Conservative Donnybrook

It is with a heavy heart that today I officially admit to myself that a great hope has vanished from the face of this earth. Along with its demise go the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans and others around the world. Many recognized months ago that their dreams would end without fulfillment. For others, like me, we clung to our dreams in the faith that they could still be fulfilled. Of course, I am talking about the dream, shared by untold millions of people, that the Chicago Cubs would finally win a World Series.

Wrigley Field, to many of us, has always been hallowed ground – a place of tradition, inspiration and beer-soaked, sun-drenched joy. Today it stands as a crypt where our crushed hopes and dreams are interred beneath its cold soil. As in past seasons, the outfield ivy will turn red and nobody will be there to see it. Today Wrigley Field stands only to remind us of what has not been for more than a century, what will not be this year, and what will likely continue to be withheld from its hope-filled visitors. Wrigley Field, it seems, is infertile ground whose grounds are incapable of bearing championship fruits.

Year after year, the faithful turn out to fill the stands in the hope that, finally, this is THE YEAR. Each year, however, there comes a point where each fan realizes that THE YEAR belongs to the future. Each year bitterness, disappointment and heartbreak descends one-by-one into the hearts and minds of those faithful dupes who never seem to learn. For some the moment comes in May or June. For the more masochistic among us, we hold on until August or even September where we calculate and recalculate Magic Numbers and watch the Wild Card chase. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we continue to repose our hope in a team that consistently disappoints us. In psychology they call it codependence.

I sat at a minor league stadium on Tuesday as the Cubs prepared to begin a home series against the worst team in baseball, the Washington Nationals. I remarked to my friend, who had been asking me for weeks if I had given up on the Cubs yet, that they really needed to sweep the Nationals. Throughout the course of the game, I watched the out-of-town scoreboard with growing dismay as the Nationals mounted a huge lead. I began to think, “Well, maybe if they take two out of three…” realizing even then that I was in denial. Wednesday came and the Cubs roundly defeated the Nats. I thought maybe they had turned a corner; maybe the lightbulb had gone on. And then yesterday’s game. Yesterday the Cubs showed the world that they lack the heart of contenders – that they are content with the “Lovable Losers” moniker. They showed the world that this was certainly not THE YEAR.

And so we look forward to football season, putting another baseball season behind us, our dreams unfulfilled. But, this year we would do well to consider whether it is healthy year after year to set ourselves up for yet another disappointment. When April rolls around and we look out at another baseball season, will we be telling one another, “This is THE YEAR?” I hope not. And yet, I know that I will likely be lured into the recurring dream. And all of us know how that dream ends – with bitterness, disappointment and heartbreak. Maybe next year.

2009 CUBS, R.I.P.

President Obama is reported to have “decried” the media frenzy over angry protesters showing up at meetings all over the country concerned, and in many cases more informed than their representatives, about the current health care reform bill. This, from a man known for subtle and not-so-subtle criticisms of ordinary Americans (who cling to their religion and guns, the fools) was droll.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats across town at the Rayburn and Hart Buildings are reported to be extremely nervous about recent polling data showing a tremendously precipitous decline in public support and confidence in their ability to affect the kinds of change they voted for, namely an end to a reckless foreign policy and worrisome deficits, which the White House recently admitted were going to be $2 trillion more over the next decade than previously announced, skyrocketing from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. This kind of spending is beyond comprehension. It is outrageous and sickening. The continuation of essentially the same foreign policies as the last 3 administrations, the continuation of the same fiscal and monetary policies, the astonishing non-reform of credit-default swaps among the “too big to fail” but now record-profits-making financial sector, and so on, are all hastening the impending collapse of the world’s remaining superpower. The threatened takeover of the healthcare system, price-fixing, socialist income-levelling of doctors, and non-reform of insurance protection rackets companies are awakening the slumbering middle American like nothing since September 11, 2001.

That the constant media coverage of the public outrage has towed the White House barge onto the shoals of bill-killing sandbars is now apparent. The leftists in the editorial rooms have obeisantly published finger-wagging and the occasional mention of Sarah Palin’s tweets while steadfastly refusing to investigate the meaning of the actual content of the proposed legislation. Americans can access it for themselves in a fashion not possible on this scale 15 years ago. They do not like what they read. They are pointing out very valid concerns and huge 5-year-plan type language, and the Left has been forced to abandon one chief facet of their plan: the “public option.” While seemingly heartening, this is a ruse, a temporary setback in the Rahm Emanuel-designed hit-’em-from-7-sides strategy. As with every other leftist “compromise,” the ratchet will tighten. It just won’t be cranked up 4 clicks.

