Wow, and you thought Rosie had conspiracy theories!

Cheers!

Mark, don't forget the cardinal rules of the lib MSM:

1. Thou shalt not report good news about Iraq.
2. Thou shalt not report news helpful to Bush.
3. Thou shalt not report news harmful to a dem.

Eric,

Conspiracy? No - but a fact of life. I'm quite certain of my facts here.

James,

That would be because the MSM is, by and large, alligned with the political left.

There is nothing to discuss - except where you should be seeking help.. This is completely from right (wrong?) field...

Conclusion: since we are not aligned with a socialist power in our War on Terrorism, the political left in America will exert all of its effort to secure an American defeat because, in the view of the left, if America wins then the Christian and free market aspects of the United States will be perpetuated.

Posted by Mark Noonan

That's an accurate analysis. It's also why we've seen a Leftist-Islamist alliance over the past several years. Leftists and Islamists have different goals but one common enemy-the Christian United States of America. Christianity stands in the way of Leftists (like the MSM) installing socialism and/or Islamists instituting Islam/Shari'a, so Leftists/Islamists have teamed up to attack and marginalize Christianity. Engineering an American defeat in the War on Terror would weaken America and further their goals of reshaping America in their socialist/Islamist image. We'd better wake up and do something about it because the results of a Pew Survey of US Muslims (-PDF Format) show some horrifying developments right here in America! Glenn Beck highlights part of the Pew Survey results:

A new pew research poll has come out which surveyed Muslims living here in the U.S. from everything from al Qaeda to profiling, and the results...[..] Twenty-six percent of American Muslims under 30 feel that suicide bombings against civilians are sometimes justified. That basically means that one quarter of American Muslims under 30 are OK with the idea of targeting innocent people to defend Islam.

Twenty-six percent, mind you, adds up to 280,000 people living right here. If you add the folks in who answered "I don`t know," or they wouldn`t answer, to that number, it spikes up to about half a million Americans.

Dude, did I mention that 60% of American Muslims are "Truthers". Scary!

Other Pew Survey Results: 63% of US Muslims are Democrats/lean Democratic. 26% are Independent/no political affiliation. Just 11% identify as Republicans.

Relatively few Muslim Americans believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, and many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks.

So, 60% of American Muslims are "Truthers". Scary. The Leftist MSM spewing their conspiracy theories about 9/11 are having a disasterous affect on Muslims and non-Muslim Leftists.

Mark,

You've made some serious charges here - the political left wants to impose totalitarian socialism and despises the Christian and free-market foundations of society.

Having spent a few years just outside Berkeley, CA and having met and talked to scores of left-wingers (aging hippies, computer developers, college students, artists, punk rockers, etc.), I can honestly say that none of them want to impose totalitarian socialism, now of them hate Christianity and none of them hate our free-market economy.

Just who are you referring to when you say the "political left"? A tiny handful of stereotyped bogiemen like Michael Moore? Democrats? People who dissaprove of an open-ended commitment in Iraq? I really don't know what to make of this post.

Just who are you referring to when you say the "political left"?

Extra, I suspect he's referring to those on the Left who are involved in politics, particularly the political leadership -- the Pelosis, Kennedys, Schumers, etc.. The people you describe around Berkeley are just run-of-the-mill Liberals, wrong-headed in their thinking, but basically harmless.

A while back, James Lewis at The American Thinker voiced what I thought was a pretty accurate description of modern socialism:

Socialism is a coherent political philosophy, painting a rosy future of peace and equality forever, if only the really good people achieve total power; in reality, the socialist fantasy just keeps slamming into a wall of failures, disasters, tyrannies, massacres and miseries wherever it’s tried. – James Lewis, American Thinker, 11/13/06

When you hear the phrase, "history repeats itself", it's merely describing the fact that a large percentage of the population of this planet fails to learn from history. As soon as there are no people left who directly remember the millions who died under Societ Communism, it'll be tried again -- and with the same result.

Mark: The last time we won a complete military victory was World War Two.

I thought it was a silly comment at the time, but I believe it was just last week you suggested that the conflicts in Panama and Granada should be used as models for future conflicts. So shouldn't you count those? And what about Desert Storm? That one successfully and completely liberated Kuwait. The nature of the war on terror is similar to the Cold War. And the Cold War was successfully concluded as well.

So it appears to me that even the initial premise of your argument is inaccurate, making your conclusion that much more spurious.

Please name one time any Democrat or Liberal has ever wished for defeat for America. Please name one time any liberal has ever expressed hatred for troops (AKA paid killers).

Why can't you even ATTEMPT to be bi-partisan? I mean, you don't even try anymore, you just come right out and attack anyone who doesn't agree with you as being crazy.

