Few opportunities in the study of history compare to looking into the eyes of an historical figure while he tells his story.  This unique feat is accomplished by the Errol Morris documentary “Fog of War”.  Unfortunately, few historical opportunities could be less credible than Robert McNamara’s latest accounting for his intimate involvement in the Vietnam War.  But this film is not about facts, or even “McNamara said, Johnson said”.  This film is the best illustration of the mindset and experiences that allowed Vietnam to earn its place in American history as her greatest colossal failure.  McNamara himself is the poster boy for how not to fight a war.  Yet his arrogance still allows him to presume to lecture as though he is Sun Tzu.  This film illustrates perfectly the environment that created the “Death by Micromanagement” strategy that McNamara still promotes.

Regardless of opinion on the Vietnam War, there is one point that most all agree on:  Robert McNamara is a pathological liar and a man of limitless denial.  Morris needs little to expose this in The Fog of War, he simply allows McNamara to expose it for him.  This point of agreement allows even those who would rather have simply won the war to view a film by an anti-war activist without tearing their hair out. 

The majority of disagreement about the film’s portrayal of the “inside baseball” account by McNamara is between war critics who need to find out just who was more of a cheerleader for the engagement in Vietnam, McNamara or Lyndon Johnson.  Eric Alterman, historian and major proprietor of the “Iraq is Nam” theology, wrote in The Nation that Morris is “…a brilliant filmmaker, but he is not a historian”.  Alterman felt that Morris misrepresented the relationship between McNamara and Johnson with his use of Johnson’s taped conversations.  These arguments seem to be made to add detail to the various Iraq parallels used to weight the anti-war argument of today. 

The Morris/Alterman spat centered on the various taped conversations of Johnson.  But it is the interaction of present day characters such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush that brings these old questions to the forefront.  Alterman states at the end of his rebuttal, “Substitute ‘terrorism’ for ‘communism’ and you have a contemporary historical tragedy made to order.”  It is the generation of Alterman and Morris that sees all conflict through the lens of Vietnam, making it a logical starting point in their minds for analysis of Iraq.  Though this colors any real grasp of the unique complexities and causal relationships of a completely different situation in Iraq (let alone a situation that is still developing and changing), it does shine a bright light on just how completely ill-prepared the United States was for Vietnam.  This was supposedly the real reason for the movie and is its true historical value.  There is, after all, a difference between learning from history and using history to achieve a self-fulfilling prophesy, a delicate (although common) ethical situation these two historians have placed themselves in.  One can use the Marshall Plan as a historical model and forecast a completely different future result in Iraq.  But Vietnam is over and that story can be told in the ramblings of Robert McNamara.

It is in McNamara’s “eleven lessons” where the story lies.  Some of his lessons are obvious and a major part of military planning currently, such as the first, “empathize with your enemy”.  It apparently would surprise many unfamiliar with the military (McNamara included) that this lesson is a basic tenant of war strategy.  Some are just hopelessly circular, such as his second, “rationality will not save us”.  This illustrated just how traumatized this man is by his experiences and he expands on this in his narrative of the firebombing of Japan.  Lesson eleven is one that anti-war activists should pay close attention to: “you can’t change human nature”.  After all, even if you don’t fight, someone always will.  This does guarantee that peaceniks will always have something to be upset (and fight) about, hopefully avoiding a return of the 60s and 70s method of burning buildings and shooting cops in the name of peace.

The blueprint for failure in war is laid out in lesson five, “proportionality should be a guideline in war.”  This is because of his basic contradictions in how he waged war.  On one hand, he focuses on statistics, analysis and data.  On the other, he understands that reasoning and data are often wrong.  Then he contends that based on data and reasoning that is not reliable, a “proportional” strategy should be placed on the military.  His rules don’t focus on the military need to define the goal and achieve it as quickly as possible with absolute force.  McNamara prefers to create an obsessive compulsive balance of military paralysis that guarantees stalemate and casualties.  And in case anybody misses it, he sums it up with “proportionality should be a guideline in war”.

The Vietnam War was run from beginning to end with “proportionality”.   Responding little by little over the years with more advisors, then air support, then troops, the U.S. government always upped the ante proportional to maintaining the status quo.  Very little was invested in actually defining an end game, it was just assumed that some version of the Korean stalemate would be established to hold the communists back.  ‘Wait ‘em out’ was the genius long term strategy to combat The Domino Effect.  And it led to “McNamara” thinking in the execution of war. 

