why he no longer wore an American flag lapel pin.  Obama’s meandering, supercilious answer:

 ”You know, the truth is that right after 911, I had a pin…Shortly after 911, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided that I won’t wear that pin on my chest…Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my true patriotism.”

This, of course, is the intellectual’s answer.  Facile and derisory by what it omits, not by what it says. True, Obama’s true patriotism is expressed by talking, surely one of the most brainless and sophomoric claims ever.  But this isn’t all; there’s something missing.  Either Obama isn’t really very bright, or his credulty for his own BS runs so lethally deep that he’s unconscious to his own silliness.  A flag pin isn’t “patriotism” any more than a photo of your Border Collie is your dog.  The pin and photo represent something you already feel, not what you decide. 

My guess is, Obama has been speaking in these foggy terms, and observing these low standards of logic and precision for so long - in the company of people who rate this foolishness as insight and complexity - that he doesn’t know how he sounds.  The same dreary fiction of superior intelligence, perceived in the idiot droning of John Kerry, nearly propelled him to the Presidency.   

I don’t care if Obama is a traditional patriot, or if he has no pride in this nation at all.  It doesn’t matter.  Conservatives make too much of this.  What matters is the churning of all plain truths and common feeling into new and innovative ways of “seeing”.  Obama is innovative, not smart, not deep. 

Innovation is novelty, not real change or a real advance in thinking or perception.   Obama is a lefty conformist, the kind who expresses defiance by seeing through everything held to be true and important by the mob.  His patriotism is different than yours, because his is true patriotism and yours, with a flag pin,  is not.  He should know this…

The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.  It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond is opaque.  What if you saw through the garden too?  It is no use trying to “see through” first principles.  If you see through everything, then everything is transparent…a wholly transparent world is an invisible world.  To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man -

When judging Barack Obama’s Marxist comments in reference to religion being the opium of the people, it’s often useful to consider what other sources have to say on the subject. George Washington’s Farewell Address takes a much different stand:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington’s words don’t need much embellishment. You have a choice between Barack Obama and his raft of radical left-wing , America hating friends or the Father of Our Country. It’s not really that hard a decision, is it?

                     John Kerry, mired in the swamps of thought… 

John Kerry was encouraged to put words together a few days ago by Massachusetts’ SouthCoast Today, reported at this link to ABC News Online.  Kerry is delighted about the possibility of electing an African-American President, and he dropped his opinion with his usual leaden, boat-anchor eloquence:

It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people.  If we could elect an African-American president, young leader, who is obviously visionary about the ability to inspire people.

Dazzling analysis, John.  Kerry has declined from pandering simpleton to obsequious fart nozzle without anyone noticing.  Elect a guy who affirms what we say we are, not what we are, especially one who is visionary about (the) ability to inspire people.   Not A visionary himself, as a noun, not a visionary as an adjective, but a visionary about ability.  Or this:

(Obama would) “in some cases go around (in Muslim countries) their dictator leaders to the people, and inspire the people in ways we can’t do otherwise.”

I see.   Elude the mullahs and purity squads in a black robe, take a quick perambulation around Teheren or Mecca, stopping for a cup at Starbucks, or a plum at an adultery stoning, all the while inspiring the visionary abilities of Raji-Six-Pack.  Hmmm.  Oh, and this:

“He has the ability to bridge the divide of religious extremism. …To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical interpretation of a legitimate religion…Because he’s African-Amercan.  Because he’s a black man.  Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country”.

This is terribly difficult, and I’m glad he sorted it out.  Kerry confers legitimacy on Islam and, therefore,  illegitimacy on Islamists, the folks who are yearning for Obama’s healing touch;  and Obama is empowered because he’s a repressed (get therapy, Obama) black man who grew up oppressed on the mean streets of Hawaii, and screamed in silent agony at such degrading downscale pits as the Harvard Law Review.   Given enough time, Kerry would have stereotyped Obama into bringing cold watermelon to sun-scorched Saudis.

Please, Massachusetss, stop watering this houseplant.  Let it wilt and return to the soil .  Why in God’s name, with your great traditions of reformism, art, literature, radical individualism and patriotism, do you CONTINUE to send this facile moron to the Senate?

There HAS to be some criterion for his re-election other than lucidity, or the greater good of knowing that he’s not in Massachusetts; or even that his daily mental and verbal aberrations are a wellspring of laughs.   But maybe it’s even worse….a pitiful, hard-scrabble New England mass neurosis, pushing up through your rocky soil,  compels you to vote for John Forbes Kerry, over and over?  

