Yes, Hezbollah loves the Democrats because Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq and hand them a victory. And yes, they love the Democrats because they know the Democrats will never intervene in Iran to prevent illiterate, anti-Semitic, 7th Century, suicidal, fanatic, jihadists from playing with nuclear bombs. And yes, Hezbollah loves the Democrats because they know they will take a much softer line on their presence in Lebanon. And oh yes, they worship the Democrats because they know that in an effort to buy votes they will keep America's borders wide open so they can bring in WMDs whenever they want. But most importantly, Hezbollah loves the Democrats because they share a common belief in gov't; not in freedom from gov't.
Interestingly, most of the fisherman in Hezbollah controlled southern Lebanon are Christian. In recent elections they have mostly not voted. When asked, " why," they have mostly responded, "they won't do anything for us." And they are right. Hezbollah only does things for anti-Semitic Muslims who are willing to store Katusha rockets in their living rooms. The notion that govt is there exclusively to do things for people is purely Democratic. It is what has plagued the Middle East and mankind for eternity. The contrary Jeffersonian Republican view that gov't should exist only to guarantee or insure the natural state of freedom from gov't, is completely foreign to them, and seemingly beyond their intellect. Republicans reason that gov't can't really do anything for people since gov't doesn't have resources except those it steals disproportionately from its various subject constituencies. What it can do then, they reason, is merely take from one constituency and give to another, and thus automatically produce hostility, war, or other unwanted or unintended consequences.
So how could world peace ever be possible when the Democrats, Hezbollah, and Christian Lebanese fisherman legitimize the role of gov't only to the extent that it can "do" nice things for people at the expense of other people? If every group on earth looks to gov't to provide for it their specific needs at the expense of some other group, how is peace possible given that different groups will inevitably resist and ultimately make war over it? In short, Democratic gov't is a perfect formula for war. Thomas Jefferson founded America, specifically, to avoid Democrats. The often heard charge that Democrats are anti-American or unpatriotic is rooted in their disbelief regarding freedom.
In America the top 1% of income earners pay 20% of all Federal Taxes and yet Democrats always want to tax the rich more because there are fewer rich voters than poorer voters. In communist Russia people believed that the gov't could create a communist nirvana wherein the average man would enjoy great wealth when not exploited by the rich. In Nazi Germany people believed the gov't could rebuild a shattered economy and stand up to international enemies who had humiliated them. In Southern Lebanon Hezbollah supporters believe gov't can resist Israeli aggression even years after Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon. In Ancient Rome people believed that the gov't could provide them wealth by always conquering and enslaving more and more foreigners. In America, Democrats believed gov't welfare could help Blacks by stealing money from Whites. It made Whites angry and amounted to a near genocide against Blacks. The philosophical belief in gov't theft, as Thomas Jefferson knew well, had always ended in tragedy for those whose limited intellect could just not understand freedom. America was to be nothing if not a reaction to this. Freedom , he believed, was a reasonable goal that all of human kind could share, and that could lead slowly to a genuine, sustainable peace and prosperity on earth. Freedom is inherently peaceful and loving while the Democratic belief in gov't regulated theft is intrinsically and essentially a belief in eternal war.
The Democrats can have no peace plan at home or in the Middle East because they believe in gov't; gov't with a purpose that inevitably goes to war with another constituency or gov't with its' own arbitrary and conflicting purposes. They can't articulate a foreign policy position anywhere because they only believe in gov't: the very thing causing the need for a foreign policy in the first place. Promoting freedom, and capitalism here and abroad is anathema to them in the end because it contradicts their most essential superstitious belief in the supposed horrors of freedom. Somehow, to them, free or capitalistic exchanges between people that result in greater and greater wealth for all are inferior to dictatorial exchanges between people that throughout human history have resulted in poverty, hostility, and war.