If any context was necessary to expose McNamara’s lessons, it comes in loads with his statements about other military leaders.  He is horrified by the fire bombings ordered by General LeMay on Japan in World War II, and uses Sherman’s burning of Atlanta during the Civil War to justify his misdeeds while at the same time condemning them with himself as war criminals.  However, both LeMay and Sherman won their battles, and their nation subsequently won the wars their battles were part of.  They did not use “proportionality”, yet McNamara still clings to a fantasy of the sanitized, statistical war that could have been.  His ability to disconnect his decisions from the loss of the war by assuming that it was lost before it began (in retrospect) is fascinating.  If Sherman had failed it is very likely that the Union would have also failed.  Sherman knew (as did LeMay) that the only way to end the war was to destroy the will of the enemy to fight.  McNamara, even after such a hard lesson, does not want to face that in this film.  “Win at all costs” is still the primary rule once the threshold of war has been crossed.  The malaise of the Carter Administration and the Iran embassy takeover of the late 70s is all the proof needed to show the repercussions of geopolitical failure in armed conflict.

And just who lost the “will to fight” in Vietnam?  The answer to that question is obvious.  But why were the American people convinced that they had no responsibility to a region and millions of people they had already been intimately involved with for so many years?  Certainly strategic incompetence leading to endless deaths was a factor. That occurs in all wars.  The Battle of the Bulge was a disaster, yet the U.S. fought on. But perception is reality.

And who supplied the information used in creating public perception?  The supposedly objective and incorruptible Fourth Estate was the information source for the American people.  The media trumpeted the Tet Offensive as the beginning of the end, but conveniently forgot to explain the asterisk that the Tet offensive accomplished absolutely nothing militarily, and that the Viet Cong made no advances by the end of the battle. Today the Vietnamese characterize Tet as a ploy to use the media to demoralize the American people in an exhibit in their war museum in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon).  Such historical characters as Jane Fonda and John Kerry are immortalized as heroes, while American military are all war criminals.  Such is War.  But the results of the American “hand washing” are ignored by the media and anti-war activists in the United States.  Few ask of the fate of our former allies and their families within the Vietnamese society of Ho Chi Minh

. The class genocide of Pol Pot in Cambodia is disconnected from communism and the fall of Vietnam by the press and the academia that creates the press.  They prefer to blame the losers of the war.  Such is war.

And that is the problem with the anti-war movement of today.  Today’s peaceniks are only too willing to repeat the entire timeline of Vietnam just to be right, even while knowing the catastrophic result.  In Iraq there is no North and South, no superpower backing to restrict strategy, and an end that is not yet written.  The potential for mass genocide, however, is “made to order”, as Alterman states.  The anti-war movement’s denial about the risk of abandonment is parallel to the same denial held to this day about the end of Vietnam.  War supporters have to wonder if it is the deaths of war being opposed, or American success in war.  Is this an unreasonable conclusion?  

“Uh, there was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren't pretty and, and, and, you know, uh, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I've met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.”

                                                                         -John Kerry

                                                                         C-Span July 24^th, 2007

Morris, Alterman and Kerry condemn the failed strategies of McNamara, yet support the failed strategy of withdrawal that left 165,000 to perish in reeducation camps and millions more at the hands of Pol Pot in Cambodia.  The death toll of withdrawal does not seem to be the issue for Morris, Alterman or Senator Kerry.  The military casualties do not compare to Vietnam, as more soldiers have died in peacetime years than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.  In 1981, for instance, 2,380 died on active duty with no shooting conflict.  In 2005 1,981 perished in service.  So, the survival of civilians and allies should ostensibly be paramount.  Perhaps the anti-war activists should be reminded that in geopolitics you can’t just “take it back”.  What would cause more hostility to the United States, meddling in Iraq or abandoning millions who supported us to torture and death?  Maybe it would be helpful to attempt a better ending to our current story than a pasted on ending from the past.

“Is it necessary that we wait sixty more days until this magic day in September to change course?  How many more American soldiers are gonna be killed?  How many are gonna be maimed, wounded, lose their arms?”  Senator Harry Reid (D) Nevada

            The answer, of course, is that many more will be killed, maimed and wounded than if the Senator decided to work to win the war, rather than encourage the enemy to continue to fight with assurances that they are winning.  The real question is why, after Reid created this imaginary deadline based on the September report, this deadline is suddenly way too far off for the Democrats.  After all, using this report as the “last chance” is an ingenious plan to allow a huge media push for a shift in opinion.  Why so nervous?

