Monday, April 30, 2007

Islamic terrorists started attacking US in the ‘70’s

Some people think the attacks by Al Qaida in NYC, D.C., and Shanksville, PA are the start of this war. Some people think the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and the attack off the Yemen coast on the USS Cole during the Clinton presidency are the start of this war. Some people think the attack on a marine barracks in Beirut during the Reagan presidency is the start of this war. I think the war started in the late ‘70’s. Christopher Hitchens wrote an article recently about this. There is also more interesting historical background information here.

In the late ‘70’s American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas. The United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

Of course I’m talking about July 4, 1776 being the start of attacks and war by Muslim terrorists on America. It was debated by our Founding Fathers as they wrote the US Constitution. More excerpts from Hitch:

“However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.”

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

Some of the stuff coming out in these debates between Massachusetts politicians vs Virginia politicians are much like the debates we hear today. John Adams as the POTUS went along with paying the ‘protection money’, and when Jefferson became POTUS foreign policy changed. Jefferson and Adams had been confronted with the Muslim terrorists as envoys meeting with Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March, 1785. Here’s how Hitch describes the encounter:

When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy.

At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.

I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.

Heh. I think Hitch is spot on with his accounting of the history. We know the US fought well, and the USMC were especially daring during the Barbary Coast Wars.

Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):

In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,

Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:

And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d

By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.

Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,

And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.

Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave

And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.

Another Virginian, James Madison, was POTUS when the Barbary Coast Wars came to a close.

The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute.

If only people would remember Madison’s words. They hold true today just as much as they held true when we became a nation.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Nancy does 'South Pacific' number in Syria

South Pacific Happy Talk Lyrics

Talk about a star looking like a toy
Peeking through de branches of a tree,
Talk about a girl, talk about a boy,
Counting all de ripples on de sea
Happy talk, keep talking happy talk,
Talk about things you'd like to do
You gotta have a dream,
if you don't have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?

This morning I stumbled on to an interesting conversation between Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Philip Gourevitch
One of the most intersting topics in this conversation is about liberal betrayal.

GOUREVITCH: I gather you’ve been called an “Enlightenment fundamentalist” by critics and that you regard that as a sort of badge of honor. But when I hear the phrase, it seems that what you’re really saying is that there is a problem with decadence or hollowness in the West and there is a failure to stand up for the ideas of the Enlightenment, to embrace them, to not to take them for granted but to understand that the struggle continues. Is that accurate?

HIRSI ALI: My criticism of the West, especially of liberals, is that they do take freedom for granted. People who are born after the Second World War in Western Europe haven’t seen war; they haven’t seen conflict. They’ve been born into the middle of freedom and into the conviction of their parents to live with the hollowness that freedom brings. Freedom does not bring happiness always. Freedom brings with it a lot of doubt and a lot of depression. People come from areas where freedom wasn’t always there. They have lost the instincts to recognize that there can be such a thing as an enemy or a threat to freedom. That’s what I’m witnessing in Europe: the European elite simply doesn’t know what’s going on. The whole pacifist ideology—in itself religious-like—that’s been spread is that violence should never be used under any circumstances and we should talk and talk and talk. Even when your opponent tells you, “I don’t want to talk to you. I want to destroy you.” The European elite says, “Please let’s talk. Let’s talk about the fact that you want to destroy me.”

GOUREVITCH: I was told that Theo Van Gogh’s last words were “Can we talk about this?” as the man shot him and was starting to stab him.

HIRSI ALI: I think that’s no laughing matter and it shows that humans are capable of reaching such a high level of civilization and such a high level of morality. It’s admirable. But when there is an enemy who says, “I’m going to destroy you,” whether you’re admirable or not, you have to make sure that you don’t get destroyed.

GOUREVITCH: You’re saying it’s not only a level of civilization but also a level of unreality.

HIRSI ALI: To some it’s been a level of unreality—that idea that after the Second World War, we are not going to have another war ever, which is a good thing. It’s a good point to start with. But that works only if the entire human race thinks and believes that.

Nancy and her fellow travelers have got the same mindset as the European Elites that Hirsi Ali speaks about. I still think there are a lot of Americans who know better. People have experienced events in their lives in a barroom or a back alley where they knew that 'happy talk'
was not going to work. The problem is they suffer from BDS, and they can not allow themselves to accept that what Kenny Rogers sang is sometimes the truth

'Sometimes you gotta fight when youre a man.'

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Harry and Nancy's are terrorists best friend

The announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been reported in Iran with glowing happiness. Besides the Iranian Fars News Agency the Mehr News group in Teheran has an article mentioning Harry and nancy by name. Their take is :

"But it appears likely the U.S. will be forced to leave Iraq in a far more humiliating way than the Soviet Union left Afghanistan."

