April 02, 2004


John Kerry says some interesting things:

He also defended voting last year for a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq. "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me," he said.

And if you do believe Saddam was a threat you should vote for Bush, because he actually did something about it while Kerry was busy figuring out which side of the war to be on.

(thanks to Hanks)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


The anti-American left--as represented by the Daily Kos and his supporters and sycophants--cheers the murder and mutilation of American civilians guarding a food convoy in Fallujah, Iraq.

Iraqis themselves--people who, as Kos claims of himself, know something about living in a war zone--find the crimes sickening, inexcusable and shameful.

"It was completely un-Islamic to treat the bodies in that way. The people who did this were acting like animals," said Ali Khaled, 29, an electrician who sat drinking tea with four friends at a coffee house in Baghdad's old quarter Thursday afternoon. "They committed an unforgivable sin, and they will be punished by God."


"In 1958, July 14th, some members of the royal family were killed and mutilated. Iraqis were ashamed for decades at this barbaric event," Samir Sumaidi told reporters. "Now after this, I feel that again Iraqis will hang their heads in shame."

Iraqi newspapers largely played down the attacks. Only one major newspaper condemned them strongly. Al-Nahda, an independent daily, carried a photo of a corpse lying next to a burning SUV, under the headline: "A vicious violation of Islamic laws and civilized norms."


"I never thought that Iraqis were capable of something like this," said Mehdi Salman, 43, a clothing shop owner. "We went through so much pain and suffering under Saddam ... It made some people forget their religion and their humanity."

Mehdi Sulman seems to understand things a lot better than Kos.

Posted by B. Preston at 05:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Maybe it's the fact that I got more sleep than usual last night (that always screws me up for some reason), but I'm finding exactly no patience for leftist nonsense today.

The Daily Kos is a disgrace, the leftists who commented in agreement with him that the deaths of four Americans in Fallujah was not a bad thing are wretches. I've got no time for them anymore.

Job growth over the last quarter was HUGE--308,000 new jobs, and a total of over 700,000 in the past few months. Will the left admit that the economy is no longer in a "Bush recession" (which started before Bush even took office) yet? I'm not holding my breath. Kerry and his ilk will continue to bash the administration on everything under the sun, even if they have to lie to do it, because they basically have no rationale for any claim to political influence or power of their own. Socialist ideas of the type that animate the Democrats today have been discredited thoroughly, and yet they still peddle them to an unsuspecting public. Enough.

Lefties, consider the following. You folks like to talk a good game about dialogue and trying to understand why they hate us, etc. For more than two years now, though, you've been approaching your "dialogue" with your own fellow countrymen in a way that does nothing short of irritate the you-know-what out of us. In more than two years of "dialogue" within the same cultural context, has understanding between individuals with different attitudes increased or decreased?

Kos' blog entry, his lie after the fact and all those chiming in to agree with him suggest that today's left and the rest are further away from mutual understanding even within our own culture than we all were on 9-11.

So given all that, how bloody likely is it to reach any kind of mutual understanding with people who would like nothing better than to do a Fallujah on you and me and every non-radical Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Rastafarian and whatever else they come across? Anwer me that one.

Dialogue in our own culture hasn't done squat. We're about as divided as a country can be, and over such a basic question as whether to defend ourselves or not. Leftists today openly cheer the deaths of their own countrymen. How sickening is that? We're sure not going to win the war with Islamofascism with dialogue. Sometimes you've just gotta kill the other guy before he kills you and your family, and when it comes to Islamofascism, that's the situation we're in. You lefties didn't understand that on 9-11, you don't understand it now and I'm convinced you never will. You'd rather bury your empty little heads and pretend George W. Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than an Osama fanatic with a suitcase nuke hanging out in downtown Chicago. You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how asinine they may be.

So here's what I plan to do with the next few months, in terms of the blog and in terms of my attitude. Dialogue with you people is done. Kos and his minions prove that it's pointless. I want nothing more than to defeat you and your side in November, increase the patriotic center and right's hold on the Congress, keep Bush in the White House and basically teach you people a lesson. That lesson is, if you act like you're anti-American, and you talk like you're anti-American, the majority of America will treat you like you're anti-American.

Not that I expect you to actually learn anything from it.

UPDATE: I want to make a couple of things crystal clear. First, people like Kos dominate today's Democrats. Just remember Al Gore's infamous "he betrayed this country" speech a couple months ago. And remember the Deaniacs and their white-hot hatred for pretty much anyone to their right (which is nearly everyone, as it turns out). And watch when moonbats like Senator Biden appear on MSNBC and insinuate that a) the deaths of four civilians in Fallujah means the entire Bush-Iraq policy has failed, and that b) that's a good thing because it will keep us from being able to deal with other rogue states such as Syria and Iran via any threat of force. Biden's statement carried Osama bin Laden's logic, folks. And he's been one of the better Democrats on the war.

What I'd like to see from the Dems, knowing there is no hope of seeing it, is a foreign policy that emphasizes American strength and resolve and does not focus the bulk of its rage on fellow Americans. That's where the Democrats as a party are right now--they'll mouth anger at the terrorists but heap hatred on Bush and the Republicans. It's disgusting, frankly, and smacks of a treasonous worldview.