            All that could possibly go wrong for the Democrat plan is success for the U.S. military in Iraq.  At first security was the problem.  Now the surge begins to work and the Iraqi government is the problem.  Suddenly the Dems are pointing wildly and their voices are getting very high-pitched.  Suddenly waiting for the September report is not good enough.  No Democrat will address what would happen after a premature withdraw.  John Kerry thought it wouldn’t be so bad, right before making a comparison to the Vietnamese reeducation camps.  Old John seems to think that the fall of South Vietnam was a Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Years Eve, complete with parades and carnival rides.  And the kindly and gentle Vietcong helped their friends in the south with camps where they fished, played games and performed skits designed to "educate" about the new Worker’s Paradise. 

            The fact is that American Socialists still haven’t faced the results of their last great political success, Vietnam.  These people have run around college campuses and newsrooms for thirty years quashing any reference to the fate of those who trusted America in Vietnam.  Democrats are so firmly planted in denial and rationalization that they simply cannot and will not even utter a “my bad” to the millions tortured and killed after we abandoned our allies.  They even made a propaganda movie called The Killing Fields, making the fantastic claim that somehow the United States created the Khmer Rouge by bombing in Cambodia.  Another great circular logic puzzle from the “fighting terrorists just makes them mad” crowd is just what college professors and journalists love.

Ironically, one of the protest mantras is that America is hated in the world because we are in Iraq.  What will the millions of Iraqis who are allied with us think if we suddenly leave them to their fate?  The answer is not much, because many of them will be tortured, shot in the head and dumped in large holes throughout the country.  The rest will take the hint and jump on the “Death to America” bandwagon while their families are still breathing.  Hey, this is just like Vietnam!

But for Democrats the key is all in the timing.  If people are convinced that progress is being made in security, the whining about political progress will not hold water.  After all, a lecture from this congress about legislative progress is patently absurd. 

The more that the Democrats speak the more likely they will look ridiculous.  In a recent primary debate Dennis Kucinich said that if oil were in Sudan that the U.S. would already be there.  It sounded great and Democrats cheered and patted each other on the back.  The problem is that there is oil in Sudan and that is why the genocide is occurring.  The Islamic Fascist government is using militias to push people off their land in order to access that oil.  The big guy behind all of this is China, investing heavily in Sudan’s oil industry.  The beauty of this colossal ignorance is that the Democrats find themselves in a position of allowing genocide in one country because they wish to stop genocide in another.  And both wars are about OIL.  Unfortunately, they won’t “find themselves” in that position because they have no idea what they are talking about.

The biggest problem is that media is not what it used to be.  The press cannot fully suppress the video and pictures of the results of an Iraqi pullout.  Democrats will be forced to answer for their actions throughout the war when the pictures of the savage repercussions emerge from the Middle East.  The celebrations of Islamic-Fascists and their terrified and newly compliant subjects will ring throughout the world, and many will know not to ally with the United States and risk abandonment.  Blaming Bush most likely will not be an effective strategy with the American People in justifying this bloodbath.  And you can forget about help with Darfur (like anybody is helping now).

 On March 9^th 2007, I made a historical comparison between today’s Democrat party and the death of the Federalist Party in the early 1800’s.  The Democrats must pull off surrender in Iraq before news of military and political gains seeps through the media filter.  If they can do this and gain the power they so deserve, I wonder if Senator Reid will ask how many more soldiers will die as the conflict shockingly continues on throughout the world and in Iraq.  I wonder if Senator Reid believes he can “jingle the keys” and convince America that running away was a great idea for world peace, and not just a great idea for Democrat political power.

            Bias in media is unavoidable.  Sloppiness is not.  When a journalist presents a statistic an alarm bell should always ring in the mind of the consumer.  Journalists have an Achilles heel in their constant urge to satisfy ego.  To be the one that exposed a particular “crisis” and be portrayed as intellectual and caring is the primary goal of entering the fourth estate.  From Journalism 101 on, budding “protectors” are told that without them the world would collapse into anarchy.  An almost “Jedi Knight” mindset is found throughout the field and this creates a need in the mind of a reporter to expose the “Dark Side” and save the unwashed, brainless peasants.  The diligent journalist will research a target in detail and connect particular events to show a wrong has been committed.  The sloppy journalist will use statistics.  Events are open to interpretation and can be debated.  Statistics, once reported, are as intellectually effective as “yeah huh!” in debate.  This is because reporters rarely investigate the details and context of the numbers, preferring to simply pick a number that fits the template of their story. 