Nothing has been resolved, you just refuse to listen to any opinion other then your own on this matter. The second you hear the word liberal or Democrat immediately you come in with the mind set that anything they say is wrong and you are right.

Do you agree with even one liberal? Atleast liberals agree with many conservative and Republican opinions. And this is coming from a registered Republican, myself.

Do you really see a moral distinction between 'totalitarian socialist' and 'totalitarian right-wing' regimes? Let's see, how many has the U.S. gotten in bed with? hmmm: Rhee (S. Korea), Reza Pahlavi (Iran), Samosa (Nicaragua), the Generals (Argentina), Diem/Thieu (S. Vietnam), Duvalier (Haiti), apartheidists (S. Africa), Franco (Spain), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Musharraf (Pakistan)Marcos (Philippines); along with those in El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Chile, Brazil, Panama, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Thailand, Taiwan; and that's just off the top of my head.
I don't see any moral difference between totalitarian and totalitarian. I do understand the realpolitik of regimes that side with us vs. those that side with the regimes we oppose; but, you raised the moral issues.
As for 'socialist', well, you're talking about Canada, U.K., Germany, France, gee, pretty much all of Europe, Israel, India, Australia, N.Z., Japan...the list goes on. These are all reasonably representative governments that legislate and administer policies and programs that are politically popular. Are they truly socialist in the classic tradition (societal ownership/control of the means of production), or just by your definition (universal healthcare)?
As long as policies (that you define as socialist)are politically popular with electorates, and are legislated by representative governments, how can you call them 'imposed'? This is democracy in action. You support democracy?
Why do you insist on demonizing those with whom you disagree? Are some liberals anti-Christian? Obviously. Are some conservatives? Actually, liberalism has been the response (traditionally) of middle- and upper-class Jews/Christians to the myriad social problems that stem from poverty and lack of opportunity (see John Stuart Mill). I submit that Jesus endorsed social conciousness (see Sermon on the Mount). Liberals traditionally have tried to address these problems in a very capitalist manner: applying capital to solving the problem. Examples: ignorant/illiterate populace- public education; distribution of goods and services- interstate highway system; elderly dying for lack of food and medical care- Social Security and Medicare; air/water pollution- EPA; workers injured in their employment- workers comp/OSHA; crime- municipal/national police forces; poisoned food and medicines- FDA; etc., and etc...
These social problems have failed to attract much/any/sufficient 'free enterprise' capital because they do not provide sufficient profit motive. Can the reality of these problems be denied? Can the benefits of these solutions be denied? Is the only legitimate use of capital that which generates profit? Well, according to the polls (elections) these questions were answered generations ago, and your side lost.
Finally, syllogisms only produce reliable conclusions if the underlying assumptions are, actually, correct (see Aristotle). Your assumptions- liberals are socialist/anti-Christian; 'America' is Christian and free-enterprise- are just so wrong on so many levels that your conclusion- liberals are working to defeat 'America' in order to 'impose' their socialist/anti-Christian agenda is not just unreliable, but disengenuous.

That might be the craziest thing I've ever read. Do you have any original idea here or do you buy into the Limbaugh "everyone is against us" attitude. We're all Americans here and NO ONE wants to see the U.S. go to communism. I'm not really quite sure why I'm responding because it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks and acts that radically. The Fox News culture is really dividing this country and creating hate amongst us. And I, myself, am a conservative.

The political left in the United States wishes to impose a totalitarian socialism in order to remake society in a manner acceptable to the political left.

Posted by Mark Noonan at May 25, 2007 12:50 AM

Just who are you referring to when you say the "political left"?

Extra, I suspect he's referring to those on the Left who are involved in politics, particularly the political leadership -- the Pelosis, Kennedys, Schumers, etc..

Posted by: Retired Spook at May 25, 2007 08:31 AM

--------------------------------------------------

Totalitarian --- designating, of, or
characteristic of a government
or state in which one political
party or group maintains
complete control under a
dictatorship and
bans all others

Socialism --- any of various theories or
systems of the ownership and
operation of the means of
production and distribution by
society or the community rather
than private individuals, with
all members sharing in the work
and the products.

Yeah, that sure sounds like the 'liberal left' in the Democratic Party. The very same individuals who caved in on Bush's veto and who by your admission are 'millionaires'. Do you honestly think they would be willing to live in a totalitarian socialist country? Come on, guys...

Spook: When you hear the phrase, "history repeats itself", it's merely describing the fact that a large percentage of the population of this planet fails to learn from history.