On a more short-term note, I'd like to see more Democrats have their Trent Lott moment with people like Kos. We Republicans faced down a doofus when he made an inflammatory and stupid remark, even though it might mean we could lose control of the Senate (I'm on record as being fine with losing control if it meant we could teach crypto-racists in our own party a lesson). You Dems have shown zero ability to weed out the anti-American moonbats. You'd better show some now. Your party needs to repudiate Kos asap.

Posted by B. Preston at 05:17 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack


If you're a security guard working in Iraq to help that beaten country establish order and rejoin the family of nations, and you happen to get killed by savages who pine for brutality and dictatorship, American lefties will cheer your death.

I wish this wasn't real:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

People like Kos and anyone he supports should be kept as far away from the levers of power as possible. And if I had joined his state-by-state political thing back when he started it, I'd resign from it immediately. There is no excuse for this kind of bile. None whatsoever. And I wouldn't want to associate myself in any way with anyone who says "Screw them" to men killed senselessly and brutally by a gang of Baathist and terrorist thugs.

(via InstaPundit)

Posted by B. Preston at 10:13 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


The JunkYardBlog exposes corporate giant Viacom's questionable business practices in today's National Review Online.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 01, 2004


Peter Jennings has just produced a stunningly positive special, Ecstasy Rising, on what seems to be nothing short of a miracle drug -- banned only by ignorant government officials. Fifteen minutes in, after only presenting chemists and doctors touting the wondrous qualities, he dramatically introduced the "first ecstasy millionaire" before the commercial break. I had to find out more and rushed to review my internet pharmacy spam. Where can I get this hot drug Jennings is hyping, and how can I become an ecstasy millionaire to boot? Actually, I just went to ABC's website figuring they might have links to more reputable dealers doctors I could contact, and found the same positive spin there.
"After I used Ecstasy, I just felt like a whole new person, like it changed my life completely," said one user who preferred not to be named. "The drug makes you feel empathy, empathy for other people, empathy for situations," said another user who also didn't want his name used. "You just look at everything in the most positive light." Good For You? Overwhelming, positive word-of-mouth is often cited as the cause of Ecstasy's explosive growth. "There is an evangelical fervor with Ecstasy," says Robert MacCoun, a drug policy analyst at the University of California, Berkeley. "People who experience it tell their friends to try it." This has never happened before, said Kleiman: "I have never heard anybody say to me methamphetamine improved my life. I know people who like to use cocaine, but I have never heard anybody try to claim that cocaine is good for me. But with MDMA, lots of people think that the drug has improved their life."
Later there's some balance, but it's clearly just token balance:
As the head of NIDA, Leshner launched the U.S. government's campaign against Ecstasy. The headline of this campaign is that Ecstasy causes massive brain damage. Whether this is true remains very controversial. The use of Ecstasy has declined among teenagers in the last two years. Is this an indication that Ecstasy is on the way out? Kleiman says no. "The propaganda effort has had its impact, but it competes rather poorly, though, with word of mouth." And for this reason, Ecstasy will likely continue to spread and remain the drug of choice for a generation.
Count me in!

Thirty minutes into the show now they have ravers talking about how powerless the "Just Say No" campaign was/is in the face if the utter coolness of the drug. The token balance above arrives at the 40 minute mark after all the kids fall asleep, but the government position on dangers is immediately mocked as flawed by Jennings' pro-ecstasy doctors, some of whom who are long-term users.

The epidemic of dangerous counterfeit ecstasy only gets mentioned at the 56 minute mark. In my opinion, this is the razor in Jenning's edenic apple, no matter what the MDMA studies show. Dangers of serious overheating leading possibly to death finally gets mention at 57 minutes -- mostly out of the mouths of older kids. Jennings dismisses the danger by recommending water and rest. Addiction gets a mention finally, but that was followed by Jennings calling the drug "powerfully beneficial" (emphasis his) according to many more experienced and learned adults. At 58 minutes we arrive at this belated conclusion:

Jennings: But there is still one stark reality at the heart of the ecstasy story.

Mireille Silcoff: Basically people using ecstasy now and in the past decade are acting as guinea pigs. Nobody knows exactly what the long-term effects on the brain of using this drug for a prolonged period of time regularly are yet. And the effects quite frankly might be devastating.

Jennings: Recent studies may be reassuring to users, but no one can rule out the possibility that the government will one day discover that MDMA (Ecstacy) does in fact cause long-term brain damage. The question then, will anyone believe them?

No Peter they won't. And it will be too late anyhow.

Will Peter Jennings' next primetime special be on the mind-expanding benefits of that wonderdrug LSD, which has roughly same level of known side-effects as MDMA? Stay tuned.

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:37 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


So what does an out-of-work politician and itinerant professor do to pass the time? Snuggle up to the French for helping getting a sweetheart communications deal:

The Observer has learned that former Vice President Al Gore and business partner Joel Hyatt, an entrepreneur and Democratic fund-raiser, will close the deal to pay around $70 million to French-owned Vivendi Universal this week, making them the owners of the tiny digital-cable channel Newsworld International (NWI), moving Mr. Gore from politics to mini-media-moguldom.

Mr. Gore’s group plans to transform the sleepy foreign-news outlet into a youth-oriented public-affairs channel, a jump-cut news network for the iPod set. Despite vociferous claims that the network isn’t attempting to be the liberal antidote to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, it’s difficult to ignore the obvious: It may be fair, it may be balanced, but it’s going to be owned by Al Gore.


