Revealed Truth

Visit this site for verifiably accurate opinions on all things political - in contradistinction to the INcorrect opinions you are likely to find elsewhere. I'm an American Libertarian Nationalist Republican. Ponder that one a while. Almost all are welcome, but at the request of management: no vegetarians or soccer fans, please. We have our reasons. Thank you and welcome to: Revealed Truth.

New for 2005!
51 Things You Can Do To Annoy The Politically Correct

Links Worth a Look:

Blogs That Reveal Truth
  Ace of Spades HQ
  Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  Dissecting Leftism
  Eric Cowperthwaite
  Eternity Road
  Ipse Dixit
  Iraq the Model
  Kim's Daily Rant
  Michael The ArchAngel
  Right Thinking
  Ravenwood's Universe
  Right Wing News
  Smallest Minority
  Zebra Report

The Anti-Establishment
  Ann Coulter
  Best of the Web
  Cafe Hayek
  Cato Institute
  Claremont Institute
  Enter Stage Right
  Free Republic
  Front Page
  Green Watch
  Heritage Foundation
  Hugh Hewitt
  Institute for Justice
  Kudlow's Money Politic$
  Mackinac Center
  Media Rsrch Center
  Michelle Malkin
  National Review
  Poor and Stupid
  Tech Central Station
  Thomas Sowell
  Tongue Tied
  Walter Williams

Mere Amusement
  Flags of the World
  Postmodernism Generator
  Project Denny's
  Yours is a Very Bad Hotel

Unintentionally Hilarious Leftist Paranoia

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise

email me

Saturday, February 08, 2003
I'm a little disappointed in myself for not thinking of this, but Donald Luskin makes an excellent point about the "Letter of 8" published last week in the Wall Street Journal. Namely, that the letter represented a snub not only of the Axis of Weasel, but also of the New York Times. Luskin writes:

"Twenty years ago -- even five years ago -- it would have been unthinkable for such a letter to run anywhere but the Times -- America's 'newspaper of record.' But today -- well, can you imagine this letter running next to some strident, sophomoric raving from Maureen Dowd or some biased, unprincipled jeremiad from Paul Krugman? Apparently the leaders of eight great European nations couldn't either."

Luskin's blog, Poor and Stupid, is the latest addition to my blogroll. He is particularly good in some recent vivisection of Paul Krugman. Check it out.

< |

Look to Bucharest

"The Vilnius 10."

That's what they're calling themselves, I guess. Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. A week after eight mostly Western European nations published a letter in the Wall Street Journal announcing their support for the U.S. led effort against Iraq, these ten Eastern European nations published a letter that reads, in part, as follows:

"Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values ... The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction."

Where do I go to buy my "Proud to be a Lithuanian" tee-shirt?

The Axis of Weasels is almost competely circled now. In addition to Germany and France, our neighbor Canada remains one of the few holdouts in the democratic world. And Canada's contains some powerful commentary on that nation's equivocations:

"One of the reasons Canada has become so irrelevant is that the list of countries joining the U.S.-led coalition is already long -- and includes not only such traditional American allies as Britain and Australia, but also a remarkable crew of central and Eastern European nations. We say "remarkable" because many of these willing freedom fighters have only just recently been liberated from the yolk of despotism themselves. While pampered welfare states such as Canada, Germany and France are cringing on the sidelines, Ceausescu's children are offering to help defend the West and bring freedom to Iraq."

That last sentence is worth repeating:

"While pampered welfare states such as Canada, Germany and France are cringing on the sidelines, Ceausescu's children are offering to help defend the West and bring freedom to Iraq."

The concluding paragraph's a goodie, too:

"There's a lesson here: Those who've had their freedom tested will fight to keep it. Those who take freedom for granted, on the other hand, are less reliable. Thus the spectacle of our government vacillating endlessly, every day falling further and further into irrelevance. If you're looking for a power that 'punches above its weight,' forget Ottawa. Look to Bucharest."

Indeed. Look to Bucharest. And Vilnius. And Canberra. And Talinn.....

< |
Miguel Estrada Not Hispanic Enough

So say a bunch of leftist nitwits from such groups as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund who appeared with Tom Daschle at a recent press conference.

Now Estrada came to the U.S. from Honduras at the age of 17, at which point he learned English for the first time. So how is it that Estrada is insufficiently Hispanic to serve as a U.S. Appellate Judge?

Simple: he isn't a leftist. The sickening details can be found in this piece by Byron York.

< |
Friday, February 07, 2003
Peanut Paranoia

I couldn't make up something this ridiculous if I wanted to. Bizarre Science is reporting that Greenpeace wants to ban peanuts!

< |
Germans Offended. No One Cares.

Several German politicos were recently offended by remarks made by U.S. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. When asked by members of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee about the prospects for international cooperation in a war against Iraq, Rumsfeld replied:

“(T)here are three or four countries that have said they won’t do anything. I believe that Libya, Cuba and Germany are the ones that have indicated they won’t help in any respect."

