EFFin’ Unsound

FW Con is at it again.

Think about this for a moment.

They used to be called communists. But that soon became a pejorative and so they didn’t want to be called communists anymore.

Then they wanted to be called socialists. That too became a pejorative and they didn’t want that title.

Now they are called liberals. This too has already become a pejorative and they don’t like being called liberal.

Now they want to be called progressives. Do you see a pattern here?

Compare with the (erstwhile pejorative) “mormon”. Yes, it used to be a pejorative, in the same way the N-word or the new F-word (with 6 letters meaning a bundle of sticks) are pejoratives. And yet, there is a whole group of millions of people running around calling themselves “mormon” today. Why did this pejorative become a badge of honor, and “communist” become a pejorative?

It is because the people grow to learn the true meaning of the words we use. They learn that communist, socialist, liberal, and soon progressive are all another word for evil–not the kind of evil you imagine when you are a child in Sunday School, but the absolutely terrifying and disturbing kind of evil that exists in the heart of murderers, rapists, and traitors. It is so evil and so terrible that they actually think they are doing good.

That’s why the names we use to label them become pejoratives. No one would ever want to be labelled a communist, socialist, liberal, or progressive in the same way you don’t want to walk around with a shirt that says, “I rape and murder little boys secretly.”

Evan Sayet gives a fine, 45 minute lecture on the modern liberalism, what it is based on, and what it all means. (link) He knows because he lived among them. He understands things I can never understand because I have never been more than arm’s length to a real liberal.

The story that struck me was about the man who claims to hate his wife. You kind of laugh about it, thinking deep down inside that he can’t possible be serious and it all must be some kind of joke. But then you see a mugger beating up his wife and he stands by, nodding in approval. It is then that you realize that he really does hate his wife, and he wasn’t joking.

That’s the way the modern liberals are. They are more than willing to tell you what they are and what they stand for, but you find it is difficult to believe them. “They can’t really want these things–it’s suicidal,” you think. But events in these times prove that you are wrong–they really do want to see America destroyed, they really do want babies slaughtered, they really do want good, honest men thrown in prison and evil men set in positions of power.

It is so evil that they walk around wearing their evil on their shirt as if it was a badge of honor or a mark of goodness. This is the kind of evil you would expect Satan to whisper to the masses to lull them to sleep, except it comes from their mouths.

I can write here about how not just some, but every issue modern liberals stand for are evil. It is as if they pull out their moral compass, find which way points toward “good”, and then choose to walk in exactly the opposite direction.

The problem is you would read my arguments the same way you would listen to your friend go on about how he hates his wife. You wouldn’t, you can’t believe that it could all be possibly true. But the truth is the truth–they are evil in the most evil way possible.

To my friends who are “casually” liberal, that is, who think they are liberal but don’t really understand why, I wish you would start asking why sooner rather than later. Why is it okay to slaughter a child before they are born and not after? Why is it okay for two perverted men to get “married” to each other and adopt children to raise them to be as perverted as themselves? Why is it okay to kill an innocent, crippled woman but not a hardened murderer? Why is it okay to attack our commander in chief in the middle of a war as if he were the enemy?

The answers will surprise you. You will know you have found them when you start calling yourself “conservative.”

It is at that point that you will know that being pro-life means going to war. And that Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham are not corrupt.

Shorter Michael Medved: The trick to solving the immigration debate is to figure out how to divide the good ones from the bad ones.

Shorter Sen Cheryl Pfung: We can totally pave our way out of congestion.

Shorter Discovery Blog: Why don’t the Democrats just tell us why they want us to lose in Iraq so bad?

Shorter MaxRedline: It’s the Democrats who are corrupt, and I don’t need anything more than a Washington Times article to prove it. Oh, and Hillary Clinton, huh?

I want to talk about local shit. I really do. I want to talk about the budget and other legislative happenings. I want to keep making fun of Sharkansky’s obsessive questioning of why McKay won’t tell us things he’s legally obligated to shut up about. But the righties keep talking about the war and they keep being crazy. So thanks for my third Iraq post in 4 days, Lou Guzzo. I hope you can sleep at night.

Shame on the Democratic Party! With its vote to defy the President’s authority as commander in chief and to withdraw its support for American troops and their mission in Iraq, the Democrats have also tried to destroy our role as the world’s peacemaker and our mission to bring freedom and democratic government to oppressed people.

