Let's Give Our Brains the Boot: Progressive War on Blue Dog Dems


The Progressive/Emotional/Reactionary/Socialist wing of the Democratic party is up to there mnd numbing revolutionary practices again. This time they are trying to eat some of their own, the Blue Dog Dems or the Conservative side of the Democratic party. This recent attack is brought to you by Glenn Greenwald, a writer for the Salon, in his article, "Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot."

If you are not familiar with the Blue Dogs, here is a little history, via Wikipedia.
"Blue Dog Democrat" is playfully derived from the original term Yellow Dog Democrat. It was former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren who said that the members had been "choked blue" by those "extreme" Democrats, from the left. Thus, he is credited for coining the term Blue Dog Democrat.

The term is also a reference to the "Blue Dog" paintings of Cajun artist George Rodrigue of Lafayette, Louisiana. The original members of the coalition would regularly meet in the offices of Louisiana representatives Billy Tauzin and Jimmy Hayes, both of whom had Rodrigue's paintings on their walls (and both of whom later switched to the Republican Party). [1]
Here is what their stances tend to be.
Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than the DLC. Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many are strong supporters of gun rights and receive high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions. [1]
Mr. Greenwald starts his analysis of why he figures the Progressive led Congress is such an abysmal failure. Of course it tends to be along party lines, but that is expected.
The Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has been every bit as passive, impotent and complicit as the Congress of Bill Frist and Denny Hastert was. Worse, in contrast to the Frist/Hastert-led Congress, which at least had the excuse that it enabled a wartime president from its own party while he enjoyed high approval ratings, the Reid/Pelosi Congress has capitulated to every presidential whim despite an "opposition party" president who is now one of the most unpopular in modern American history.

If, after spending two years accommodating one extremist policy after the next favored by the right, congressional Democrats become further entrenched in their power by winning even more seats, what would one expect them to do other than conclude that this approach works and therefore continue to pursue it? [2]
Then he goes straight for the jugular of the Blue Dogs, not even taking a breath to point out why they are the ones "capitulating" to the "extremist policies" of the right. I was utterly amazed at how quickly the Progressives want to offer up a sacrificial lamb, or should I say dog.

Here is "Che" Greenwald's answer to the problem.
At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to -- or actively embrace -- the right's agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative "Blue Dog" contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress. [2]
The shear idiocy of some of these Progressive elitists is astounding. They can never simply admit when they are wrong or their policies have failed. Comrade Greenwald is a fine example of his movement's inability to accept they are a social experiment that has failed and need to place blame on those in their party who are more balanced in their approaches to politics.

This seemingly strange phenomena can only be tied to the rise of Obama as the Progressive boy king. Now, they feel empowered and validated so it is time to march on and purge the party of those right leaning Dems. As usual when someone does not act like they do or has another viewpoint there is a call for their head. This is always preceded by Progressive feet stamping and whining, much like you see with a 5 year old. The political immaturity they display is jaw dropping at times.

From a partisan aspect, I hope this rebellion continues and the Progressives wage war on their more conservative counterparts. Election time is always perfect to spur party fractioning, sarcasm intended. Not only could this be a resurrection of the 80's Reagan Democrats, also it could cause Obama to lose the general election. Think about those who you vote to lead, you just might get people like these taking your country down the proverbial toilet.


[1] Blue Dog Coalition
[2] Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot

P.S. Something of interest, if you happen to go to the link for the particular Salon article look at the end of it and what it says. Thought Progressives had nothing but love in their hearts for everyone?
Continue reading ...

Patriotism Defined


What does it mean to be a "patriot?" This is a question that has been arising much as of late, from the implications of Bush totalitarianism to Obama Marxism and everything in-between. The good ole American Heritage Dictionary puts the definition of a patriot as plain and simple as this, "One who loves, supports, and defends one's country. " The only problem is it does not explain how you can love, support, and defend one's country, there are a multitude of ways, based on your objectivity. But there has to be one way that is correct or one that is at least as close to correct as you are going to get.

