Archive for November, 2006
by Thomas E. Brewton
Since the 1930s, most Americans have come to believe in a fairy tale that has no happy ending. Democrats' victories in the recent elections have revived the fairy tale.
Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz, in a November 13, 2006, article explores the unresolved questions and internal debates remaining after the recent congressional elections.
One of those questions, as he sees it, is:
Equally important is the question of which party can adequately address the twin problems of keeping the United States competitive in a global economy and restoring the social contract that has helped provide economic security to workers and that has been shattered as a result of the corporate restructuring that globalization has brought about.
Mr. Balz is working under a false assumption: the expectation that the Federal government controls business, as well as the idea that it is possible to have a "social contract" under which government can effectively provide economic security to workers.
That assumption originates in the religion of socialism, which presumes that councils of intellectual planners, backed by technocratic administrators, are capable of managing businesses better than businessmen. Intellectuals and technocrats theoretically are motivated solely by the common good, not by private greed for profit. Businesses therefore, in theory, will be more efficient and be able to support full employment at all times when under government control.
In practice, this hasn't worked well, a typical example being the collapse of the socialistic EU's technocratically-managed AirBus and the resurgence of Boeing.
The term "social contract" was most famously used by John Locke in 1689 and by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1762. Locke's conception, not Rousseau's, was the basis of our War of Independence in 1776.
Locke erected a theoretical framework for a government of inherently limited powers. Even the king is subject to God's higher law of morality, which embraces the natural-law rights of individuals. Individuals, when they entered a social contract to create political society, retained inalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property. Hence our 1776 slogan, "No taxation without representation."
by Jim Kouri, CPP
One of the obvious shortcomings of the blue-ribbon panel, Iraq Study Group, is the reliance on politicians and the absence of military command officers who've actually led troops on the fields of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In reaction to this politically-motivated study group, General Peter Pace, USMC, the Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assembled his own panel of commanding officers from all branches of the US Armed Forces. The goal is to not only to achieve victory in Iraq, but to define the elusive term "winning."
The team involved in this military review panel includes Col. H. R. McMaster, an Army officer whose 2005 operation in Tal Afar has been cited as a textbook case in how to wage counterinsurgency in Iraq, as well as Col. Peter Mansoor, commander of the United States Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who commanded an Army brigade that fought the Mahdi Army militia in 2004 at Karbala.
Also on the panel is Col. Thomas Greenwood, the director of the Marine Command and Staff College who oversaw efforts to train Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all, more than a dozen military officers are on the team, which is overseen by Capt. Michael Rogers of the Navy, a special assistant to Pace.
The review, which includes the participation of Gen. George Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, and General John Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, is slated to be completed in early December
The war on terror is not going to end as World War II did — with an instrument of surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Gen. Peter Pace said winning in this war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a piece of paper.
"Winning is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function," he said.
by Jeff Lukens
Thanksgiving is a chance to gather with loved ones and share in a time-honored American tradition. For some, it is an excuse to stuff themselves with turkey and football. For others, it is a special time of "giving thanks" for blessings in their lives.
One may ask, "thanks to whom?" Well, thanks to God, of course. Never before has the question been difficult to answer. Perhaps we should consider that America's blessings of prosperity, freedom, justice, peace and opportunity. They are gifts from a mighty and gracious God. These days, however, the preeminence of God may look more like a matter of opinion.
Clearly, this was not the Pilgrims' view. They had come to this land in 1620, not to escape God, but to find Him in His fullness. They bowed their heads in acknowledgment of His power and grace. To them, He was the one and only truth.
In front of them was a desolate wilderness in a harsh Massachusetts winter. Behind them was a vast ocean that separated them from the rest of civilization.
Before starting their new lives, they made a covenant with God written in the Mayflower Compact. They had come to form a colony for the "glory of God." In return, they would receive His protection and blessings in this new land. That bond, of their faithfulness and His blessings, would be the key to their survival.
by Thomas Lindaman
With the recent Democrat victories in Election 2006, political analysts and commentators are talking about what the Democrats did right or what the Republicans did wrong. Along with that, they're trying to predict what the new Congress will do or not do.
Lost amid this chatter is a real threat to the two-party approach to American politics. I'm not talking about terrorism, factionalism, or the possibility of seeing Ted Kennedy running a Senate committee dealing with anything more complex than what wine goes with pancakes. (Word is Kennedy's position is that no wine goes with pancakes, but scotch goes with everything.) I'm referring to the possibility of a third party arising from the ashes of this election.
I know what you're saying. I know because I have your computer rooms bugged. Anyway, what you're saying is, "You're just saying that because you're a former Libertarian and want a third party to rise to prominence when we know they won't." You're mostly right, but right now is as good a time for a third party to rise as any since we saw Ross Perot and the Reform Party appear on our radar in 1992.
First, I think many commentators are missing the real message coming out of Election 2006. It wasn't an anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment by any stretch of the imagination. If it were, the Democrats wouldn't be holding onto such a slim margin in both houses of Congress and there would be a lot more Republicans submitting resumes on Monster.com.
