October 04, 2004
However what Cakora does not address is the curious silence from pundits of the right, which he mentions in his penultimate paragraph and only in passing. I believe I know the real reason for the silence – and it is an ugly one indeed – but before I make that point, there is another relevant link below, this to a Fox News investigative story that broke Friday but was conveniently obscured by the trifecta of mass-media political “correctness,” the rightest penchant for speaking no evil of Bush, and simple post-debate happenstance. But the Fox expose’ was nevertheless the most important news of the day and of the weekend, for it reported yet another example of the Bush Administration’s sneaky pandering to Islam: that Bush’s officials have defiantly re-appointed a terrorist-connected Muslim to an important intelligence post in the Department of Homeland Security – never mind the fact the appointee (predictably, a protege of Grover Norquist) is credibly accused of lying by omission, thus to conceal the damning truth of his past when he filled out a personal-history questionnaire required for security clearance. The report on this developing scandal is lengthy and detailed, but once again I cannot over-emphasize its read-in-full importance. Particularly since – in context with a number of other alleged Bush “blunders” that are ever-more-undeniably expressions of administration policy (especially the ongoing obstruction of the armed pilots program, the parallel opposition to local Civil Defense mobilization, and the air-travel outrages bravely revealed by Annie Jacobsen) – the Fox disclosures suggest the Bush Administration is every bit as much a deliberate appeaser as a Kerry-cum-Neville-Chamberlain Administration promises to be.
While Norquist’s machinations are specifically (and by his own assertion) an attempt to build a united Republican front of Christian fundamentalists and American Muslims – seemingly disparate elements who are potentially united by their common desire to suppress individual liberty and repeal women’s rights – the Bush Administration’s more general policies of Muslim-appeasement are probably not so Machiavellian at all. I suspect they are instead a tactically smart but strategically appalling GOP response to the American public’s growing unwillingness to defend itself – whether against local criminals or international terrorists. (See, for example, “A Nation of Cowards,” a tremendously controversial essay in support of the Second Amendment.) This work’s relevance here is that the United States today is nearly the antithesis of the nation that fought World War II, so much so that America’s metastasizing cravenness is the real gorilla in the political living room. In turn this is a measure of the mostly unacknowledged success of the feminist revolution. Its three decades of ongoing classroom and mass-media brainwashing were intended to destroy “patriarchy“ -- American liberty and Western Civilization -- and have stolen from us a precious legacy of knowledge, thoroughly subverting the ancient, uniquely Occidental principles that enabled our greatness. Craven cowardice has thus been elevated into a virtue, chiefly through emphasis of pathological selfishness euphemistically described as the doctrine of “the personal is political.”
The most disturbing consequences of the resultant climate of moral imbecility were first revealed via William Bennett’s Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT) web site, which published a post-9/11 poll of U.S. college students showing that – if resumption of a military draft were forced by national emergency – 60-some percent would refuse to obey lawful orders to serve. Unfortunately the poll is no longer available on the AVOT web site – a disheartening act of censorship probably intended to counter the maliciously false draft-resumption rumors spread by the Democrats – but subsequent data samples (available here, here, here and here) support the original poll’s conclusions and suggest the “hell-no-I-won’t-go” attitude is widespread, especially among the Afro-American and Hispanic communities. Alas, it is but a short leap from “hell no” to “better dhimmitude than death” – dhimmitude the Arabic term representing Qur’an-sanctioned victimization by Muslim conquerors – a condition fatal not only to the American ideal but to all human principles of liberty and freedom, quite possibly forever.
Here of course is the probable reason no conservative pundit has taken Kerry to task for pledging what amounts to creeping pacifism: no one on the right wants to take the chance that a forthright discussion of Kerry’s disarmament plan might further energize the incipient national impulse toward dhimmitude reflected in the draft studies, thereby unintentionally handing victory to Kerry. And, yes, I write this damning judgement fully cognizant of the epic skill and bravery of our armed forces – but also painfully aware that the selfless courage of our service men and women no longer represents anything like the driving mindset of America. Apparently (if the above polls are to be believed), this nation’s courageous majority will soon be naught but a memory. The implication is that Islam’s ultimate triumph -- with all the unspeakable horrors of a global caliphate -- is inevitable. I can only pray this hypothesis is wrong.