While this certainly caused me to laugh out loud - for quite a sustained period of time - it didn’t have the same effect on Germany’s politicians for some reason. Here are a couple of samples of their reaction as cited on

(W)e must be worried about the inner condition of the US Defence Minister." -- Bundestag member, Peter Gauweiler

(I am) somewhat amazed by the diplomatic style of the US Defence Minister." -- Green MP, Angelika Beer

Now none of this matters much, given how irrelevant Germany has become in the Iraq matter. But there's something else that worries and amazes ME.

We’re often told of America’s relative lack of sophistication in matters of diplomacy and foreign policy vis-a-vis Old Europe. And perhaps there’s some validity to this notion. Perhaps American foreign service careerists lack the sophistication and subtlety of their counterparts in Germany and France. Perhaps Americans are comparatively insular and deficient in their understanding of the politics and governments of other nations.

Perhaps. I don’t really know.

But I DO know at least one thing that neither Mr. Gauweiler or Ms. Beer knows. Namely, that THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE A “DEFENSE MINISTER.” It has a “Secretary of Defense.” We don’t have ministers because we don’t have a parliament.

One would think that the sophisticates of Europe would understand as much.

< |
Ann Coulter Soundbite of the Week

Her weekly column is my great catharsis these days. Here's some wonderful stuff:

"Melancholy that their relentless nay-saying is having no effect on the president's plans for Iraq, New York Times columnists are now positing imaginary scenarios in which war with Iraq leads to a stock market crash and brings the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Nicholas Kristof has gone the Maureen Dowd route of using the op-ed page of the Times for a dream-sequence column. But instead of dreaming about Bush being retarded, Kristof dreams of catastrophe for America.

Kristof fantasized that, within the year, the North Koreans would be running riot through the Far East with their nukes. The column concluded with Bush apologizing to Secretary of State Colin Powell for invading Iraq. The strain of not having a Democrat in the Oval Office to create foreign policy disasters on his own is driving liberals to fevered fantasies of America's defeat someplace in the world.

In other appeasement news, former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter has completely vanished from the anti-war scene since news of his sex arrest broke. Three weeks ago, it was revealed that Ritter was caught soliciting sex from underage girls on the Internet in 2001. Until news of his arrest broke, The New York Times had been treating Ritter's reincarnation as a peacenik as the greatest act of patriotism since Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand. It's now Day 17 and counting of the Times' refusal to mention Ritter's arrest. Though the peace movement lost Ritter, it seems to have picked up Jerry Springer. Perhaps Springer is hoping he can get Scott Ritter's wife on the show to confront Ritter and the underage girl

< |
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
The Company You Keep

I listened to the Iraqi Foreign Minister's response to Colin Powell's address today while sitting in the airport bar at Skyharbor International Airport. So while I didn't catch every word, I got most of it. And aside from his laughable denials, one other thing struck me: the sources he used to buttress his argument.

At least twice he quoted the New York Times. Both times, as I recall, involved unattributed quotes by the Great Pink Lady to the effect that the world really has nothing to fear from Iraq.

Then there was 2002 Useful Idiotarian Gold Medalist Scott Ritter. I laughed right out loud when the Iraqi delegate said we should track down Ritter for enlightenment about the "concealment" strategy. Ritter's an expert at concealment, alright. He managed for nearly two years to conceal his arrest for a dalliance with a 16 year old.

At any rate, if I still needed convincing as to the irredeemably depraved nature of the Iraqi regime, its UN speech sealed the deal.

Anyone who would align himself with the likes of the New York Times and Scott Ritter simply cannot be trusted.
< |

I know THOSE numbers by heart now. Hell, I've been out of town and moving from place to place over the past 3 days and I must have seen and heard them 20 times.

On CNN at the airport.

In newspapers.

On the radio....over and over and over.

"Poll finds public trusts Powell more than Bush on Iraq policy."

"Asked whom they trust more on Iraq policy, almost two-thirds said they were likely to trust Secretary of State Colin Powell, 63 percent, more than President Bush, while 24 percent said they were more likely to trust the president, a new poll says...."

It got me to wondering. Has such a poll ever been run before? Why, in view of Bush's strong popularity in the U.S., did CNN and the USA Today feel the need to run a poll like this?

When Clinton was involving American troops in places like Haiti and Yugoslavia - where there were no American interests at stake whatsoever - did CNN run a poll asking: "Who do you trust more with American foreign policy: Madeline Albright or Bill Clinton?"

Hmmmm? Do you wonder why now, why only with THIS president, does CNN feel the need to ask this question?

And does the question even make sense? Colin Powell's JOB, after all, is handling foreign policy. Bush's is to set the course and find people like Powell to provide counsel and execute his policy initiatives. Would it make sense to ask: "Who do you trust more to handle the nation's defenses: Donald Rumsfeld or George Bush?"

It seems like a trivial matter, but if you give it consideration, I'm sure you, dear readers, will conclude that the fact that the poll was taken at all says more than do the predictable results.

By something like a 63 to 24 percent margin, I'd guess.

< |
Sunday, February 02, 2003
No blogging until Wednesday. Off to Arizona on business.

There are worse places to go in February, I suppose, if you live in Chicago.
< |