In reality, what the voters were saying is that they want representatives who actually listen to them and weren't abusing power for personal means. The Democrats did a better job in making that argument than the Republicans did, especially when the former worked hard to connect all Republicans to Bush, even if the only thing they did was wave at him across Pennsylvania Avenue. But that in and of itself isn't an indication that voters prefer Democrat ideas to Republican ideas. After all, 8 out of 9 states voted for a gay marriage ban, which is not something Democrats support.
By Alan Caruba
In late October I attended a luncheon briefing in New York sponsored by the Middle East Forum. The speaker was R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and currently a vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton. The room was filled with men who represent a class of citizenry known as “influential.” Woolsey’s topic was “Energy Alternatives and the War on Terror.”
Normally, I give men like Woolsey a lot of respect because they’ve earned it. However, it didn’t take long before I began to hear views that made me begin to question, not just the wisdom of what Woolsey was saying, but why he was saying it.
“The way strategically over the long run to weaken the enemies of Israel, such as Ahmadinejad, is to weaken the role of oil,” said Woolsey. “Oil makes it harder to avoid genocide in Darfur because the Sudanese have a deal with China, and it makes it harder to deal with Iran, because China and Iran have an oil deal.”
Say what? Weaken the role of oil? Genocide in Darfur has something to do with China? Iran will not pursue its lunatic Islamic apocalypse because it has an oil deal with China?
A lot of what Woolsey told the attendees is fairly common knowledge. He noted that natural events such as hurricanes can affect the amount of oil available and that terrorism—he called it “malevolent interference”—could provoke a war that would interrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East.
by Erik Rush
It will all be over shortly, for better or worse; many agree that the midterm election of 2006 is (or was, if you're reading this after 11/7/06) perhaps more significant than will be the general election of 2008. It has been the ugliest, most calumny-ridden election season I've ever seen, for reasons that are apparent to some and not so apparent to others.
As my friend and colleague Marie Jon' put it the other day (and I'm paraphrasing), "The GOP may not be perfect, but the Democrat Party is subversive and evil." I think I would amend that to "the Democrat Party is subversive and is serving evil." I've attempted to clarify on several occasions that this corruption is largely focused within the national Democrat Party leadership (as opposed to some silly blanket indictment of all Democrats as serving evil); this has gone largely ignored by those who choose to manufacture their own reality – or just enjoy writing profanity-laced hate mail.
A great deal of the diatribe that's ensued has centered around the War on Terror (or WWIII, if you prefer), particularly the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq campaign. It is in this area I've heard most of the blatant lies and fearmongering during the election campaign. Certainly recent and past scandals involving irresponsible Republican leaders and RINO (Republican In Name Only) politicians haven't helped.
I'm no historian, but I imagine it's possible that just prior to Philip II of Macedon's defeat of Athenian forces in 338 BC, there were factions in Athens who were busily casting blame as to how the other (or others) had potentially doomed them to Macedonian conquest. The Old Testament is replete with similar stories (some involving prophets) of those who attempted to provide sober advice to Jewish kings whilst various factions indulged in promoting falsehood, engaged in vainglory – and elected to worship these strange carved poles for some obscure reason.
By Alan Caruba
When the President decided to bring about regime change in Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Saddam Hussein was among one of the world’s worst dictators, widely credited with slaughtering large numbers of Iraqis and using chemical warfare against both the Kurds of northern Iraq and during his eight-year war in the 1980s against Iran.
However, I couldn’t shake the notion that his animus toward Saddam was personal. His father, Bush41, had been the object of a thwarted assassination attempt attributed to Saddam, and had lost his bid for a second term despite the successful execution of the first war to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Bush came into office with a promise to cut taxes and then 9/11 completely altered whatever other plans he had. What followed was a brief, successful incursion into Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban, but it was a war largely fought by local warlords whose assistance was purchased with gobs of money and by the application of American air warfare. The result, however, is that the Taliban are back. I doubt anyone wants to take any bets on how long the Bush-backed government in Kabul will last.
In retrospect, one is forced to ask if democracy, American-style, can be implemented in places where there never has been any true democracy? It’s a question I should have asked myself back then.
Within a year of the Iraq war’s inception, some warnings regarding its prosecution were being issued, but few were listening. In January 2004 the Army War College issued a report that criticized the Bush administration’s global war on terrorism as “unfocused.” Its author, Jeffrey Record, said that the war in Iraq was “unnecessary” and “a detour” that diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by al Qaeda.
After the decisive victory of Democrats nationwide as well as here in Massachusetts, conservative columnist Bob Parks will hold a press conference, announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party Wednesday, November 15 at 1pm, in front of the state party headquarters, 85 Merrimac Street in Boston.
"To say it's time for change is an understatement. Our state party needs to show leadership and help all candidates, not just the one running for the corner office."
Mr. Parks, a native Bostonian, is a well-read columnist whose writings can be found on his website, Black & Right. In addition to writing his own radio commentary; Mr. Parks produces his own television program that airs in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and California. He has appeared as a guest on talk radio programs nationwide, as well as on CNN and C-SPAN. Mr. Parks was also campaign manager for Steve Adam (Congress, MA District 1), as well as a state representative candidate himself. (2nd Franklin District).