It wasn’t easy for Mr. Gore to get his hands on NWI. According to two sources familiar with the situation, Mr. Gore went so far as to seek the influence of French President Jacques Chirac in buying the channel, hoping that Mr. Chirac would aid him in landing a sweetened deal with Vivendi chief executive Jean-René Fourtou—and quick. That request resulted in a meeting last summer with executives of Universal Television Group and Vivendi’s chief operating officer, Jean-Bernard Levy. At the time, however, Vivendi was preparing to sell its cable properties to NBC, which temporarily stalled Mr. Gore’s media ambitions. (my emphasis)

Using that toad Chirac to get your hands on a 24/7 propaganda channel to use against your own countrymen, eh, Al? Who's "betraying the country" now?

(thanks to Chris)

Posted by B. Preston at 02:58 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


The more I poke around into Richard Clarke's various statments, the less and less credible he becomes. Nearly every time I do even a cursory examination of something he has said either in his book, in his testimony, or in interviews, I find something that either conflicts with something he previously said or I find something that simply doesn't add up. Hopefully we'll have more about some of these discrepancies in the short term, but for now, Jay Caruso has dug up an example of one of Clarke's inconsistencies.

It works like this: Clarke said that President Clinton's "highest priority" (insert your own Ross Perot imitation if you want) was combating terrorism. That statement can't get within a mile of the laugh test, but in order to refute it outright you need hard data. Such as, say, a Clinton exit speech on foreign policy or something. That's what Jay has found, and for Clinton critics the results are far from shocking:

This is the text of the final foreign policy speech that President Clinton gave in December of 2000 at the University of Nebraska. Go ahead and read it.

What's missing? Aside from a few sentences mentioning terrorism and the attack on the USS Cole and language akin to , "We're gonna git em", terrorism is mentioned really in passing.

Not one mention of Al Qaeda by name.

Not one mention of Osama bin Laden.

He spends more time discussing AIDS than he does terrorism.

If terrorism was Clinton's "highest priority," shouldn't he at least mention the actual terrorist mastermind by name and spend a little time warning us about him? Just askin'.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:22 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 31, 2004


Bill Clinton knew about it, but did nothing to stop it.

Richard Clarke knew about it, and actively thwarted attempts to do anything about it, fearing blowback would harm President Clinton. It's a pity he didn't apply that standard to his own skewed screed against President Bush.

I guess America's first black president couldn't get worked up enough about 800,000 actual black people getting slaughtered to do more than talk, but he could get worked up enough about a much smaller genocide in which the victims were white to conduct an outside-the-UN bombing campaign to stop it (that would be the Kosovo affair, in case you're wondering).

Meanwhile, 50 million brown people have a chance at freedom today thanks to two wars led by a Republican (Josh Marshall-speak for "racist") administration. And the supposedly racially-tolerant left opposed the second war outright and were none too keen on the first war, even though both were conducted in the interest of US national security.

Fascinating, isn't it?


PBS' Frontline just broadcast the haunting story of the Ghosts of Rwanda


Beyond the "first black president" nickname, Bill Clinton was actually inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame as an honorary member. "It is this community's way of saying thank you to him for the work that he has done," said Charles Stewart, the hall's chairman and founder. Obviously that community doesn't include Rwanda.

Posted by B. Preston at 06:19 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack


This is priceless: Al Franken & Co's new "Air America" liberal talk network will probably not challenge Rush, Hannity and the rest of the conservative talk titans for cultural dominance, but it will result in job losses for black radio talent.

Don't get me wrong, I think the layoffs are a bad thing, though they are in many ways reflective of a broader trend toward automation and networked programming and away from local talent in the radio industry as a whole (been there, done that, got out as fast as I could). But look--just look--at what the white, elitist liberal talk net is doing to local talk radio in New York.

NEW YORK (NNPA) - New York's radio station WLIB-1190 AM has been loyally "serving New York's Black community" - as its logo states - for decades now. In the early '90s WLIB was lauded as a resource for "Afrocentric" programming and became known for featuring Imhotep Gary Byrd's "Global Black Experience" show.

By the end of March, New York's WLIB-1190 AM will taken over by "Air America Radio," a predominantly White, liberal talk-radio network.

The station was in many ways a Black activist outlet.

But by the end of this month, WLIB will be taking on a different hue, as it joins the launch of Progress Media's "Air America Radio," the new, predominately White, liberal talk-radio network. Air America has reportedly partnered with Inner City Broadcasting Corporation (ICBC), which owns WLIB.

Of course! I hadn't thought of it before, but the most likely stations to play Air America programming will be urban talk and community affairs stations, which are prodominently staffed by black talent who produce and host local shows. Air America has to take slots from someone since it wasn't planned around building new venues, and those slots until recently mostly belonged to black talent.

Once again, a liberal bright idea that hurts the very minorities it is intended to help. Go figure. And when Air America dies in a year or two, will those laid off get their jobs back?

The impending layoffs have stirred some anger:

"I don't get it. I mean, I do not get it," local activist Elombe Brath said about Air America Radio's takeover at WLIB. Reports are that WLIB's 40th floor station has been remodeled for Air America, and that the 30th and 39th floors are also being re-built to suit the needs of the new network.