From my experiences around the world a patriot is not a flag waver, not a revolutionary, not a soldier, not an activist. A patriot is a person who gets out of bed and faces the day's challenges, not fearful of the outcome. They are the people who are willing to look past all that is shallow and meaningless and make themselves better, because in the end it makes their country better. They are also the people who embrace their past, bad and good, but do not wallow in it or use it for personal gain. A patriot remembers the wisdom and sacrifice of those who came before them and seeks to build on their valuable lessons. They are honest with themselves about their strengths as well as their shortcomings. They seek to better who they are and are thankful for the opportunity to do so. The patriot knows that they have a responsibility to protect and nurture those who are innocent or are incapable of caring for themselves. Above all else, the patriot knows that there will be a time when the wolf is at the door, they must face it head on and do what is necessary to protect their country, the people, and the way of life they love.

These are the things that I have seen in most Americans. Through racial strife, economic hardship, and military conflict many of these attitudes have survived and are what is the best in America. Unfortunately, it is dying.

Whether the American people like it or not we are in a struggle for our national identity. We are stuck between being a willing participant in the global community or a sovereign nation. The path we chose will be the one that will more than likely define the path the rest of the world takes. So, this decision is one which we should not take very lightly, for ourselves and our children.

Continue reading ...

Global Warming, More Gore-Bull or Actual Fact?


While catching up on my back log of news junkyism, I came across an article posted on PoliPundit from Daily Tech. Basically, it talked about the American Physical Society, a group that represents about 50 thousand physicists and how they have reversed their stance on climate change. The article is titled," Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate."

Across the scientific communities there seems to be disagreement about the causes of climate change.

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." [1]

Also, there is the question about the validity of the methods used by the IPCC and its 2007 climate report.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors" [1]

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe there is something amiss with the environment. There is to much evidence to convince me otherwise. But, does this mean that all the "apoco-literature" about the end of civilization as we know it and it being mankind's fault is true? A resounding, "HELL NO!"

Mankind contributes about 5% of the CO2 emissions that are presently at work. If we are in the "end times" we have no control. Even if we staved off and cut our percentage of CO2 emissions down to nil, what would it buy us? Maybe a few years of the world we once knew? That is like going through chemo-therapy to extend your life another 3 months, it just doesn't make any sense.

Here is the rub about global warming and the Armageddon scenarios, fear sells. Remember the Y2K bug? How many companies profited from fear mongering there. In another article from Daily Tech, titled IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming ,the IAE is calling for a $45 trillion dollar plan to halve carbon emissions.

On Friday, the Paris-based IEA released its formal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The cost? A mere 45 trillion dollars -- an amount some three times larger than the entire U.S. economy. [2]
There are a few problems though.

And because the plan grabs all the "low hanging fruit" in carbon reductions, the amount needed to complete the job wouldn't just be double that $45 trillion, but far higher. [2]

Worse still, the report only covers emissions from energy production -- the much larger amount arising from agriculture, transportation, land-use changes, and other factors weren't included. [2]
As I have stated in the past, alternative energy sources, conservation, cleaning up existing environmental problems, and using technology to better our environment are all worthwhile and sensible. But these tactics being used by the far left eco-terrorists amount to nothing more than the same tactics they accuse the present administration of for getting us involved in Iraq. They are hypocritical despotic megalomaniacs who are driven by a need to find any reason to increase government control over the masses. They are taking something worthwhile that needs our attention and turning it into something that will inevitably backfire on them. People will be so sick and tired of the "clean up the environment" movement, nothing will ever get done.


[1] Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
[2] IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming
Continue reading ...

Semtex, Go Boom!! So, You Might Want to Find it!


Over at Bob McCarty Writes, a disturbing story was brought to our attention. It seems that the BBC broke a story which, to my knowledge, has not even been reported here in the States. It involved the theft of 61lbs of Semtex and detonators. The article is titled, "French search for stolen Semtex," and is featured on the BBC website.

Semtex according to the report was created in Czech Republic and was used in mining and demolition operations. It is also odorless, difficult to detect, and is a favorite of terrorist groups. If Semtex sounds familiar to you might recall it was used to bring down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Terrorists only used about a half of a kilogram, or 1.1 lbs., in that attack.

Continue reading ...

Those Crazy California Nuts


The enviro-left is at it again. This time they are trying to label the best enviro friendly cars, trucks, and SUV's in California. We all know we aren't smart enough to figure out which vehicles are the best for economy or the environment. Now, what this article doesn't mention is that the labels can be removed once the car is purchased from a dealership, so there is a mild plus side.
California is making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores, figures that take into account emissions from vehicle use and fuel production. [1]

The labeling law forces cars for sale to display a global warming score, on a scale of one to 10, which is based on how vehicles in the same model year compare to one another. The higher the score, the cleaner a car is. The score takes into account emissions related to production of fuel for each vehicle as well as the direct emissions from vehicles. [1]

My main problem with this is it is another attempt of government regulation and encroachment into something stupid. We are all smart enough to figure out that a Hummer is less efficient than a Prius. I don't need Uncle Sam or the elitist, Berkley dwelling, Birkenstock wearing, eco-terrorists holding my hand like a five year old.

