Extinction Event

Dougles MacKinnon's latest article is a bit over the top.

Beyond liberal judicial activism and the propagandists for the far-left in the media, our welfare, security, and very existence are being threatened by elected officials from both sides of the aisle who see the rapidly descending blade and purposefully ignore it as they suicidally focus on their own selfish needs.

Were it not for the fact they are about to take the rest of us with them, their extinction would be a welcome relief.

I wonder how many on the right side of the aisle MacKinnon really believes deserve extinction. Probably just a few of the more liberal Republicans.

What's bizarre is how MacKinnon (and many other Republicanoids to be fair) can basically call for the extinction of their political enemies and then act like the aggrieved parties (MacKinnon's larger point is that Abraham Lincoln would be shut down by the PC Police if he were around today). But truthfully we should all be used to that by now; once you can believe that White American males are the most oppressed class in America, you can believe anything.

Reality vs. The Dictionary

Douglas MacKinnons latest article utilizes a nice technique; he uses a cold dictionary definition without reference to additional meanings of the word or the emotional resonance of the word. In this case he selects a very broad definition of socialist and asks why we can't call Obama a socialist. He then takes a very broad, value nuetral definition of the word ideologue and asks why we can't call Obama an ideaologue.

He even basically implies that Obama is dumb or disingenuous for not accepting those labels.

It's the socialist label he's really interested in pasting on Obama. I'm sure it will stick with his readership despite the many and constant concessions President Obama has made to both big business and the right. I rather wish Obama would just accept the socialist mantle and start fighting; but I doubt he will.

Douglas MacKinnon sez "Don't Hug Obama"

MacKinnon's latest article is about rejecting Michael Steel and Charlie Crist, while building up core Conservative principles. Fair enough. I think him taking a shot at Steel for believing that God put in his position is a bit odd, considering the last Republican President clearly believed that God wanted him to be President and commented on it quite a few times.

But when he gets to Crist, things start getting odd.

As the National Review said, “One of the most liberal politicians in the Republican firmament.” Beyond that, Crist is literally an Obama hugger.

Why does Crist want to bolt the Governor’s mansion after only one term? Why does he not want to run for reelection? Could it be because when he took office, unemployment in Florida stood at 3.3 percent and that when he physically hugged President Obama and his “stimulus” package, it was at 9.6 percent and that now, it is at 11 percent?

I've highlighted what are apparently Crist's biggest problems.

In fairness to Crist, the housing bubble popping hit Florida particularly hard, and unemployment numbers throughout the nation has skyrocketed. But for having the gall to hug Obama, and physically no less, I can understand where MacKinnon is coming from.

If only he had kept his hugging ways to the mental sphere, like us decent Americans.

Entitled

Greetings all. I have returned to comment on an article Bryant referred me to. For those who are unacquainted with me, my name is Irwin J. McIckleson and I am a ruthless 1930s plutocrat. For those unfamiliar with the term, that means I favor having a lot of money and pushing peopl around. I am not in favor of distant planets or cartoon dogs being in charge of the mechanisms of government. Bryant has forwarded me Douglas McKinnon's latest article, in which he points out the damage caused by an entitlement mentality.

But why should anyone be "entitled" to a pension? The fact is, the vast majority of Americans have no access to a pension, do not expect one, and will never get one. And if they don't get a pension for the hard work and long hours they put in, why should a shrinking minority be "entitled" to one?

Mr. McKinnon has the wisdom of a plutocrat. But why should he stop there. In my era there are millions of workers who are receiving no pay checks, being unemployed. I understand it is much the same in your era. So why should my lazy employees demand their paychecks. Why should they hold themselves above their fellow citizens in demanding special treatment? It's un-American to give them special privileges, that many Americans do not get. And I won't stand for it in my factory; thus I am withholding paychecks from my employees until every American gets a regular paycheck.

Some might argue that this is a breach of trust or of faith; that I am required to pay my workers what I agreed to pay them. Poppycock. If we can thrust aside pension promises why not thrust aside paycheck promises, for the good of the greater economy.