Brath, who hosts and produces the show "Afrikaleidoscope" on WBAI-FM, and who played a part in the Afrocentric reorganization of WLIB's programming back in the early 1980s, complained that if listenership was down at WLIB, the station should have restructured from within as it did in the 1980s.

"All of the talk should be organic, from within the Black community," Brath insisted. "How can they think about coming into New York with a package program like this? We have people here already who know radio, who can do shows. And they want to come in with a program from other people trying to talk to Black people in New York City? (WLIB) is just a station that has been stripped of what it's supposed to be!"

And an all-white cast will replace the black talent laid off:

Alongside Franken, Air America Radio will feature comedienne Janeane Garofalo; environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; author and activist Laura Flanders; Lizz Winstead, a co-creator of "The Daily Show"; radio personalities Mark Riley and Randi Rhodes; and political humorist Sam Seder. Chuck D, lead rapper for the group Public Enemy, was initially announced as part of the Air America Radio staff, but sources now say that the hip-hop icon is backing away from that commitment.

"I don't know how Air America is going to broaden the reaches of 'LIB," said one radio personality who chose to speak anonymously about the situation. "How is this going to impact the Black community? As far as I've heard, they've got a couple of Whites who just really want to go after Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and all the others. You can't convince me that that's going to be something good for Black and Hispanic people."

Way to go, Al! You've found a way to alienate the Democrat base in key urban areas. Once we put Condi Rice in front of the cameras to explain Bush anti-terror policy as a Republican administration's most articulate and poised spokesperson, we might manage to peel away enough minority vote to wreck the Donk party for decades.

Posted by B. Preston at 06:01 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


I've orbited between delight and utter frustration with the Bush administration. On principle in the war, the administration has been courageous, bold and nearly flawless, but on points of salesmanship and rhetoric, it has been by turns disastrous and ingenious with little in between. On domestic policy it has been steadfast--such as on partial birth abortion--and idiotic--such as the non-amnesty amnesty for illegal aliens. On matters pertaining to Israel, the Bush team has acted well on principles when it comes to quashing anti-Semitic UN policy violence even while making counterproductive noises to the press when Israel actually defends itself the way we do. This administration can be hard to figure out, even for a supporter like me.

But this administration consistently seems to find ways to deliver devastating sucker punches to its critics just when it seems destined to hit the mat on its back. I think the decision to allow Condi Rice to testify next week will probably go down as the Bush team's greatest sucker punch of the year. Liberals want her to testify before the 9-11 Commission because they think it will help their cause of destroying Bush somehow. What liberals will get is a fractured jaw and a bloody nose. Condi will kill 'em:

Now the liberals will get their wish: Dr. Rice will tell her side of the story, under oath, in public. And with the suspense that's already gathering around her appearance, it will be a hit. The rest of the nation will soon discover what careful observers of the Bush's inner circle already know: Rice is the most poised, articulate, and convincing speaker in the entire administration. She will mop up the floor with Clarke.

Want a "for example"? In his tell-all book, Clarke asserts that the first time he mentioned al Qaeda to Rice, in January 2001, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." Except in October 2000, Rice gave a radio interview in which she discussed al Qaeda. So much for facial expressions.

Not only will Rice make short work of Clarke, she will emerge from the hearing with conservatives flinging themselves at her feet, begging her to run for president in 2008. (There's already a website devoted to her potential candidacy even though she's said, on multiple occasions, she has no interest in the office.) And it would serve liberals right if she did decide to run, for Rice would be their worst nightmare. She would win the women's vote outright, peel away half the black vote, and set back the Democratic party for a generation.

Liberals who were only yesterday demanding Condi's testimony would have been wise to heed the old saying: Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

They're going to get it all right. And I can't wait. The most powerful black woman in American history will speak on behalf of the President who hired her and trusts her advice--conservative, Texan, Republican George W. Bush. That testimony--indeed, just her appearance on behalf of the Bush adminstration given her role in it--should have a seismic effect on US politics.

Posted by B. Preston at 05:13 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


How did an AP photographer get this photo?


Note the angle. The photographer is behind the gentleman with the rocket launcher drawing a bead on an off-camera target, described thus in the caption:

An Iraqi insurgent aims his rocket propelled grenade launcher at US forces Friday March 26, 2004, during intensive fighting in the town of Fallujah in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where support for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) is strong and rebels often carry out attacks against American forces. Witnesses said heavy gunfire and explosions were heard when Marines moved into the center of the city. (AP Photo/Abdel Kader Sahadi)

This photo is not the only press shot from behind enemy lines. There are two others in the same set showing two insurgents loading a mortar during a battle with US troops, indicating a certain comfort level between the terrorists and the photographer. It would seem that the AP has photographers, in this case a gentleman named Abdel Kader Sahadi, embedded with the insurgents engaged in killing Americans and others in Iraq.

How'd that happen? Do these reporters/photograpers travel with the insurgents, just like the reporters/photographers who were embedded with our troops last year? Do these insurgent embeds know when and where future attacks will occur, thanks to the trust they seem to have built up with these fighters?


Posted by B. Preston at 04:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 30, 2004


Don't blame me--John Kerry's the one wearing the widdle girlie flower on his cutsie widdle vest.