The government needs to be worried about how to lower fuel prices (Don't try and snow job me and tell me this will solve our energy problems either), dealing with our security, and our infrastructure. Let the market regulate this, more than enough people are informed consumers and there are more than enough outlets that a person can find information about vehicles.

Now here is where our European friends are going to help the government make a buck off of this. I knew there had to be a money trail in here somewhere. I am sure our pinheads, on this side of the pond, will take a cue an try and make this green more about the color of money than the environment.

A law endorsed by the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations. The law would exclude certain types of vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks. [1]

I do not give much credence to Global Warming cultists, nor do I give them much airtime on this blog. But, when they use their scare tactics as a tool to increase the size of government and its control I have a major problem with that. This is a very very small example of what we can expect in the coming years, if we let this go unchecked.


[1] New Cars in California Must Display Global Warming Score
Continue reading ...

The Mid-East and the U.S., I-gnorance E-xplored D-eeply


I am tired of the incisive whining about how America needs to understand the plight of these poor terrorists. How many times does it need to be explained. Terrorism in the Middle East is not some new phenom. Gasp!!! You mean it wasn't created by the imperialistic ways of the United States oppressing a down-trodden people and being Pro-Israeli? Why no, it was not.

Rami G. Khouri, a staff writer for the Daily Star, wrote an Op-ed titled, "The US in the Mideast: ignorance abroad." A stunning display of excuses, ignorance and blame as to why the poor oppressed "freedom fighters," better known as terrorists, are all our fault.

I have argued for years now that a new spirit of populist defiance, resistance and self-assertion is the single most important strategic development in the Middle East. Large numbers of Arabs, Iranians and Turks - hundreds of millions of people - have shed their legacy of passive acquiescence in their own suffering, weakness, marginalization and victimization. Instead, they are determined to take their fate into their own hands, and to challenge and checkmate those who would keep them in their previous vulnerable, dehumanized state. [1]
Interesting, we have kept them in a "dehumanized state" and they have shed their passive acquiescence. How poetic. You know history has a way of clarifying ignorance, so let's get some fired up.

Terrorism is nothing new to the Middle East, in fact it has its roots as far back as the 8th Century with an esoteric group known as the Hashshashin. Or as we know the etymology today, assassin. This secret group of "Holy Killers," and I use the term very loosely, had it starts in Persia, or modern day Iran, ironically. They were created because of Sunni oppression of their particular Shia Muslim sect. Now if this sounds like it is straight out of the Illuminati files, sorry to disappoint, this is real pure history at its best.

They were extremely deadly killers even rumored to entered into Saladin's tent in the heart of his camp, and leaving a poisoned cake and a note saying "You are in our power" on Saladin's chest as he slept. They got results through cultivating a reputation of fear and terror. This was one of their hallmarks and what is made them legendary in certain circles. All of their killings were in a public place, usually a Mosque, and highly visible. Now, unlike their modern day contemporaries, they only killed their target, collateral damage was unacceptable.

What does this have to do with Mr. Khouri's article? Just showing him and the blame crew, terror in the Mid-East is nothing new. The art has been perfected to a razor's edge for almost 1200 years. By my math, that was almost 1,000 years, give or take, before the existence of the United States or Israel.

I loved this one so much it damn near made me fall out of my chair laughing.

Most of the Arab public believes that the US attacked Iraq in order to help strengthen Israel, and Arabs see Israel and the US as the two main threats to them. Israel and the US are connected in the minds of most Arabs "in a way which makes anger with one hard to separate from the other." [1]

How's about the oppressive regimes they live under are their greatest threats. Let's look at Saudi Arabia, a fine example. There GDP sits at about $564 billion (2007 est.), oil making up about 45% of this. Yet their official unemployment rate sits at about 13%, while some estimates have it as high as 25%. Nearly 40% of their population is youth under the age of 15 and they are highly uneducated and lack technical skills. Yet this is somehow the U.S. and Israel's fault. We keep them down by buying their oil.