Some poeple who seem to have heard of the Bush Doctrine

As pundits mull whether America's next target in the war on terrorism should be Iraq or a smaller quarry first – such as the Sudan or Somalia – it's time to consider another petri dish of ferocious anti-American hatred and terrorist activity. The Bush doctrine is: We are at war not only with the terrorists, but also with those who harbor them. We've got to attack France. Having exhausted itself in a spirited fight with the Nazis in the last war, France cannot work up the energy to oppose terrorism. For decades now, France has nurtured, coddled and funded Islamic terrorists.

Ann Coulter, "Attack France!", December 20, 2001.

They (meaning Democrats) deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam's Iraq.

David Limbaugh, "Plain lies, war lies and partisanship," September 1, 2006.

Victory in Iraq --the creation of a stable, functioning representative government protected by a strong Iraqi military capable of and committed to the suppression of terrorism and sectarian violence-- would be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, and although it would also be in the very best interests of the country as a whole, the left sees a political disaster in such an outcome, and has hence redoubled its efforts to tarnish not just the president who ordered the war, but also the generals who lead it, and the soldiers who fight it.

Hugh Hewitt, "When General Petraus Reports," July 27, 2007

As the war in Iraq ground slowly on, Bush supporters grew more and more timid and pettifogging. What was missing was a full-throated, unequivocal, intellectually sparkling defense of the Bush Doctrine.

It is missing no more.

Mona Charen, "The Podhoretz Cavalry," September 21, 2007.

The Bush democracy crusade was put on the shelf after producing election triumphs for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, after Iraq, appears to be headed there, as well.

Patrick J. Buchanan, "Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?", May 30, 2008

In conversations I've had with past Pentagon colleagues as well as some of the current crop, a recurring worry has been relayed to me. It is this: If Barack Obama wins the White House, what happens to the Bush doctrine of basically killing these terrorists where they stand?

Douglas MacKinnon, "Only YOU Can Stop the Hate-Driven Far-Left and... Save Your Country", September 3, 2008.

Fear the Democrats!

Douglas McKinnon has written an article that was very popular 4 years ago and I suspect will be increasingly popular as this election heats up. Basically it's the old saw about how you need to vote for Republicans or we are all going to die. And of course the Terrorists are big Obama supporters.

All who are honest about this subject know that the terrorists would least like to see McCain get elected.

Honestly, though, McKinnons article reeks of desperation. First of all, again and again he reminds us that the American people see through the Democrats propaganda.

Contrary to the smug and biased beliefs of the liberal media, the American electorate is astute and up on its current events. Voters recognize that terrorism is not only the defining issue of our time, but one that will most likely be with them for the rest of their lives.

. . . With John McCain, most of these Pentagon and military officials — and most of the American people — know exactly what they are getting.

Yep, McKinnon's faith in the American people is touching, but perhaps misplaced. Or to put it another way, I have faith in there ability to recognize the failures of the Bush Administration, and their wisdom to note that McCain isn't likely to change much of what President Bush.

He also praises the hell out of Joe Lieberman. Lieberman will be caucusing with the Republicans next year.

Anyway the article is annoying it's predictability, but it's desperation is pleasant to see.

McBush - Fair or Not?

Douglas MacKinnon's latest article is about the idea that electing McCain represents a third term for President Bush, which many, including myself, have suggested. In order to refute this theory he sets up a false historical analogy to the 1996 campaign between President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole, in which the Democrats portrayed Dole as strongly connected to Newt Gingrich. The difference this time is that Obama isn't as skilled as Clinton and can't pull it off. Also Bush is leaving politics so can't really serve as the power behind the throne the way Gingrich, still Speaker of the House, could.

Fair enough, but I don't say that McCain is a third term for President Bush based on those reasons. I don't think McCain and Bush like each other that much, and I strongly suspect that if McCain gets the Presidency he will keep his distance from the Bush's So MacKinnon is right, the two situations are not parallel.

That said, when I suggest that McCain is a continuation of Bush policies, I mean just that. McCain, while remaining a politically distinct person from Bush, will pursue very similar policies on the most important issues of the day; the War in Iraq and Foreign Policy. With the notable and noble exception of Torture, McCain is going to continue the policies that Bush has laid out, including extending our occupation of Iraq and probably expanding the war to include Iran.

