Are terrorists evil?

Is it evil to behead innocent men? (See: here, here, here, and here) Are terrorists evil?

Who has said all along that terrorists are evil-doers? And who has tried all along to instead portray terrorists as a group of slightly misguided people who can be negotiated with and dealt with by law enforcement?

Who identified the terrorist threat right from the start as what it truly was? And who instead has been out of touch with reality?

Who is the right choice for President during this war?

Thank you, Liberals, for revealing one of our weaknesses...

"The bad, and entirely ignored, news [about the Bush interrogration documents] is that our most deadly enemies now know where the U.S. will draw the line should they fall into American hands." (Source)

This is another Mogadishu for Osama bin Laden.

What happened when Clinton yanked our troops out of Mogadishu at the first signs of something going wrong? Osama bin Laden used that little juicy tidbit as a promotional tool for al Qaeda, preaching that Americans are weak-spined and won't go very far to defend themselves.

What happened when Bush stuck to his word on Iraq? Osama bin Laden lost his propaganda tool because America was no longer the weak-spined country she was a decade earlier. Now, America is a force for terrorists to reckon with. (See: Gadhafi, Libya, surrender.)

What happened now that the terrorists know where we draw the line vis-a-vis torture? They're back in their post-Mogadishu, pre-Iraq mindset. They know that they are not bound by any rules, while we are.

AND THIS WAR CANNOT BE WON AS LONG AS WE ARE BOUND BY RULES AGAINST AN ENEMY THAT IS NOT.

"The incentive from now on will be for lawyers to provide internal counsel along the lines of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's infamous 1995 memo instructing FBI agents and federal prosecutors to go "beyond what the law requires" in limiting their collaboration against al Qaeda. We trust the folks who've forced this retreat stand ready to offer their mea culpas to the commission investigating the next major terrorist attack on the United States."

John Kerry would force America into another recession

This comes right out of the Wall Street Journal, one of the foremost sources and authorities on the economic and financial situation: John Kerry's policies would throw many poor people out of work.

In fact, the logic is so basic I don't even need to quote the article. If you raise the minimum wage as Kerry wishes to do (to $7 per hour), that doesn't mean that people who are now getting just $5.15 will suddenly be making $7 and prospering. In most cases, industries and businesses and corporations will decide that the employees making $5.15 aren't worth keeping at $7... and so will fire them. So the end result will be the for many, many poor people, instead of their wages going up as a result of the minimum wage being increased, their wages will decrease to the absolute minimum wage: zero dollars per hour.

What's the lesson in this? The government cannot control the economy. Only the market supply and demand can control the economy.

When does the War on Terror end?

Simple question, simple answer: when the terrorists no longer have any reason to commit terrorist attacks against America. When is that? Let's ask one of them:

"A recording purportedly made by Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi threatened to kill interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and fight the Americans 'until Islamic rule is back on Earth.'" (Source)

So what are the liberal peaceniks trying to say? They want to end the war. That means appeasing the terrorists (can anyone say "Neville Chamberlain"?) and letting "Islamic rule [be] back on Earth."

Come on, join me in saying it, all together now: "Allahu Akbar!"

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a tie!?

According to Election Projection 2004, it's an electoral tie at 269 votes apiece for both Bush and Kerry!

Speaking of Voting One's Conscience...

I read an excellent article this morning which, although from the conservative OpinionJournal, takes a very fair stance on the upcoming elections in light of what happened during 2000. (*cough* Florida *cough*)

Instead of "lawyering up," both parties should be working to prevent another Florida.

...

As the presidential campaigns pick up their brickbats again, it's time to look toward November and see if we might avoid recounts, lawsuits and challenges. But the campaigns are preparing for another Florida. "Both sides are lawyering up and we could see Florida-style challenges in every close state," says Doug Chapin of Electionline.org, which monitors electoral reforms.

The level of suspicion between the two parties is greater than ever. John Kerry says he believes Al Gore "won" the 2000 election and has assembled a team of 2,000 lawyers to "challenge anyplace in America where you cannot trace the vote and count the votes." Republicans have their own legal team to combat fake voter registrations, absentee-ballot fraud and residents of nursing homes being overly "assisted" to cast votes. Maria Cardona of the New Democrat Network dismisses such concerns, saying "ballot security and preventing voter fraud are just code words for voter intimidation and suppression." Liberal legal groups are suing to set aside laws in some of the 11 states that require photo ID at the polls on the grounds they discriminate against the poor and minorities.