Dismiss the Shi’ia - Sunni disputes over ritual and Mohammadean lineage, the intellectualized radicalism of Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood, colonial border craziness, tribalism,  grievances with modernity, the complete Islamist philosophies of Bin Laden and others, failed assimilation, Muslim assertiveness in Europe and elsewhere…damn, forget it all.  Obama is black, Obama is visionary about ability, and with a pair of good shoes, he can “go around” Islamic despots and re-legitimize Islam. Mary Mother of God.   And this idiot votes in the American Senate.

Dr. Lawrence Britt is a Secular Humanist which explains his reluctance to include any of the Marxist/Communist/Progressive governments engaged in heinous conventions. There cannot be any argument that all Islam incorporates this definition; they define the term. Additionally, he says nothing about Woodrow Wilson or the biggest fascist in this hemisphere, FDR.

Ah yes, he incarcerated (interned) about 120,000 Japanese, 62% (74,400) were American citizens. Furthermore, in the early ‘30’s FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court to overrun the Constitutional dictum on the Separation of Powers. All to get his socialist New Deal policies operating.

I ask that the reader look at the actions of the Soviet Union with the following in mind. Examine China too, along with Cuba, Venezuela.

The U.S. Congress of today regarding the disparagement of the wealthy and ideas about corporate “patriotism” a la Obama attain the true bill describing Fascism.

One finds that all countries may flirt with fascism at times. Those that have a strong constitution and follow that will step back. The shredding the document by redefining it as one “needs” removes the restraining chains, giving freedom to the slippage. Today’s Congress, particularly the House, exhibits many symptoms.

General characteristics of a Fascist Country

1. Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:

• Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.
• Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.
• Imperialistelements of finance capital: Extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies.

Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its Tenets of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics. Through the use of fear, societies gave up their rights under the guise of security. Ultimately these republics morphed into Fascist states.

2. Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the middle classes to forestall lower-working class revolution; it thrives on the weakness of the middle classes. It accomplishes this by embracing the middle-class’ love of the status-quo, its complacency and its fears of:

1. Generating a united struggle within the working class
2. Revolution
3. Losing its own power and position within society

In a more simplistic term the people currently in control fear that if they allow equal rights and equal consideration to those being oppressed, they will become oppressed and lose everything. Generally those in power are of a smaller segment of society, but they hold the wealth and control of key systems like manufacturing, law, finance and government position, [snip]

In reality it is the oppressors’ fear of retribution by the oppressed that perpetuates fascism; for justification they dehumanize, demonize, strip them of rights, add new laws, restrict movement and attempt to control them by whatever means possible to prevent an uprising. It is very common in a fascist system to have the oppressed referred to as sub-human, animals, terrorists, savages, barbarians, vermin or any other term designed to create justification for the acts of terror and fascism perpetrated on the oppressed. [snip]

Propaganda also empowers the oppressors with elitism racially, socially, intellectually and/or spiritually.

The 7 conditions (Warning signs)that foster & fuel fascism are:

Instability of capitalist relationships or markets
The existence of considerable declassed social elements
The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity.
Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs have-nots).
Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association.
Greed: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed.
Organized Propaganda:

a) The creation of social mythology that venerates (creates saints of) one element of society while concurrently vilifying (dehumanizing) another element of the population through misinformation, misdirection and the obscuring of factual matter through removal, destruction or social humiliation, (name-calling, false accusations, belittling and threats).

b) The squelching of public debate not agreeing with the popular agenda via slander, libel, threats, theft, destruction, historical revisionism and social humiliation. Journalists in particular are terrorized if they attempt to publish stories contrary to the agenda.

3. Fascism dovetails business & government sectors into a single economic unit, while concurrently increasing in-fighting and distrust between the units fostering advancement towards war.

4.

• Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy, (appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the populace) by fostering selective persecution and accepted public vilification of the target group. It then promotes this a “patriotic”, “supportive” or “the party line” and disagreement with such as “anti-government”, “anti-faith” or “anti-nation”.
• Fascismcreates confusion through “facts”. It relies on junk science, revisionism, the elimination of cultural records/treasures and obfuscations to create its case and gain acceptance. Fascism can also combine Marxist critiques of capitalism or faith based critics of the same to re-define middle class perceptions of democracy and to force its issues, confuse logic and create majority consensus between targeted groups. This is also referred to as creating a state of Cognitive Dissonance, the mental state human beings are most easily manipulated.