            On July 18^th Steve Brown of FOX News did a report on John Edwards and poverty.  He reported to the flock that 24 million people were in poverty in 1968 when Robert Kennedy championed the cause of the poor.  He then enlightened us to the horrifying fact that the number of impoverished Americans has skyrocketed to 37 million now, making Edwards right to believe this is an issue to take him to the presidency.  The numbers are accurate on the face, but very misleading in their support of Brown’s story.  The population of the United States was 200,706,052 in 1968.  A calculator tells me that this puts the poverty rate at 11.95%.  The population of the United States now is 302,383,503.  My calculator, which I assure you all is a very reliable source, tells me that the current poverty rate is 12.2%.  Considering the re-defining of the poverty rate (always up), the ravages of the Great Society, illegal immigration and Jimmy Carter I would submit that these numbers are very encouraging. 

            Continuing to read from John Edwards PR pamphlet on television, Brown recites the oldie but goodie “women and minorities hardest hit” play with the fact that blacks and Hispanics are three times more likely to live in poverty.  But this demographic lives almost entirely in cities where the Great Society ensures a high poverty rate.  At least 10 million of the 37 million impoverished today are illegal aliens who arrived because they were in poverty in the first place, not because they are victims of the American system.  This is an outlier when examining poverty as a result of American capitalism and places my new adjusted rate at 8.93%.  Using the Global Warming Scientific Method I can sum up my research with a number I pulled out of my butt that says the poverty rate is actually 2%.  Let’s party!

            So another media fueled crises turns out to be a mirage.  Emotions and faulty connections of logic are weaved into the typical Socialist pretzel and crammed down our throats for a political agenda.  Imagine what journalists do to numbers they can control when reporting on polling?  The devil is in the details. 

Mo Speech is Bad Speech

 “If you can control the information that people receive, than you can control the ideas that they have, and the actions they are willing to take.”

Representative Maurice Hinchey—Democrat 22^nd District New York

     No kidding, Mo?  What an epiphany!  So glad you’re on board with exposing the mainstream American media for being ethically bankrupt in its pursuit of Socialist Utopia.  It’s high time that a Democrat such as yourself showed the intellectual honesty to admit that the media overwhelmingly supports Democrats and filters public information to assist the Democrat Politburo’s expansion and consolidation of power.  Finally a reasonable, courageous man such as you understands how American media uses politically correct groupspeak to silence dissent and intimidate those that would attempt to debate what the liberal establishment decrees beyond debate.   Your realization about the media’s conscious ongoing deception of the American people will finally…huh?...excuse me a moment…what?...talk radio?...”Fairness Doctrine”?…really?

Dear Representative Hinchey,

            You are a worthless piece of defecation dropped into the grass by a cowardly dog.  That last bit of hyperbole is dedicated to Senator Feinstein, who seems to really appreciate it.  The idea that you trekked from your fancy DC condo (likely paid for by some lobby) and made your way to an interview where you spewed such a statement directed at talk radio is astounding, even for a shallow, pandering politician such as yourself.  Hypocrisy is a pale term next to this behavior.  This thinly veiled attempt to restrict speech is pathetic and sick.  How can a man go on television and proceed to call for controlling speech with the reasoning that you believe that the government can make speech “fair”?  Your statement rings so true because you and your party have benefited from the control of information for a very long time.  PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, UPI, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, NYT are not quite enough, eh?  You Dems are so used to having your butt kissed and popping softballs out of the park from DC  "reporters" that you of course assume any other form of journalism needs legislative and bureaucratic “fixes”.  You expressed your ignorance of the First Amendment with such arrogance and pomposity that Thomas Jefferson projectile vomited in Heaven at that very moment.  As I choke back chunks myself, let me make a general statement that I assure Senator Feinstein is NOT hyperbole:

            It may not be today, tomorrow, next month or even five years, but eventually the DC establishment elected and mostly unelected will go too far.  It is inevitable that the weed of centralized domestic government will finally grow so much that the people will awake to find themselves imprisoned in a shell of regulation and silence.  When this awakening finally occurs there will certainly be hell to pay, and the inquisitive American people will be a far more hostile interview than FOX when they show up in the Capitol for healthy debate.