Now let's explore Iran; GDP sits at $753 billion, oil making up 80% of their government revenue. GDP per capita is only $10,600 and unemployment sits at about 12%. Also, about 18% of the population sits below the poverty line. Since Iran's economy is state controlled and their is little to no private sector, most of their educated and skilled members look for employment over seas. Again, it is our fault.

Most tyrannical and despotic governments look for a scape goat to blame their problems on. In this case, the West and Israel are the perfect targets. The hatred they have inspired against us only serves to hide their ineptitude and failures. This is not to say that America and Israel have not made some grave policy mistakes when it comes to the Middle East, but, we are hardly the root of their suffering. Until these populations wake up and see that their own governments have failed them, their only contribution to civilization will be martyrdom, I.E.D.'s, and death. A sad epitaph considering this is the same society which gave us algebra and made significant strides in astronomy, art, technology, and philosophy.

The US in the Mideast: ignorance abroad
Continue reading ...

Fortune Telling and The Future Fight With Iran


One of the things I have tried to stay away from is speculation and conjecture. But at the end of the day, this has been a fairly unsuccessful attempt. It's very hard not to have an opinion about the future when consuming so much news and connecting the dots. The re-occurring theme of late is the potential American and Iranian conflict.

The immanency and fear of this attack is even being echoed by Tehran itself. The Iranian government is now sending out staunch warnings to the West and Israel.

"Even a slightest hint [on a possibility of the attack] will lead to an increase [in global oil prices] by $10-15, but in case of a real aggression against Iran, the oil prices will rise to unpredictable highs," Gholamhossein Nozari told reporters in Tehran. [1]
But, the Iranians still seem to hold out hope that the United States will not risk military involvement with Iran because we are “bogged down” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, on a July 2 visit to UnitedNations headquarters in New York, told journalists he thinks neither the United States nor Israel will risk what he called the "craziness" of attacking Iran. Mottaki said officials in Tehran think such an attack is unlikely because U.S. forces are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mottaki also said "constructive staements and approaches," as well as an earlier proposal by Iran, had "paved the way" for creating a more positive diplomatic atmosphere. But he also issued a warning that "if the nature of the offense changes and takes on a military shape and form, then the military will use its own language and speak in its own language." "Our preference is that the environment remains political and diplomatic so that we can find diplomatic solutions as a priority," Mottaki said. [2]

Although, a lot of tough talk, I will give the Iranians this, they might just be seeing the light. At the very least they are trying flex at Washington while leaving the door for diplomacy open. Despite their bellowing, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had a little bit of a different message about potential U.S. military action and the road of diplomacy.

At the Pentagon, the chairman of the U.S. Joint chiefs of Staff, U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, said Tehran has reached the wrong conclusion if it thinks
the United States is unable to back diplomacy with military force. Still, Mullen admitted that war with Iran would be a logistical challenge for U.S. forces. Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," Mullen said. "That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve. But that would really be very challenging. And also the consequences of that sometimes are very difficult to predict." [2]

I prefer Mullen’s attitude to any I have seen or heard so far. He is being very pragmatic about the situation. He does understand the need for a diplomatic solution, but, the military option is still there, looming. As this situation takes shape and if the Iranians still remain stubborn, I fear we will be looking at a possible military confrontation with them.

The Iranians have been playing this proxy war with the U.S. and Israel for years. They have also been quite successful with it. But, with their renewed boldness in the past few years and their growing need to be a player in the international community they are placing themselves into a precarious situation. This war will not be fought in the shadows; it will be up front and in their faces. Everything the Mullahs in Iran know will be destroyed or changed in a way they will not want or appreciate. This is not a statement of American arrogance or cowboyism; it is just a fact of reality.

No one with any sense wants a war, but sometimes you have to step up and do what is right. The implications of an American/Iranian conflict will be far reaching and it is very difficult to predict the political and social outcomes, but if it does happen there will be great changes in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The question is what will those changes be?


[1] Iran warns of sharp increase in oil prices if attacked
[2] U.S., Iran Downplay Talk Of War Over Nuclear Dispute

Continue reading ...

Israel, Hezbollah, and Left Wing Blogs


While cruising some of my favorite right wing blogs, I came upon an article posted on American Power, a conservative website that I often frequent, it is run by Professor Donald Douglas . I highly recommend reading it, the commentary is fairly insightful and interesting. One article caught my eye, Firedoglake Cheers Hezbollah's Military Power.

