Archive for October, 2007

Ideological Bigotry Part VIII–Search and Destroy

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

The ends now justify the means. For the sake of the common good, it is permissible to lie in the name of a higher truth. Slander and libel are necessary if it leads to a better world.

No, I have not become a liberal. I just borrowed page one from their life playbook. The next time one of them stands up and says that the politics of personal destruction come to an end, I will simply reply, “You are a liberal. You are the politics of personal destruction.”

To hell with comity. It doesn’t work. It’s pointless. Liberals despise conservatives with a ferocity that conservatives reserve for Al Queda.

I have disagreed with many liberals, but my column has never despised them. I want to defeat them at the ballot box. I do not want to destroy them personally. This is where we differ. For those who complain that indicting all liberals is unfair, my challenge is that they stay silent, and silence is acquiescence. Martin Luther King Jr. himself said that evil prevails “when good people do nothing.” The left in this country is divided between practioners of hatred, and quiet enablers. Several victims recently have been targeted simply for being conservative, and existing.

Bill O’Reilly was labeled a racist. Why? Because he is a white conservative, and he spoke about race. Many people in this country dislike Bill O’Reilly. He has been described as bombastic, pugnacious, obnoxious, overbearing, and other friendly adjectives. Every single one of those edscriptions in completely within the bounds of conversation. Labeling someone a racist is not. There is only one legitimate reason to label somebody a preacher of hatred, and that is if the description is truthful. There is no evidence that Bill O’Reilly has ever made racist remarks, and if he was a racist, he would not be on television. Bill O’Reilly was slandered. There is no “greater good” that justifies this.

Rush Limbaugh has also been targeted. He made a specific comment that stating that people who pretended to serve in the military, but were actually exaggerating or outright lying about their service, were “phony soldiers.” The left then stated that he claimed that all soldiers who were against the Iraq war were phony soldiers, and therefore unpatriotic.

This is an outright lie. Rush Limbaugh is in the public arena, and legitimate criticism of comments he makes is absolutely fair game. However, manipulating his words to completely change the meaning of what he said is disgusting, especially when those doing so know that their version is false. Mr. Limbaugh has over two decades of stating his respect for soldiers, and he does not question the patriotism of people just because they disagree with him. In fact, Majority Loser Harry Reid called Limbaugh unpatriotic.

Another person that has been slandered by Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton is General David Petraeus. They called him a liar. Of course they did not use the actual word, preferring to fall back on phrases such as “misled,” “strains credibility,” and, “defies belief.” What it means, in plain English, is that they told him his pants were on fire. Why did refer to him as “General Betray Us?” Because he disagrees with their assessment of the war. What is the basis of his disagreement? Perhaps the fact that he has boot son the ground in Iraq, and that he is an intellectual titan and his critics are intellectual ants.

Yet, some say that Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and General David Petraeus deserve this treatment. After all, O’Reilly and Limbaugh regularly skewer progressives on their show, and the General is leading a war they despise. Yet these men got off easy compared to one of the most brutal character assassinations in American history, that being the slander and libel directed at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas is an American success story. He has never had a radio show, or led an unpopular war. All he did was rise out of abject poverty to become a respected professional in the legal field. At the 11th hour, when the liberals failed to defeat this conservative nominee on merit, Anita Hill came forward with sexual harassment charges that to this day have never been proven. In fact, it was “the seriousness of the charges” that led to the delay. Apparently, the same standard was not given to Bill Clinton. Yes, Ted Kennedy got to sit on a panel and offer judgement on the fitness of Clarence Thomas to be a judge.

Some might ask why Judge Thomas is not hailed as an America hero given his incredible rise in society. The reason is because he is a conservative, and a black conservative at that. If his story got out, black Americans, while not automatically voting republican, would at least listen to what they had to say.

The Thomas hearings, in his own words, were a “disgrace,” and a “high tech lynching of uppity blacks.” How else can one describe the viciousness with which this man was attacked?

People could have attacked Justice Thomas on his qualifications. I was not convinced he was one of the finest legal minds when he was nominated. I did not know enough about him. Given that he almost never asks questions, I found it tough to learn more about him. However, a recent interview he had showed an incredibly bright, thoughtful…and kind…human being. I have never heard a story of Justice Thomas being rude to anybody.

As I said Earlier, Limbaugh and O’Reilly can be inviting targets. Yet Justice Thomas seems to be an overwhelmingly gracious individual. Does fearing his willingness to overturn Roe vs Wade justify lying about him and trying to destroy his honor?