“The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly it will treat people with respect.” -- President George W. Bush

            This statement is echoed by both parties and illustrates the insanity and corruption of American politics.  The insanity is Bush’s good intentions and ridiculous concept of “compassionate conservatism”, which translates to “liberalism”.  We learned this translation in the flood of past due bills to the treasury courtesy of the prescription drug program.  The “compassionate conservatives” are liberals who know enough economics to understand that tax cuts are the only way to increase revenue enough to pay for wasteful, society degrading programs that destroy families.  They also hold hands with liberals in the pool of self gratifying good intentions, hoping for a good word from the socialist media to puff them up and allow for good dinner party invitations. Bush’s press and corresponding poll numbers testify to how well compassion plays for Republicans when dealing with the press.

            The corruption is the willingness of congress to parade in front of cameras as if for the first time they have actually done something useful and productive that is not cutting taxes or these soul-sucking entitlement programs.  Democrats see easy victims to turn into voters and replace the voters aborted over the last three decades. They also see cheap labor for business lobbies and their own business interests they pretend they do not have. Republicans see voters and cheap labor for business lobbies and interests everyone knows they have.  Most of all, elected Republicans are generally spineless jellyfish that would sell their own child to stem cell research for a kiss from Tim Russert.

            Many people in and out of politics agree with the President’s statement and the idea of continuing to let these illegals into the country because they believe it is “compassionate”.  This brings us to my inevitable historical parallel that is sure to illicit the response I am always searching for.

            Not long, long ago enough there was a man who practiced “compassion” by the name of Jefferson Davis.  He knew that the cheap labor of slavery kept costs down and supported the southern economy.  He also truly believed that this condition was a step up for the otherwise lost.  In the mind of the “compassionate” Davis slaves were cared for by kind benefactors who provided food and housing in return for a little help around the homestead.  Sure, “real” people had legal rights and a much higher minimum wage, but black slaves had a much better life than the savage culture that was their own.  Oh, how nice.  Cheap products, low overhead and helping people! 

            Is it really that much different now?  The irony is that America’s Indentured Pt II come voluntarily.  Their own countries are so corrupt and without true capitalism or democratic government that it is better to abandon them in search of wages that are illegal to pay in our country.  And we so want cheap tomatoes and nice lawns that we are willing to reach out and welcome them into ghettos where they have none of the rights or responsibilities of American citizens.  We don’t even want to know their names, not in these paradise sanctuary cities with no crime, no lack of health care, and no silly federal laws.  The wages they are paid in agriculture illustrate that they are a fraction of a true person in our eyes.  Let’s get it over with… is it one half? Two thirds of a person?

            So legalize them.  Then we can always enslave ten million more.  We’ll have nice cheap strawberries as long as the border stays open.  And it will stay open as long as congress is congress and we strive to be “compassionate”.

            Illegal immigrants exploit us and we exploit them and pat ourselves on the back for being so nice.  But the reason they come is because of capitalism and democracy.  Without those two aspects of the United States there would be few jobs for any of us and certainly no “extra” jobs.  Maybe a new export to Latin and South America could solve everybody’s problems.  Or maybe our delusional state will destroy the greatest democratic success in world history and plunge us into a war that will make our Civil War look like a gang fight.  Where will we go to find work then?  Maybe Canada.

            “It is our feeling that this is only the beginning.  We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted on the airwaves…”---Al Sharpton

            These words should frighten us all.  What happened to Imus is not censorship, only another Sharpton/Jackson racial shakedown of another American company.  But Reverend Al’s words are yet another societal sign of something very bad for anyone enjoying First Amendment protection. 

            The power of Sharpton and Jackson comes from the media.  The power of the media comes from the First Amendment.  But the elite media seem unconcerned about the meaning behind Sharpton’s words.  Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has been good enough to make a list of radio and television personalities that need to be purged from American debate and ideas, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the half of the county who do not share his political leanings. 

Once again the left and the media elite (they all look the same to me) are more than willing to define just who deserves free speech for the good of the people.  The Great Fourth Estate stands oblivious to the reemergence of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and the snowball gradually gaining momentum and headed for congress.  The Congress of the United States is never afraid to trash the Constitution when in pursuit of a righteous end.  And never afraid to hop a bandwagon when writing a badly conceived, self destructive law designed to pander to whatever emotional “outrage” happens to be on television.  But someone will want to yield the political weapon of defining “racist” and other offensive words.  Golly, who would be in a good position to do that?

            And what a weapon this will be.  Here is the instruction manual:

Thank you for purchasing Uncle Joe’s stain remover.  Uncle Joe’s removes conservatives, libertarians, and any stain opposing the State. 