5. Both middle and upper-middle-class dictated democracy and fascism are class dictatorships that use organized violence (verbal or physical) to maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the oppressed.

The difference between the two is demonstrated by the policies towards non-lower-working class classes. Fascism attains power through the substitution of one state’s form of class domination with another form, generally a middle class based republic segues into an open terrorist dictatorship, run by a few elite.

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
   Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
   Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
   The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -
   Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -
   The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media -
   Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -
   Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
   Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -
   The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections -
    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

The Left’s fervor for display patriotism sometimes carries a confused massage. But Obama’s message has the purity of the Children’s Crusade. Uh oh, sorry Hussein.

Among the Vermont socialists, the size of the welfare check confers status. With the Donks, bigger is always better.

In the parlance of liberal politics, this is known as “getting the message out.”

Plus c’est le meme chose, plus ca change….

George Orwell, in 1941, in his essay “England Your England“

The mentality of the English left-wing intelligentsia can be studied in half a dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power. Another marked characteristic is the emotional shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality. Many intellectuals of the Left were flabbily pacifist up to 1935, shrieked for war against Germany in the years 1935-1939, and them promptly cooled off when the war started. It is broadly though not precisely true that the people who were the most “anti-fascist” during the Spanish civil war are most defeatist now. And underlying this is the really important fact about so many of the English intelligentsia - their severance from the common culture of the country.

In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse-racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.

All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British. It is questionable how much effect this had, but it certainly had some. If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judge that they were “decadent” and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible….

It is, of course, an open question as to whether the American Left can boast a single “intellectual” when their model for house intellectual is Charlie Rose or worse, Bill Moyers. But if Paul Johnson’s definition is apt (”an intellectual is someone who cares more about ideas than about people”) there might be a few.

Albert Gore doesn’t quality but Noam Chomsky probably does. The former is a raving lunatic on all fronts, but the latter poses interesting ideas about linguistics even though he has detestable opinions about politics.

Fortunately for the West, Britain could decline into leftist irrelevance because America sat in the wings ready to rescue the world from barbarism. But today, if not us, who? The worms are in the apple.

Cheney accuses them of wanting to take their football and go home.

 

Cheney Slams Dems Iraq Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats’ attempts to thwart President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would “validate the al-Qaida strategy.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics’ patriotism.

Pelosi says “I’m telling on you!

 

Pelosi Calls Bush to Complain

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments that the Congressional Democrats’ plan for Iraq would “validate the Al Qaeda strategy.” [snip]

The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush’s request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy,” the vice president told ABC News. “The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people … try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”

Don’t you wonder if the charge is untrue, why it would cause such a reaction?

Senator Kerry refuses to apologize for his slander against American troops even as Democratic candidates try and distance themselves from him.

If he had just apologized yesterday, this story would be old news already. Instead he foolishly released a statement that looked like it was written by the moonbats at Daily Kos.

Meanwhile, the number of people demanding an apology from Kerry continues to grow. Here is President Bush on the campaign trail yesterday:

In the mist of a heated campaign season, there are somethings we should all be able to agree on, and one of the most important is that every one of our troops deserves our respect and our gratitude.

Yesterday, my opponent in 2004 presidential race, Senator Kerry, was speaking to a group of young people in California. I want you to listen to what he said. He said, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The senator’s suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and it is shameful. The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology.

More statements from Governor Romney, Senator Frist, and the head of the American Legion can be found in the extended section.

[Read more →]

Frequent reader/commentor Anoncon has this posted at his own blog, Conservatives Anonymous:

Give A Hero His Due

On December 3, 2004, Marine CPL Binh Le was slain trying to prevent a truck bomb from killing his fellow Marines. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for his actions. CPL Le received another award that few sacrifice their lives to earn, his citizenship. Le was born in Vietnam; his father had been a soldier in the South Vietnamese Army. When Le was 7, his parents signed adoption paperwork so that his aunt and uncle could take him with them to America. Le visited Vietnam once when he was 12; his next reunion with his birth family came when they flew to the United States for his funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Those who knew him (including my wife, a high school classmate and friend) speak to his vitality, his kindness, and his patriotism. Take the time to read through the numerous tributes to him from family, friends, and fellow soldiers. Another Marine even wrote a song about him, it’s titled Memories. Le enlisted fresh out of high school and ended up in Iraq, where he met his untimely end. He laid down his life for a country that had yet to grant him citizenship.

