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
Iraq the Model
Kim's Daily Rant
Michael The ArchAngel
Right Wing News
Best of the Web
Enter Stage Right
Institute for Justice
Kudlow's Money Politic$
Media Rsrch Center
Poor and Stupid
Tech Central Station
Flags of the World
Yours is a Very Bad Hotel
Unintentionally Hilarious Leftist Paranoia
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Michael Moore's "Minutemen"
Here's the latest from Iraq the Model on the tactics now being used by the murdering scum who Michael Moore called Iraq's Minutemen:
"The suicide attack that was performed on an election center in one of Baghdad's districts (Baghdad Al-Jadeedah) last Sunday was performed using a kidnapped 'Down Syndrome' patient.
You blog, I blog, we all blog, for Ipod
Every other web site I visit - blog or otherwise - seems to think I desperately need an Ipod. There are contests that allow you to win Ipods. There are links to places that sell Ipods. Pictures of Ipods, stories about Ipods. As Jan Brady might say: "Ipod, Ipod, Ipod!!"
It's gotten so overwhelming that I've almost been tempted to find out what the hell an "Ipod" is.
Eastern European nations ask for ban on communist symbols
I have to admit that I really enjoyed reading this story. While I know that banning communist symbols is no more morally acceptable than banning Nazi symbols, I also know that it's sure as hell no LESS morally acceptable either.
As you probably know, Germany already prohibits the display of Nazi symbols such as the Swastika. Apparently the EU is considering implementing a similar ban continent-wide. Which, of course, is ridiculous, but is also indicative of the low priority the EU places on freedom of expression.
German sensitivity to reminders of the Third Reich is understandable. But if those sensitivities are to be enshrined into European law, why should the sensitivities of Czechs, Hungarians, and Lithuanians be given any less consideration? The citizens of these countries suffered under foreign occupation for 50 years, did they not?
The answer, of course, is that the whole idea of regulating political speech only leads to what leftists, in the economic context, call "a race to the bottom." One man's sensitivity shouldn't give him the right to limit another's liberty. So my brain tells me that this is a terrible idea.
Be that as it may, I still say: God bless those spunky Eastern Europeans for reminding the EU that based on their experience, communism and Nazism are birds of a feather.
Friday, February 04, 2005
The minutes of this week's meeting of the Fidel Castro Fan Club...
...can be found on the web site of the Democratic Underground here.
Keep in mind that this is the crowd that thinks America has become a fascist theocracy because....well I'm not quite sure why. I think it has something to do with John Ashcroft praying, but it's all a bit unclear.
At any rate, they call Bush things like "Bushitler," and a good percentage of them have difficulty sleeping at night for fear that Halliburton employees will bust their doors down and confiscate their copies of "Fahrenheit 911," which they'll then sell to the federal government in no-bid contracts.
The story that prompted the DU thread was one in which Fidel watched Bush's inauguration speech and called Bush "deranged." Here's a sampling of some of the comments of these freedom-loving Democrats:
- "He just went up a notch in my estimation."
- "Fidel doesn't have oil...he can speak the truth without worrying about it."
- "Give that man a cigar."
- "Mr Castro is a brilliant man. But, how many Americans have bothered to read anything that he has written or said? I guess that's why its so easy for so many Americans to criticize him without a second thought (let alone a first thought)."
- "Cuba is a beautiful place and they make the best cigars in the world...
I say let's be friends with Cuba instead of treating them like this is Prezit's Bunnypants wild west TV shows that I know he still watches every day."
You see the mindset we're dealing with here? We're talking about a man who executes political dissidents. A man who runs a one-party dictatorship allowing no dissent, no religious freedom, and no economic freedom. But he expresses hatred for Bush comparable to theirs, so the DU crowd rushes to sing his praises.
Don't make the mistake, though, of thinking this is ONLY a matter of the DUh folks cheering for the enemy of their enemy. That's part of it - but if you read the comments on the DU thread, you'll see there's a lot of genuine ideological sympathy for Castro independent of any anti-Bush considerations. Check out this final entry from the DU thread:
"This whole 'Cuba and Fidel are very bad' is one 45+ year LIE!!!!!
By who? the CIA and the U.S. Government. Why? 'Because they took our Sugar Plantations and casinos, Man!'
How Dare that Fidel, take away our casinos, kill or expel all the Rich Capitalists who are here exploiting and contributing to the continued poverty of the Cuban people....
And as you may have figured out, Socialism and Capitalism (or as it was call before it was re-named 'Corporatism') don't get along very well."
It's scary, and it's sad - but this is how a lot of these people think. No amount of tyranny or oppression is inexcusable if it's exercised in the name of opposing capitalism. The whole mindset was captured succinctly and brilliantly by John Derbyshire a few years ago when he wrote this:
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."
