In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Friday, January 20, 2006

Out of the Mouth of Hypocrites.

In the last week some democrats have made the news with their outlandish remarks. First up there’s the Mayor of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, (you know, the one who angrily blamed the floods in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina on President Bush from his dry, safe spot in Baton Rouge). On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, no less, he exposed himself as a hypocrite yet again in front of a microphone. This time he refrained from blaming Bush for his (Nagin's) inaction, and decided instead that a racist remark would do the trick. Apparently, if he had things his way, the new New Orleans would be an all black “chocolate city”. Just imagine the uproar that would have been all over the liberal news media had some white mayor made a similar statement wishing for a "vanilla city". Once again we find a democrat, (supposedly the party with the “corner of the market” on the anti-racist stance), making racist comments.

While it is true that most of the blame for the flooding of New Orleans and the botched evacuation from the city rests on Nagin's shoulders, thus he needs all the help he can get to divert the people's attention away from that fact or else his re-election prospects are nill, resorting to racist comments to get the black vote is no excuse.

Of course the typical democrat “rush to defend a fellow comrade” maneuver will be to point out that Mayor Nagin is black himself, therefore, it can’t possibly be a racist remark. But, that is inane spin. Racism is racism, no matter who spouts it or the color of their skin. Liberals think they are being real clever with this sort of spin tactic, but the truth is, that as it turns out, words actually have meanings. Racism is racism no matter which race is denigrating or seeking to exclude the other.

We all know that there are white racists. Our history is unfortunately tainted with their activities [re KKK]. But, what liberals won’t admit is the fact that there are black racists too [Re Malcom X, Black Panther Party, Louis Farrakan]. Racism is an ugly sin that has poisoned the souls of many human beings throughout history. It isn’t partial to any particular skin color.

The second democrat to open their mouth and insert their foot is the arrogant senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. She, like mayor Nagin, chose Martin Luther King Jr. Day as the time to make a boob out of herself. While addressing the congregation of a black church, Hillary had this racist comment to make:

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about."

Once again, if a republican senator, like say Trent Lott, had made such a remark the liberal media would have stirred up an outrage. It would be practically 24/7 news coverage of the atrocity, and of course, he would be promptly demanded to resign. So far, none of these liberal hypocrites have even considered the same demand for Hillary.

For Hillary to use the “race card” to make such slanderous, false accusations at a black church is completely unforgivable and telling. You see liberals aren’t really about ending racism and mending the torn relationship between whites and minorities. They are, however, all about using the race card to stir up the hornet’s nest even more. Race warfare and class warfare are the left's specialities. When they aren't stirring things up, they themselves are busy hurling racist epithets at black people who don’t share their leftist idealogy (re: Harry Belafonte’s characterization of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as “Bush’s house slaves” and the “oreo cookie” insults that leftists hurled at black conservatives some months back at a rally).

Or course there is also the irony of the whole accusation on Hillary’s part. She has soundly demonstrated her ignorance of American political history. I guess Senator Hillary would be surprised to learn that is was the republican party, who splintered off from the whig party over slavery, and who were themselves anti-slavery and fought against the pro-slavery democratic party.

Just when you wouldn’t think she could get her foot even deeper in her mouth, she decides to make another ludicrous comment:

"I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country," she said.

This coming from the wife of the President who used the Oval Office to commit adultery against her, then lied to the American public about it, was nearly impeached, (as he should have been), played the “definition of ‘is’ is" word game for his defense, allowed China to get away with nuclear secrets, ignored Sudan’s assistance in delivering Osama Bin Laden over to the U.S., bombed a milk factory to get the attention off of his leaked affair, botched the Somalia military affair (ref “Blackhawk Down”), the list goes on. Talk about your administration of corruption. 9/11 was just the beginning of what we have to reap from the seeds of corruption that Clinton sowed during his 8 year administration.

Hillary’s absurd comment reminds me of the foolish German, who, during the 2000 election suggested that since America is the world’s lone super power, and the President leads that super power, then in all fairness the election of that leader should be open to all of Europe and the rest of the world. All of this coming from the citizen of a country who elected and backed Adolph Hitler!

The third democrat to make an ass of himself on Martin Luther King Jr. Day is that sore loser of all sore losers, Al “I can’t even get elected in my home state” Gore. Here are some excerpts of his speech:

“At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. [in reference to the Patriot Act approved of by Congress] What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.”

“A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.”
“Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men.”

They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law.”

“An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.”

“And remember that, once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles.”

Let’s see, “a president who breaks the law is a threat to our very of structure” is he. Well, where was Gore’s outrage when he was Vice President under is buddy Bill Clinton. Clinton turned out to be above the law in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He got away with not only lying to the American people on TV cameras, but by committing perjury at his Senate trial.

“And remember that, once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles.”

I seem to remember Mr. Gore using the “there is no controlling legal authority” as his defense in his violation of the Campaign Finance Reform Act when he was caught with his greedy little hands in the coffers of a Buddahist Temple. Where was his concern for the “rule of law” then?