I don’t know why it’s so difficult to understand that the president can only command the troops as far as Congress lets him. I don’t understand how the people using their Constitutional authority, “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” is some crazy breach of the Constitution.

As a thought experiment, imagine if the president decided to use the army to administer elections in Florida. He wouldn’t be able to because of the Posse Comitatus act, passed by Congress. Yet nobody says that act was a usurpation of some magic inherent authority the president always has for ever.

The howling Democrats, led by their new standard bearer, Big Momma Nancy Pelosi, have also delivered a loud slap to the memories of their own Democratic Presidents of the past — Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy — all of whom pursued Teddy Roosevelt’s philosophy to “speak softly but carry a big stick.”

And for James Madison whose efforts to take Canada totally would have worked if not for Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, Wilson and Kennedy did use the military too brashly.

If the present congressional members of the Democratic Party had been in charge in the early and middle years of the 20^th Century, the United States might have succumbed to Germany in both the First and Second World Wars and the old Soviet Union might have been in a position to fire nuclear missiles at the U.S. from Cuba.

Yes, if only there had been Democrats in Congress back then. The Kaiser, who couldn’t get past France, was going to totally show up at our shores without an army exhausted in any way. Christ. And of course if President Bush was president back then, we’d all be speaking some horrible combination of German and Russian. Except in the South East where only the Cockroaches could survive.

President Bush has promised to veto the Democrats’ ill-advised bill to set an early deadline for American troops to pull out of Iraq — an action that would signal to the Muslim extremists and even to the moderates in Islamic nations that the U.S. is ripe for the taking by the Neo-Nazi Muslim fanatics.

Wait, a bill in Congress would let moderate Muslims know that they could take America over and make us Nazi Germany? I’m so confused.

It is believed that the Democratic Congress does not have enough votes to override a presidential veto. But, even so, the damage is already great. The Demos’ signal to retreat from Iraq — and eventually from Afghanistan, as well — has indicated to our enemies in the terrorist camp that the U,S. is vulnerable from within.

Many of the Democrats who voted for this did so in an effort to get us focused on Afghanistan. And leaving Iraq is much better than an Arab Dien Bien Phu.

Thus, veto or no veto, the ground has been laid for a repeat of the Democrats’ fiasco in withdrawing financial and moral support from our military forces in Vietnam and forcing an eventual withdrawal and retreat from a war we should have won. As a result, all of Vietnam was lost and that entire nation rendered totally Communist. Could the same thing happen in Iraq, with Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and the international terrorists in command?

It would be silly to say that maybe we shouldn’t have invaded those countries in the first place, right? I mean maybe, maybe, maybe if President Bush had been winning the war in some sense, a case could be made that we should stay. But come on.

The present growing calamity can be blamed in large measure to two factors: The first was the Democrats’ refusal to support a sitting President in time of war, and the second was the news media’s brainwashing of the American public with their vicious hate-Bush campaign — a campaign that led to Democratic victories at the polls last November.

Those 4 years when the Democrats couldn’t do anything about Iraq, just their saying bad things was enough to fuck the whole effort up. Oh, and by the way the most Americans who think Iraq is fucked up, you’ve been brainwashed. But don’t ever blame the president for his own failure. Thank God for old media stalwarts like Guzzo.

One must hope that, for America’s sake, its future, and its security, someone like a Senator Joe Lieberman, will rise out of the political morass and revolutionize the Socialist-Liberal Democratic Party so that it will once more support the nation’s historic role as a defender of freedom and liberty around the world.

First, in fairness to Guzzo, the serial comma makes up for like 2% of the batshit crazy. Second, thinking Lieberman is the man to save the Democratic Party is like thinking that Bernie Sanders will be the voice of reason in the Republican Party. But third, the best way to lead is by example, and what better example of freedom and liberty than doing what the people just asked for?

Steve Beren tells us why we’re in Iraq. But he forgets to mention oil.

The Democrats lack a victory strategy for the war against terrorism. They don’t realize what victory means: stabilizing the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan as part of encouraging and assisting a transformation of the Middle East; disruption and destruction of terrorist networks; ending the war drive of the Iranian mullahs (with their threats against Israel); and ending the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and Iran.

The Republican strategy is throw more people into the grinder and then magik. So compare and contrast.