Thursday, February 03, 2005
The wretched little fraud that is Andrew Sullivan
In the first place, I've never liked his smarmy, slithery demeanor. More important, though, he's always struck me as a man - well as a person - more concerned with building a reputation as the world's foremost iconoclast than with actually advancing any ideas.
He's gay! And Catholic! And conservative! But of course he despises the Catholic church. And most conservatives. Especially George Bush.
Some people find this shtick intriguing. I saw through it after about the second Sullivan article I ever read. So it was with a great sense of vindication that I read this piece by Michelle Malkin.
It seems that the blogosphere's leading gay Catholic conservative anti-conservative critic of the Catholic church has announced that he's putting his blog "on hiatus for a few months." Why? Glad you asked:
"The simple answer is that I want to take a breather, to write a long-overdue book, to read some more, travel to Europe and the Middle East, and work on some longer projects."
Which would be just dandy, except for one little thing. Only a few months ago Sullivan shamelessly begged for contributions to keep his blog going. He was one of the first, if not the very first, in the blogosphere, to ask for contributions from his readers - and he's done it several times. In each of his beg-a-thons, lots of folks - for reasons known only to them and their gods - chose to give the guy money.
Malkin quotes a blog called The Agitator thusly:
"Sullivan by my count has had at least three 'pledge drives' in the last few years, in which he begs his readers to give him money. He bemoans the cost of bandwidth for maintaining his site (though IT critics have said it shouldn't cost more than $500 or so per year), even though he chooses to maintain it, and sells ads and has about a half-dozen well-paying writing gigs on the side.
Nevertheless, Sullivan continues to ask his readers to support his blogging with dollars, and they continue to do so. One drive brought in $120,000. Another, $80,000. His most recent drive was just six months ago. It was his second of the year, and it triggered quite a bit of criticism from his fellow bloggers.
I don't really have a problem with pledge drives (I had one once, though it was for a specific purpose), but two in one year seems excessive, particularly if the first one brought in more money than most of his readers make in a year.
And now? Now Sullivan is quitting blogging, indefinitely...Call me envious (and I am -- I'd certainly be grateful to make a hundred grand a year blogging), but this strikes me as a pretty schmucky move.
If I had given Sullivan money as recently as last July on his promises of continued insight and daily dishing, I think I'd be in line for a refund right about now."
So Sullivan rakes in a couple of hundred grand from his readers for the ostensible purpose of keeping his blog alive. Then he takes the money and goes on a European vacation. What makes me think he's really off to Thailand?
One last thing. As you'll see from the Malkin posting, Sullivan named one of his silly little awards after her. He's done a similar thing to Ann Coulter in the past, against whom he seems to harbor sort of grudge. I'm not sure what these two women ever did to him, but he sure seems to especially dislike conservative women.
Make of that what you will.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Greenpeace founder: "Environmental movement has lost its way"
Patrick Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace. Despite being a committed environmentalist, he broke with the group years ago. Why?
He tells us in this op-ed piece in the Miami Herald.
"...The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support.
We're faced with environmental policies that ignore science and result in increased risk to human health and ecology. To borrow from the vernacular, how sick is that?"
Some of the examples Moore cites of Green hysteria-mongering include the campaigns against genetically engineered foods, vinyl and nuclear power.
-On genetic engineering:
"There is no evidence of harm to human health or the environment, and benefits are measurable and significant. Genetically enhanced (GE) food crops reduce chemical pesticides, boost yield and reduce soil erosion. Enriched with Vitamin A, Golden Rice could prevent blindness in 500,000 children per year in Asia and Africa if activists would stop blocking its introduction. Other food crops contain iron, Vitamin E, enhanced protein and better oils. The anti-GE campaign seeks to deny these environmental and nutritional advances by using 'Frankenfood' scare tactics and misinformation campaigns."
"Greenpeace wants to ban the use of chlorine in all industrial processes. The addition of chlorine to drinking water has been the greatest public-health advance in history, and 75 percent of our medicines are based on chlorine chemistry. Greenpeace calls for a ban on polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), claiming it is the 'poison plastic.' There is not a shred of evidence that vinyl damages human health or the environment."
-On nuclear power:
"A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions seems unlikely given our continued heavy reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Even UK environmentalist James Lovelock, who posited the Gaia theory that the Earth operates as a giant, self-regulating super-organism, now sees nuclear energy as key to our planet's future health. 'Civilization is in imminent danger,' he warns, `and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available energy source -- or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.'
Moore notes that the environmental movement has become anti-industry. I have no doubt that he is sincere, but on this one point I think he's painfully naive.