If only people with BDS could take off their blinders, and see who is siding with the Democratic Congressional leaders. It is not just Iran that is 'proud to be a Democrat', but there are other terrorists who are also also very happy with the Democrat contenders for POTUS. Excerpts of an article from WorldNetDaily:

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power."

Abu Nasser Aziz, the deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank, told WND last night's Democrat primary debate proved "the invasion of Iraq was judged by Allah to be a failure. America needs to stop letting its foreign policy be dictated by the Zionists and the Zionist lobby. The Democrats understand this point and want to prevent this scenario."

Abu Aziz said it was "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

Abu Muhammad, a leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group in northern West Bank city of Telkerem, said he believes both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by Israel but said he thinks the Democrats are better for his group's interests.

"They will keep supporting Israel, but, yes, I think the Democrats are preferred and have a bigger chance of withdrawing from Iraq and making deals with Iran and Syria."

So there you have it Harry and Nancy and the Democrats running for POTUS have made new friends with Abu Muhammad of Islamic Jihad, Abu Aziz and Abu Jihad of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the major newspapers in Iran. They can't vote, but maybe they can find other ways to support their new friends, Harry and Nancy.

I hope NOT.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Who is more French?

Who is more French? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? General David Petraeus and Admiral William Fallon?

Once upon a time over 200 years ago there were people living in a new world. They had left the old world to get away from religious persecution. They wanted the liberty of practicing their faith in their own manner of choosing. The old world empire they sailed away from decided that these misfits were going to have to pay high taxes and bow down to their authority to rule over them like masters rule over slaves. Folks in this new who grew tired of this tyranny became known as patriots, and folks who enjoyed living underneath the powerful empire became known as loyalists. The patriots got organized and revolted in a war against the empire. Here was a rag-tag untrained group of armed men in war against one of the most powerful military forces in the world. In addition they were fighting some of their own people who were loyalists.

They could not have won this war had it not been for the support of France. France did not pick the side that had the best chance of winning, and France did not have a written timetable for when they would begin exiting their military out of this war. According to a written account by George Woodbridge of the battle of Yorktown:

"The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.”

Now let us flash forward to the present day. There are people living in the old world, the cradle of civilization. The folks who grew tired of living under the tyranny of a mad man, and in the shadow of an Islamic Republic are patriots. The folks who want to live underneath the powerful Islamic terrorist empire are loyalists. The patriots got organized and created their own sovereign government. Here is a rag-tag untrained group of armed men fighting against an Islamic empire of trained terrorists. In addition they are fighting some of their own people who are loyalists.

We are now at a critical moment. Is the USA going to support Iraq the same way that France supported us in the American Revolution? Is General David Petraeus a modern day Comte de Rochambeau? Is Admiral William Fallon a modern day Comte de Grasse? Nancy Pelosi took a spring break vacation trip to the middle east. She talked with rulers in the area who support the Islamic terrorist empire and reassured them that she and the Congress have a different foreign policy approach than President Bush. She left them feeling much more comfortable than before she arrived. Now, they are relieved to know they can withstand pressure to isolate them. All they need to do is wait out another 18 months until Nancy and her party take control of the White House in 2009.

Friday, April 06, 2007

GOP select celebrity & style instead of record

The voters in GOP primaries and caucuses vote for a POTUS candidate because of the celebrity and style instead of the record. For the last 50 years the GOP candidate for POTUS is either a famous General, former vice-president, movie/TV/radio personality, Senate majority leader, or son of a former President. Ok, I left 2 out. Senator Goldwater was an exception from this type of celebrity. However he was a movement conservative with STYLE. Gerald Ford was selected to replace Agnew who resigned, and then assumed the Presidency after Nixon resigned. Ford then had the celebrity of incumbency. This is the reason that a Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Romney, Huckabee, or Tommy Thompson is NOT going to be the GOP candidate. The GOP candidate is going to be a movie/TV/radio personality, famous Mayor in 9/11 aftermath, famous Vietnam POW, or former Speaker of the House.

Actually the voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses are more likely vote for POTUS because of record. They also have chosen for celebrity and style. A charismatic son of former ambassador JFK, and 2 former vice-presidents in Mondale and Gore are the ones they selected for celebrity and Style. LBJ also became President by JFK assassination and in '64 by incumbency. The ones that they selected because of record instead of celebrity and style are Senator Stevenson, Senator McGovern, Governor Carter, Governor Dukakis, and Governor Clinton.