Where does it end?

I supported the investigations of the Clintons, but was horrified at stories declaring Chelsea a product of rape, or that Hillary was a lesbian. I was one of the first people to stand up and say that the evidence I saw showed that Hillary and Bill loved each other, and that they raised a daughter who has blossomed into a successful young woman that any parent would be proud to call their own.

I disagree with almost every policy that Hillary and Bill stood for, but I want them to lead happy lives, nowhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Heck, I would invite Bill over to watch the NFL on Sundays as long as he focused on the games (the same rules for all guests who think free speech exists in my home when watching football).

One of the lingering questions that needs to be answered is…who cares? Why does this matter?

There are four reasons. The first reason is because the pendulum swings, and neither side has power forever. Both sides can argue over who started it, and neither side is willing to unilaterally stop it for fear of being seen as weak. Yet it has to stop. If Hillary were to win in 2008, how can she expect to be treated with grace when her path to power is scorched Earth? How can liberals talk about building bridges when they are burning them every chance they get?

The second reason is because it is just plain wrong to lie. The ends do not justify the means. Ethicists do not even support the “therapeutic lie,” concept, rejecting it en masse. MacBeth got to be King, but at what price? Without the moral authority to lead, everybody suffers. Those who tore down Clinton should not have been shocked at what was done to George W. Bush. Those who have torn down George W. Bush should not be shocked at what happens to his successor. Some may say, “well in our case it was justified, look at his policies.” These men are not Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. Smears and lies are not ok, because then when the lies are uncovered, the good ideas the liars may have been proposing leads to their whole ideas being invalidated. The backfire causes more harm to the one firing the slings and arrows. People who could possibly work together for a common good refuse to do so because the differences are too deep.

The third reason is because unlike people like Limbaugh and O’Reilly, most Americans do not have a platform to repudiate baseless accusations and venom. Accusations stick. They scar. They wound. They destroy. People have committed suicide over despair. Does a person have to take their own life before others realize that they inflicted part of the pain?

The fourth and last reason is the life and death struggle civilization currently faces. Between Al Queda, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus, and other evils in this world, our elected leaders should be squarely focused on them. The republican candidates are. The democratic candidates are not. They brag about “standing up to Bill O’Reilly,” “fighting back against Ann Coulter,” “taking on Rush Limbaugh,” and other activities that contribute nothing positive to society.

Ann Coulter did not fly a plane into the towers. Bill O’Reilly did not murder 3000 New Yorkers. Rush Limbaugh does not fund homicide bombers. Clarence Thomas is not harboring plutonium to build nuclear bombs.

Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners. Even if every one of them agreed with him (totally not the case), that means 280 million people are not listening to him. Bill O’Reilly peaked at 7 million people. While Clarence Thomas makes important decisions, he interacts with 8 0ther people. Not 8 million…8!

Rather than hold debates that affect 10-12% of the electorate, and then blaming republicans for being racist, insensitive bigots, the left should start talking to everybody! Take the passion reserved for talk show hosts with no real, actual power, and direct it at people who wish to murder all Americans, liberal and conservative.

The left must argue policy, and they must do so honestly. Lying about words, deeds, data, and the like only makes it tougher for the accuser to be given the benefit of the doubt when it is their turn at bat.

The left needs to stop the search and destroy missions. America is worth saving, and the enemy of Americans is not their fellow Americans. We can either sit around the dinner table and have reasonable discussions, or we can break the table in half, and have our grandchildren ask us why we failed to act in time to protect their way of life.

If we fail…God help us all. We must succeed. Ideological Bigotry must stop.


My Meeting Rudy Giuliani

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007

Several months ago, I wrote, “Why Rudy Giuliani is Right.” I was, and he absolutely still is, more than ever.

On Friday, September 28th, I had the pleasure of meeting Rudy Giuliani. About 100 people attended a private home to hear what he had to say. It was a joy to be one of them.

It is one thing to read other opinions of a person. It is still better to hear politicians speak on television. To be in the same room watching their facial expressions and looking into their eyes truly does add insight into the process. The bottom line is that after having met and spoken with Rudy Giuliani, his status as the top tier Presidential candidate is absolutely deserved.