These people didn't just "become" anti-industry. They've always BEEN anti-industry, because they've been socialists from the word go! The ones who aren't mere luddites, that is. Whether they're trying to ban DDT, shut down nuclear power plants, stop logging, or prevent the construction of housing developments, it's always the same end-game: they want economic activity to be directed by the state.
Suppose you have a family doctor, and no matter what ailment prompts your visit, he always gives you the same treatment and writes the same prescription. It doesn't matter whether you have the flu, a twisted ankle, blurred vision, or you're hearing voices ordering you to assassinate the Postmaster General - he offers up the exact same remedy.
After a while, you would probably come to one of three conclusions about your doctor:
1) He's incompetent;
2) He's being paid off by the company that makes the drug he prescribes; or
3) He has some sort of agenda that has nothing at all to do with your health.
And you would almost certainly be correct.
Well this same analysis can be applied to the ecoloons, or as I call them, The Scum of the Earth. Moore seems to be of the belief that incompetence is the culprit; that they're simply mistaken in their views of the science. It seems to me, though, that this view is overly generous. Too many leaders of too many groups unashamedly peddle the same rubbish over and over to ascribe it to mere ineptitude.
There's probably some merit, on the other hand, to alternative number two: that the Greenies are, in a sense, simply venal. More hysteria, effectively promoted, means more government grants, more contributions from a gullible public, and more political influence for environmental groups.
The problem, though, is that while greed might explain their inclination to find environmental calamities around every corner, it doesn't adequately explain the ideological consistency of their proposed solutions. The Scum of the Earth could surely find a way to line its pockets whilst promoting proposals that don't require ceding economic decision making to the state - if it were so inclined.
No, our doctor has an agenda. And you don't have to dig too deeply to figure out what that agenda is. That was spelled out pretty clearly by former U.S. Senator (Democrat, Colorado) Tim Wirth:
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
There it is. The facts don't matter, so long as they lead to "doing the right thing" as far as economic policy is concerned. And the "right thing," of course, is for the state to dictate every aspect of economic development.
These people are as evil in their way as the people we are fighting in Iraq. They aren't beheading their adversaries. Yet. But we've seen their intellectual kin all too often in recent history. Pol Pot thought people wearing eyeglasses were dangerous intellectuals and hence a threat to his utopian vision - so he killed them. In the name of The People of course.
I look for reasons to believe that the Green Slime Left, given the levers of power, would behave much differently. And I can honestly say I haven't found any.
Is there a Swiss Banker Fan Club?
If so, I might just join after reading this.
Concerning Jacques Chirac’s proposal for an international tax on countries with banking secrecy, to be used to finance "third world poverty," Swiss Bankers Association spokesman James Nason said this:
"A far better idea would be if the oh-so-pious French were to impose a tax on nasty tin-pot dictators who purchase real estate on the Côte d'Azur, topped up with a tax on French bank loans and arms sales to countries with brutally repressive regimes."
Now THAT'S gotta hurt!
(Hat tip to Gindy.blogspot.com.)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
An honest left-wing journalist is hard to find
Evidence continues to mount of the comprehensive unhinging of Old Media. If there is such a thing as mass psychosis, I think that's what we might be witnessing.
The latest to spin off his axis is CNN head honcho Eason Jordan. You may remember Jordan as the fellow who admitted a couple of years back that his network purposefully spiked stories of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein in order to maintain a cozy relationship with his government.
As a card-carrying memeber of the media elite, Jordan attended the BBC-sponsored World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last week, where he took the opportunity to accuse U.S. troops of targeting 12 U.S. journalists for death!
Powerline quotes the Forum's official blog thusly:
"During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others."
This isn't some guy writing stuff no one reads in Nation or Mother Jones. This is the guy running the news operation at CNN.
Powerline drives a stake in this story pretty nicely with this:
"I suppose a short refutation of Jordan's theory would be that if the U.S. military really set out to 'target' journalists in Iraq, there wouldn't be anywhere near so many journalists swarming over that country."
Nevertheless, the point can't be stated often enough. Old Media - of which CNN is certainly a member, albeit a junior member - is in the process of committing suicide by a thousand cuts. Whether it's the dimwitted ramblings of Bill Moyers, Dan Rather's forgeries, the New York Times crusade against Augusta National, or the borderline treasonous utterances of the head of CNN, with each passing week some member of Old Media grabs the knife and takes another cut.
An honest left-wing journalist is hard to find.....
But not impossible.
Sun Times columnist Mark Brown is uncommonly reflective in this piece in today's Chicago Sun Times entitled "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?"
"Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead....
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility....