To Apply:

Opposing affirmative action is racist, therefore illegal thought.

Opposing illegal immigration is racist, therefore illegal thought.

All conservative commentators are racist, therefore banned.   Especially that Rush Limbaugh guy.

Apply as many times as needed to eliminate stains.  Simply define opposing ideas as racist and watch them melt away!

Warning! Harmful to comedians.

            Utter the word “racist” enough times and it loses any original meaning altogether.  Imus had barely finished uttering his ridiculous remark when politicians were running to the media.  The media did its part by demanding comments from presidential candidates.  Why would that be?  How long before these political creatures begin the one-up contest over who can propose a law that best repairs this “outrage” and prevents any group from ever being insulted again?  And who defines acceptable thoughts and debate?  Sharpton?  Jackson?  Nancy Pelosi?  Who is at fault for bringing us to the brink of violating (again—see McCain Feingold) the most important Amendment to our Constitution?

            We are at fault.  What happened to us?  Have Americans always expressed “pain” when insulted?  We don’t protest that we are “scarred for life” because of the words of a doddering old man…do we?  Surely these women of Rutgers basketball didn’t scale the mountain of the NCAA tournament just to have their lives ruined by the words of a washed up geriatric.  Is the lesson we want the young to learn from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson that mere words can hurt us in this way?  What happened to “sticks and stones”?  This accomplishment of Rutgers basketball far outweighs anything this moron has ever achieved in his miserable life of insults.  Why not simply say so?  We are handing over power to others to protect ourselves from injury to self esteem.  How pathetic is that?  Do we really want a generation so spineless that they are incapable of standing up and saying, “up yours you washed up old geezer”, without being afraid of the AARP jumping up to protect the feelings of old geezers?  I am not exactly of towering stature; will I have a case for a civil rights violation if someone calls me a garden gnome? 

            We cannot possibly defend ourselves in war if we burst into tears when someone calls us ugly.  We also cannot maintain a cohesive nation when we are too busy attacking each other, demanding “justice” for our injured feelings and walking on glass instead of debating our survival openly in the arena of ideas created by the First Amendment.  A First Amendment that makes no mention whatsoever of the thickness of one’s skin when exposed to speech.  We all can join Rutgers in laughing as Imus loses his job because the market no longer wants him.  But we are standing at that very special line once again and great care must be taken with the next step. 

            As we stand confused after the latest Iran Hostage Crisis looking in vain for the testicles of Great Britain we should get a view of exactly where we stand in what history will certainly know as the greatest of World Wars.  We are losing badly.  Spain and France are gone, Italy, Germany and Britain in freefall, and Latin America is beginning to atrophy. Robert Hunter, former ambassador to NATO said it best on Glenn Beck’s television show…"humiliation is how you choose to see it”…what?  No, Robert, humiliation is how everybody else sees it.  This is a former AMBASSADOR who is supposed to have some grasp of international relations.  Instead we are seeing the suicidal insanity of “conflict resolution” being taught to our children on nearly every college campus in America.  This is why we are losing.  Yes, we must get real and see that we are losing this war because of an enemy we just cannot bring ourselves to truly confront.  An enemy within so well defended by the Orwellian schizophrenic mental block of political correctness that to even question motives brings ruinous consequences to career and credibility.  Yes, those socialists that we thought would be cute to observe intellectually chasing their tails have reasserted themselves because they think the fascists we are struggling against will be trustworthy allies in their quest for Marxist Nirvana.

            No one wants to tell their aging parents that they are too old to drive, or explain to their “slow” friend that M&M’s are not an effective substitute for money.  But the baby boomer socialists of our country need a sit down.  We know they are American citizens; they have every right to speak and have an opinion.  But my Labrador’s opinion of dead rabbits should not make me want to endorse road kill as his daily meal just to spare his feelings.  If socialists understood economics they would not be socialists, and if socialists understood foreign affairs they would not be advising us to simply acquiesce to our enemies.  We must understand that socialism sees only one goal in the elimination of private property to make life “fair” and create the baby boomer hippie fantasyland of a USSR that works “this time” without the piles of bodies being bulldozed into mass graves.  Anyone who opposes America must oppose capitalism and therefore must be allies to the American left.  This is all they see in Iran, Venezuela or any entity that speaks against the United States.  They see a chance to create the great Chuck E. Cheese’s paradise of economic equality, and any ally is cool, man.  These are the bureaucrats, college professors and apparently ambassadors of all the Western nations we have to thank for portraying us to the world as urinating on ourselves every time we are challenged in geopolitics.  They (see Jimmy Carter) fawn over murderers who utter leftist catch phrases that remind them of when they were young and “fightin’ the man”.  They congratulate each other on how smart they are and then use that as proof that they are always right and the rest of us are stupid rednecks.  We rednecks must get past the wonderment of how these self important idiots find their way to work each day and explain to them some facts about the social interaction of humans.