Democrats have a desultory sympathy for American Blacks, Palestinians, Jews, Israelis, Soviet peasants, and Communists revolutionaries alike. Their heart bleeds for so many constituencies that they don't know who or what needy constituency to support; so in the end they support nothing, which is inevitably where their argument leads them. Republicans support freedom; not special interest constituencies. They know right from wrong while Democrats need to impotently retreat as special interest groups all around the world present competing and confusing claims for more and more gov't power.
It goes without saying at this point that President Bush has botched the 9/11 period, but oddly this may not provide an opening for the Democrats because Americans sense there is something wrong when, despite the huge Republican tactical failure, the Democrats can't think of a strategy other than to retreat against an enemy who has demonstrated a fanatical, suicidal inclination to follow us, and kill 10 million of us, no matter to where we retreat.
In a very real sense America can't win in the Middle East or anywhere in the world because of the Democrats. How can we promote freedom there when the majority party here, with the most officious voice in the history of mankind, does not believe in it? They are content to leave powerful and often evil gov'ts in place that will inevitably make war, first on their neighbors and ultimately on America. In the end, Hezbollah's program for Southern Lebanon is little different from the Democrat's failed program for Black Americans. They both involve the use of gov't to promote one faction over another. They don't promote freedom, the one thing that all human beings might agree on more than anything in the absence of powerful propaganda from the Democrats and their assorted anti-Jeffersonian allies all over the world. The results seem very obvious.
Imagine how easy the intellectual battle would have been in the cold war if the Democrats believed in freedom and capitalism. We won despite speaking with two voices only by a miracle. It is perfectly clear from all of human history that a people who sit around and wait for the gov't to make their lives right will do miserably compared to a people who abandon gov't theft and take individual responsibility for their own lives. In a free society everyone is working with the same purpose and in the same direction; not waiting and hoping and dreaming that gov't will someday steal for them all that they need. Democrats hate this notion because it conflicts with their belief that surely one day somewhere in human history there will be powerful and yet magically wonderful gov't that produces peace and prosperity.
Is there a Democrat anywhere today who recognizes that freedom, rather than gov't sponsored wars in the Middle East, is the only solution? Of course not. The Democrats and Hezbollah share the most important thing in practice, namely, a belief in the value of eternal and arbitrary gov't factions despite the inevitable constant state of war between those factions that this creates. Instead of looking inward to build their own lives, families , and careers they are looking outward to make war; to steal what they should do legitimate work to obtain. So the next American election then becomes a catch 22: vote against the Republicans for botching the war for freedom, or for the Democrats who lack the intellect to even understand freedom.
In a very real sense American Democrats are responsible for all the chaos in the world. They might have unified behind Jefferson and the Republicans to teach people like those in Lebanon, or the Congo, that the gov't doesn't matter so long as it supports freedom. Instead the Congolese riot in the street resisting election results because the Democrats have taught them only that they need a powerful gov't to act or steal on their behalf. They have no concept of freedom whatsoever thanks to our beloved Democrats who have taught much of the world that what ever good happens must happen because of gov't, and at the expense of some other evil constituency. Democrats threaten to destroy the last vestiges of Jeffersonian thinking on earth while unknowingly and unwittingly deriving their irrational existence from some odd combination of Louis XVI, Karl Marx, and the fairy god mother.
Democratic intellectuals psychotically cope with their anti-Americanism by simply lying about it. They have to because Jefferson succeeded in teaching us that freedom is good. Even a Berkley linguistics professor knows he cannot unteach this. So what to do? In a new book out called "Whose Freedom: the war over America's greatest idea" written by the aforementioned Berzerkly, CA linguistics professor we are shown what to do. In the professor's obfuscatory view the socialist, liberal, tax and spend, nanny state exists to promote freedom; not kill it. In short, to him and most Democrats, if Blacks are given welfare they are free not to work, and if Romans Emperors and Generals conquer Europe they too are free not to work. The sole and exclusive treason here is to pretend that Jefferson did not define freedom to be freedom from the greatest scourge in human history, i.e., government. By redefining or stealing the word freedom this way Democrats and all their Hezbollah allies all over the world, are trying to steal the very concept of America.