The people that came to see him were a diverse group. Despite those who continue to denigrate the republican party as a “White, Christian Party,” there were plenty of Jewish supporters in attendance. Those who love to write about the gender gap would have a tough time explaining why the crowd was half male and half female. Geographically, the crowd ranged from Southerners to Midwesterners to Californians to very proud New Yorkers such as myself. People from several countries from Africa, Europe, and the Middle East were in attendance. There were social conservatives, libertarian republicans, and former democrats all there because they cared enough to attend a serious presentation of life and death issues in an adult manner.

Mayor Giuliani spoke for approximately 30-45 minutes, and unlike other tightly scripted political candidates, Hizzoner actually took questions. The audience were not Giuliani sycophants. They were serious individuals who wanted substance. He delivered.

Some people who prefer to live in what the Jayson Blair Times refers to as a “9/12 world (What is better described as a 9/10 world),” criticize Rudy Giuliani for spending virtually 100% of his time on the War on Terror. I personally wish he would do this. Nevertheless, his speech was 50% foreign policy followed by 50% domestic policy.

As an olive branch to liberals and their world view, I will cover the Mayor’s remarks backwards.

Mayor Giuliani’s understanding of economics is brilliant, which is to be expected of somebody who saved a city on the brink of economic collapse. He brought up two very important economic points, and he mentioned each one more than once.

First of all, he stated that, “When you take money away from rich people, rich people leave.” The second point he made is that, “Money is more mobile than ever before.”

Too many individuals who worship at the redistribution altar of Keynes think that rich people will just accept whatever is thrown their way. This is nonsense. Rich people will do what is best for them, because all people do this. Liberals complain about companies outsourcing jobs to India and other global places, but what should CEOs do, settle for higher costs and lower profits? When businesses leave, economies collapse. After 9/11, companies had to choose between staying in New York City, or relocating to New Jersey, Connecticut, or even overseas. Wall Street is doing better than ever, and the friendly business climate Mayor Giuliani created helped turn around New York City.

Yes, he cut taxes 23 times. Yes, revenues went up. Yes, welfare rolls went down. This is not a miracle. It is Economics 101. He referred to rich people during his speech as “productive people.” When you punish those who are productive, they lose incentives to produce. Everybody loses.

He spoke about health care, and he had justifiably tough words for Hillary Clinton’s health care plans. For one, the idea of giving $5000 to each child was shredded. He pointed out that this was an idea with many holes. He inquired, “Would Bill Gates’s’ children be given $5000 apiece? Would the children of illegal immigrants, as U.S. citizens, be given $5000 apiece?” He blountly declared her plan what it was…”stupid.”

This is not the language of a tightly scripted man afraid to offend anyone in an effort to please everyone. This is a man who speaks plainly. On a very simple issue he contrasted himself with Hillary Clinton. He told a story of being asked to wear a baseball cap that was half Yankees, and half Mets. He refused to do so, because he is a lifelong Yankees fan. Mets fans would refer to him as a “bum,” and “much worse,” but as the Mayor pointed out, “Many Mets fans respected my honesty and voted for me.”

If he ever asked my opinion, I would tell him that I prefer football, and find baseball incredibly boring, a three hour nap disguised as a sport. He would disagree with me, but would respect my not trying to ingratiate myself to him in a phony manner.

Hillary Clinton has said that she would not choose between the Yankees and the Mets. When asked if she would choose the Yankees over the Cubs, she demurred.

This is not about baseball. It is about an unwillingness to take clear stands on anything. If a person cannot take a clear stand on a sports team, how can they be trusted to be taken seriously on hard policy issues?

Rudy Giuliani can be lighthearted, but he is a serious policy person. As he reminded his audience, it is one thing to talk about theoretically doing things. It is another to have a record of having successfully done them. Gotham City is now a world class city again, and it is because of him.

His record on crime is legendary, but he did not spend time discussing it. The first half of his speech was a clinic on foreign policy expertise. Unlike wavering republicans, the one time the Mayor mentioned President Bush, it was to reinforce that going into Iraq was proper. He spoke with authority on Iran, and made it clear that force was an option.

Yet the War on Terror itself was where he, as always, shined. He reminded the audience that, “Terrorism did not begin on 9/11.” He also pointed out that, “We were attacked five times during the Clinton presidency. We were attacked in 1993 the first time the World Trade Center was bombed. We were attacked when the Khobar Towers were hit. We were attacked when U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. We were attacked in 2000 with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. These were acts of war, and were never treated as such.”

At the 2004 republican convention, Giuliani connected the dots even further. The 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer was an act of Terrorism. The 1972 murder of Israelis at the Olympics was an act of terrorism. In 2007, Mayor Giuliani continues to refer to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the late Yassir Arafat as terrorists. He mentioned them at this event.

Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner in this race. He did not mention his republican primary opponents by name, with the exception of a brief mention of how much he respected John McCain. He stated that the reason why he did was because Senator McCain, “does not change his positions to please other people.” While this could have been seen as a veiled swipe at fellow republican opponents, there was no mistaking that the democrats running for the White House were the recipients of his overt ridicule.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack O’Bama were criticized on their lack of experience. There were no personal attacks. He went after them on policy, or more specifically, their lack of understanding of domestic and foreign policy.

He also defended General David Petraeus, and made it clear that when the New York Times and combined to smear a respected military hero, he immediately spoke up. He did remark that Hillary Clinton was still deciding what her position was on the issue.

The Mayor took several questions ranging from social security reform to the falling dollar to possible military action against Iran. He did not give sound bites. Every question that was asked was given a several minute response. The questions were not scripted in advance. The people allowed to ask questions were not chosen in advance. It was an actual, real, thoughtful question and answer session.

I asked him a question myself.

“Mayor Giuliani, I deliberately flew to New York on 9/11…” The Mayor then interjected.

“Thank you for doing that.” I replied, “Thank you sir,” and continued.

“I had the pleasure of seeing you at the Freedom Concert on 9/11, and was inspired by the crowd. My question is this…besides raising money and voting for you, what can I and my friends do as private citizens to help you win the War on Terror? What can we do to help defeat guys like Armageddonijad and others?”

(The people who caught that I said “Armageddonijad laughed, but the truth is I just used to have trouble saying and spelling his actual name)

I listened intently, and the first thing Mayor Giuliani did was say, “For one thing, people need to fly on 9/11. I think it’s great that you did that.” Yes, it feels good to be complimented by somebody, even someone who has every incentive to do so. However, he did not stop with that. He then again reminded everybody of the various serious worldwide threats.

He took several minutes to remind everybody that before any of us can do anything, we need to know who we are fighting against. If we are going to fight back, we have to openly acknowledge who and what we are fighting. He reiterated that Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah all need to be dealt with, and that “they declared War on us.” He reminded the audience that he “wanted peace, and most people want peace.” He just made it clear that the steps to get to a true, lasting peace are not always peaceful.

After he thanked the crowd, he did something else that I was not expecting. He stayed. I have seen politicians dash out of a side door of a room, before anybody can ask them anything. Mayor Giuliani spoke with several of the people, took pictures with them (in addition to the picture he took with every attendee before his speech), and most importantly, looked people in the eye when he shook their hands and spoke to them.

I have met several of the other candidates, and his republican challengers are all fine men. After meeting Rudy Giuliani, and hearing what he had to say, and looking into his eyes, I can say that he is more than a fine man. At this time in history, with civilization itself hanging in the balance, Rudy Giuliani is the right man.


The Jayson Blair Times needs a hug

Monday, October 1st, 2007

Ok, I confess. When I need to crank out a quick column, I find somebody who writes something idiotic, and I give them their deserved dressing down. When my list of idiots gets too big, I just go with my favorite bastion of worthlessness, the Jayson Blair Times. I can’t help it. They simply do not know how to say anything positive, unbiased, reasonable, or accurate. Being liberal, shrill and wrong may offend some, but as a conservative columnist, I delight in their intellectual deficiencies. The Gray Lady is the main reason I support euthanasia. Somebody kill this old bag already.

The JBT’s columnist Thomas Friedman is your standard Jewish liberal, which means I often have to apologize for him to the normal Americans who lump me in with the 80% of Jews that need cranial-glutial extraction surgery. If I dealt with the JBT’s idiocy every day, I would have to ignore other topics. However, today being Monday, and the mercury on the JBT ridicule meter going sky high, they deserved a heaping of scorn.

The title of the newest debacle put to print is entitled, “9-11 is over.”

Oh really? I took a nap, perhaps I missed it. Did we win the War on Terror? Did all the terrorists surrender? Or did we all join hands and start a love train?

Mr. Friedman takes umbrage at the fact that Rudy Giuliani is running partially on his leadership on 9/11. First of all, he is also running on his spectacular record of turning around New York City. What the heck is he supposed to run on? An imaginary record with empty promises for the future with nothing in the past to provide a credible track record? Well if you’re a democrat, sure, but thankfully the JBT doesn’t get to bully republicans and decide their platforms for them.