(via Right Wing News)

ADDENDUM: I guess ski bum botox boy Kerry has surrendered the machismo war without firing a shot, huh.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Our cousins are still on the case:

Huge anti-terror busts in and near London Tuesday led to the arrest of eight men and the seizing of half a ton bomb-making material.

Sources said police believe the suspects may have planned to hit "soft" targets and that the operation may have been planned for several weeks.

All the suspects were British citizens and were arrested as part of an operation targeting alleged international terrorist activity, said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke (search) of the capital's Metropolitan Police force.

Police also confiscated ammonium nitrate (search), which can be mixed with fuel oil to make a powerful explosive, was recovered from a self-storage facility in west London. Ammonium nitrate was the key component in the bomb used to destroy the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.

The British operation, which targeted residences and business properties, was not connected to the Madrid train bombs earlier this month or Irish republican terrorism, Clarke said. About 700 police officers took part in the early morning raids.

The raids came after Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens warned, in the wake of the Madrid bombings, that an attack on the United Kingdom by Al Qaeda was inevitable.


Clarke gave no details of the religious affiliation of the suspects, but he told reporters: "As we have said on many occasions in the past, we in the police service know that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community are law abiding and completely reject all forms of violence. We have a responsibility to all communities to investigate suspected terrorist activity."

Sky News reported authorities were analyzing forensic studies of the confiscated materials and were questioning the suspects, described as being of Pakistani descent.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Here's a must-read from former Secretary of State George Schultz:

Where do we stand now? These key points need to be understood:

• There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

• The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented.

• The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

• Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

• He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

• President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.

The question of weapons of mass destruction is just that: a question that remains to be answered, a mystery that must be solved. Just as we also must solve the mystery of how Libya and Iran developed menacing nuclear capability without detection, of how we were caught unaware of a large and flourishing black market in nuclear material--and of how we discovered these developments before they got completely out of hand and have put in place promising corrective processes. The question of Iraq's presumed stockpile of weapons will be answered, but that answer, however it comes out, will not affect the fully justifiable and necessary action that the coalition has undertaken to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. As Dr. David Kay put it in a Feb. 1 interview with Chris Wallace, "We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened."

When asked by Mr. Wallace what the sellers could have sold if they didn't have actual weapons, Mr. Kay said: "The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists want. They don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons."

Read the whole thing.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


What would Richard Clarke have to say about this:

LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes. Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.


The confessions reveal that planning for the September 11 attacks started much earlier and was more elaborate than previously thought.

"The original plan was for a two-pronged attack with five targets on the East Coast of America and five on the West Coast," he told interrogators, according to the transcript.

"We talked about hitting California as it was America's richest state, and [al Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden had talked about economic targets."

He is reported to have said that bin Laden, who like Mohammed had studied engineering, vetoed simultaneous coast-to-coast attacks, arguing that "it would be too difficult to synchronize."

Mohammed then decided to conduct two waves of attacks, hitting the East Coast first and following up with a second series of attacks.

"Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast," he reportedly said.

But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.

"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed is quoted as saying.

So by pounding and then eventually conquering al Qaeda's base camps in Afghanistan, the coalition deprived al Qaeda of the chance to regain its footing and respond effectively. We also deprived them of the ability to train future recruits or to work on their WMD programs in peace, and wrecked their communications capabilities.

But prior to that, on 9-11 itself, it seems that the quick grounding of flights and scrambling of fighter jets knocked al Qaeda's plans for further attacks irrevocably off kilter.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:13 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


E.L. Core lands a good one on John Kerry for, and I know this will come as a tremendous shock, saying one thing and doing another. Worse still, Kerry is apparently guilty of some of the same sort of trickery he accused Congress of committing in his infamous 1971 testimony before the US Senate.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 29, 2004


Well, well, well:

Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

--Senator Bob Bennett, July 29, 1999, reporting that then-Clinton administration official Richard Clarke would not testify before Congress due to the administration's assertion of executive privilege principles.

For what it's worth, next time you hear some blowhard carrying on about Condi Rice's refusal to submit to the Washington show trial.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


When the United States government examined every fact and nuance that led to the surprise at Pearl Harbor, the war was over. Having won a clear victory, it was then time to examine the possible failures that led to the war's opening and disastrous scene. Having a Pearl Harbor commission while our troops were still bleeding and dying on Iwo Jima would have bee counterproductive to the cause of maintaining the needed level of morale to sustain us through those dark days.

Nowadays, we don't bother to win wars before engaging in political finger-pointing and mindgames. We just let it all hang out even while we're fighting, or at least while roughly half the country fights the war and the other half fights the half that's fighting the war. The 9-11 Commission has become nothing more than a political show trial worthy of mid-50s Moscow. We're going to pay for this madness somehow, someday.

But that's probably a year or so off. We'll get embroiled in infighting and forget to some extent that there are still maniacs out there who claim to possess a suitcase nuke and a strong desire to use it to turn an American city into a smoking crater. And then they'll strike, and we'll unify for a while and then get back to infighting and more grandstanding and show trials. The one thing we don't do is learn from our mistakes.