MacKinnon also suggests that the Primary proves that working class whites won't vote for Obama, a tale I suspect Conservatives are going to tell themselves all summer long. He makes the claim that Hispanics won't support Obama because they want the first President of Color to be Hispanic, not Black.

What I have learned is that a number of Hispanics are not going to vote for Mr. Obama - period. When history is made and a minority becomes president or vice president, they want that person to be Hispanic. To those who would claim that this observation is false, petty or even racist, I would suggest they bury their partisanship or ignorance and start asking some off-the-record questions.

Well, it's certainly a unique argument; that said, the sort of Hispanics that MacKinnon is out talking to may not be representative of the Hispanic population as a whole.

Narrow Your Perspective

Douglas MacKinnon's latest article starts with an interesting argument; how we got into Iraq doesn't matter.

Should the United States have invaded Iraq five years ago? Revisionist history and partisan politics aside, I happen to believe that large elements of the argument to do so made sense at the time. But so what?

Neither my belief in the need to confront Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction program, nor the belief of those who felt that under no circumstances should we have set one foot in that country, means a thing. It is what it is. We broke it, and we need to fix it.

That's nice as far as it goes, when it comes to Iraq. But what MacKinnon wants you to forget, as we go into another electoral season, is that it actually does matter how we got into Iraq.

You see some candidates for President, like Sen. Obama, opposed the war and thought it was a bad idea. That speaks to their judgment.

Other candidates were uncertain of the war but gave the President the authority to pursue it anyway, like Sen. Clinton. Again, that speaks to their judgment, and possibly, their integrity.

Still other candidates actively campaigned for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, telling us a lot of fairy tales along the way. Candidates such as John McCain. Again, it speaks to McCains character that he fought to get us in the mess we are in now.

And that's why it's worthwhile to remember what happened 5 years ago to get us to where we are today.

Nothing Secedes like Secession

Well it's not a call for a Second Civil War, but Douglas MacKinnon's latest article is gleefully insane.

As people called or emailed, I was asked what I thought about secession. My immediate response was, I believe in it.

. . . In short, I believe we need to secede from any and all who say that conservative principles and an adherence to traditional values no longer matter.

If we compromise and accept the continual blurring of party lines and the left’s definition of our future, then not only have we lost our way, but we have lost our country.

Secede from the madness. Vote and advance principle.

So maybe he's using secede in a non-traditional way? Cause what secede usually means is that a state (or area) leaves the union to form it's own country. Or maybe he's encouraging his readers to vote for secession? It's unclear. But he has written (as he points out) a fictional future for the United States in which Wyoming and Montana secede from the union. So I think he's pretty o.k. with the traditional meaning of the word as well.

Cowards

OK so Douglas MacKinnon has a problem. He wants to write an article supporting Romney in such a way as to build sympathy for a guy who has, on average, run a very dirty campaign. Romney's biggest challenger is John McCain, who is such a strong challenger he might actually win. And MacKinnon probably doesn't want to offend the person who might be the next President. On the other hand he really wants to attack somebody on behalf of his chosen candidate, Mitt Romney. What's a coward to do?

Attack Mike Huckabee. That's right, there's no chance that Huckabee will be the candidate or the President (at least not this go around). So attacking him costs MacKinnon nothing, and gets the point across. So, in his latest article, that's what he does.

If so, you have until Tuesday evening to make your principled and patriotic voice heard. For after Tuesday, if Mike Huckabee succeeds in his self-serving quest to deny Mitt Romney the nomination, then it will be conservatives who will be placed at the back of the line…for years to come.

I love the language - "deny Mitt Romney the nomination." Is it his birthright? What the hell? Why is Romney owed the Republican nomination? Why isn't McCain? Bizarre.

But cowardly, as well.

Huckabee's Tumble

Let's face it - Presidential hopeful Huckabee is not the favorite of the Republican Party Elite - they kind of hate him. And so I'm not inclined to be as negative towards him; although I disagree with him on a lot of his policies and programs. Nearly all of them.

But his stunt with the anti-Romney video? What was Huckabee thinking? Douglas McKinnon, Conservative Commentator, shares my disdain.