Bob studied journalism at Suffolk University, graphic design at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts. He worked in the Boston Symphony Orchestra press office, and after leaving the Navy, worked for the Fox Broadcasting Company in Hollywood as a graphic artist. Bob became a columnist in 2002 writing for Men's News Daily, and his columns were quickly picked up by American Daily, Chronwatch.com, The New Media Journal, Accuracy In Media, Republican Voices, along with a number of other Websites.
While serving onboard the carrier USS Midway, Mr. Parks was awarded two Navy-wide Chief of Information awards, and his television program "Black & Right" was awarded two Northeast regional cable access awards.
In a recent interview, Mr. Parks was asked about former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld’s statement "I think that our party, in political terms, is largely irrelevant." Bob's responded, "It was good enough to get him elected! Without a relevant Massachusetts Republican Party, there would be no Governor William Weld."
While the Party is still relevant, Bob Parks is in the process of amassing a motivated, seasoned staff here in Massachusetts, as well as some of the top minds in Washington, D.C. All of which will help ensure that the Massachusetts Republican Party and its candidates become more competitive in the future.
For additional information, please contact the New Mass GOP: editor@newmassgop.com
After the decisive victory of Democrats nationwide as well as here in Massachusetts, conservative columnist Bob Parks will hold a press conference, announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party Wednesday, November 15 at 1pm, in front of the state party headquarters, 85 Merrimac Street in Boston.
"To say it's time for change is an understatement. Our state party needs to show leadership and help all candidates, not just the one running for the corner office."
Mr. Parks, a native Bostonian, is a well-read columnist whose writings can be found on his website, Black & Right. In addition to writing his own radio commentary; Mr. Parks produces his own television program that airs in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and California. He has appeared as a guest on talk radio programs nationwide, as well as on CNN and C-SPAN. Mr. Parks was also campaign manager for Steve Adam (Congress, MA District 1), as well as a state representative candidate himself. (2nd Franklin District).
Bob studied journalism at Suffolk University, graphic design at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts. He worked in the Boston Symphony Orchestra press office, and after leaving the Navy, worked for the Fox Broadcasting Company in Hollywood as a graphic artist. Bob became a columnist in 2002 writing for Men's News Daily, and his columns were quickly picked up by American Daily, Chronwatch.com, The New Media Journal, Accuracy In Media, Republican Voices, along with a number of other Websites.
While serving onboard the carrier USS Midway, Mr. Parks was awarded two Navy-wide Chief of Information awards, and his television program "Black & Right" was awarded two Northeast regional cable access awards.
In a recent interview, Mr. Parks was asked about former Massachusetts Republican Governor William Weld’s statement "I think that our party, in political terms, is largely irrelevant." Bob's responded, "It was good enough to get him elected! Without a relevant Massachusetts Republican Party, there would be no Governor William Weld."
While the Party is still relevant, Bob Parks is in the process of amassing a motivated, seasoned staff here in Massachusetts, as well as some of the top minds in Washington, D.C. All of which will help ensure that the Massachusetts Republican Party and its candidates become more competitive in the future.
For additional information, please contact the New Mass GOP: editor@newmassgop.com
By Alan Caruba
It’s always hard to pinpoint when a historic shift takes place. It is rarely as easy as Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 thesis that launched the Reformation and loosed the grip of the Catholic Church on the governance of Europe or when Henry VIII pushed Rome out of England to create the Anglican Church.
When, however, did the tiny Muslim community in America, estimated to be between two and three million—by contrast there are some six million Jews in America—begin to assert its takeover? I am going to mark it from October 19, 2006 when the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest circulation daily, ran an article, “She’s got it covered: Designer seeks to dress the style-conscious Muslim woman” in its feature news section.
“Many Muslim women wear hijab as an expression of the Islamic tradition of modesty,” noted the article about a 27-year old American Muslim fashion designer. Born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, she had converted to Islam as a student at New York University after she married her husband, a Muslim.
When the media begin to find ways to offer up a positive image of Islam, you know they have probably decided that the game is over and we in the West have lost. The American media is expert at showing the white flag of surrender. They have been trumpeting the end of the world for decades now.
Wrong about the Soviet Union right up to the day it imploded. Wrong about the predictions that the Earth could not sustain six billion people. Wrong about the availability of mineral and energy resources. Wrong about global warming. Wrong about cutting taxes. Wrong about the current excellent state of the U.S. economy.
And now the surrender-addicts are ready, like our European cousins, to concede that Western civilization should just roll over and give up in the face of the worldwide Islamic jihad.
Europeans stopped attending Europe’s churches and stopped having enough babies to replace themselves in favor of creating totally unsustainable welfare states. Instead, they imported millions Muslims to do the work they became too old or too lazy to do themselves.
The United States, too, has created a cradle-to-grave socialist system that is going broke at an alarming rate even while the economy is thriving. The Bush administration is conspiring with Canada and Mexico to erase our national borders in order to create a North American Union that will throw our national sovereignty down the rat-hole of a vast bureaucracy that will not have to be responsive to those awful American voters.