In 2008 I think both the GOP and the Democratic candidate for POTUS will be selected on the basis of celebrity and style over record. On some days I worry that Gov Huckabee is not joking when he suggests a Paris Hilton or American Idol POTUS candidate.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

George W is unhappy with Congress

George wrote his friend William Fitzhugh a letter so he could get off his chest how exasperating it is to try to wage a war that is managed by Congress. I put the good parts in bold type:

Dear Sir: A few days ago brought me the honor of your favor of the 7th. Instt. from Marlbro. Your other letter of Jany. the 20th. came duly to hand, for both I thank you; without offering an apology for suffering the latter to remain unacknowledged till this time; because I am satisfied you will attribute my silence to any cause rather than disrespect, and to none sooner than the true one, viz., the load of business which continually presses upon me.

It was with sincere concern I heard of the injury you sustained in your property at the Mouth of Patuxent; but it is only adding another specimen to the catalogue of British clemency, and boasted generosity.

The accession of Maryland to the confederation, and the relinquishment of the claim of Virginia to the Lands West of Ohio, are events which are exceedingly pleasing to me, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with the powers of Civil government, under the present Constitutions of the several States, to determine how far they are able to obtain Men for the War, or for three years, by coercion, nor am I enough acquainted with the abilities of them, to declare what Sums they ought to have given to Soldiers under this description in preference to a draft of Men for a short term; this however I am decided in, that the latter is the most expensive, and least effectual mode that ever was devised to carry on a War, which is like to become a War of finance. and that no funds within our reach can support it long. I speak upon the best ground when I assert this, because no day, nor hour arrives without bringing with it some evidence in support of the truth of the observation. To this cause also the prolongation of the War; the wretched State of our finances, and every capital misfortune that has befallen us may be traced.

I as little scruple to add that, unless the powers of Congress are made competent to all the purposes of War we are doing no more than wasting our time, and spending our treasure to very little purpose for it is impossible to apply the strength and resources of this Country while one State complies with, another rejects, and the majority of them changes or mutilates the requisitions of that Body. Hence the willing States are capitally injured if not ruined. Hence proceed distrust, jealously, and dissatisfaction; and the impossibility of either projecting or executing (with certainty) any plan whatsoever. Hence proceed all those delays, which to people at a distance, and unacquainted with circumstances, are altogether unaccountable. And hence it is we incur useless expence, because we do not bring our force, and means, into operation at the same time, some being exhausted, before others are obtained.

We wait with much sollicitude advices from the Southern Army; our last accts. from that quarter were less gloomy than the former, but not less equivocal and distressing. I have heard nothing from General Greene since the 28th. of Feby., nor of him (with precision) since the 2d. Instt. Matters were so critically circumstanced at that time, as to add pain to impatience. Equally ignorant, and equally anxious am I, with respect to the French Fleet under the Command of the Chevalier Des Touches. No acct. of whom have I received (but vague ones through the channel of Rivingtons Paper) since he left New port. At Yorktown in Virginia there was no intelligence of him on the 15th.

I have heard nothing from General Thompson since his release from captivity, and as his joining the Army will depend upon his promotion, and his promotion on Congress, the time of it is uncertain; but that your Son may be relieved from his present anxiety, suspence, and all possible censure I will, with much pleasure, receive him into my family as an extra Aid till Thompson arrives. In the mean while, his rank may be ascertained and his Commission procured.

Mrs. Washington makes a tender of her Compliments to Mrs. Fitzhugh, to which please to add those of Dr. Sir, Yr. etc.

This letter was written 226 years ago. We have a new George W, CINC. Have we for the same learned any lessons from history. This George W is facing a Congress that is exasperating him
in similar ways as that George W.

Monday, April 02, 2007

My Case for an '08 Thompson/Thompson ticket

The upper Mississippi valley region of the USA has for many years been strategic area of electoral is a table of the states and their electoral votes from 1960-2004:

Minnesota 10EV
Wisconsin 10EV
Iowa 7EV
Illinois 21EV
Missouri 11EV
Kentucky 8EV
Tennessee 11EV
Arkansas 6EV

Total Electoral Votes=84 (2008)

1960 4D 4R (59-43)
1964 8D (95-0)
1968 1D 6R 1I (10-79-6)
1972 8R (0-92)
1976 6D 2R (58-34)
1980 1D 7R (10-81)
1984 1D 7R (10-80)
1988 3D 5R (29-61)
1992 8D (86-0)
1996 8D (86-0)
2000 4D 4R (50-36)
2004 3D 5R (40-43-1)

I want to especially call to your attention that in the 90's the Democrats had a President and Vice-President who were from this region. There are many independent voters in this region who swing in the center between the Democrats and the GOP.

We have an opportunity in 2008 for the Republicans to put 2 people from this region on the ticket. Coincidentally they both have the same last name:
Fred Thompson - Tennessee
Tommy Thompson - Wisconsin

I hope the Republican Party will give this strategy some serious consideration. I know there will be some who think because they both have the same last name that this is a joke. I am not joking. I want Republicans to win, and I think they need to get a majority of votes from this part
of the country to do it.