The article itself is about Firedoglake's admiration of the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. Out of fairness, I went to the Firedoglake's blogsite and read the article, to see what the Professor was talking about. Firedoglake does make some excellent points and the article is almost thought provoking about Hezbollah's development. But, they have made some serious blunders in their critique of the Israeli/Lebanese/Hezbollah conflict of 2006. Whether they are blinded by partisanship, anti-Semitism, or just plain ignorance, the mistakes in their analysis are not hard to pick apart.

No one with any sort of common sense would ever state that Hezbollah has not achieved a new level of strategic thinking and implementation of tactics. But the real question that remains is how? This is largely due to the Syrian and Iranian logistics support and training. It seems that Firedoglake is trying to imply that Hezbollah, through grand insight and fortitude, has developed these resources they used against Israel, all by themselves. The keyword in this scenario is "Iran," with Syria as the pipeline. Hardly a personal achievement for our vaunted "freedom fighters."

Secondly, Firedoglake has gone on to imply that it was Hezbollah that defeated Israel. This is possibly the greatest blunder that anyone can make in this assessment. Quite the contrary, it was Israel that defeated Israel.

Israel was stuck in a deterrence mind frame for many years after the 2000 withdrawl from Lebanon. They were constantly worried about an escalation of a second front with Syria. Because of that, they endured many border incursions and harassment by Hezbollah. Also, many of Israel's own military commanders believed that minimal military force and diplomacy would be all that was required to defeat Hezbollah. Chief of the Northern Command Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, is quoted as saying, "There is nothing that can be solved just by the military … There is a need for a diplomatic solution," adding, "I do not believe that anyone wants to go back into Lebanon." This attitude has rung deeply in the Israeli upper chain for many years now.

After the abduction of two of its soldiers, Israel had enough. On July 12th, 2006 the Israelis started their assault on Lebanon and Hezbollah. But this is where the problems for Israel truly surfaced. Most of the Israeli generals felt that this would be a small border skirmish, rather than a full on conventional military campaign. There was very little planning for conventional operations inside of Lebanon as well.

Israel, also, relied too heavily on its air power. For the longest time, the Israelis believed their ground forces to be the key to victory. After the American bombardment of Kuwait in the 1990’s and its devastating results many strategists considered air power to be the new way of warfare. Israel had become fixated on air power and diverted funding from proper development of its ground forces and funneled it in to the Israel Air Force.

When fighting fifth column assets such as Hezbollah, you do not strike from the air as your primary means of warfare. You need boots on the ground that are properly trained and properly equipped to handle the situation. Then there is the concept of overwhelming numbers. The Israeli government severely underestimated the resolve of its people. Vice premier in 2005, Olmert said, "We are tired of fighting; we are tired of being courageous; we are tired of winning; we are tired of defeating our enemies." This attitude, in turn, kept the Israeli army from committing the necessary number of troops and held them up from pushing to far into Lebanon. This gave Hezbollah a lot of latitude to move around, rather than box them in and inevitably destroy them. Much of the Israeli population was willing to escalate the war in order to destroy Hezbollah, once and for all. For some reason the government overlooked this and continued with there botched strategy and tactics.

As with most subjects there is far more to develop and investigate. You also have the lack of an effective missile defense against the Katyusha rockets. Note, it was the success of these rockets hitting populated areas in Northern Israel which gave Hezbollah the reason to claim victory. Then there was the fact that many units lacked the latest and greatest intelligence about Hezbollah capabilities and positions. The list goes on and on.

Israel missed a golden opportunity to eliminate one of its greatest threats and strengthen the government of Lebanon. Their loss had little to do with Hezbollah’s newly derived capabilities, but more with Israel’s attitude and lack of preparation for their war with Hezbollah. This is not meant to undercut Hezbollah’s threat or development, but just to add a dose of reality about Hezbollah "teaching the world how to fight." If anyone taught anybody anything, it was Israel. Their lack of preparation and deterrence mind set were a recipe for disaster. Hopefully, this lesson showed our own military planners and government how not to handle future and present conflicts with insurgent based enemies.


Firedoglake Cheers Hezbollah's Military Power

The Hidden Army: Hezbollah Teaches the World How to Fight
Continue reading ...

Copyright © Politics and Critical Thinking Design by BTDesigner | Blogger Theme by BTDesigner | Powered by Blogger