Another Democratic intellectual, Thomas Franks, has had a book on the best seller list for over a year. For him too, and all Democrats, the first order of business is to destroy Jeffersonian freedom with pure lies. In a recent NY Times editorial he quoted one of President Reagan's statements that neatly explained Reagan's Jeffersonian view of gov't: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help", and then, to pick another representative and well known example, he quoted the libertarian P.J. O'Rourke who said: "even the proceedings at a New England town meeting were a form of thievery". Of course, there were millions of other quotes and examples he could might have cited . The most notable example of course is all of human history prior to Jefferson and America. Or, he might have quoted Reagan when he said, "isn't Welfare a form of slavery".
More recent examples might include Medicare, Social Security, and Katrina. Franks lures you in by seeming to have the intelligence to know the rhetoric of freedom but then instantly reverts to his deeply ingrained anti-American superstitions by asking: "What happens when the machinery of the state falls into the hands of people who laugh at the function for which it was designed"? It seems that Jefferson designed American government to promote freedom while Franks, Christian fisherman, Hezbollah, Congolese rioters, Communists, Roman Emperors, European Kings, and Democrats blindly need to treasonously pretend exactly the opposite. So importunate Republicans must always ask, "why do we allow Democrats to steal the very concept of America from us?"
Ted Baiamonte
bje1000@aol.com
11:32 FRI
8.01.2006
What's Really Happening In Lebanon
Simple:
The United States is being and has always been stupid about the Middle East. For 50 years we have offered blind support to Israel that they have used mostly to steal Palestinian land rather than to live defensively within, miraculously given, internationally recognized borders. While the hour is late and the situation has been aggravated to the point of suicidal hysteria it is never too late to do the right thing and possibly create peace as follows:
1) Tell Israel that not one more penny will be forthcoming unless they build a defensive wall at the internationally recognized 1967 borders, and live peacefully behind that wall except to counter attacks over the wall. When living behind legitimate borders Israel will have the legitimate right to attack those who attack them, and in so doing will also help us by weakening the Islamo-Fascist militias (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood) that threaten us directly and the oil producing status quo in the Middle East.
2) Demand the rest of the world finally take a position to either support and defend the 1967 boundaries, push Israel into the sea, or shut up and be cowardly, impotent bystanders forever. Once the United States has finally taken a clear, simple, practical, and moral position the entire world will no longer be so confused, befuddled and frightened by the Israeli trick of presenting the Middle East to us as a very technical, complicated region of the world in which only they can navigate. Murderous fools hating and killing each other is neither technical nor complex.
Many countries led by the US will defend the UN sanctioned 1967 borders. All the preposterous rhetoric, arguments, speeches and garbage coming out of the mouths of the combatants will be instantly irrelevant and superfluous. We won’t have to hear about water rights, Shabaa Farms, right of return, judifying Jerusalem, who got there first, who attacked first, or what holy book fanatics think, anymore. The Israelis will have no arguments and the Muslims will have one remaining argument that will sound silly even to them: Allah demands that we drive the Jews into the sea.
Of course if this had all happened 40 years ago the Muslims would have had time to forget about their neighbors on the other side of the internationally created, defended, and justified wall, and go on with their lives with or without massive international aid. Sadly, 40 years of American stupidity and Israeli aggression has caused a metastatic hatred across much of the world, and worse, Muslims now have long range rockets that they can fire over the wall and, one day soon, over the oceans. Nevertheless, clear, simple, honest, and moral language and a clear, simple, honest, and moral way to think about the problem is the best place to begin, even if it’s late in the game. The US must become an honest peace broker rather than remain as a blind, dumb supporter of Israel. An honest broker can be an effective advocate for peace while a partisan broker is someone in whom Muslims will have an ever growing hatred. And, “ever” can be a long deadly time when you’re talking about a suicidally fanatic people with trillions of petrodollars with which to develop WMD and delivery systems.
