Saturday, January 20, 2007

Friday, January 19, 2007

MARK STEYN on Birth Rates


LUCID AND CONCISE AS ALWAYS IN The strange death of the liberal West


In practice, a culture that thinks Terri Schiavo's life in Florida or the cleft-lipped baby's in Herefordshire has no value winds up ascribing no value to life in general. Hence, the shrivelled fertility rates in Europe and in blue-state America: John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest birth rates; George W Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest.


The 19th-century Shaker communities were forbidden from breeding and could increase their number only by conversion. The Euro-Canadian-Democratic Party welfare secularists seem to have chosen the same predicament voluntarily, and are likely to meet the same fate. The martyrdom culture of radical Islam is a literal dead end. But so is the slyer death culture of post-Christian radical narcissism. This is the political issue that will determine all the others: it's the demography, stupid.


If I were a fundamentalist Christian I'd put it another way:


It seems almost as if God has said to the Republicans: "Be fruitful and multiply," while Satan has winked at the Democrats and said, "Cut it out."



  • American Digest


  • Resting in Peace in his family's home, now resting in heaven

    Clarity in Service – R.I.P. Lt. Daily!



    This is imported from Hugh Hewitt’s site, I want people to read Lt. Daily’s post… I am in tears now for a fellow American not only because of his death/sacrifice for me (a person he never met), but also because of his knowing clarity behind his service. Makes me proud of all these young men serving in our Military. RIP Lt. Daily!

  • Hugh Hewitt’s Site
  • Lt. Mark Daily was killed in Iraq on Monday. Though I did not know him, we have many friends in common, one of whom sent me the post that Lt. Daily had put at his MySpace page. Lt. Daily was a graduate of UCLA and Woodbridge High School in Irvine, California. He was named ROTC's outstanding cadet in his region for 2005, and a Distinguished Military Graduate. He is survived by his wife Janet, his mother and father, Linda and John, and three siblings, Christine, Eric and Nicole. Here is Lt. Daily's post:

    Why I Joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this. Is this why I joined? Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade. And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined. In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck" Mark Daily

    Thursday, January 18, 2007

    Troop Decrease or Increase?


    I wrote a small blog on the hypocrisy about the Democrats running on increasing the troop size in Iraq (see blog from: Saturday, January 06, 2007) because in their words Bush didn’t commit enough troops to get the job done. So when Bush acquiesces and admits that Baghdad needs more troops for security purposes… the Democrats attack him and are now set to vote such a measure down. No doubt trying to equate this to the “quagmire” of Vietnam.



    I am going to post a few paragraphs from a Washington Times article, and then show how far off the Democrats are in joining our allies in the Middle-East to control the spread of militant Islam:




    On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.


    "In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.'"


    "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."


    Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.


    Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.


    "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.


    The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.


  • SOURCE



  • In an article from USA Today, eight Middle Eastern countries support Bush’s plan to increase troop strength in Iraq. These countries are: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — plus Jordan and Egypt.


  • SOURCE



  • The Democrats do not get the importance of what is going on in the Middle East! Even though Egypt is not a country I support or condone, they are still fighting a more radical stream of Islamo-Fascism, much more radical than the semi-fundamentalist government that is now in power in Egypt. If the Democrats are successful in pulling our troops out of Iraq and the radicals get a foothold in that country and start causing trouble for the rest of the area, they will inevitably blame the Republicans for the mess over there.



    Maybe Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats will have photos hanging in Islamo-Fascists museums in the future as having helped them win… like John Kerry’s photo is displayed in Vietnam by the Communists as having helped them win the war:


    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


    GO DEMS!

    Sunday, January 14, 2007

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


    Pol Pot in Venezuela



    The following article is scary… where is our Reagan making sure the resistance groups get armed!!


    President Hugo Chavez's announcement at this week's innaugaral ceremony of plans to create a network of "socialist cities" run by "people power" in Venezuela's unsettled interior has some critics concerned he is moving his country toward a Pol Pot-type system.


    The anti-American leader told the Venezuelan national assembly that large tracts, each 38.6 square miles in size, would be developed as new egalitarian communities run without mayors or municipal governments.


    "I invoke and summon the constituent power, the people's power, the real fuel, so that the engines I am talking about may lead us to a better future," he said at the swearing-in ceremony where he declared "the new era on the road to socialism."


    "Those of you who want to know what type of socialism I have planned for Venezuela should read Marx and Lenin," he said.


  • World Net Daily Article

  • I bet that most of my liberal democratic friends do not see this as a problem, the Pol Pot historian however, should consider this a move towards death. An excellent book I recommend to anyone is one called Death by Government, by Rummel. The more a government controls the people, the more death – historically – has followed. Another book that makes this point abundantly clear is the The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Dr. St├ęphane Courtois. These two books should end any egalitarian concepts of equality and commerce. But this doesn’t stop the “Kimba’s” (liberal’s who unknowingly have their roots in Rousseau’s Social Contract) of our world in supporting socialist dreams wrapped in pacifist liturgy.


    What did Voltaire think of this egalitarian societal aim?


    “I have received your new book against the human race, and I thank you for it. Never was such cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit more than sixty years ago, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it.”

    This is still my thinking on liberal socialist dreams.