Binh Le’s parents want desperately to stay in the United States to be close to their son’s grave. Because Le was adopted by his aunt and uncle, his birth parents have no legal claim to citizenship. After the funeral, Rep. Moran (D, VA) attempted to rectify the situation and tried to pass a measure affording them the honor. As of February 2006 the issue was stuck in committee. I rarely ask anything of my readers, but in this case I will make an exception. Please take the time to call or write to your Congressmen and Senators and urge them to act on behalf of CPL Binh Le. Encourage them to support citizenship for his parents. I can think of none more deserving.

With all the focus on illegal immigration lately it’s easy to lose sight of some of the contributions/sacrifices made by legal immigrants like Binh Le. I think the least we could do for someone who gave his life for America is grant his parents citizenship.

If you agree, let your Congressman and Senators know.

We have a new “Spanglish” National Anthem:

Timed to debut the week Congress returned to debate immigration reform, with the country riven by the issue, “Nuestro Himno” is intended to be an anthem of solidarity for the movement that has drawn hundreds of thousands of people to march peacefully for immigrant rights in Washington and cities across the country, says Adam Kidron, president of Urban Box Office, the New York-based entertainment company that launched the project.

“It’s the one thing everybody has in common, the aspiration to have a relationship with the United States . . . and also to express gratitude and patriotism to the United States for providing the opportunity,” says Kidron.

Changing the language, wording, and tune of the National Anthem is clearly not a sign of “gratitude”. It is an “in your face” move designed to stoke the embers of this debate. The message is clear: we are Latinos and we are not going to assimilate. You must make adjustments for us. It is the same air of entitlement with which they demand citizenship after breaking the laws of our country to get here.

The majority of immigrants to this country embraced America. They kept some customs and ethnic traditions, but they learned English and assimilated into the fabric of our society. The Latino community appears unwilling to walk this road. The lack of American flags in the first march was no mistake. Citizenship for these illegal immigrants is not about becoming Americans. It is about securing access to the rights of citizenship which include jobs for those so inclined or a very generous welfare state for those not inclined.

The other very important thing to note here is that “A Day Without an Immigrant” falls on May Day. Less than 20 years ago the Soviets paraded their military might past the Kremlin. A.N.S.W.E.R. believes they have replaced the tanks and missiles with illegal immigrants. They have fully embraced and play a central role in organizing these rallys. Adding 12 million poorly educated workers from socialist leaning nations to the electorate looks like a very good deal to them. Let’s hope they are wrong.

Just when one thinks that political correctness can’t be any more ridiculous… we have stories like this. It seems in areas where there are tensions about illegal immigrants, some schools have taken down the american flag.. and banned students from wearing the red white and blue colors because it is a symbol of antagonism. Kids from these schools are now protesting against this ban (good for them).

While the protesters proudly wave their Mexican flag… from a country that they fled because they could not make a living there any longer… some respond to this by banning all flags.. including the American flag. My disgust at this kind of thinking knows no bounds. First off… This is America and anyone should have the right to wave or wear a symbol of the flag. Second… banning the flag and the red white and blue colors doesn’t teach the kids about open dialog between each other.. it shows that the schools will quickly pander to one group over another. Third.. These schools are American schools and banning the flag and or anyone from wearing the colors is simply wrong. While the Mexicans can proudly display their own patriotism… Americans who do the same are shut out completely. In America today it seems that if you show your patriotism… you leave youself open to critisim by the anti american americans.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

This site has more indept reporting on specific schools that have banned the American Flag. Anyone who made this decision should be ashamed of themselves. I am glad to see the kids fighting for their rights. I notice that the main stream media is … of course.. silent on this. If someone had banned a Mexican flag and deemed it antagonistic the media would be all over the story. Their silence on these important issues is telling.

Howard “Yeaaaaagh” Dean:

Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

And don’t forget, Democrat’s support the troops!

Here are some other comments on this from around the blogosphere.

Betsy’s Page:

So, first he comes out saying Americans can’t win a war that we’re in. Is that really the message that the Democratic Party wants to put forth: defeat is the only option?

***

So, picture what will happen after we withdraw our troops and redeploy them to some other country in the region. I guess his idea would be that we could then deploy them back into Iraq if the going got tough there. Or does he just plan to turn Iraq over to Zarqawi and like-minded terrorists? Does Dean really think that it will be any easier to achieve victory in Iraq if we’ve withdrawn and then at some later date when things become a mess we try to reinsert them? First the Democrats criticize Bush for not putting enough troops into Iraq and now they want to pull them all out. They’re going to lose all credibility if they let Dean be their spokesman on this.