Lesson One

Nations exist because groups of people occupy the same physical space on the planet and therefore supposedly share the same economic and idealistic interests, primarily survival.  That means that declaring that we are all citizens of the world does not make it so in the minds of those that want us all dead.  This speaks to the obligation of citizens within a nation to keep in mind the compact they have with other citizens to honor the survival of the culture and ideals of the group.  That is why we are divided into “countries”, these commonalities do matter in the assurance that we are raising our children into an environment that the group has agreed upon (we call it the Constitution).  Other nations do it as well, check it out.  A good clue would be the lines we draw on maps.  Typically there is a history, good or bad, behind each of those lines, and all of those lines cannot be removed with one Star Trek fell swoop without disastrous consequences. 

Lesson Two

Islamic Fascists are laughing at you.  You ignore the good Muslim people who fled these countries hoping to be accepted into free societies while you preach understanding of those that violate every ideal you claim to stand for.  You are in bed with those that torture and kill homosexuals, religious minorities, and women who dare to behave as people.  Osama Bin Laden himself claimed that your blind hatred of capitalism would push you to treason.

Lesson Three

“To me, 'bipartisan foreign policy' means a mutual effort, under our indispensable, two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with one voice to those who would divide and conquer us and the free world." Arthur Vandenberg (Michigan Senator, late 1940’s)

If you are willing to violate the “water’s edge” are you not calling for civil war in your own country?  Have you even stopped to think of the consequences of this arrogance?  Is yet another attempt at working socialism really worth all of this? 

One step at a time, man.

            Understanding the mindset of a socialist requires understanding how the creature sees and processes words.  Perhaps the most telling example is the term “human rights”.  Most would maintain that “human rights” refers to basic dignities afforded to every human.   Not so.  Looking for protests of the obvious and multiple violations of the Geneva Conventions by Iran in the taking of British hostages, I found no reference to the event whatsoever on Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International.  The MoveOn.Org Congress is silent and Speaker Pelosi is planning a vacation in Syria.  Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are not offering free heating oil to the families of the hostages.  However, both have committed to light a dissident family on fire for a vigil this weekend and to imprison and torture one journalist a week until Britain relents and admits to swimming in Iran’s pool. 

            “Human rights” within the lexicon of socialism means “preference given to those who agree with the Politburo”.  An example would be Stalin’s giddy sacrifice to starvation of the Ukraine in order to guarantee “human rights” to the “Party” people of Moscow.  There are variations.  Human rights can also mean the rights of illegal immigrants to become a permanent underclass of indentured servants and slaves because they “just want a better life”.  In this case the human rights of the voters, I mean “undocumented immigrants”, trumps the rights of Mexicans to keep enough capable people in their own country to clean up their own corrupt government and create a better life for themselves not involving a lifetime of washing dishes trying to pick up English.  Much like Stalin in the Ukraine, socialists in America are content to destroy the families of Mexico for “human rights” and affordable lawn care (see Black America).  It was American socialists who de-funded the military in Vietnam so that the population of that country could finally get its “not-so-human right” of torture and mass murder.  Castro, Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Ho Chi Minh and Yassar Arafat are among the experts historically defining who in fact is human and therefore entitled to “human rights”.  A good template: fascist terrorist held at Gitmo who targets civilians=human; British Soldier=notsomuch.

            Former Vice President Al Gore has done a great deed for the world.  Who of our pathetic species, except maybe movie stars, would have the depth and fortitude to look humanity in the eye and tell the “Inconvenient Truth”?  What better illustration of the true meaning of the environmentalist movement than Al Gore?  This Brave New World Man is the microcosm of the future “protected” Earth.  Let’s analyze this icon and prophet to see his vision of the future:

            In the New World of environmentalist theology all human interaction with environment, or “footprint”, will be regulated by those who know better than the “lesser” people what is necessary to maintain the tightrope act we have obliviously maintained for thousands of years over the boiling cauldron of global warming apocalypse.  Thank Gore that we no longer will have out of control humans daring to utilize the planet’s resources to better their lives.  Lucky for us we will have paralyzing fear of impending doom to keep us in line, but Gorist government will insure that no one will dare pursue the ancient evil that threatened us all with extinction, capitalism.