But wait. As Huckabee got to the podium to announce the ad campaign, he had a Machiavellian change of heart. “No,” he decided basically on the spot. The ad would not run. “Enough was enough.”

Clearly, the “enough was enough” uttered by Huckabee really meant enough of spending his dwindling campaign resources to do his own dirty work. Like Vladimir Lenin in the past, it was Huckabee’s intent to rely on “useful idiots” in the media to flood the nation with his disingenuous and insulting message. Unfortunately for Huckabee, the fifty or so national and local reporters gathered for his news conference, literally laughed in his face at his desperate and transparent attempt to use them.

Worse than witnessing what the Associated Press deemed a “bizarre news conference,” many in the media began to speculate as to how little respect Huckabee had for the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Does he think so little of them that he does not believe they are intelligent enough to figure out that he is gleefully perfecting the art of slander while consistently denying the same to their face?

He's not wrong. Huckabee's little dance is unlikely to fool anybody. Poor bastard.

Rush Limbaugh thinks this tactic might work, though.

And knowing, ladies and gentlemen -- this is what the Drive-Bys forget -- knowing that there is an intense distrust of the media everywhere, I don't care, Republicans, Democrats, average Americans have a distrust for the media, it's quite possible that people will see Huckabee's press conference as an attempt to be honorable, that the Drive-Bys have now sabotaged him, and they could easily conclude, "Look, he didn't air the ad, you guys did." I mean the people that are looking at Huckabee in a supportive way are not analyzing Huckabee, this is what you have to understand.

I don't buy it myself; I think Rush might be projecting a bit.

A Non - Fair Tax related Post

Don't worry I got plenty more posts on the Fair Tax coming, I'm sure. But for a moment let's look at Douglas McKinnon. He thinks that Terrorists are bad. Hard to argue with that.

When it comes to fighting terrorists, our fellow citizens continually wonder what part of “We plan to exterminate America” our politicians don’t understand? They know that unless destroyed, these Islamists will never stop until their stated goal is achieved.

OK there's a few questions here. Absent some cartoonish super-villainy, do Terrorists actually have the power to exterminate Americans? No.

So Bryant does that mean you think Terrorism is no big deal? No. I think it is a big deal but I think you need to put it in it's proper perspective.

Can we actually destroy the Islamists? No. To say that we can is a childish fantasy or contemplation of Genocide.

At any rate, Douglas McKinnons belief that Terrorism works completely in Republican's favor is also a bit of a childish fantasy; I think Americans will consider how the first 7 years of Republican Terrorism fighting has gone.

There's not enough hours in the day

Let's look at Douglas McKinnon's latest article for factual errors. It has as it's theme that Democrats are soft on terror and that Terrorists want us to elect Democrats. Unfortunately for his theme, he fills his article with speculation, wishful thinking, and outright lies. Let's start near the beginning.

Because if we get this one wrong, Islamic terrorists will almost certainly strike into the heart of America.

Half truth - most terrorism experts including those in the Bush Administration believe that we will get hit again regardless of whether or not we consistently elect Democrats. In fact it's an interesting catch 22. If we are hit with a Republican in the white house it's proof that we need to redouble our efforts towards implementing Republican methods of fighting terrorism. If we get hit with a Democrat in the White House it means we need to abandon Democrats and adopt Republican Methods of fighting Terrorism.

I'm going to print this as a block then take it apart.

Political correctness has made us a weaker nation because it has killed some truths. The paramount truth most liberals, and most in the media, will not allow to be spoken, is that if you are in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, if you are in favor of ending or scaling back the “Patriot Act,” if you are in favor of stopping or even criminalizing warrantless wiretaps, if you are in favor of preventing our spy satellites from being used to protect our homeland, if you are in favor of never using facilities such as Guantanamo Bay to house murderous terrorists, if you are in favor of never letting our allies interrogate terrorists, then you are opening up the United States to a horrific terrorist attack.

First of all political correctness has not killed this particular "truth." Republicans and Conservatives, including elected and appointed officials, have been saying this since September 11th. Hell not a few days after the attacks there was a bumper sticker quoting President Bush saying "You are either with us (with a Republican Elephant off to the side) or with the Terrorists (with a Democratic Donkey off to the side)." So political correctness is apparently toothless because it certainly hasn't stopped Republicans from making these kinds of attacks.