The Democrats also don’t realize what defeat would mean: a bloodbath in Iraq (as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge); a weakening of the forces for democracy in the Middle East; strengthening the hand of the Iranian mullahs against their own people and against Israel; emboldening Al Qaeda and their allies; greater likelihood of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians on American soil.

A blood bath in Iraq. It might result in nearly 4 million displaced internally and externally. It might result in more than 600,000 people dying.

The liberation of Iraq is justified for many reasons: Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, the need for a preemptive strategy before Saddam Hussein became an imminent threat, and the goal of regime change and democracy in Iraq. In addition, the Saddam Hussein regime failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions, including resolution #687 which was passed on April 3, 1991 and outlined the ceasefire conditions of the first Gulf War.

Control of oil, WMD, the need to force Democrats in Congress into a tough situation. Seriously, enforcing a resolution against the wishes of like 75% of the UN member states and several members of the Security Council might be the dumbest idea anyone has put out.

In October 2002, when the Congress authorized military action, there was bipartisan agreement on spreading democracy and regime change. The resolution authorizing military action stated: “it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

So how’s that democracy going again?

Even the Clinton administration had correctly identified the need for democracy and regime change in Iraq, but this was primarily a verbal policy and barely put into effect. After 9/11, the importance of actually implementing a regime change and liberation of Iraq become more obvious than ever.

The Clinton policy (and it’s one I disagree with) was one of regime change from Iraqi elements. It was encouraging Iraqis to change their regime. Kind of a key difference if you’re a grunt in Fallujah, I would think. Or hell, if you’re an Iraqi civilian.

Of course this is the same “Clinton Did It” argument that we’ve heard recently with the fired prosecutors. Bill Clinton did something completely different, so it doesn’t count when Bush does this!

The liberation of Iraq is a central front in the war against terrorism, not a distraction from it. It is a war of necessity, not a war of choice, because we must deal with the root causes of terrorism, not merely its symptoms. The backwardness and oppression and lack of freedom in the Middle East are a breeding ground for terrorism.

A central front? Doesn’t it being central mean it’s the most important thing? How then can there be two or more central fronts? Anyhoozle, if the entire Middle East is causing terrorism why are we supporting some of the most autocratic regimes there? I mean does being oppressed by the Saudis make you love America? I’m so confused.

The best way to attack terrorism at its roots is to spread freedom and democracy and modernity in the Middle East, breaking the bonds of oppression and exploitation that fuel a hateful ideology.

Or barring that bombing weddings and torturing people.

In that sense, Iraq is connected to 9/11, just as the entire Middle East is connected to 9/11. The oppression and lack of modernity in the Middle East, pervasive and powerful, is connected to 9/11 through a thousand threads of hatred, brutality, and propaganda. The oppression of the Muslim and Arab people by their own governments is truly the breeding ground for terrorism.

The oppression by the United States and our client states is fun!

Representative Chandler is worried that people might vote if given a greater opportunity to do so. I’m not sure how compatible same day registration is with vote by mail, but other than that, it seems like a great idea.

Rep. Bruce Chandler says Washington’s election system simply isn’t ready to let people register to vote up to and on election day, as Senate Bill 5561 would require, especially in light of suspected voter registration fraud in King County this past fall.

Hell, he’s upset that they vote at all what with the run of not voting for Republicans for Governor and the recent legislative elections. But hating Ron Sims is totally reason enough to put up more barriers to the franchise.

“Even with the 15- and 30-day registration deadlines in law, there’s reason to be concerned whether fraudulent registrations can be caught before an election is certified,” said Chandler, R-Granger, who is Republican leader on the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. “We’d be getting way ahead of ourselves, and the county elections offices, to adopt this bill.

He added, in fact, just to be safe we’d better ban everyone who lives near a PO box from voting.

“Same-day registration is not the best way to increase voter turnout. The best way to encourage voters to participate is to ensure an honest count — to match each ballot cast with a legal voter, ensure ballot security and count ballots accurately. Asking county election officials to handle a flood of new voter registration forms close to or on election day, when ballot processing needs to be their top priority, would be too much,” Chandler said.

We could make sure the counties have the money to do that. You know, if this was about fraud in the sense of fraud and not in the sense of talking about make believe fraud as a political issue (and how’s that worked in the absence of an actual positive agenda that the people of Washington might like?).

SB 5561 received a public hearing today before Chandler and other members of the state government committee, and already is scheduled for a committee vote Wednesday afternoon. It was passed March 13 by Senate Democrats.