The theme of that Lewis article is a defense of unilateralist foreign policy. To defend it he claims that "the Democratic Party is socialist at heart." From there he contends that socialism is inherently "internationalist". Thus, he concludes, any foreign policy that emphasizes broad alliances is socialist in nature. Then he concludes that "the socialist fantasy just keeps slamming into a wall of failures, disasters, tyrannies, massacres and miseries wherever it's tried."

The answer, he says, is unilateral action... "It is our fundamental difference on foreign policy." It's patriotic, he says, and based on "a widespread faith in the goodness of our country brought us through the dangers of the 20th century."

The trouble is, there are logical fallacies in his argument big enough to drive a truck through. The Democratic Party may be socialist at heart. One does wonder how far the fringe of the party would really like to push such policies. Nonetheless, there are other factions in the party that will resist it -- much like there are factions in the GOP that resist merging church and state, unitary executive power, and especially unilateralist foreign policy.

The latter is very much in dispute. Even Bush is backing away from the concept. At any rate, it is ridiculous to say that collaborative foreign policy is necessarily socialist. And if there is any overarching lesson to be learned from history it would be this: any social structure where the levers of political, military, and economic power are held too closely by the same people is a bad thing. And it doesn't much matter if it happens under the rubric of socialism, fascism, monarchism, or any other.

Darn, I screwed up a link in my above post. I meant to say the following...

Even Bush is backing away from the concept.

Darn, I screwed up a link in my above post.

Doncha just hate it when that happens?

Seriously Rico, I saved the Lewis quote in a MicroSoft Word file, because I thought it accurately described the views (and failures) of socialism. I didn't link back to the article, and, in fact, had totally forgotten what it was about. I don't disagree with your assessment of what Lewis said.

Conclusion: since we are not aligned with a socialist power in our War on Terrorism, the political left in America will exert all of its effort to secure an American defeat because, in the view of the left, if America wins then the Christian and free market aspects of the United States will be perpetuated. - Mark Noonan

Probably the most prescient summary of the left I have ever read. Congrats!

And what about Desert Storm? That one successfully and completely liberated Kuwait. The nature of the war on terror is similar to the Cold War. And the Cold War was successfully concluded as well. - ricorun

Mark said "COMPLETE MILITARY VICTORY". Liberation of Kuwait was not complete, hence our current struggle. The Cold War was not won militarily.
Pay attention.

Do you honestly think they would be willing to live in a totalitarian socialist country? Come on, guys...

You don't? The aforementioned regime would effectively give them more power.

RIcorun,

Good point, but it would only make me modify my point to "the last time we won a clear cut victory in any extended military conflict was WWII". It doesn't in any way change my position or my conclusion.

CO,

The problem is that you don't realise how totalitarian your own country has become. You do realise that Canadians in British Columbia, where hardly anyone speaks French, have to have signs up in French; that is totalitarianism...soft, but still total control of an aspect of your life.

Now, Canada is a nice country filled with nice people - but as you progress further into political correctness and "hate crimes" laws, you'll find more and more Canadians running afoul of the law merely for what they think and say.

neocon: Mark said "COMPLETE MILITARY VICTORY". Liberation of Kuwait was not complete, hence our current struggle. The Cold War was not won militarily. Pay attention.

Actually, the liberation WAS complete. There is no Iraqi influence there at all, and hasn't been for over a decade. The conquest of Saddam was not. Then again, that wasn't the mission. And the fact that the Cold War was not won militarily WAS very much my point. The war on terror will not be won militarily either. I've never heard anyone of any import disagree with that. Even with respect to Iraq, pretty much everyone agrees that the war cannot be won militarily -- up to and including Gen. Petraeus. So maybe it is you that hasn't been paying attention.

Like the Cold War there are now and will be military aspects to the war on terror, but to think of it as a war in the conventional sense is to call it an apple when in fact it's an orange.

And that brings us to...

Mark: Good point, but it would only make me modify my point to "the last time we won a clear cut victory in any extended military conflict was WWII".

Perhaps so. But the point is that when it comes to the war on terror, to think exclusively, or even predominantly in terms of "extended military conflict" is inappropriate. We are fighting a more insideous enemy than any we have faced before. To think of it in terms of state vs. state or any sort of set battle lines is just ridiculous. While said enemy does have sponsors, some more official than others, it is at its core an extra-state entity against which conventional military forces can only be applied indirectly. You may be able to kill a fly with a sledgehammer once in a while, but it's not really the best tool in the tool chest.

Even with respect to Iraq, pretty much everyone agrees that the war cannot be won militarily -- up to and including Gen. Petraeus. So maybe it is you that hasn't been paying attention. - ricorun

And again we have selective talking points by the left. Patreaus said that this war will be won politically AND militarily. Which is exactly the on-going strategy, hence the elected representative gov't. In cased you missed that. Patreaus NEVER excluded the military component.