            Every day the world does not burst into flames we can thank Gore for his protection.  His genius of “carbon offsets” will insure that only the elite (like Gore) who deserve it can utilize natural resources to maintain a high quality of life and continue the Great Work of traveling the world in luxury, enlightening the peasants to just how close they come every day to living in an ashtray.  Like Al the Prophet says, the environmental God is a vengeful God who is just waiting for that one extra light bulb to light and… Boom!  Sure, it’s really cold here, but you know what the Prophet says about campfires.  A campfire requires a 250 dollar carbon offset (a tithe graciously accepted by the Prophet); maybe we can afford a fire next month.   Besides, huddling for warmth and eating dirt will do wonders for family bonding.

            Gore has taught us so much, let us recite the trinity:

1) Polar Bears cannot swim.

2) The best way to reduce emissions is to only let rich people emit, and make sure there are no more rich people created.

3) When the Prophet declares the discussion is over, the discussion is OVER, Goredammit.

In 1814 the Federalist Party convened in Hartford, Connecticut to make a grand power play to retake the White House.  The Jeffersonian-Republicans had drawn the young United States into a second war with Britain that half of the American people opposed.  The Federalists smelled blood as an unpopular and badly managed war yielded few victories and many embarrassments.  “Mr. Madison’s War” seemed to be a perfect opportunity for the Federalists to do considerable political damage and regain power.  They were going to use American defeat as this path to power.  The Hartford Convention declared the war a disaster; we might even say a “quagmire”.  The convention openly discussed secession, and eventually told the people of the United States that huge changes must be made to the Constitution to restrict Presidential power, including a one term limit on the Presidency.  Most of the changes were designed to reinforce the Federalist power base in New England in the face of expansion that was adding new states of “lesser people” into the Union, but opposition to the war was the political tool that the Federalists were to yield against the Jeffersonians.  

            The only problem was that they had not considered that the war could end and the United States would save face, even declare victory, before the Federalists could embarrass their own country into handing power back to its rightful masters.  Immediately after the Hartford Convention’s declaration of defeat, news that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed reached the country and the Federalists looked like complete idiots, even traitors.  The treaty was essentially a draw, but the U.S. was able to reasonably declare victory and the nation blushed with patriotism having resisted the greatest military in the world yet again.  The Federalists began to tear themselves apart and by 1820 were only a memory.

            Sound familiar?  It should.  Leaving politics “at the waters edge” is not advice for patriotism and unity; it is advice for political viability, relevance, and survival.  The Democrat Party now finds itself treading in very cold water.  They have bet their own survival on American defeat.  And there is no guarantee that defeat will enamor the country to those that “told you so”, especially in the long term (see Jimmy Carter).  Down the road this could be seen as idiocy, maybe even treasonous.  It is certainly “Russian Roulette” political strategy.  I would not take advice from the Democrat betting hotline, I am not sure that they will cover the spread.

Fool me once, shame on…wow, I almost bought it.  I find myself shocked that even a cynic like me, who enjoys warm evenings by the fire ripping the mainstream media, would fall for the very media technique I so love to expose to friends and family.  Confident lectures (by me) describing the techniques of “journalists” were apparently lost on (of all people) me. 

I feel I almost know Ann Coulter.  Her intricately researched work on the life and timeline of socialism in America was an inspiration to me.  But when the reports came rolling down of her performance at CPAC I was rehearsing a “put it down and slowly back away” strategy.  Then I heard the rest of the speech. 

Ann is right.  Edwards is a wimp.  The term she used is “faggot”.  If we were kids on the playground I have no doubt that John Edwards would be without lunch money daily.  Notice in the definition it says “gay or effeminate man”.  Edwards is obviously not gay, so… 

But, of course, that is really not the point.

Can anybody who heard the whole speech (especially other references to the subject of homosexuality) truly say they know her now as a screaming homophobe?  Ridiculous.  This is beyond the pale for outright lying, even for the media.  We are also being shown just how far this Orwellian nightmare in pc “groupspeak” has come.  Why even waste keyboard time on the flaming hypocrisy of our Democrat Party, whose Senior Klan-Man Senator used the term “white niggers” multiple times on network prime time television (I hope the quotation marks keep me out of rehab).  See?  Get it?  I think you do, but it’s not funny, is it?

Sorry, Ann.