On the other hand, common sense and decency might have stopped some Republicans / Conservatives from issuing this laundry list.

Being "in favor of comprehensive immigration reform" means being in favor of closing the borders as well as providing for some guest worker program. While you might be suspicious of it, favoring it does not mean you want to open America up to a terrorist attack. Presumably having documented guest workers in America is better than not having any records on them.

The next set deal with threats to our civil liberties. McKinnon is in favor of abandoning our civil liberties in favor of programs of questionable value. There are elements of the Patriot Act that are probably useful correctives, but there are also clearly some real questions about how it has been used. Why our government requires warrantless wiretaps is also a pretty big question. Why can't they make do with warranted wiretaps? Why is asking a judge so damn hard?

Then we get to torture, both doing it ourselves (Guantenemo) or getting our allies to do it. There is a real question as to the value of torture outside of the fantasy world of 24. You are incentivized not to tell the truth but to tell the torturer what he or she wants to hear. That, plus the moral questions raised, makes opposing torture not nearly as cut and dried as McKinnon would like it to be.

He then moves on to Hillary Clinton.

Senator Hillary Clinton is a far-left liberal . . . she has to successfully deceive enough Americans into believing she is a “centrist” -- instead of the committed socialist she is . .

If Hillary Clinton is a far left liberal and a committed socialist than I am a frog. She's a moderate right wing candidate who, of the Democratic nominees, is most likely to continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

He then posits a scenario that would occur if Clinton were elected President. Representatives of Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Venezuala place three suitcase nukes in America and threaten to set them off if Hillary Clinton doesn't capitulate to their insane demands. Hillary Clinton, being a weak kneed liberal immediately capitulates. That is the future if we don't take this election seriously (i.e. vote for the Republican).

At this point I find myself wondering if McKinnon himself even takes this seriously.

Interesting Question

Douglas McKinnon would like television news to stop showing video of IED's taking out American Troops. Or such is the argument in his latest article.

Each and every aired roadside bombing was planned, executed, and filmed by Al Qaeda or other terrorists operating in that theater. Each and every one. Think about that for a moment. American network executives are eagerly showing “snuff” films of American soldiers so they can go after Bush, beat their competition, or both. In the most heinous way possible, our very networks have willingly entered into a relationship with those who mean to exterminate us all. Why?

Because of ideology and money.

If you speak with these executives and ask them to defend the indefensible, they will say, “Hey, we didn’t get this tape from Al Qaeda. We got it from the Al Jazeera network.” Okay, and who did Al Jazeera get it from?

I don't know if that is accurate or not - certainly the use of the phrase "each and every one" seems a bit of a stretch. But the idea that none of them are coming from the terrorists themselves is likewise a bit of a stretch. I certainly don't like the implication taht Al Jazeera is the same as Al Qaeda, but that's pretty typical on the right wing.

One could argue that these bombings are news no matter who films them, I suppose. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that.

The Revolution

Some conservatives fantasize about revolution as much as far leftists these days. Douglas MacKinnon has written a book called America's Last Days fictionalizing this fantasy, and Townhall gave him room to write about his book. He's surprised that anybody would be critical of a book in which a conservative militia takes over America (yeah, who could have seen that reaction coming). But he says that his book explains why such a revolution is plausible and quotes two passages from his book. Here's a bit of one of them.

"How did we get this way, John? Why are they forcing us to do this terrible thing?"

"Why did the Roman Empire crumble, sir? Complacency, ignorance and lack of a moral compass. They lost it all because they took the things that really count for granted. They became fat, lazy, and sinful. They were overcome by lust, greed and a gradual lowering of standards. The United States of today is exactly the same. We have lost our moral compass. Our country has become more classist, elitist and separatist. Political correctness prevents us from targeting the enemy within our own borders who harbor the very Al Qaida terrorists who attacked us. We can’t protect our own borders with Mexico and Canada. In a country that is over eighty-five percent Christian, those very same Christians can no longer say 'Merry Christmas,' and can barely celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. We’re on the verge of a race war, our inner-cities are on the brink of collapse, our educational system is a joke, teachers are not held accountable, affirmative action has destroyed trust and self-esteem, the growing rich are walling themselves off from the ninety-five percent of other Americans, our politicians are all corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned by the few honest ones.

The Second American Civil War indeed. Let's start stringing up liberals, that'll solve America's problems.

While the author claims that this is simply a work of fiction, he ends by saying that those few who care about America (i.e. have his opinion on political matters) are running out of options and ends with "Beware the Revolution."

Part of me wants to be amused at the fantasy (and at the idea that our politicians are "corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned by the few honest ones." I think what the author meant to say is "corrupt, stupid, taking bribes, or shunned for being one of the few honest ones." But what do I know?). Mostly it just depresses me. Because the fact that such sentiment exists and the fact that it's encouraged by Townhall, makes the possibility of violence plausible. I doubt there will be a successful revolution, but some nutcases might well read this sort of fantasy and decide to pitch in.

Treason

Douglas MacKinnon throws around the word "treason" in his latest article. He limits his accusation to those who leak classified information and those who print it, specifically referencing the NIE report that suggests that being in Iraq may have made us less safe.

We can’t defeat the terrorists if traitors among us eagerly supply them with intelligence that puts our nation and our troops in harms way. Period.

. . . as one who once worked in a joint command at the Pentagon and dealt with classified information on a daily basis, I am here to beg those in our own government and our own media, to stop this suicidal disclosure of top secret information. If not for reasons of obeying the law and patriotism, then at the very least, for the safety of you and your family. For when the terrorists do visit our shores again – basically at your invitation -- your betrayal of state secrets will not shield you, nor your family, from their fanatical wrath.

I do think we on the left are a little casual about leaks - obviously leaks are bad. That said, of course there's a bit of hypocricy about this debate - when President Clinton was President, Republicans were similarly casual about leaks designed to embarrass the President.

That said, calling for the deaths of reporters, while clearly popular, could have the ffect of chilling our national debate. But that doesn't stop some Townhall readers.

Now, why not post some real dead or alive notices with real money rewards, just like you OUGHT to do IF you really think what your article just said. It might get you in court even and then you could REALLY sound off. After all, WE are the people -remember? NOT the so called government hacks. So let some BLOOD flow for real then see who leaks and sides with our murderers -okay? Otherwise just cap it mac....

So called government hacks?

Anyway some Townhall members want to see reporters blood flow - hopefully the Republicans will resist the temptation to oblige them.

Muslim Menace

Interesting article by Douglas MacKinnon over at Townhall this morning that really tries to have it both ways. The author wants to warn us about the potential for our Muslim Countrymen to turn on us without saying that we need to be wary of all Muslims.

If home grown Islamists ready to kill in the name of God, are on the rise in Europe, what then of our nation? Do we face a similar threat? Commonsense would say "yes," while political correctness would order us to ignore the possibility.

I maintain that 99% of the population of anything as a whole, is good and just trying to do the right thing. That certainly includes the Muslim faith in the United States. I strongly believe that the overwhelming majority just want to be good citizens and good neighbors.

That said, if we accept the estimate that there are 6 million Muslim-Americans in our country, and 99% of them are law abiding citizens who are loyal to our nation, then that means that there may be -– may be -- 1% who might put a twisted version of Islamic extremism before the wellbeing of their fellow Americans. When you stop to think that 1% of 6 million is 60,000 individuals, that then seems like a very intimidating one percent.

What's interesting about this approach, and MacKinnon is not the only one to use it, is how it really doesn't present any kind of solution. I mean if we are living with 66,000 potential homegrown terrorists, what should we do?

Well MacKinnon won't tell you that. No author of the Muslim Menace articles will tell you what we should do about our Muslim Communities (except, maybe, Pat Buchanan). Nor will they spend much time on the 5,940,000 Muslims who aren't a threat to us. Rather the whole focus is on getting you afraid of Muslims (particularly young Muslim males). All that fear has to go someplace doesn't it? I mean being afraid all the time, don't you naturally seek a solution at some point?