Yay.

During the hearing Chandler brought up the voter registration fraud suspected to have occurred in King County. Reportedly, telephone numbers on all but two of 400 voter registrations submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in October 2006 were invalid when checked by King County election officials. The 400 forms were among 1,829 registrations submitted by ACORN.

Eat shit. Oh King County is bad!

Information concerning the suspected fraud has been supplied to the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, and today an official from the Secretary of State’s office said she believes the ACORN matter is being investigated.

Hmm.  I trust that office now. Was this part of the reason McKay was fired? To stick it to ACORN? I have no idea, of course, but how convinient.

“I don’t see where the same-day registration bill addresses a situation like the ACORN case, where an organization acts as a third party or a go-between, handing voter registration forms to the county,” said Chandler. “Also, I’d like to see if and how the ACORN situation is prosecuted before we consider making a change of this magnitude in our voter registration process. If the process isn’t trustworthy, neither are the results.”

You know, because the last time Republicans accused liberals of voter fraud, it worked out so well. Sure the Republican AG, Sec of State, U.S. Attorney, King County Prosecutor, and hand picked judge all had to call bullshit. And even if ACORN did everything they are being accused of, it’s tiny and they were caught. The system works. And there are ways to get around the supposed problems if the Republicans wanted to be helpful and not just give a fuck you to King County.

To be eligible to vote in an election, voter registration forms must be mailed at least 30 days ahead of time, and in-person registrations must be done at least 15 days in advance. Those deadlines allow county election offices to process the forms in time to update voter rolls by election day, Chandler said.

So you’re shit out of luck if you have the audacity to move in late October or early November. Or if you just forgot.

“The state and county election offices do a lot of work to reach out to potential voters, to make them aware of the registration process and the deadlines. If the officials who testified today believe same-day registration would be an effective way to raise voter turnout, I didn’t hear it. One of the auditors spoke of how difficult it could be to manage the consequences of this bill,” said Chandler.

I’d think that knowing you can register to vote would get people out. It seems to have made the difference for Jesse Ventura, not that I’d have voted for him.

“I don’t see any compelling reason to rush this bill into law.”

Well, it’s not rushing so much as going through the committee process. I mean it isn’t as urgent the need to put out fake sex offender notices.

– posted by thehim

I know I’ve been picking on Eric Earling recently, but I just don’t feel like crawling the Sound Politics blogroll today and I actually - yes, I’m serious - agree with Sharkansky about the viaduct vote (someone please check to see if hell has frozen over).  Anyway, Earling has something to say about Iran:

When the mere thought of the United States not adhering to the Geneva Conventions was on the front page there was great outrage in certain local circles. The blogosphere said we had lost our “moral grounding” in the world. The Seattle Times expressed dismay expressed dismay enemy combatants suspected of terrorism were not being afforded the same protections as uniformed soldiers of nation states captured on the battlefield. Never mind the distinction clearly allows for different treatment (see past shorter discussion here, longer form here). Will the same outlets of the media and blogosphere rush to condemn Iran for violating the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of seized British sailors & Marines?

I love it when people assume that the failure to write something is indicative of an attempt to cover up hypocrisy.  “He’s never taken a position on chocolate chip cookies!  He must hate them even though he once said that he liked all chewy confections!”

Regarding criticism of the Iranian handling of the British hostages, the difference in the two situations is somewhat of a microcosm for how moderates and extremists differ in their mindset on Iran.  A person is more effective in criticizing his own government than a government he’s not a subject to.  It’s obviously wrong for any government to oppose the Geneva Convention, but many Americans (correctly) feel that it’s our duty to speak up when it’s our own government doing it.

Why is this a microcosm of the larger Iran debate?  Mainly because foreign policy moderates understand that if we don’t adhere to the Geneva Conventions, our admonitions of the Iranian government for doing the same are worthless, so we better damn well do it.  Anyone who knows the history of Iranian-American relations (I recommend this excellent book) knows that the inability of the Nixon Administration to influence effective human rights under the Shah was one of the main reasons why Iranian moderates abandoned America and eventually supported the revolution.  Hardline Iranian leaders have always favored Republican administrations, even now, for that same reason, because it’s easier to stay in power when human rights don’t matter. 