When I worked for a legal document management and reproduction company, we were often sent large jobs to provide legislators at the statehouse with copies of proposed legislation — from a huge law firm in town. The lawyers there wrote the bills, lobbied to find “sponsors,” and then gave the general assembly the materials needed to discuss and review the new laws. It happened all the time. Does anyone imagine that a hydra like the current healthcare bill is any different? This, friends, is not republicanism, it is not representative democracy, it is not American. It must stop. We must demand a return to constitutional government and expect responsible behavior from our elected officials. It starts with anger like we’re seeing today, but it is accomplished when emotions are set aside and rational examination of the sausage-making takes place.

President Obama and his State Department reacted to the news of the imminent release of convicted Libyan terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi by the Scottish Justice Ministry with peaked annoyance. The terrorist was welcomed to Libya (by cheering hordes waving Scottish flags) after being released on humanitarian grounds due to prostate cancer. President Obama had expressed mild dismay to Scotland, and made clear his studied, brusque invitation to the Libyan government not to allow any hullabaloo or hi-jinks escalate to the point where they would be too tired for school in the morning. State Department officials reiterated the Administration line, stating that “this may affect our future relationship.” It is unclear whether the United States will now rescind its invitation to Libya to attend the upcoming homecoming cotillion. The President indicated that his feelings had been hurt and, although he admired the bouquet and the perfumed card sent by Ghadafi, it may be some time before he texts back. “Only time will tell if he really means it or if these are just sweet-nothings,” said the sullen Obama. A highly-placed source inside the White House (who had recently been visiting to attend to the First Family’s spiritual needs) said that President Obama was overheard taking a page out of Ward Cleaver’s playbook, saying “I mean it, Michelle. They need a consequence, and I think grounding and possibly even a couple-thousand barrel reduction in their annual oil sales to us might just teach them that lesson.” The Scottish Justice Minister, sporting an unexplained black eye and constantly shooting glances over the old shoulder, maintained that theirs was a true love and that Libya was a good provider.

I have been stunned and amazed at the vitriol that has been poured out upon Robert Novak since the announcement of his death. One person sent me an email in which Novak was described as an anti-Semitic, Jew-hating Nazi that is undeserving of the respect being shown to him in the numerous obituaries posted by conservative bloggers and writers. This claim, though he asserted that Novak’s supposed anti-Semitism was “common knowledge,” was a surprise to me. I had always thought of Robert Novak as a journalist in the best sense of the term – a guy who played it straight and reported what he learned from his copious and well-placed sources. To be sure, he was a conservative and, as a columnist and television personality, his conservatism was on display.

In one of the emails I received, the writer linked to this article by Debbie Schlussel, which purportedly proved that Robert Novak was an anti-Semite. What is notable about Ms. Schlussel’s post is its lack of links to anything that supports her numerous assertions. I suppose we are to take her word for it. This is surprisingly lazy given that if Bob Novak was, in fact, an anti-Semite, it should be easy enough to prove given that he made his living as a writer and television pundit. One would expect a profusion of links to articles and videos that prove her claims. Alas, Debbie does not so favor us. She does, however, provide a link to this “great piece,” written by a person who calls himself Sultan Knish.

Sultan Knish does provide a number of links to actual articles by Mr. Novak. Unfortunately, the Sultan’s clear bias shows through if one bothers to actually read those linked articles – an eventuality that Mr. Knish clearly assumes will not occur. His characterizations of Novak’s columns can hardly be considered accurate.

Consider, for instance, his first claim: Bob Novak was a Truther. In support of this allegation, he links to this piece, written two days after 9/11. In it, Novak draws a number of distinctions between the attacks on 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the comparison that was being bandied about at the time. Essentially the piece remarks that most security experts had been so confident that a hijacking was impossible that they were speculating that the terrorists had help on the inside. This supposition had come in light of a decade-long period where not a single airline had been hijacked in the United States. It was reasonable, it seemed at the time, to think that the security measures in place, which had been so successful for so long, were not to blame for the success of the attacks. Indeed, we see echoes of this today when people point to the Patriot Act and remark that it has been a rousing success because there has not been an Islamic attack on U.S. soil in nearly eight years. When the eventual attack does come, people may well suspect, not that the measures in the Patriot Act were insufficient, but that the terrorists had help circumventing the measures. What is remarkable is that nowhere in the article does Novak endorse the notion that the government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11. Continue Reading »

 Eternal rest grant unto him, Father. The giant of conservative journalism has left us. There will not be another like him.

Ordinarily, I would take a good deal of time to point out that many here at the site have repeatedly pointed out the nakedness of the emperor. I would rehash the times Patriot-Act statists in conservative wool have been called on their leftism, secularism, and big-government authoritarianism. I would also bewail the unmitigated gall of such a character having the chutzpah to call his critics allies of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Nancy Pelosi.  I would loudly and often decry the shameless and unguarded honesty of those who reduce their philosophy to “kill” to the exclusion of sound economic policy, the sanctity of life, the sovereignty of our country, and a host of other issues. Normally. Not this time. This time I’ll let the argument you presented dismantle itself and show the readership of this blog how one-note, indefensible, and breathtakingly destructive your side is.

The article to which you linked, when read through the lenses of one conversant with history (which one would expect a self-described historian to do), demonstrated far better than I could of the bankruptcy of your side. Kagan starts out by mentioning the Great Depression. He failed to note any of the actual causes of that depression. He failed to take into consideration the “adventurism,” to borrow one of your words from a recent comment, of the United States leading up to that crisis. The economic decisions in the midst and wake of the Civil War (National banking acts of 1863 and 1864 which consolidated currency to fund the Union’s war; Federal Reserve creation in 1913; Aldrich-Vreeland in 1908, etc.) and the domestic and foreign policy decisions in the wake of the war (Reconstruction; almost immediate attempts at imperialism in Santo Domingo, Cuba, and Liberia – all of which came about due to slavery and its end; westward expansion, Indian wars, Alaskan purchase; Roosevelt’s splitting of the Republicans, his appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.; financial, monetary, and fiscal management and mismanagement), not to mention World War I, all contributed directly to the spreading thin of the American military and building resentment throughout the world.

Kagan goes on to insinuate that, because the United States seemed to somehow ignore foreign policy, Japan militarized and Germany fell under Hitler’s sway. This is howlingly funny. What we are required to do if we are to accept Kagan’s hypothesis is to absolutely and unequivocally deny that black is black, that water is wet, or that fire is hot. Aside from the fact that it was American “adventurism” (e.g., with the Great White Fleet, which further fueled a zealous desire to militarize in newly-nationalist Japan) which thrust Japan on its path toward imperialism (read about Perry’s Black Ships and the cracking of isolationist Japan, the Meiji Restoration, the Manchurian, Korean, and Russian campaigns of Japan), we can hardly be faulted for “ignoring” Germany: we had shipped thousands of American boys there to fight, bleed, die, and kill, and had established a new world-political body to deal with the German problem only 20 years before the 1933 Nazification. One could be excused for refusing to read any of the rest of Kagan’s ludicrous bombast after realizing this, but, intrepid soul that I am, I trudged on.

Kagan engaged in your least-favorite pasttime. He had the balls to criticize Ronald Reagan (gasp! the horror!) in practically the same breath as he criticized Jimmy Carter. Calling Reagan’s policy decisions about Lebanon “failed” and asserting that these policies led to the bombing of the Marine barracks is hardly what one would expect to hear you lauding. Implicit in this is the recognition that we should not have been there to get bombed. Reagan quickly and wisely realized this and did exactly the right thing: he got out and left Israel to what it was perfectly, demonstrably capable of doing: defending itself and letting Beirut and the Lebanese tend to their own damned affairs. No more Marines were killed there after that. No Al-Aqsa,  ”Quds Force,” or Hezbollah started trouble by killing Americans there. What a concept.  What were “Reagan’s failed policies” in Lebanon? Assisting a “multinational force” along with French troops and others to “keep the peace” in a sectarian civil war. What spawned the Muslim hatred and subsequent suicide bombings? Perceived American preference for Maronite Catholics and the shelling of Druze areas which inadvertantly killed civilians.

Kagan touches tangentially and seemingly accidentally upon one truth: things now are probably more dangerous for the U.S., but because of our huge overseas presence and constant “spreading of democracy” or “war on terror” or “search for WNDs” (we really do need to find those nasty World Net Dailies) or whatever they’re calling it these days, not because we are letting our guard down.

People are growing weary of the wars, growing weary of the constant misequation of the United States of America with Israel by the radical Zionists, and people are growing weary of the stubborn economic hardships put upon them by constant imperialism. Bring Americans home to defend America. Root out radical Islam here and deport it. If the resistance starts here, put it down swiftly and with no remorse. But there is no way we need to be defending South Korea from a tinpot near-dead in charge of a run-down non-entity. There is no justification for making all those “security guarantees” to states in the Russian sphere of influence. There is no way you could possibly believe that Kagan essay if you know and understand history. There is no way you can continue to call yourself a conservative and defend such Wilsonianism. It is definitionally schizophrenic, or alternatively simply mendacious, to claim to be conservative and yet espouse this baseless, historically-illiterate, radical Ledeenishness while at the same time believing it makes us safer. Your apologists split their time between appealing to how much safer we are and how dangerous it’s getting. Your side constantly purports to support “democracy” and “freedom” while working overtime - often in cahoots with outright radical socialist would-be totalitarians – to quash them through Patriot Acts, occupations of foreign countries, propped-up banking cartels and outdated unionized auto companies (remember which President started those great things?). Your side is trying to cling desperately to relevance, which is understandable. But for whom are you striving?

Perhaps the definitve article of the election season was released just days before the votes were cast and America changed forever. As a “neo Con,” I took umbrage with nothing he says. How about you’all?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122541445283586623.html

As conservatives of various stripes, surely you know Kagan is a professor at West Point, a scholar at AEI, and alongside Cheney, Bush, McCain, Petreaus and others, the architect of the The Surge which won Operation Iraqi Freedom for us, and kept us safe & prosperous, while the Democrats and the hideous Ron Paul opposed.

I hope this is where we find common ground, but I highly doubt it. You guys take care. If I wanted to debate with people 100% different than me, I’d hit up HuffPo, CNN and MSN.com.

It is disappointing when one’s opponent in a debate resorts to exaggeration and generalization. My latest post seems to have enflamed passions and caused people to abandon any attempt at reasoned debate, instead they have resorted to name calling and gross generalizations.  The question on the table seems to be “Does America maintain an empire? And, if so, is it beneficial to America to be an imperial power?”

I have posited that America is maintaining an empire – a claim that is refuted by Doughboy who prefers the term “peacekeeping.”  By using the word empire, instead of a more misleading term, I have been labeled a “guy who care[s] about your pocketbooks and cozying up to the anti war left”; that I am a cult member of Ron Paul’s; that I am a xenophobe who lacks understanding of the “global nature of the present times”; that I maintain a “leftwing site” that “never [has] any praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.”

As to the last several specious arguments: that this website “never [has] any praise for our military,” see here, here, here for instances where I, personally, have praised the military during the last year. These do not reflect Bill’s constant praise for our soldiers. As for praising our Republican leaders, I would direct Doughboy’s attention here, here, here, here, here, here, and here where I have praised Republicans. Just recently I wrote this praising the very idea of America and I would note that virtually everything I write is suffused with an abiding love and respect for our constitutional way of life. So, as for Doughboy’s criticisms of the website, I think we can safely view them as hyperbole and emotional reaction unrelated to actual facts. I admit that I do criticize Republicans and even conservatives. As I have written before, the more vigorous the debate on the issues, the better. A strong debate tends to cull weaker ideas that cannot be justified. In that sense, debate among conservatives is healthy. When conservatives cease debate about their plank, that is a sign of unhealthy group-think that will inevitably lead to trouble.

As for the primary question, whether America is an empire, I point to our continual military presence in far-flung provinces as evidence of empire. Doughboy responds that these are for the purpose of peacekeeping, although one wonders if Germany still remains at risk of descending into chaos but for the presence of our soldiers there. Wouldn’t America be safer if its allies maintained strong militaries instead of abdicating their responsibility to defend themselves to the United States? Think of it this way. If you were a criminal looking for victims and you saw a huge, tough guy walking around with a bunch of four-year-olds in his gang, you would instantly recognize that in order to take control of the gang, you would simply have to take out the huge, tough guy – the rest would fall into your orbit from a lack of any real options. However, if you approached a gang where the huge, tough guy were accompanied by a fair number of sizable companions, you may find yourself less likely to consider them as a potential target. I invite Doughboy to consider which model the situation in Europe is more like. The fact is, our presence there excuses them from providing for themselves. Their refusal to accept responsibility for themselves, in turn, places the United States at greater risk, not lesser. A strong allied Europe would be a boon to the United States, but that will never happen as long we maintain our protective umbrella over our European provinces.

Oh, I’m sure referencing “our European provinces” is likely to draw fire, but if one nation cannot defend itself and relies on another, the stark reality is that the nation that holds the strings of life or death over the other actually holds the nation. It has been rendered a dependent state and cannot in any meaningful way be regarded as sovereign as long as such a condition persists. America was once in that position; it was then a colony of Great Britain, a holding of the crown. I will readily admit that America is bad at maintaining an empire. For instance, it is customary to force the colony to pull its own weight by remitting taxes or tribute to the emperor. Instead, we foot the bill for the entire world’s security.

Doughboy maintains that we are safer because we have troops scattered all over the world. He maintains that we benefit economically from this arrangement and that the world is more secure as a result. I have asked him to make his case. I am persuadable, I will listen to cogent argument. I will not listen to a harangue about how I have turned the website into a CNN.com chatroom by making myself into a leftist, who harbors a secret love for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Set me straight, Doughboy. I welcome the opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.

The veteran writer explains the disasters we all realize will occur under ObamaCare:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/obamas_health_care_will_make_it_worse.html

Princess Pelosi and Steny Hoyer follow up in the (3rd grade level) USA Today by calling you and I names:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

Fun times…

When it comes to Obama, there are vast differences in opinion/approval.

Therefore, I penned & posted this article with some background today at Planet Daily. A shorter version will appear in the 12 Aug edition of the Jewish Post & Opinion.

On the way home, the news on the radio was that Bill Clinton had gone to North Korea and paid a surprise visit on Kim Jong Il. The result was that two American journalists were to be released. It seems they will be flying home with the former president.

It seems, no matter where this guy goes, he picks up chics!

As the casualty rate begins to mount in Afghanistan, it is time to assess our progress and determine whether any good can come from our continued military presence there. On September 20, 2001, President Bush gave an ultimatum to Taliban leaders in Afghanistan to dismantle terrorist camps in that country and to hand over members of al-Qa’eda through an address to a joint session of Congress. After those demands were met with silence, America went to war in Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, President Bush announced to America that he had ordered the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom. Its goals, as expressed by the president in that address and the earlier address to Congress were to detroy the terror camps operating in Afghanistan, capture al-Qu’eda’s leaders, and to put an end to terrorist activities within Afghanistan.

These goals have been met, to a greater or lesser degree. There are no terror camps operating within Afghanistan. Many of al-Qu’eda’s leaders have been captured or killed. The Taliban, who harbored and protected al-Qu’eda was deposed and scattered to the winds. As for terrorist activities within Afghanistan, it is difficult to separate insurgency from terror and it is unclear to what extent attacks would continue in the country if America were to withdraw its troops. Certainly there will be a fight in Afghanistan to fill the vaccuum that America’s departure would create, but that violence is more properly called civil war than terror.

Nonetheless, the great prize has not been accomplished in Afghanistan – the capture or destruction of al-Qu’eda’s leader, Osama bin Laden. After nearly eight years of constant occupation of the country, bin Laden remains at large and is sufficiently safe to issue occasional messages tweaking America for its inability to reach him. This is likely to continue for as long as thousands of American troops remain in Afghanistan. The very fact that the military is in every nook and cranny of Afghani life, means that bin Laden and his protectors will keep their heads down and do what has been so successful for nearly a decade. Clearly, after a decade of futility, a military operation has been shown to be ineffective in rooting out bin Laden.

The natives, as they say, are getting restless it seems. Violence is on the increase in Afghanistan and the Coalition is losing troops at a rate higher than at any time in recent memory. At the same time, the Aghan government seems to be losing stability rather than consolidating its hold on the country. Indeed, it would seem that the Afghani people are chafing under the continued occupation of their land by foreigners. As the Soviets learned in the eighties, Afghanistan can be a tough nut to crack. Meanwhile, al-Qu’eda has relocated to the mountains of Pakistan (everyone seems to think) where they have enjoyed relative safety from American or Pakistani forces.

If the military were to leave Afghanistan and the pressure to keep bin Laden hidden were lessened, he might be enticed to relax his guard. Surely, over the course of the last eight years, the CIA has not been sitting on its hands. One would hope that they have developed sources in Afghanistan that might prove more able to penetrate the defenses around bin Laden when those defenses slacken in his eagerness to reassert himself in new terror endeavors. The military angle has played out; it is time to try something a little more circumspect. In the process, we just might save our young soldiers from spilling more blood in an operation that, while enduring, has done little to promote freedom and has little prospect of doing so or of  capturing the mastermind of September 11th.

In short, it is time to cut and run. Let the chips fall where they may in Afghanistan and hope that Osama bin Laden pokes his head out of whatever spider hole he has been sheltering in for the better part of the decade. And, when he does, let us hope we have a man on the scene who can settle accounts that have long been overdue.

The always perspicacious Andrew Breitbart explains the lunacy and hypocrisy of Obama and Skip Gates in today’s Washington Times:

“Any serious discussion would have put multiculturalism on trial, but the pretrial public hearings showed America opposes this false and corrosive idea, an opposition that our chattering classes can only understand as bigotry and prejudice. In the public eye, being a victim of past injustices does not win the right to propagate current and future ones, and that’s intolerable to those in charge of the race industry today, whose power relies on maintaining forever a latent rage that can be turned on and off at the will of the nation’s elites”