But in all of this it's important to draw some lines and remember some events. This past weekend, 9-11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste possibly broke the law in an effort to force the executive branch to cede some authority to his commission, essentially an arm of Congress. Note that in the show trial talking points arms race, it's Ben-Veniste who first leaked classified testimony from a sitting official to the press first:

One issue was her May 16, 2002, statement at the White House when she said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile." Intelligence reports had detailed such plans as much as five years before 9/11.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 panel, said that during a closed door session Rice revised that statement.

"She corrected [herself] in our private interview by saying, 'I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.

The left's current goal seems to be to attack President Bush in his castle at Helms Deep--the war. They've dinged him on an ecomony that has grown an average of 6% over the past few quarters, and they're dinging him on various other things, but without much tangible success because he retains his major castle, which is his conduct of the war, and he can keep them at bay from it. They're like the orcs with the explosives at Helms Deep--Clarke is that explosive, placed in such a way by the left and its allies in the press as to bring down enough of the wall to allow their rabid troops in to destroy the administration. Rice is one of Bush's more effective and articulate troops; damaging her credibility damages Bush's and ultimately hurts the war effort by taking out one of our more valuable soldiers. Thus the leaked testimony, spun to wreck the value of Condi's word. Who knows what else she said in her more than four hours of testimony--Ben-Veniste has selectively pulled a quote to create the most sensational angle he could, leaking it in spite of the fact that it's probably still classified. With tactical skills like that, he'll be working for 60 Minutes soon. If Sauruman's armies can't find a place for him.

The end game is a win-win for the left so far. Pressure Condi until she testifies, thus cracking Bush's wall while keeping the sneaky "Bush knew" or at least "Bush could have prevented it" story alive long enough to bury Kerry's file-theft story. Then downplay her testimony once she says what she has been saying all along, using Clarke's not quite "I was lying then but I'm not lying now" spin on his pro-Bush statements of 2001 and 2002. The spin will be that, pace Clarke, Condi is just spinning on behalf of her boss and her word is thus of no real value.

Condi destroyed. Wall breached. Fortress stormed.

The Dems win, and then stop fighting the war.

That's what they want, and their little production on the Potomac is the ticket.

UPDATE: And just so we're clear how Dems on and off the Commission are playing the game:

"If the White House continues to make political mistakes, it's possible the commission could have a negative impact," he said.

That's Commission member and former Senator Bob Kerrey, last known for admitting to committing war crimes in Vietnam, and the meaning is plain: Resistance is futile, and if we don't get our way we'll continue to smear you and leak sensitive quotes to damage you. We will continue to use the press against you, and you'd better not fight back in any meaningful way. Kerrey has been among the more partisan members of a Commission that is hounding Condi Rice for her testimony while refusing to accept smoking gun evidence that President Clinton turned down a deal with Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden in 1996.

Democrats are salivating at the prospect of slaughtering Bush in a last stand defense:

But a central issue in the Democratic presidential campaign is the way Mr. Bush has handled the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, and interviews with a number of Democrats reveal that they are not shy about addressing the political implications of the commission's work and expressing the hope and belief that Mr. Kerry stands to politically benefit from its final report. "This could help Kerry's campaign if the facts lead in that direction, and if the facts are there, the chips should fall where they may," said Amy Isaacs, national director of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. "Anything that raises doubts about the Bush administration's stewardship in the war on terror will help Kerry," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal Democratic grass-roots group. Mr. Hickey, like other Democrats, thinks that last week's testimony by former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke successfully raised such doubts "about Bush's handling of the war on terror and their decision to go into Iraq." "It both reinforces doubts that many people already felt, but also carries the potential to cause likely Bush voters to re-evaluate what was one of Bush's strengths," he said. "This is not good news for Bush's re-election campaign. "I don't think the commissioners are doing a lot of political grandstanding, but I think it has political implications," Mr. Hickey added.

From his perspective Commission Democrats haven't been grandstanding, they've just been campaigning for Kerry. It's all about the campaign for them, and not about national security. The Dems as a party have gone from being weak on national security to flaunting that weakness and their lack of concern about it by arguing, essentially, that Bush should have pre-emptively attacked bin Laden's Afghanistan before he attacked us but should then not have pre-emptively attacked Iraq after we had been attacked. And so far, it's working for them. I guess you can't underestimate the power of a totally illogical argument.

The 9-11 Commission has become a farcical show trial that threatens to wreck our warfighting morale. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:02 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


Illegal alien advocates surrounded Bush advisor Karl Rove's home this past weekend, trespassing and frightening his children:

Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants.

Protesters poured out of one school bus after another, piercing an otherwise quiet, peaceful Sunday in Rove's Palisades neighborhood in Northwest, chanting, "Karl, Karl, come on out! See what the DREAM Act is all about!"

Rove obliged their first request and opened his door long enough to say, "Get off my property."

"Seems like he doesn't want to invite us in for tea," Emira Palacios quipped to the crowd.

Others chanted, "Karl Rove ain't got no soul."

The crowd then grew more aggressive, fanning around the three accessible sides of Rove's house, tracking him through the many windows, waving signs that read "Say Yes to DREAM" and pounding on the glass. At one point, Rove rushed to a window, pointed a finger and yelled something inaudible.


The protest was organized by National People's Action, a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago.