Lastly we come to Senator Ted Kennedy’s smear campaign against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Among the many ridiculous things this drunk read…I mean said during his inquisition of Alito, was his attempt to make Alito unfit for service because he once belonged to a club at Princeton University that wanted to deny women and minorities equal and fair representative admission to Princeton. It seems that that one came back to bite ol’ Teddy in his rather large behind. It seems Kennedy has recently scrambled to resign from a club he had been a member of that was recently exposed as being guilty of the same sort of discriminatory activities, the Owl Club. The difference? Alito, was a member many, many years ago while Kennedy remained a paying supporter until just recently. What a hypocrite!

The very idea of Ted Kennedy being in the position to judge anyone’s character for job qualification is an outcry. I wish someone would have the guts to bring up Chappaquiddick to him every time he opens his pompous mouth. A drunk like Kennedy guilty, of murdering his date via a car accident and then using his money and reputation to cover it all up, is in no position to judge anyone.

With the exception of those who vote the democratic ticket because, "my daddy and his daddy and his daddy's daddy voted democrat", those who vote for democrats are making a statement about their very character. How can any one reasonably continue to support such a bunch of hate filled, sore losers, who are morally bankrupt, liars, and have the conversion of America to a Socialist State, at best, or a Communist State at worst as their goal?

It sure beats me. I don't get it.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

So, Saddam Did Support Terrorist Training Camps. So what? Bush Is Still Wrong!

So much for the cowardly left’s claim that we had no right to topple the legitimate dictatorship of Saddam Hussein since he had no clear ties to terrorism. According to an article found here, mountains of documents and other evidence were captured in both Afghanistan and Iraq and as it turns out they expose the truth that Saddam was in fact helping to train thousands of terrorists.

This also debunks the left’s argument that Saddam was a secularist and as such would have had no relations with any Islamic terrorist nor they with he.

Here are some highlights from Stephen F. Hayes’ article:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

"We had boxloads of Iraqi Intelligence records--their names, their jobs, all sorts of detailed information," says the former military intelligence officer. "In an insurgency, wouldn't that have been helpful?"

How many of those unexploited documents might help us better understand the role of Iraq in supporting transregional terrorists? How many of those documents might provide important intelligence on the very people--Baathists, former regime officials, Saddam Fedayeen, foreign fighters trained in Iraq--that U.S. soldiers are fighting in Iraq today? Is what we don't know literally killing us?

With a mountain of such voluminous information still remaining to sift through, there’s no telling what else we might learn. Saddam might have had even more WMDs than we have already found, after all.

Despite this overwhelming evidence don’t expect the left to detract their fallacious arguments against President Bush’s campaign to liberate the citizens of Iraq from the monstrous dictator that was torturing and killing them on a daily basis. The left is all about hating Bush. Even if we win the war on terror and Iraq’s new democratic government stabilizes both itself and the Middle East, they will continue to declare Bush to be the reincarnation of Hitler, or the world’s most dangerous dictator or, even more absurdly – as old “Day-O" himself, Harry Belafonte, calls Bush: a terrorist.

That their arguments are being exposed as nonsense is irrelevant to them. It’s all about defending their ideals, regardless if their case is only propped up with lies and unconfirmed assumptions. That they are in defense of a regime that clearly grievously violated the human rights of its people is beyond them. After all, aren't human rights suppose to be one of the left's adopted campaigns that they have the corner of the market on?

It’s not really all that surprising though. The left is for human rights in name only. It serves to dupe it’s followers into thinking that they care. Clearly they don’t. They only care about getting Saddam back on his throne again and our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Human rights be damned! Let the tortures resume. The failure of Bush in Iraq is worth the slaughter of Iraqis to the "compassionate", "enlightened", "intellectual" left.

Oh, and while we are on the topic of fallicious arguments from the left, according to Michael Leedon in his article found here, Iran claims that Osama Bin Laden, died of kidney failure and was buried in mid-December within Iran, where he had been living since the U.S.’s demolition of the Taliban in Afghanistan. If this turns out to be true, expect the cowardly left to start crying that since Bin Laden is dead, Bush’s “War on Terror” is officially over, and for Bush to not bring the troops home as fast as humanly possible will just support their opinion of him as being a power hungry dictator.

Hopefully, a majority of the U.S. voters out there will find yet another reason to vote the dangerous, cowardly left out of office.

Those left within Western Civilization who care about democracy and liberty and care about human rights and who are determined to never allow another 9/11 or 7/11 to occur again know that the left is the enemy of our civilization and need to relegated to the outer fringes where they can disappear with a whimper.

The left has been in the spotlight for far too long. Their appeasment mentality has served to embolden our enemy. Western civilization under their flag and guidance will continue to be weak and indecisive a perfect target for Islamic terrorist who see the weak as something to be conquered or exterminated.