Mark,

Great point about totalitarianism in Canada. However, I can do you one better. On the other end of Canada, namely Quebec, there are special enforcement officers whose sole purpose is to investigate improper usage of English signs etc. This comes down to where the offending language is posted, the size of font and whether French is posted as well. If you don't comply? Citations are issued that are accompanied with escalating fines etc. Oh and by the way, the officers only look for English signs. If you post a sign in, say Chinese? No problem.

Gee, that doesn't sound too much like a totalitarian society does it?

what is amazing to me is your contention that the political left 'despises Christianity'. You know - there are plenty of Christians on the political left . Christians make up 85% of the US .. does that ever occur to you when you are making up conspiracies?

Ted Kennedy's father Joseph Kennedy was the ambassador to Great Britain before we entered Workld War Two. Churchill DESPISED him.
1. He kept up a constant drone of defeatism in his reports to DC
2. Someone on his staff was feeding the Germans classified information
3. When he offered support, in exchange for exclusive rights to import certain whiskey's to the US - Roosevelt had the excuse he needed to force him out.

Like father, like son.

Bob wrote,
“Liberals traditionally have tried to address these problems in a very capitalist manner: applying capital to solving the problem. Examples: ignorant/illiterate populace- public education; distribution of goods and services- interstate highway system; elderly dying for lack of food and medical care- Social Security and Medicare; air/water pollution- EPA; workers injured in their employment- workers comp/OSHA; crime- municipal/national police forces; poisoned food and medicines- FDA; etc., and etc...”

Applying “capital” does not a capitalist make. Expecting the government, rather than the market to “solve” problems does indeed a socialist make.

1) Schools were formed by communities so that children would learn to read the bible. Government intervention solidified mediocre results and an ever dumber population.

2) The interstate highway system was the brainchild of Eisenhower with the idea that the Federal Government would have priority to move war material when needed; during times when the Government didn’t need it, the populace could use it for commerce.

3) Social Security / Medicare were designed as a safety net; care for the elderly has always been the responsibility of family/community/church. Now, (thanks to this socialist system) the government is the first line in the care for the elderly as families degenerate into government dependency. More elderly are at the mercy of bureaucrats.

4) The EPA has been a boondoggle from the start; technology has done more for the environment than technocracy.

5) Workman’s comp is insurance, it is administered by the government in most cases and has lead to fraud and mismanagement; private suppliers of Workman’s comp have provided the service cheaper and more efficiently despite the government intervention.

6) Police/military is the function of government, you finally got one right.

7) The FDA is a bloated paragon of waste and fraud; consumer protection is admirable, but in the market place caveat emptor works better. Businesses that employ predatory practices are soon stacked up in the dung-heap of history. We have laws that protect consumers and courts to seek relief.

CO,

The problem is that you don't realise how totalitarian your own country has become. You do realise that Canadians in British Columbia, where hardly anyone speaks French, have to have signs up in French; that is totalitarianism...soft, but still total control of an aspect of your life.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 25, 2007 11:35 AM

Mark, fortunately for us, we have more than one political party and other parties are not banned as they would be in a totalitarian country. Our current government, being a minority one, is a long, long, way from being a dictatorship.

Canada has two official languages and all government business is conducted in these languages. In Quebec, as pointed out by GOP 4 ME, abuses have occurred. Some business establishments have received citations, but unlike in a totalitarian regime, these business have legal recourse.

We have a Charter of Right and Freedoms in place for the protection of all Canadians. So Mark, please don't worry, Canada isn't about to leave the Democratic family any time soon.

neocon: And again we have selective talking points by the left. Patreaus said that this war will be won politically AND militarily. Which is exactly the on-going strategy, hence the elected representative gov't. In cased you missed that. Patreaus NEVER excluded the military component.

Had you been paying attention to any of my other comments over the last several months you would know that I do not discount a military component. It is nonetheless the case that he (and everyone else of any import) doesn't view it as sufficient.

Mark:

Maybe too broad a brush (or "left" is ill-defined).

There certainly is a "left" in America that believes the problem with the world is the United States, a group which believes us getting taken down a few rungs would be good for the world, etc. They will reflexively oppose any United States action they deem motivated by U.S. self interest.

IMO, the more profitable focus would be "What are the rules for Republican Presidents going forward?" I think history since WW II teaches us:

1. A Republican president cannot count on support from Democrats in the use of military force.

2. If a Republican president believes it necessary to deploy our armed forces, he (or she) must develop a plan which devastates the enemy and ends hostilities quickly - there will be a "window" when "Rally 'Round the Flag" will make Democrats reluctant to oppose the President outright, but they'll get over it. The war needs to end before that happens.