Nevertheless, at least as far as I can see, the only real advantage offered by President Bush is his refusal to submit U.S. foreign policy to the veto of Paris – that and my fervent hope his administration’s constant and ongoing pandering to Islam (including the bans on profiling and the proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants) will end abruptly after he is re-elected. I also hope a second Bush administration might halt the growing cravenness of the American public – but on that score (particularly given the state of deliberately deceptive mass media and legacy-thieving public education), I am increasingly pessimistic. Even so, a Kerry Administration would be many times worse.
As I have said before, this election offers the U.S. electorate a truly abysmal poverty of choice that is certainly unprecedented in the history of this nation’s military crises and is probably without equal in our entire national history. What is also without peer is the media’s self-imposed silence about the nature of the Islamic threat – a silence dictated by victim-identity politics, ideologies of moral equivalence and, most of all, matrifascist hostility to American liberty and Western Civilization. Unfortunately for the American public, it is a defacto censorship that protects not only the plotters and would-be tyrants of the Left, but often the schemers of the Right as well: note especially the near-absolute embargo, imposed by the dictates of political correctness, on coverage of the Bush Administration's two-faced stance toward Islam. Which merely intensifies our national crisis – a crisis of stolen legacies, failed will and breathtaking leaderlessness. No matter who wins this election, its aftermath may be the last wake-up call we get.
Posted by: Loren at
02:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1237 words, total size 9 kb.
October 01, 2004
Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing it, it'll take 13 years to get it.
I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago -- six, seven years ago -- called The New War, which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it. And the black market sale price was about $250 million.
Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today.
And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11.
We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership.
And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.
Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.
You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.
Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.
And we're going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we're going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation.
This is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do with the nuclear test ban treaty. It's our generation's equivalent. And I intend to get it done.
(Thanks to The Washington Post for the complete text of the debate, available – though registration is required – here.)
Kerry’s criticism of the administration’s anti-proliferation efforts may or may not be valid – I will leave that dispute to others. But, elsewhere in the debate, Kerry suggested he strongly supports a “global warming” treaty (presumably Kyoto, a pact already rejected by the Senate precisely because it would cripple our nation’s competitiveness and productivity), which further underscores the extent to which the Kerry-Edwards campaign has been captured by the enemies of “patriarchy” and has thus become merely another expression of the down-with-American-liberty, death-to-Western-Civilization ethos. Any day now the triumphant coterie of matrifascists, ethno-racial victim-identity cultists and Deaniacs turned Kerrynoids will announce their victory by shouting out the newest variant of their all-time favorite chant:
Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh
Osama bin LadenÂ’s gonna win.
I jest, but there is nothing the least bit funny about Kerry’s stated intent to unilaterally disarm America in the face of the Islamic and North Korean threats. It is beyond outrageous, tantamount to arguing that the abandonment of one’s firearms is the proper response to impending assault by murderous criminals: the suicidal ideology of the anti-Second Amendment hysterics writ on a global scale. I cannot but wonder if Kerry truly is – as I have often facetiously suggested – the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. Never mind it is only a partial disarmament Kerry proposes. Never mind the infuriating censorship reflected in the fact Kerry’s disarmament proposal is not the lead paragraph on every debate story in every morning paper in the land; never mind that – almost certainly in service to its “fight Bush by whatever means necessary” ethos – print and broadcast media alike are maliciously suppressing this most-important disclosure. The bottom line is that Kerry by his pledge to disarm has proven himself unfit for the presidency, now and forever.
Posted by: Loren at
05:01 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 968 words, total size 6 kb.
39 queries taking 0.0759 seconds, 91 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