More blind support for Israel as it destroys the entire nation of Lebanon, with American weapons, seems like nothing more than an exact continuation of the same policy that has failed so horribly for 50 years. This seems especially true when you consider that Shiite Hizbullah is what emerged from Lebanon the last time Israel destroyed it. And even more true, if that’s possible, given that this time the US has opened up its own front against the Shiites in Iraq thus making Western and US imperialism more obvious to the entire world, and to the pan-Arabic world in particular which has always hated and feared US imperialism but which may not have been absolutely convinced of it even by Osama Bin Laden’s attack on 9/11.
In Bush’s neo-con zeal to chart a new course from Clinton’s very engaged course he immediately pronounced, upon taking office, that there would be no peace between Israel and Palestine until they were ready to make peace. That “who gives a damn” attitude toward a horrid, suppurative war, the continued blind support for Israel, the preplanned and executed attack on Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, the current blind support for Israel as it destroys Lebanon, and the galvanizing effect on both sides of 9/11, have all virtually insured that only a military solution to our differences with the Muslims is possible. If Bush had supported a wall at the 1967 borders with Clinton’s persistent sensitivity and had not attacked Iraq, things might have been very different, but no one can be sure. When Arafat walked away from Clinton’s very generous peace plan the Bushies may have correctly concluded that war, and the democracies that might have come from it, was the only possible course of action.
In any case, we’ve got multiple wars now (Iraq, Lebanon, & Afghanistan) that must be resolved. In Lebanon, we must encourage the world to support and defend the ‘67 borders to marginalize both Israel and the Hizbullah, and to insure that fanatic independent militias such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah don’t conquer the region before we achieve energy independence. We can stay the course in Afghanistan as long as it’s an international effort; if not we can leave after a year unless 70% of the population agrees to take up arms and support freedom. We can always go back in to destroy a Taliban gov’t if it becomes big enough to be visible or aggressive. And, in Iraq we must withdraw to the safety of friendly and stable Kurdistan until the civil war is over, and then try to unite or, if not, partition, the country.
In sum, our mistakes have been many: 1) blind support for Israeli aggression, 2) total somnambulance after the first attack on the World Trade Center and 3) attacking Iraq. Now we face another mistake in Lebanon. We can continue to support what Israel has done, namely, go for the military victory that has eluded them for 50 years despite overwhelming military superiority, and spawned a worldwide jihad that seemingly can never be defeated, or we can support a comprehensive peace plan at the 1967 borders.
Ted Baiamonte
comments welcome: bje1000@aol.com
The United States is being and has always been stupid about the Middle East. For 50 years we have offered blind support to Israel that they have used mostly to steal Palestinian land rather than to live defensively within, miraculously given, internationally recognized borders. While the hour is late and the situation has been aggravated to the point of suicidal hysteria it is never too late to do the right thing and possibly create peace as follows:
1) Tell Israel that not one more penny will be forthcoming unless they build a defensive wall at the internationally recognized 1967 borders, and live peacefully behind that wall except to counter attacks over the wall. When living behind legitimate borders Israel will have the legitimate right to attack those who attack them, and in so doing will also help us by weakening the Islamo-Fascist militias (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood) that threaten us directly and the oil producing status quo in the Middle East.
2) Demand the rest of the world finally take a position to either support and defend the 1967 boundaries, push Israel into the sea, or shut up and be cowardly, impotent bystanders forever. Once the United States has finally taken a clear, simple, practical, and moral position the entire world will no longer be so confused, befuddled and frightened by the Israeli trick of presenting the Middle East to us as a very technical, complicated region of the world in which only they can navigate. Murderous fools hating and killing each other is neither technical nor complex.