3. Demonstrable evidence of progress must be aggressively & systematically put before the American people. Democrats will abandon a Republican-President led war of attrition as soon as they feel it safe to do so. They have a large constituency amongst the "Take America Down a Peg" class, so their judgment of when it is "safe" is going to be skewed - you don't have much time and you can't take anything for granted.

4. You're going to have the "challenging their patriotism" thing thrown at you regularly - it's red meat for their base - so you better have an answer.

Treating the question seriously IS NOT an answer. You'd be better off saying something like "Oh, they're patriots. They're stupid & foolish patriots who think begging our enemies to leave us alone is a strategy for victory - which is anti-historical - but they're patriots nevertheless."

Or to put it another way: "Get in, win & get out before the Democrats figure out what's going on."

What does victory in Iraq even look like?

(Ed. Note: Rest of comment excised as we have endlessly answered precisely what victory in Iraq will look like).

what is amazing to me is your contention that the political left 'despises Christianity'.

What is amazing to me is that you actually think anyone cares what you think, kblockhead. Bugger off, you little toad...

CO,

Votes don't equal freedom - in fact, even without votes, a person can be quite free; while with votes, a person can be quite enslaved. Hitler held lots of votes, you see?

Totalitarianism comes in many guises - and don't think I'm saying that we here in the States haven't been infected with it. Far from it - but, thank God, we have our Constitution which, being written two centuries ago, isn't easy to get around.

In Canada, to make a statement thusly:

"All homosexuals go to Hell"

can get you prosecuted under Canada's very totalitarian hate crimes laws. In the United States, to make such a statement would make a person a social pariah and experts in the field would swiftly point out that such a statement is theologically unsound...but aside from leftwing fanatics, no one here would even think of prosecuting a person who made such a statement. We in America (except, once again, for the left) accept that there will be people who will say things which are amazingly offensive, but that there's nothing we can do about it...it is part of the price of freedom.

Your freedoms in Canada are highly restricted freedoms - they are the freedoms left to you by the government after it has taken over control of all aspects of your life which the government holds you incapable of running on your own. Our freedoms in America are endowed to us by our Creator - the difference is very, very important.

BD,

Can't argue with your post at all.

Our freedoms in America are endowed to us by our Creator - the difference is very, very important.

-- no Mark - the freedoms in America come from constitution and the bill of rights. God did not give us freedoms any more here than in Canada.

In Canada, to make a statement thusly:

"All homosexuals go to Hell"

can get you prosecuted under Canada's very totalitarian hate crimes laws.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 26, 2007 03:17 AM

Mark, this might put your mind at ease:-

Hate speech in Canada:
Sven Robinson's private member's bill C-250

Status of bill C-250:
The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation has now joined four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "color, race, religion or ethnic origin." However, a "not withstanding" type clause allows hate speech if it is religiously motivated. In essence, the law states that the freedom of one person to express religiously-motivated hatred is given higher priority that the freedom of another person to be free of hatred expressed against them.

"Votes don't equal freedom"

Purple fingers, Mark. Purple fingers. In the case of Iraq, those votes equal freedom for the Iraqi people to commit atrocities to each other for decades to come. Meanwhile many of our soldiers will be caught in the middle. For decades to come. Which is good for you, cause you'll have decades to write about how tough and resolute you are and how you will not quit until the job is done. And this will make you feel....better.

BD: Or to put it another way: "Get in, win & get out before the Democrats figure out what's going on."

aka: the Powell Doctrine.

CO,

Bogus - it is going to mean whatever a judge says it means.

Go ahead...as an experiment, make a public speech on that subject and see what happens to you.

Martin,

You err - the purple fingers are not freedom, but evidence of the desire for freedom and the willingness to risk one's life for it.

Go ahead...as an experiment, make a public speech on that subject and see what happens to you.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 26, 2007 12:27 PM

If I do it as an individual, outside the religious realm, yes, I will feel the strong arm of the law; however if I hide behind my 'religious beliefs' I will not.

I am ashamed of the 'not withstanding' clause in this Bill. To give someone the right to spew hatred toward their fellow human beings under the protection of 'religious freedom' is abhorrent. Everyone should be held to the same standard, period.

Mark -

I am not sure what you mean - I see neo-nazi marches, anti homosexual marches, happen all the time across the country. Nobody is going to jail for this. Of course there are qualifications to free speech - (falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater causing a stampede , slander, etc..) but thats just not true what you say Mark. Its just not true