The current government under Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular (Ahmadinejad was actually heckled mercilessly during a recent speech.  The fact that this could even happen is a good indication of how far he really is from a dictator and how much he’d love to be able to get away with more).  As much as we’d like to believe that we in the almighty U.S. of A have the power to get rid of Ahmadinejad, it’s really the people of Iran who hold that power.

(more…)

The Dishonest Yellow Elephant of PLU is celebrating 4 years of someone else going to fight the war he supports.

As we mark the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War this week, the nation honors those brave Americans who have given what Lincoln called “the last full measure of devotion” there. Our fallen warriors were and always will be American heroes, and their lives and their sacrifices will not soon be forgotten. Though the world is a little less bright without them, it is also a little more free and secure because of their efforts.

If only that was true. The truth is that their lives were sacrificed to the Gods of political expedience and unwillingness to change. They died so that before the 2002 election, Democrats would be put in a tough position. And then they died so that Bush could call himself a war president. And so that he could prance around a battle ship. And then because he was too stubborn to admit that he should leave.

But as much as this week is a time to reflect upon what we have done in Iraq and what we have lost, it is also a time to contemplate where we are and where we plan on going. Most of all, it is a time for the country to decide how we shall best honor those who have fought and died in the desert sands of Iraq, and how we will honor those who continue to fight and die today.

We would best honor them by bringing their brothers and sisters in arms home.

It is beyond debate that for months Iraq has been a chaotic mess, mired in a seemingly endless cycle of sectarian strife and bloodshed, with Sunni killing Shia and Shia killing Sunni. I do not deny that in a sizeable degree the circumstances which facilitated this perpetual state of crisis were the results of the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of American strategy on the ground.

Months?

Some now, in consideration of these failures and of the loss of life suffered there, conclude that we must take our leave from Iraq, whether it be precipitously, gradually, or in accordance with a fixed timetable. America’s venture in Iraq has been a case of one blunder followed by another, goes this rationale, and the costs of our presence there are no longer–or never were–justified.

Well, some of us think the invasion was a war crime. And that we perpetuate it every day. We also recognize that our presence is making the situation worse. And that the Iraqi people want us to leave.

I respect this conclusion, and recognize the sincerity and noble intentions of those who assert it; but I cannot and do not share it. Past failure and adversity have never been a reason to quit, least of all to Americans. Failure and the adversity it presents is instead the point at which we must dust ourselves off, adapt, and re-dedicate ourselves. I apply this principle to our mission in Iraq, for if it is not appropriate here then it is not appropriate anywhere.

Well if it’s so damn important, go there already. I’m sure they could still use some college age men who support the fight.

Even with all of his previous mismanagement and failures in Iraq, the president at the very least understands this. Our strategy in Iraq has been adapted and altered, and the initial returns are promising. Violence within Baghdad is decreasing, civil life and the economy are beginning to pick up, and limited but existential political progress is being made.

So, progress huh?

In full recognition of this we must stay in Iraq until our original objective of seeing the nation of Iraq achieve a stable, representative, vibrant, and self-sustaining republic is realized.

Is that all? And I thought it was going to be something difficult.

Every single American wants to bring home our men and women from Iraq yesterday. But all actions have consequences, and to retreat from Iraq would incur upon our nation consequences far worse than staying there would.

Yes, all those dominoes will fall and pretty soon the whole Middle East will be Muslim. And maybe in some parts of the planet, some people might not like us very much.

American withdrawal would lead to a rapid descent into a sectarian war in Iraq of a lethality we have not previously witnessed. The ramifications of such a cruel tempest would be as destructive and toxic as they are predictable. Massive sectarian carnage would immediately ensue, destabilizing amounts of Sunni refugees would flee for their lives into neighboring Sunni nations, and an anarchic vacuum would cause Iraq to rapidly devolve into the world’s newest terrorist base and safe haven, from which terrorist operations could be waged in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and, as we all witnessed on September 11, 2001, the United States of America.

Currently we’re ignoring the places where terrorism is the worst, instead growing it in Iraq. But if we leave Iraq, it might somehow devolve into a place where there are terrorists. QEDizzle.

I want America to leave Iraq as much as the most strident peace protester, but the consequences of such an exodus would simply be too catastrophic to condone.

Obviously this sentence is not true. I want it so badly I’m working to make it happen. And I want it 1000 times less than the peace protesters with children there, surely. But some guy from PLU who wants us to stay wants us out the most.