Friedman laments that, “how much, since 9/11, we’ve become ‘The United States of Fighting Terrorism.’” Yes! We have become that! What the heck else should we become? Oh I know…we could just politely ask the terrorists to stop it and play nice!

Mr. Friedman “does not know whether to laugh or cry” at what is happening to America. That is how I feel about the JBT.

Like the cancer of liberalism itself, this JBT article spread stupidity and insincerity with each passing sentence.  Friedman wrote,  “Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote:”

The JBT has its head so far up the democratic party’s hide that to say that the lack of an official endorsement means it is openminded and unbiased is insane.  In the cases of Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern, the JBT was the only entity supporting these people outside of their own families.

Now who is not getting Mr. Friedman’s vote? Let’s find out. “I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.”

Now in the real world, a 9/12 candidate is a person who witnessed 9/11, shook their fists in a state of rage, and wanted justice. This was not bloodlust. It was human decency demanding that our leaders honor our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the JBT-Friedman bubble, 9/12 is a post modern world where intellectuals sit down and rationally deal with all that ails us. We dialogue with people, because if we could all just learn, love and understand each other, we could communicate better.

I want to make it clear that I am not in any way, shape or form advocating violence against Mr. Friedman. Yet liberals truly are conservatives waiting to be mugged. Does somebody have to break into Mr. Friedman’s multi-million dollar mansion, take a crow bar to his winery, and smash an expensive bottle of Chablis over his family’s skulls before he realizes that some people are just bad? What is he going to do, defend himself with the gun that he doesn’t own because only criminals should have them?

Yes, I am stereotyping and trivializing this guy (with help from him), but the issue itself is far from trivial. To turn a phrase on a famous left wing hate group, no we cannot just “Move on” to a 9/12 world without 9/11. Saying it does not make it so.

“9/11 has made us stupid.” Speak for yourself and the dozen people who read your paper. I have an advanced degree, I disagree with you, and my brain actually works.

“You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists.”

Yes, because it is.

“A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration.”

Are there 12 million people at Gitmo? I thought it was closer to 300.

“I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.”

A free what?????? Can we please send the Gitmo detainees to this man’s home? If some wealthy republicans are willing to build a sanctuary for Gitmo and homeless people right across the street from this fellow, I would support it. Also, since there will be strict gun control laws, he will be safe because these terrorists would never break the law. Firearms are against the rules, especially if they want parole.

“I’d love to see us salvage something decent in Iraq that might help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive pathway. That was and is necessary to improve our security.”

It’s called the surge, you left wing horse’s hide. It’s working.

“I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C. But I recently bought a pocket cellphone at the Beijing airport and immediately called my wife in Bethesda — crystal clear.”

Yet this fellow lives in the USA. “Love it or leave it” is not perfect, but “change it or lose it” mistakenly believes that all change is good. America must do a lot right, because billions of people, including many from China, want to come to America, inferioir cell phone service be d@mned.

“We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.”

The only thing getting trounced is the JBT’s financial well being. What Al Queda contributed to infrastructure, the JBT contributed to quality writing.

I have a right to life and liberty, despite Friedman’s desire to live under a Caliphate. No, he never stated that he desired, this, but he does not have to state this. Anyone can say that fighting is wrong. Wanting peace is easy. The problem is not that peace is wrong, but that the way peaceniks try to achieve peace does not work, cannot work, will not work, and has never worked ever ever ever ever ever!

Winning the War on Terror is more important than every other political issue combined. Maybe if we spent more on health care and prescription drugs we could get Friedman and his ill ilk the care they need. Yet if America is blown to kingdom come, there will be nobody alive to administer anything to anybody anywhere.

To every normal civilized foreigner, I want to say that I am a normal New Yorker. I am a mainstream Jew. I am an intelligent American. The people at the JBT may have certain traits in common with me, and I will repeatedly apologize for all of them if need be. However, these post modern 9/12 imbeciles do not speak for me.

I want to live. I support people that want me to live. I will only vote for a candidate who will repeatedly remind voters why 9/11 matters.

Yes, I am willing to support killing terrorists, even if it means keeping the JBT headquarters and all its worthless inhabitants on this planet where they will continue to detract from what is right in this world.

Maybe I should try to just understand the JBT and give their people a big hug. Or maybe, what they really need is a kick in the hide.

I am willing to put aside my own disgust with their stupidity to save their lives. If only they valued mine…and their own…the same.