Redstate.org:

If Howard Dean did not exist, Republicans would have to invent him. He has been a master at screwing up every opportunity handed him.

***

If the Democrats had not already proven themselves wholly out of touch with the American people and the American military in harm’s way, today will change that. First, Democrats prove they are out of touch on the issue of illegal aliens. Now, they are solidifying in the public’s mind what some of us have already known — when given the opportunity to surrender to the enemy, Democrats will disrobe, disarm, and disavow the military at every opportunity. Democrats — the new French.

RCP Blog:

In all seriousness, Howard Dean is not some yahoo, he’s the national voice of the Democratic party and his comments - saying Iraq is unwinnable and calling for the immediate withdrawal of 80,000 troops less than two weeks before Iraq goes to the polls - unquestionably furthers the perception that Democrats are the party of cut and run. This is a horrendous political mistake and it puts even more pressure on Democrats like Clinton, Biden, et al to respond to the question: Does Howard Dean speak for your party?

QandO:

Such a proposal essentially says “we don’t care about the regular troops, so bring the Guard and Reserve home”. “Seriously flawed” would be an understatement if one were to describe such a proposal.

Right Wing News:

So Howard Dean thinks a few thousand terrorists are just so unstoppable that we need to cut, run, and surrender? That means, in Howard Dean’s view that…

* Osama Bin Laden was right to think America was a paper tiger.

* All the generals who’ve said American troops who will be coming home next year because the Iraqis will be ready to start taking over significant parts of their own security next year are wrong.

* Democracy in Iraq can’t last.

* All the sacrifices our soldiers have made in Iraq, and are still making, have been for nothing.

Also, if the Democrats think that the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” then why do they want to take two years to pull out of Iraq? If it’s futile, if it’s hopeless, why didn’t all the Democrats in the House vote to immediately withdraw when they had a chance? What’s the point of risking our soldiers’ lives for 2 years for what the Democrats believe is a lost cause?

Moreover, what’s the point of sending more troops to Afghanistan if you cut and run in Iraq? Setting aside the fact that we don’t need any more troops in Afghanistan, is the idea supposed to be that we’re going to give in to Al-Qaeda in Iraq so we can fight harder against them in Afghanistan? If we don’t have the guts to fight them in Iraq, what makes Howard Dean think the terrorists wouldn’t just relocate there? Why wouldn’t they go where the “Great Satan” was too cowardly to follow?

This just goes to show that basically we have one Party, the Republicans, that believes in defending in America and another Party that believes in appeasement, giving up, and putting politics ahead of the security of the American people.

Hoystory:

At the current rate, it would take more than 10 years for 25,000 U.S. troops to die — and I don’t think that anyone believes that we will still have 100,000+ troops there a decade from now.

But Dean’s views are really that it’s best for America if we turn Iraq over to terrorists. That’s what it comes down to. We know what that kind of failed nation-state got us in Afghanistan, but Dean and his cut-and-runners are perfectly content to re-create the conditions that led to the 9/11 attacks.

And they want the American people to trust them with national security?

Outside the Beltway:

Frankly, the Democrats tactic of saying we can’t win in Iraq strikes me as precisely the wrong approach to the problem. If the Democrats “win” on this one the result is that we lose. We lose in Iraq and we quite possibly degrade our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in other parts of the world. Maybe that is what the Democratic party leadership wants, but it doesn’t look like a very good strategy for making the U.S. safer…which ironically is one of the Democrats complaints about invading Iraq in the first place.

Nashville Truth:

First off, how could we be trying Saddam if we had not already won the Iraq War? Also, how could we have occupied the country, set up a provisional government, held an election, and assisted the interim government in drafting a constitution, if we had not already won the Iraq War? Next week the Iraqis will have another election.

I realize that Chairman Dean and the Democrats really want us to lose over there so that they can win an election over here, but would somebody please tell them that we already won the Iraq War.

Redstate.org:

Recent events make it clear that a pitched battle for control of the Democratic Party is now underway between the far-left “peacenik” contingent symbolized by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, and the DLC or “Clinton wing” of the party which sees only electoral defeat in the rabid antiwar sloganeering of the increasingly leftist DNC. Those of us who were around to see the rise of George McGovern have seen this movie before. It ends with a wildly cheering base nominating a candidate who proceeds to lose 49 states, and in the process tars the Democrats for a generation as a party of left wing moonbats.