If for nothing else, we cannot retreat from Iraq because fulfilling our mission in Iraq is the best way to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the pursuance of it. As cruelly and unbearably tragic as each of their deaths are, it would be an even greater tragedy if they were to have died in vain for a mission we simply abandoned. Let us never realize such a day.

Let us instead continue throwing lives away because we can’t realize an obvious mistake. Let us instead continue to sacrifice to the God of more of the same. You know, there’s a special place in hell for people who masturbate to war porn.

On this fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, in full remembrance and appreciation for our slain heroes, “It is for us the living,” to quote from Lincoln once more, “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they…have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be…dedicated to the great task remaining before us…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall have not died in vain.” If for none other, let this be the reason we dedicate ourselves to victory in Iraq.

In the civil war they were fighting so, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” It’s a little different than to stay in Iraq until a stable Jeffersonian Democracy magically forms.

AskMom is very concerned that some people didn’t like a movie.

A kind and wise friend offered to take me to see “300.” I never would have gone alone, as I am squeamish about violence real, imagined, printed or digitized. And movies are not on my own top 10 list of things to do with my free time. But this person’s company is a treasure worth buying at almost any price, and so we went.

It was a wonderful experience, one I recommend strongly. Most critics, especially the anointed of the mainstream liberal press, have been negative or grudgingly lukewarm about this movie.

Shame on them.

They carp about the simplistic, comic-book themes of liberty, freedom, patriotism, duty, honor, valor, sacrifice and honor. To their rooms, with copies of the works of the founding fathers, the King James Bible, the Magna Carta.

They disapprove of the slick computer generated backgrounds and other digital wonders. No dinner for you, take a peanut butter sandwich over to the computer and don’t get up until you have emailed Mom a good analysis of the term “Luddite” as it applies to your own ipods, cell phones and laptops. Mythology and technology can be friends, you know. Liberals and technology can even be friends - look at Howard Dean, the master melder of primal screams and web activism. Or John Edwards, self-proclaimed environmental gold medalist, cushioned at home and on the road in the best comfort modern science can provide.

Critics quarrel with the lack of interpersonal nuances and complex character development in the movie. When they care a particle about the stunning lack of relationship skills in those who would obliterate our children and our future, then we’ll care about the movie personalities of liberty’s defenders.

Last but far from least, the knee-jerk nannies object to the way the movie glorifies the Spartan fight against Persia, or, as we know it today, Iran. Apparently it’s just too politically incorrect to look with clear eyes at the undisputed historical parallels. Iranian President Ahmadinejad can openly threaten us with the nuclear obliteration of our allies and ourselves, and that’s perfectly okay because he’s a persecuted minority or something. Jihadists manipulate our technology, our freedoms and our tolerance into threats against us, and we’re expected to believe it’s our own fault for not being tolerant, free and smart enough.

But let some film director dare to suggest that someone, somewhere, might fight back against slavery and destruction, and it becomes proof that we’re barbarians.

The New York Times has predictably excelled in attacking “300.” You can always trust Pinch and Bill to be on the wrong side. Memo to the Times: even the hoodie-draped crowd here in give-peace-a-chance Seattle were cheering for the Queen of Sparta as she took a knife to her enemy. But you can bet that if he’d tried his policies of appeasement, political rape and personal betrayal in Washington DC in 2007, the Times would have editorialized in favor of his “realism.” They probably would have rhapsodized about his designer toga.

Out here in the real world, the millions of Americans who have piled into theaters to cheer for the Spartans probably agree more with Patrick Henry, in his speech to the Virginia Convention in 1775:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.

300 critics, give us a break. Go back to your whining, dreary little art films and eat your salt free oven roasted soybean snacks in almost empty theaters. We’re going to see 300. With a giant tub of popcorn. And when the bad guys ultimately lose, we’re going to cheer.

You’ll never read it in the Times.

He apparently doesn’t know what the words “treason” or “pork” mean.

Party of Pork and Treason: The Modern Democrats

Links helpfully added by me.

What the Democrats did yesterday in the house was beyond excusable.

While our men are fighting, bleeding, and dying for our freedom and for the hope of setting up a Middle East that won’t murder our citizens, the Democrats are spending BILLIONS of our tax dollars buying votes to support a bill to give victory to the enemy.

There is a story from the Book of Mormon about something like this. It is all too similar to ignore.