And after about 30 minutes of goading by protesters in English and Spanish, Rove agreed to meet with two members of the coalition on the condition that the rest of the protesters board their buses and leave his street. The group obliged.

Rove opened his garage door and allowed Palacios and Inez Killingsworth to enter. The meeting lasted two minutes and ended with Rove closing the garage door on Palacios while she was still talking.

Palacios said that Rove was "very upset" and was "yelling in our faces" and that Rove told them "he hoped we were proud to make his 14-year-old and 10-year-old cry."

A White House spokesman said one of the children was a neighbor.

Palacios, trembling and in tears herself, said, "He is very offended because we dared to come here. We dared to come here because he dared to ignore us. I'm sorry we disturbed his children, but our children are disturbed every day.

"He also said, 'Don't ever dare to come back,' " Palacios said. "We will, if he continues to ignore us."

Justifying scaring someone's children with that "our children are disturbed everyday" nonsense is Marxist claptrap, making a moral equalivance between verbally and physically threatening someone's peace in their own home and a legitimate policy difference. It will not be effective, and should not be tolerated by civilized people of any political persuasion.

The left is becoming more and more thuggish and totalitarian right before our eyes, with the left-wing Bush-hating America-bashing Democrats or their sympathizers undoubtedly pulling the strings from afar. We are going to see political violence this year, probably similar in scale and intent to 1968, and like that awful year it will come from the left. But unlike that year, it will not be confined to Democrat infighting--it will be directed at Republicans and anyone supporting the war. Watch for it: Al Qaeda may not have to attack us, because leftist radicals are already worked into a lather thanks to irresponsible Democrat and leftist lies and are all but ready to strike at us from within.

In this case, these people had some nerve. Most of them were probably in this country illegally, and committed a crime or maybe a series of crimes in this protest (trespassing, possibly making threats, etc). But they operated with the confidence that they would not be arrested and would not be deported. And they're putting out press releases bragging about how close they came to crossing the line into terrorism.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:01 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack


Curious story from the Bay Area concerning several boxes of FBI files pertaining to one John F. Kerry, Senatory from Massachussetts and Democrat nominee for President:

A Bay Area historian on Friday reported the theft of three boxes of confidential FBI documents, some detailing government surveillance of presidential hopeful John F. Kerry when he was a spokesman for a 1970s veterans group protesting the Vietnam War.

Gerald Nicosia told police that the theft occurred sometime Thursday from his home in Corte Madera, a Marin County suburb of San Francisco, said Sgt. Chuck Lovenguth of the Twin Cities Police Department.

"I don't know who could have done this," Nicosia said Friday. "It could be somebody who saw the boxes via news reports and wanted a piece of the presidential candidate for posterity, like a piece of the Berlin Wall."

Um, yeah. Must be souvernir seekers, not political operatives. Heaven knows nobody in political circles would have any reason whatsoever to procure by extralegal means boxes of files that might contain sensitive information on a major political figure. Perish the thought.

Whoever took the boxes will probably shortly know something that even historian Nicosia doesn't:

Nicosia said he suspected that the thieves were specifically in pursuit of the files because a camera and other expensive items in the home were left untouched. He added that he did not know exactly what material was taken because it was not cataloged or marked. Three of 14 boxes of files that had been stacked in his kitchen are missing. He said he was moving the remaining documents to a secure location Friday afternoon.

Hmm. It's interesting that John Kerry has long denied attending a VVAW meeting in Kansas City in November 1971--a meeting during which discussion of a plan to assassinate pro-war US Senators was discussed. A few years later, several former members of the VVAW had become members of the terrorist Symbionese Liberation Army (of Patty Hearst infamy), and were convicted of killing a public official in Oakland, CA. So follow me here for a second--Kerry denies being at that 1971 meeting for years, but then Gerald Nicosia turns up with FBI documents that prove Kerry was there. Those docs don't prove what Kerry did at the meeting, but they prove that--to be extremely charitable--Kerry's memory of that meeting is faulty.

And within weeks of Nicosia's going public with the FBI docs, thieves steal several boxes of additional FBI files that Nicosia says he hasn't examined or catalogued. Hmm. It almost looks like someone doesn't want Nicosia to get around to examining and cataloging those docs for some reason. Maybe they think he'll go public with them like he did the other docs.

We need more details, such as:

"It was a very clean burglary. They didn't break any glass. They didn't take anything like cameras sitting by. It was a very professional job," Nicosia said.

Well then how did they get in? And how did the thieves know which of the 14 boxes to take, since they left the other 11 catalogued boxes alone? It couldn't be an inside job, could it? The mind reels.

Curious. Very curious.

(thanks to Chris)

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader, here's a little informative backgrounder, courtesy The Captain:

On Sept. 18, 1972, the evening before the primary election during his second attempt for Congress, Kerry's brother Cameron and one Thomas Vallely, both part of his current campaign team, were arrested by Lowell police at 1:40 a.m. and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. The two were apprehended in the basement of a building whose door had been forced open, police said. It housed the headquarters of candidate DiFruscia. The Watergate scandal was making headlines at this time, and it was called the Lowell Watergate.

"They wanted to sever my telephone lines," DiFruscia said recently. Had those lines been cut, Kerry's opponent would not have been able to telephone supporters on Election Day to get out the vote and coordinate poll watchers, vital roles in a close election. "I do not know if they wanted to break into my office," says DiFruscia today. At the time he said, "All my IBM cards and the list of my voter identification in the greater Lowell area are in my headquarters."