Many countries led by the US will defend the UN sanctioned 1967 borders. All the preposterous rhetoric, arguments, speeches and garbage coming out of the mouths of the combatants will be instantly irrelevant and superfluous. We won’t have to hear about water rights, Shabaa Farms, right of return, judifying Jerusalem, who got there first, who attacked first, or what holy book fanatics think, anymore. The Israelis will have no arguments and the Muslims will have one remaining argument that will sound silly even to them: Allah demands that we drive the Jews into the sea.
Of course if this had all happened 40 years ago the Muslims would have had time to forget about their neighbors on the other side of the internationally created, defended, and justified wall, and go on with their lives with or without massive international aid. Sadly, 40 years of American stupidity and Israeli aggression has caused a metastatic hatred across much of the world, and worse, Muslims now have long range rockets that they can fire over the wall and, one day soon, over the oceans. Nevertheless, clear, simple, honest, and moral language and a clear, simple, honest, and moral way to think about the problem is the best place to begin, even if it’s late in the game. The US must become an honest peace broker rather than remain as a blind, dumb supporter of Israel. An honest broker can be an effective advocate for peace while a partisan broker is someone in whom Muslims will have an ever growing hatred. And, “ever” can be a long deadly time when you’re talking about a suicidally fanatic people with trillions of petrodollars with which to develop WMD and delivery systems.
More blind support for Israel as it destroys the entire nation of Lebanon, with American weapons, seems like nothing more than an exact continuation of the same policy that has failed so horribly for 50 years. This seems especially true when you consider that Shiite Hizbullah is what emerged from Lebanon the last time Israel destroyed it. And even more true, if that’s possible, given that this time the US has opened up its own front against the Shiites in Iraq thus making Western and US imperialism more obvious to the entire world, and to the pan-Arabic world in particular which has always hated and feared US imperialism but which may not have been absolutely convinced of it even by Osama Bin Laden’s attack on 9/11.
In Bush’s neo-con zeal to chart a new course from Clinton’s very engaged course he immediately pronounced, upon taking office, that there would be no peace between Israel and Palestine until they were ready to make peace. That “who gives a damn” attitude toward a horrid, suppurative war, the continued blind support for Israel, the preplanned and executed attack on Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, the current blind support for Israel as it destroys Lebanon, and the galvanizing effect on both sides of 9/11, have all virtually insured that only a military solution to our differences with the Muslims is possible. If Bush had supported a wall at the 1967 borders with Clinton’s persistent sensitivity and had not attacked Iraq, things might have been very different, but no one can be sure. When Arafat walked away from Clinton’s very generous peace plan the Bushies may have correctly concluded that war, and the democracies that might have come from it, was the only possible course of action.
In any case, we’ve got multiple wars now (Iraq, Lebanon, & Afghanistan) that must be resolved. In Lebanon, we must encourage the world to support and defend the ‘67 borders to marginalize both Israel and the Hizbullah, and to insure that fanatic independent militias such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah don’t conquer the region before we achieve energy independence. We can stay the course in Afghanistan as long as it’s an international effort; if not we can leave after a year unless 70% of the population agrees to take up arms and support freedom. We can always go back in to destroy a Taliban gov’t if it becomes big enough to be visible or aggressive. And, in Iraq we must withdraw to the safety of friendly and stable Kurdistan until the civil war is over, and then try to unite or, if not, partition, the country.
In sum, our mistakes have been many: 1) blind support for Israeli aggression, 2) total somnambulance after the first attack on the World Trade Center and 3) attacking Iraq. Now we face another mistake in Lebanon. We can continue to support what Israel has done, namely, go for the military victory that has eluded them for 50 years despite overwhelming military superiority, and spawned a worldwide jihad that seemingly can never be defeated, or we can support a comprehensive peace plan at the 1967 borders.
Ted Baiamonte
comments welcome: bje1000@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)