JunkYardBlog:

There’s really no way to gloss what Dean is doing. There’s an election a week away in Iraq, and that election will put a democratically elected government together. Once it’s on its feet and the Iraq security forces can handle the job of defending Iraq from the threats within and without, it will be time for us to leave. We will be leaving behind an Iraq that is free and democratic and strong enough to take care of itself. By spinning the win into a defeat, Dean is consciously giving our enemies a moral victory. Dean is a grown man, and he knows what he’s doing. He is stabbing Bush in the back to score political points, and making America’s win in Iraq look like a defeat.

TKS:

The unified message from the President and GOP surrogates is, “Victory! Elections! They stand up, we stand down!” The message from at least the Dean wing of the Democratic party is, “Withdraw! Defeat! Withdraw! Defeat!”

I think any statement from a national leader that sounds like, “we have been defeated in Iraq” is political nitroglycerin. Families of the troops will be livid at the suggestion that their sons and daughters have failed to achieve their mission.

It’s also, of course, far from true - as long as you don’t define victory as “preventing Zarqawi and his thugs from blowing anything up anywhere.” Unfortunately, it seems a certain segment of the population feels that if any IED goes off, if any suicide bomber blows up a mosque, if any car bomb slaughters Iraqis in a market or if any foreigner is abducted… well then, we’re losing.

Thankfully, not all Americans feel this way. But it’s a little frightening that this “if we’re taking any casualties, we’re losing the war” mentality has taken hold. We would have no capacity to fight any war anywhere if a majority of Americans defined defeat so broadly.

Ex-Donkey Blog:

If a Democrat “leader” like Dean can so negatively affect U.S. foreign policy when he’s out of power, imagine the damage that he his cohorts could do if they were actually IN power.

Captain’s Quarters:

The embarassment of Dean’s military analysis would make clear that the Democrats have no business conducting foreign affairs and national security for the US in this age of Islamofascist terrorism. That’s why the newspapers buried Dean’s comments on their web sites. They had plenty of time to write their own copy, or at least to include the AP story in their print edition. However, the NYT and the Washington Post obviously hope that Dean’s comments get quickly forgotten. (The Los Angeles Times doesn’t bother to mention it at all, despite the longer lead time for their newspaper.)

Perhaps this comes as no surprise — it doesn’t surprise me — but the national media has long since decided it needs to downplay Dean if the Democrats are to survive 2006. The Democrats still haven’t gotten the same message.

Time for another roundup of links I have come across over the last couple of days:

• Terrorism Unveiled is the place to go for coverage of the terrorist bombings in Jordan. She thinks this may turn Arab opinion against the terrorists:
  

  “Most likely, there will be a major public outcry against this, and I mean larger Arab public. Afterall, if it can happen in the peaceful Amman, it can happen anywhere. Jordanians will rally, and King Abdullah will take even more strides against these terrorists. Jordanians will be less supportive of what they once thought of as “resistance” in Iraq. Now the resistance has turned the gun on them, so to speak.

  This happened to the Islamic Jihad and Gamaat Islamiya in Egypt, and it will happen to Zarqawi’s group as well. You cannot attack the public from whom you are trying to get support—from whom you need support.”

• On a related but somewhat lighter note, mASS BACKWARDS wonders who may have been responsible for the attacks:
  

  “No doubt, this was the work of some disgruntled Baptists, or perhaps a gang of down-on-their-luck Episcopalians, or maybe some royally pissed off Lutherans, or a radical Amish fringe group, or…”

• Happy 230th Birthday to the United States Marine Corps! Dean’s World looks at how blogs on the left and right are treating the military today. I can’t imagine why anyone would question the left’s patriotism.
• While we are on the subject of the Marines, Froggy Ruminations and One Hand Clapping both have negative reviews of the new war movie “Jarhead”. I was looking forward to seeing this movie after seeing the preview. Unfortunately it looks like the preview wasn’t representative of the actual movie.
• Unclaimed Territory takes a trip down memory lane to remind us of all the snide remarks the French were saying about us immediately following Hurricane Katrina. All of them now appear to describe their own situation much more accurately.
• Speaking of the French, the Ex-Donkey Blog has found something for us all (at least the male readers that is) to be envious of the French for.
• Ace of Spades posts a defense of political gerrymandering.
• John Miller at NRO looks at the 2006 Senate races.
• Norman Podhoretz has an excellent examination of who is really lying about Iraq.
• Stephen Hayes lists 10 documents that the Intelligence community should declassify for the American people to read.