The Captain notes that both men are currently working for the Kerry campaign, so the precedent for dirty thievery in the name of politics is right there on Kerry's present staff. Add assassination plot leader Scott Camil and you have the makings of a very disturbing cadre working directly for the man who wants to be your president.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:14 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 28, 2004


I'm sure Josh Marshall, who in an email exchange a while back insinuated that each and every Southern Republican is a racist, will not like what this article has to say:

[E]arlier generations of openly segregationist Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson's and Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stances accordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislation that remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does the segregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at its electoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the question by simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism and liberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any common values.

But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that "racial and economic conservatism" married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism's economic populism.

Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.

Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to "offer," so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth's own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren't plausible codes for real racism is that they aren't the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.

Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP's appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.


The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace's base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region's traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.

Each prediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in the South because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (and non-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewhere in the country.

Take presidential voting. Under FDR, the Democrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalition of presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broader national outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy to its arsenal. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This marked their lasting realignment in presidential voting. From 1952 to the Clinton years, Virginia reverted to the Democrats only once, Florida and Tennessee twice, and Texas—except when native-son LBJ was on the ballot—only twice, narrowly. Additionally, since 1952, North Carolina has consistently either gone Republican or come within a few percentage points of doing so.

In other words, states representing over half the South's electoral votes at the time have been consistently in play from 1952 on—since before Brown v. Board of Education, before Goldwater, before busing, and when the Republicans were the mainstay of civil rights bills. It was this which dramatically changed the GOP's presidential prospects. The GOP's breakthrough came in the least racially polarized part of the South. And its strongest supporters most years were "New South" urban and suburban middle- and upper-income voters. In 1964, as we've seen, Goldwater did the opposite: winning in the Deep South but losing the Peripheral South. But the pre-Goldwater pattern re-emerged soon afterward. When given the option in 1968, Deep South whites strongly preferred Wallace, and Nixon became president by winning most of the Peripheral South instead. From 1972 on, GOP presidential candidates won white voters at roughly even rates in the two sub-regions, sometimes slightly more in the Deep South, sometimes not. But by then, the Deep South had only about one-third of the South's total electoral votes; so it has been the Periphery, throughout, that provided the bulk of the GOP's Southern presidential support.


Writers who vilify the GOP's Southern strategy might be surprised to find that all of this was evident, at least in broad brush-strokes, to the strategy's early proponents. In his well-known book, Kevin Phillips drew the lesson that a strong appeal in the Deep South, on the model of 1964, had already entailed and would entail defeat for the GOP everywhere else, including in what he termed the Outer South. He therefore rejected such an approach. He emphasized that Ike and Nixon did far better in the Peripheral South. He saw huge opportunities in the "youthful middle-class" of Texas, Florida, and other rapidly growing and changing Sun Belt states, where what he called "acutely Negrophobe politics" was weakest, not strongest. He thus endorsed "evolutionary success in the Outer South" as the basis of the GOP's "principal party strategy" for the region, concluding that this would bring the Deep South along in time, but emphatically on the national GOP's terms, not the segregationists'.

Read the whole thing. Now.

I have to say, one of the many reasons I'm a Republican is because I believe my party's position and history on racial issues is superior to those of the Democrats. Our party was founded to destroy slavery; the majority of theirs fought a bloody war to preserve slavery even at the expense of destroying the Union. Our party has long fought against the KKK; members of their party founded and nurtured the KKK. Our party had no role in enacting Jim Crow; theirs created, enforced, and defended Jim Crow. The majority of our party voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the majority of their party did not. Our party believes in equal opportunity for all regardless of race; theirs believes in income redistribution and equality of outcomes at the expense of individual freedom and achievement. Ultimately, our party seeks to be truly colorblind and wants to create a society on that model; theirs cannot survive the creation of such a society for the simple reason that it depends on a coalition which must believe that government still has massive racial issues to solve into perpetuity. Without that belief, the Democrat coalition would fracture and ultimately dissolve.

Here's another salient point from the linked article:

What's more, the trend away from confident beliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think. David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the height of the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucial prop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diverse denominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation for either segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remained segregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: "Before the Supreme Court's [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, the southern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with it peacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted black applicants." With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that "people—even historians—are surprised to hear this." Billy Graham, the most prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.

Christians in the South led the way to integration, and are today among the most visible conservatives in terms of culture and politics (we're also, not coincidentally, leading the nation's third great abolition movement--abortion). The fact is that the civil rights movement, like the slavery abolition movement before it, was not rooted in secular humanism or liberalism. Modern liberalism leads inevitably to statism, meaning a more authoritative and powerful central government that respects the rights of individuals less over time. Such a government can coexist with Jim Crow and segregation without contradicting its core principle of centralizing power over citizens. The civil rights movement, like abolition before it, was an explicitly spiritual movement, led by the likes of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr in the case of the civil rights movement or northern Protestants in the case of abolition. Those who try to make the civil rights movement out to be the triumph of secularism over backward religious-based racism are writing a false history.

(via Ramesh Ponnuru)

Posted by B. Preston at 11:31 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack