Aug 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
This was just sent in by Allen Forkum:In "Confession of an Anti-Sanctions Activist," Charles M. Brown exposes one leftist, anti-American "peace" group for what it really was: a tool for Iraqi Baathist propaganda.
"Our uncritical treatment of the Iraqi regime was not a case of ignorance. It was the result of a deliberate choice we made among our priorities. We had to decide which moral challenge we wanted to make. We chose to limit that moral challenge to the U.S. policy of maintaining sanctions against Iraq. We were never particularly interested in or suited to challenging Saddam and his regime over their invasion of two neighboring states, the systematic genocide against the Kurds, or Saddam's consolidation of one of the most violent internal security systems in the world."
This article is a good study in the massive evasion necessary to support leftist causes. The author even traces the roots of the group (Voices in the Wilderness) back a Catholic radical group from the '70s. Ultimately, however, the author fails to see the altruist/socialist connections between the group and Saddam's regime:
"It was tragically ironic: Voices and the regime did not share a single value. Voices [in the Wilderness] was an attempt by Catholic radicals and their disciples to promote their vision of world peace; Saddam Hussein's only apparent desire was to maintain his iron grip over Iraq. Voices and the regime agreed only that the sanctions crisis was rooted in U.S. policy. Yet that single point of agreement became the fulcrum of Voices' venture in Iraq. This was yet another case of politics making for the strangest possible bedfellows."
Also of interest from the archives:
- "I Was Wrong." by Ken Joseph, Jr. (April 1, 2003)
I had been demonstrating against the war thinking I had been doing it for the very people I was here with now and yet I had not ever bothered to ask them what they wanted...Over and over I questioned them 'Why could you want war? Why could any human being desire war?' They're answer was quiet and measured. 'Look at our lives! We are living like animals. No food, no car, no telephone, no job and most of all no hope.' - Smashing Windows for Peace by Robert Garmong (March 28, 2003)
- Peaceniks: Warmongers for America's Enemies by Alex Epstein (December 10, 2002)
- Debunking the Clichés of Pacifism by Kevin Delaney (October 13, 2001)
Aug 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Comments David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Insitute:If Democrats were really concerned about America's security, they would be criticizing Bush not for attacking Iraq, but for not also attacking Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not for failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but for failing to identify militant Islam as our ideological enemy. Not for increasing law enforcement's focus on Arabs and Muslims coming into America, but for shying away from really doing it. Not for failing to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks, but for failing to act forcefully enough to prevent the next ones.
But if Democrats changed their rhetoric and criticized Bush for all the above they would have to embrace self-interest as the basis for American foreign policy. But then they wouldn't be Democrats, would they?
Aug 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Lately the press has offered several startling examples of horrors perpetrated by modern-day religion. The first is from a review in yesterday's New York Sun of the book American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857 by Sally Denton:In September of 1857, a wagon train passing through Utah was trapped and viciously attacked in one of the most despicable acts of religious fanaticism ever perpetrated on American soil. The travelers were set upon by white men disguised as Indians, and within a matter of minutes approximately 140 men, women, and children were killed in an open area called Mountain Meadows. Young girls begged for mercy and had their throats slit; men were shot execution-style or, in some cases, bludgeoned to death. Their bodies were then stripped of clothing and valuables and left to rot in the open field. The incident, the subject of contentious debate for more than a hundred years, was most likely officially sanctioned by leaders of the Mormon church.
The second example is from a review in the New York Times of the current film The Magdalene Sisters, which is apparently based on reality:
"[B]ad girls" exiled from their families and communities, often after becoming pregnant out of wedlock, were forced to do slave labor in convent laundries that proliferated in Ireland until recently. The existence of these religious labor camps run by the Sisters of the Magdalene Order came to light only in the 1970's with the discovery of the unmarked graves of women who lived there. After the scandal broke, the laundries were closed, the last in 1996. Some 30,000 women are thought to have passed through their gates. Once incarcerated, the women were forced to toil long hours under close guard doing unpaid work that was deemed fitting penance for their sins....Forbidden to talk while on the job, the prisoners were continually harangued by the nuns in charge about their sins and the unlikelihood of salvation. Disobedience was punished with beatings and the shearing of their hair. Although some of these outcasts were eventually reclaimed by family members, others were simply abandoned to spend the rest of their lives behind locked institutional doors.
Aug 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
"In Iraq most people don't want separation of church and state," says NYU law professor Noah Feldman, former senior adviser for constitutional law to the occupation authority in Iraq ["Constitution is Next Fight for Free Iraq," NY Sun, August 4, 2003].
Even if it is true, so what?
That people "want" to force their religion on others is no more worthy of respect than that a rapist "wants" to rape; regardless of how many people have such oppressive desires, they have no right to be left free to pursue them. The only reason America shouldn't force religious freedom down the throats of unwilling Iraqis--which it would have every right to do--is that it is not our role to civilize barbarians, and it is not worth sacrificing American lives to such a cause.Rather than promote religious tyranny, America should see its military objectives through and get out of Iraq--outside of maybe a few military bases--with the proviso that we'll be back to topple any future government that should threaten our interests. Outside that, if the Iraqis insist on being savages, they deserve what's coming to them.
Aug 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Edwin A. Locke of the Ayn Rand Institute:For decades liberals have been telling everyone that they should be more race conscious. They have convinced the government and even the Supreme Court to not only allow but to force businesses and universities to select employees and college students according to racial criteria. The unsurprising result has been that everyone has become more racist. The latest consequence of this focus on race is that now blacks are being accused in EEOC cases of being racist towards other blacks based on the particular shade of their blackness--those with lighter skin color considering themselves superior to those with darker skin!
When will all this absurdity stop? Only when people, with the government's blessing, begin to treat people as individuals. What counts is not our skin color but our character. Character is determined not by our pigmentation genes but by the choices we make in life. The only cure for racism is individualism: the doctrine that each individual is a being of self-made soul and is to be judged accordingly, regardless of race, color or nationality.
Aug 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Aug 11, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
According to Ira Stoll in today's New York Sun, the Iranian government has reacted to the fall of Iraq with the following program:Budgeting several billion dollars to build a nuclear bomb by the time of the next American presidential inauguration, in January 2005. ...Moving aggressively to expand Iranian influence in Syria by building mosques in Damascus and by providing free and low-cost oil to the Syrians. ...Undermining America in Iraq by working with Saudi Arabia, Syrians, and loyalists to Saddam Hussein.
In addition,
"They were very anxious to get face-to-face time with American officials," [Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Henry] Sokolski said, describing the Iranians as "pleading" for him to go to New York to meet with officials at the Iranian mission to the United Nations. He declined. "I think they want to make folks believe they are meeting with Americans all the time, that the dissidents should give up..."
Aug 10, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Comments Allen Forkum:
From Associated Press: Lieberman: Dean Pulling Dems Too Far Left.
"[Howard Dean] seems to be pulling some of the other candidates back to the old Democratic ways that did not work -- high taxes, big spending, weaknesses on security," [presidential candidate Joe] Lieberman said. "I feel a real responsibility to speak out for the best traditions of the Democratic Party." [...] Dean has dismissed Lieberman's criticism, saying, "I am in the center."
And this New York Post op-ed by Deborah Orin notes shades of Clinton in Dean: Is Dean being honest? Well, define 'honest'.
Aug 9, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Writes Allen Forkum:
This cartoon is from January 2002 and is in our book, Black & White World. At the time, Mr. Powell was publicly questioning the Bush Administration's detainment policy toward enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. It was just another example of how his appeasing approach toward our enemies has constantly threatened to undermine the War on Terrorism, which has been and still is being pursued too haltingly. (The only major exception in Powell's behavior was his final, full backing of the Iraq war, for which he gets some credit.) The bad Powell news this week is that he's criticizing Israel for its security fence, as if a fence is the real problem there and not murderous Palestinian terrorists. The good Powell news this week is that he may not serve a second term as Secretary of State. We say good riddance.
Aug 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Washington Times, "Black church will pay whites to attend", July 31, 2003:Greenwood Acres Full Gospel Baptist Church in Shreveport, La., is eager for more diversity, so it will pay white people to attend services in August. Bishop Fred Caldwell, who said the idea came to him during his sermon Sunday at the mostly African-American church, said he will pay $5 an hour for Sunday services and $10 for the Thursday service, according to the Shreveport Times.
(Hat Tip: B. Harburg-Thomson)
Aug 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Dr. Edwin A. Locke of the Ayn Rand Institute:Not content with the battering of Microsoft by the U.S. government and many state governments, the European Commission has now decided to stomp on Microsoft some more.
Why? Because Microsoft is not doing enough to help competitors who make audio and video files or server software! This action comes just two years after the same commission prevented an important merger between GE and Honeywell. Between the capitalist-hating Europeans and the capitalist-bashing Americans, how are our most successful companies supposed to function--that is, to grow and innovate?
President Bush should start by threatening the Europeans with retaliation unless they immediately cease their persecution of Microsoft and of all other large American companies that have done nothing more than be successful at what they do. He should then seek to eliminate antitrust persecution in the United States. If we want our economy to grow, if we want to get out of our recession, if we want to help stem our huge budget deficit, we need all the economic growth we can get. And the most essential pre- condition of economic growth is: freedom from government coercion.
Aug 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:
Last week, President Bush asserted that "The Palestinian people, like people everywhere, deserve freedom, they deserve an honest government and they deserve peace." The truth, however, is that the vast majority of Palestinians deserve none of these values.
Do they reject arch-terrorist Arafat as their leader? No, they embrace him.
Do they revolt against Arafat's brutal dictatorial regime? No, they support it.
Do they condemn, jail or execute suicide bombers and terrorist murderers? No, they lionize them and hail them as heroes.
Do they promote goodwill and understanding towards their Jewish neighbors? No, they preach hatred of Jews in their schools and call in their mosques for genocide of Jews.
Most Palestinians actively or passively support a terrorist regime that is responsible for the injuries and deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis, and thus have done nothing to deserve freedom and peace. Instead of striving for peace Palestinians have created a terrorist culture of hatred, violence and death. What do they deserve?
Exactly what they have gotten so far: oppression, misery and death.
Aug 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:What is the difference between the ELF environmentalists who burned down an apartment complex under construction in San Diego on Friday and "mainstream" environmentalists? The means they choose to chip away at--and eventually destroy--freedom and modern civilization.
While ELF environmentalists employ direct violence to attack private property and prevent new development, "mainstream" environmentalists favor the indirect approach of using the government's power to do the same. Since human life requires and benefits from freedom and technology, both types of environmentalists are guilty of advancing an anti- human agenda.
Aug 6, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:In response to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's demand for the release of every single one of the thousands of Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli jails, President Bush replied: "Surely, nobody wants to let a cold-blooded killer out of prison that would help derail the process" and "engage in terror attacks."
But clearly Abbas's demand--and Palestinian popular support for it--is incontrovertible evidence that the Palestinian leadership--and the great majority of Palestinians--want exactly what president Bush said nobody wants: to free all imprisoned terrorists so they can resume murdering Jews.
If President Bush believes that evading reality is practical--that a man demanding the release of terrorists is an honest partner for peace--he needs to do some hard thinking. Bush said: "I fully understand the prime minister's desire, I fully understand his request."
Do you Mr. President?
Aug 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Are Colin Powell and Richard Armitage going to leave office if George W. Bush serves a second term, as reported in the Washington Post today?Couldn't happen soon enough. Here's Powell's most recent quote about North Korea:
Powell was asked about Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's comment in early summer that Kim's administration was "teetering on the edge of economic collapse." Wolfowitz said that could be used as "a major point of leverage" against Kim.
"I don't have a basis for saying there is an imminent collapse," Powell said in the interview, which the State Department made public Sunday.
"Right now there is a government there. It's been there for a lot of decades, and that's what I have to deal with," Powell said. "What the situation would be following a catastrophic collapse, I don't really know. I don't think it's anything that any of North Korea's neighbors at the moment wish to see." [AP, August 4]
Anyone with any principles would say that if North Korea's neighbors wish to keep it in slavery for their own convenience, then to hell with them. Powell is a disgrace.
And so is Bush, who keeps supporting him:
"The president thinks he is doing an outstanding job and appreciates the job that he is doing," Press Secretary Scott McClellan said. "The president looks forward to Secretary Powell continuing to work with him in our foreign policy realm." [AP]
Recommended Reading:
- Powell's Paper Tiger Show by Scott Holleran
By having Colin Powell seek the world's sanction, President Bush has compromised the sanctity of America's defense. - Bush Should Fire Colin Powell by Robert W. Tracinski
As secretary of state, Colin Powell's job is to be America's advocate. Yet, Colin Powell is willing to sacrifice America's essential interests for the sake of foreign governments. Bush should fire him. - Colin Powell: A Future Speaker for the Democratic Convention? by Andrew West
It appears that Colin Powell intends to move the Republican party even further away from individual rights and freedom and closer towards collectivism and altruism. - Powell's Change of Heart? by Chip Joyce
Powell's superficiality of supporting a war against Iraq is ultimately undermining the power of the US, which is the greatest threat to US security that exists. - Racist Secretary of State Colin Powell Should Resign by Nicholas Provenzo
Powell does not see the public as a group of individuals, he sees them as racial proxies, representing whatever racial group they may belong to by virtue of their skin. This position is apparently Powell's antidote to the racism of the past--a new racism of the present.
Aug 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's an influential American law professor arguing that we must respect people's alleged "right" to tyrannize their neighbors:A professor of law at New York University who served as senior adviser for constitutional law to the occupation authority in Iraq until mid-July, Noah Feldman, said... it is crucial Iraqis pick the constitution-making body because Iraqis must accept the finished product as legitimate.
"The Iraqis have a much better knowledge of their politics. I don't honestly think we would be in a position to gerrymander the outcome by choosing particular individuals and I don't think we would want to," Mr. Feldman said. "The success of the constitution is absolutely crucial for the success of Iraq. I strongly object to those who measure the success of the constitution by the words in it. If the Iraqis don't like the constitution, it has no chance of catching on." ... I see [Kanan Makiya's] views as deeply desirable but not viable given the situation on the ground in Iraq. In Iraq most people don't want separation of church and state," Mr. Feldman said. [NYSun]
That people "want" to force their religion on others is no more worthy of respect than that a murderer "wants" to kill; regardless of how many people have such desires, they have no right to be left free to pursue such ends. The only reason America shouldn't force religious freedom down the throats of unwilling Iraqis--which it would have every right to do--is that it is not our role to civilize barbarians, and it is not worth sacrificing American lives to such a cause.
Before we wind up promoting religious tyranny, America should get the hell out of Iraq (outside of maybe a few military bases)--with the proviso that we'll be back to topple any future government that threatens our interests. If the Iraqis insist on being savages, they deserve what's coming to them.
Aug 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Washington Post "Powell Won't Serve Second Term":Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, have signaled to the White House that they intend to step down even if President Bush is reelected, setting the stage for a substantial reshaping of the administration's national security team that has remained unchanged through the September 2001 terrorist attacks, two wars and numerous other crises.
Armitage recently told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that he and Powell will leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration, sources familiar with the conversation said. Powell has indicated to associates that a commitment made to his wife, rather than any dismay at the administration's foreign policy, is a key factor in his desire to limit his tenure to one presidential term.
Rice and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz are the leading candidates to replace Powell, according to sources inside and outside the administration. Rice appears to have an edge because of her closeness to the president, though it is unclear whether she would be interested in running the State Department's vast bureaucracy.
Writes Scott Holleran of the Concord Crier:
This is great news, though it will remove Bush's primary excuse for not fighting a real war; is Powell just jockeying for more power in a second Bush administration? Probably -- it's his method of beating the pro-defense Rumsfeld forces to date. And who knows whether Bush would appoint another appeasement liberal as secretary of state. But Bush without Powell would be an opportunity for Bush's real convictions to be tested]
Related Reading:
Powell's Paper Tiger Show at U.N. By Scott Holleran
"By having Colin Powell seek the world's sanction, President Bush has compromised the sanctity of America's defense."
Aug 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Writes Allen Forkum:
This The New York Times article has a telling headline: Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'. Notice it says "not to present itself as" instead of "not to be". Excerpts:
Al From, the founder of the [Democratic Leadership Council] organization and an ally of Mr. Clinton, invoked the sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984 as he cautioned against a return to policies including less emphasis on foreign policy and an inclination toward expanding the size of government that he said were a recipe for another electoral disaster.
The article talks mostly about leftist pressure coming from presidential candidate Howard Dean but doesn't even mention the ultimate Democratic election crasher, Ralph Nader. Even Dean isn't immune to him. In the video of Dean announcing his candidacy, a Green Party supporter's sign bobs in the background until being blocked by Dean supporters.