Moroni, a chief captain on the eastern frontlines of a brutal war, ran out of supplies. His men were starving, the enemy was amassing, and they were losing city after city in devastating battles. Victory didn’t just seem distant, it seemed impossible.Helaman, a chief captain from the western frontlines, wrote a letter to Moroni. Helaman was able to drive out the enemy from that quarter in a miraculous victory, but he too was short on men and supplies. Helaman faced the same terrible circumstances. If the enemy attacked again, they would lose that quarter.

In this desperate situation, Moroni wrote a scathing letter to the chief judge back at the capitol. Summarized, “If you do not supply the men and food we need to fight this enemy, we (including you!) will lose this war. If you would rather sit on your thrones in a stupor than do your duty and support these warriors who fight for your freedom, we will glady relieve you of your authority and put government in the hands of those who will keep their duty. I will march on the capitol and overthrow your government if you do not immediately send supplies and men to Helaman and myself.”

Moroni received a letter back from the chief judge along with limited supplies and men. In these dire times, a group of people who would rather be ruled by kings than law had taken the capitol and entered into an alliance with the enemy. At the moment of weakness, they proved themselves disloyal to their brethren.

The chief judge wasn’t certain whether God would support a war against treasonous brothers. However, Moroni’s letter made the situation clear, and he asked Moroni to assist him in taking back the capitol from the kingmen.

We live in a country where we tolerate the treasonous among us because we are strong enough that we can. We tolerate them, but we do not allow them to go unanswered!

President Bush has made it clear that the Democrats in congress have crossed a line from mere dissent to aiding the enemy. He has made it clear that their actions do not support the troops but undercut them. No longer is President Bush going to play nice with the Democrats–their loyalties do not lie with the American people and so cooperation is impossible.

As long as this war is distant, as long as the enemy we face is as pathetic as they are, the Democrats don’t really represent a true threat to our freedom. One day it may come to a point where the Democrats or people who think like them do challenge us in a critical time. Then we will take up arms, march on Washington D.C., and relieve the government of their duties in order to establish a new government that can defend our freedoms and liberties. That’s what the first and second amendments are there for. That time is not now, though.

I want my Democrat readers to think carefully about what they do in the future. We do not elect governments to serve themselves but the people. We do not want kings, we want servants in the nation’s capitol. Those Democrats in the house have shown themselves to be selfish. They put their own politics ahead of the needs of the people, they spend the people’s treasure on buying votes, and they do it all despite the fact that we are winning this war.

Y’know, you’d think that someone who just found out that a person’s wife has cancer might be a bit sympathetic. And normal human beings certainly are. I’m not an Edwards supporter, but I thought that they handled the announcement of Elizabeth’s cancer and John’s continuing to campaign with grace. It can’t have been an easy decision, but I’m glad we have John Edwards in the race, and I wish them the best. Anyway, someone seems to think this is the time to be an asshole.

Wife’s Cancer Returns; Edwards Returns to Campaign

Setting the tone early for assholery can’t be easy.

It’s a family decision, but I’m mystified by John and Elizabeth Edwards’ decision to stay in the Presidential race (story here). If I’m John Edwards–a man who’s already lost a child–I think I’d want to spend as much time with my family as a whole while caring for my wife, Elizabeth, whose cancer has returned and has spread to the bone and possibly her lung.

Well you’re not John Edwards; He’s a decent human being. He clearly has his wife’s blessing, and probably encouragement. We all knew this was going to happen. That righties would think that they should tell Democrats how to live their lives once again. It’s the same impulse that tells them to lecture gay men and lesbians that they shouldn’t be happy. It’s the same impulse that leads them to abstinence only education no matter what harm it does to children.

It only took Republicans 18 years to dump Gingrich after he left his wife for the sin of having cancer, and he probably won’t even win the nomination. So really they are in a position to lecture a Democrat to not do what his wife seems to have asked him to do.

It’s not like he needs a paycheck.

Most people running for President aren’t doing it for the money. He wants to make a difference.

Does he think the country can’t live without him or something?
If it were a choice between my husband campaigning for a promotion or sticking around and spending as much time with me and the kids while I battled cancer, he’d choose me.

What a crazy one that John Edwards. Thinking that it matters who is the president. And doing what his wife has given him her blessing to do.

Also Christ on the cross, not even hopeful words for Elizabeth’s future? Couldn’t even muster that?