...

In a rare example of bipartisan agreement, Reps. Rush Holt (D., N.J.) and Tom Davis (R., Va.) both back amending HAVA to require voting systems to produce a verifiable paper record. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supports a Senate version of the idea, says another contested election will cause people to "fundamentally lose confidence in our democracy and in their vote."

...

Mr. Gore's decision to contest the Florida election in 2000 until the bitter end may have permanently changed the way close elections are decided, in much the same way that judicial nomination battles have changed. If the election is close this November, endless lawsuits and recriminations could poison of public opinion and create a climate of illegitimacy around any final winner. Voters are used to having the final word in an election. Let's take steps to keep it that way, so we can minimize the use of scorched-earth tactics of trial lawyers to settle elections. The Floridification of our politics isn't something anyone should want.

Whatever happened to the "bleeding heart"?

"This man Reagan was 93 years old and out of it with Alzheimer's for many years and I don't see how anybody can summon grief. They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity."
-Jimmy Breslin

Jimmy, say what you mean: you don't see how any liberal can summon grief for a man you despised, in life and now in death. People like you are taking the "bleeding heart" out of "bleeding heart liberal" and showing us what cold-hearted fiends liberals really are.

Update: And how is that different from what Karthik Kota is doing at that website of liberal freaks?

What WMD?

WorldTribune.com is reporting:

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

But wait, what WMD? I thought he had none?

Just goes to show... the Democrats are on the wrong side of history, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Is George W. Bush a great President?

Regardless of current political persuasion, those politically minded will find James Taranto's editorial in the OpinionJournal particularly strong in its historical analysis:

"George W. Bush could eventually end up joining the ranks of the greats. The three great presidents [George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt] have three things in common: All faced unprecedented challenges, all responded to them boldly, and all ultimately were successful. Mr. Bush so far meets two of these criteria: History dealt him an unprecedented challenge in the form of the 9/11 attacks, and no one can deny that he answered it with boldness. If he is able to overcome the current troubles in Iraq, and if he succeeds in his mission of combating Islamist terror by promoting democracy in the Middle East, history will be far kinder to him than are his contemporary critics."

In other words, regardless of current political screeching on both sides of the aisle, history will be the true judge of President George W. Bush, just as history has accurately judged the aforementioned three great presidents. Now, assuming that the judgement is the most favorable one possible:

"Should this happen, the reputations of his predecessors are likely to suffer, for they will come to be seen as having failed to address the problems that came to a head on 9/11. Both Lincoln and FDR were preceded by a series of presidents who today are held in low esteem: Zachary Taylor (who ranks 31st), Millard Fillmore (35th), Franklin Pierce (37th) and James Buchanan (39th); and Warren Harding (37th, tied with Pierce), Calvin Coolidge (25th) and Herbert Hoover (29th). The former group allowed the issue of slavery to fester until it nearly destroyed the nation; the latter, fairly or not, are blamed for the Depression."

Who are the predecessors of George W. Bush? The ones relevant to the topic of terrorism are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, as well as George H. W. Bush. (Reagan may end up somewhat immune to the terrorism topic because his forte was fighting and winning the Cold War.) What have Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton done to fight terrorism? Taranto has his own, slightly different take on the matter:

"George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton are likely to bear the brunt for not dealing decisively with the gathering terrorist threat. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan can also be faulted here, but Mr. Reagan's reputation is probably secure, since it rests on other accomplishments, and Mr. Carter doesn't have much farther to fall."

And on one final, very interesting note:

"Those who believe that history runs in cycles will be interested to note that the three great presidents took office at 72-year intervals--Washington in 1789, Lincoln in 1861 and FDR in 1933--and that this November it will have been exactly 72 years since the election of our last great president."

Originally posted on http://www.calimacala.blogspot.com/.

Where have they gone?

Do you ever find yourself wondering where those liberal freaks have gone? Do you ever wonder why they haven't posted in the past day?

The liberal freaks, I am sad to say, are taking after Ted Kennedy tonight.