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance."
War versus freedom - and why it's never simple
Francis Porretto of Eternity Road offers a couple plates full of food for thought on the moral considerations of war.
A supporter of our efforts in Iraq (and of course, Afghanistan), Porretto isn't concerned with justifying body counts - though he does offer both Dresden and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings as examples of the sort of tactical calculus that will inevitably be debated without resolution. On the contrary, coming from a libertarian perspective, his discussion is primarily concerned with the tangential impact of increasing statism that inevitably results from a war effort.
To that end, he takes a look at the arguments of that small-but-dogged group of libertarians who view Abraham Lincoln as the embodiment of statist usurpation in the name of national security.
"Concerning certain of the costs of the Civil War, there can be little dispute. President Lincoln fastened a federal grip upon the Union that was unprecedented in its straitness or scope. He imposed income taxes and conscription, introduced fiat currency, suspended habeas corpus, and sought to silence or imprison many of his opponents by the use of vaguely worded sedition laws. For conscription alone, Lincoln must endure a harsh scrutiny, for what is conscription if not involuntary servitude, with the added risks to life and limb of warfare?
Any justification for Lincoln's quasi-dictatorial administration must be premised upon the necessity of forcing the Confederate states back into the Union and ending slavery in the process. But at this time, no proposed argument for or against that necessity is beyond all challenge. The issue can never be closed.
War is not the most terrible of things. Enslavement is worse than death, whether it's literal subjugation by a tyrant or the self-subjugation of reflexive retreat before a bully. But war has its costs, not merely in blood and treasure but also in the freedom of the citizens of the belligerent nations. If we are to learn anything from the unclosable issues raised by the wars of the past, we should learn this: those who advocate war are seldom perfectly candid about what the costs will be, even to themselves...."
Something to consider. Porretto isn't a Lew-Rockwell-style loon, after all. He's right here with the good guys. But it's hard to argue with his concluding paragraph:
"It must not be forgotten. So much pain and death must amount to something; it must never be thrown away. For in our time, so long after those terrible days, our uncertainties about the claimed necessities can only produce some good if we can acquire a more self-protective skepticism about war and assertions of national emergency, whenever, wherever, and by whomever they're raised."
Monday, January 31, 2005
Speaking of political courage...
"The man replacing the mayor of Baghdad - who was assassinated for his pro-American loyalties - says he is not worried about his ties to Washington.
In fact, he'd like to erect a monument to honor President Bush in the middle of the city.
'We will build a statue for Bush,' said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. 'He is the symbol of freedom.'
Fadel's predecessor, Ali al-Haidari, was gunned down Jan. 4 when militants opened fire on his armor-covered BMW as it traveled with a three-car convoy."
From yesterday's New York Post.
I hadn't intended on writing anything about the Iraqi elections. Others are doing enough of that. But this really struck me.
Compare and contrast:
-Jesse Jackson and his shrill, whining cadre of fellow-travelers complain about having to stand in line a couple of hours to vote.
-Millions of Iraqis brave death threats on themselves and their children, in some cases walking miles to cast their votes. And the Mayor of Baghdad, who replaced a guy killed because he was too pro-American, calls for a statue of George Bush to be erected in the city.
So you tell me: who sounds like he's really interested in "keeping hope alive" - Jesse Jackson or Mayor Fadel?
THIS is what political courage looks like
The left loves little more than to prattle on about the alleged "courage" of this person or that. The folks they celebrate in this fashion, however, are generally little more than the most slavishly conformist devotees of political correctness. Abortionists, for example, are often hailed by the moonbat wing of the Democrat party as Profiles in Courage - despite the fact that fewer abortion doctors have been killed in the past few years than have died in Teddy Kennedy's car during his senatorial career.
One person you can be certain you'll never see feted at the Kennedy Center and honored with a Profile in Courage Award is Australian Prime Minister John Howard. In a just world, though, he'd be next in line for the award.
Howard attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, sponsored by the British Broadcasting Corporation. After several minutes of standard issue America-bashing by the assembled indignantaries, Howard had apparently heard enough.
"People say to me back home, 'You're anti the United Nations'. I'm not anti the United Nations. I'm in favour of the United Nations where it works. The United Nations system worked brilliantly in East Timor, but it worked because you had a coming together - others were there.
"It didn't work in the Balkans, and if it hadn't been for the actions of the US in the Balkans, there would have been more Muslims slaughtered, and that's unilateral action if you like.
"For heaven's sake, you have got to work out a modus vivendi that involves making the United Nations work when it can, but when it can't you've got to have sometimes unilateral action, sometimes action by coalitions of the willing. Otherwise you won't have any solutions."
Howard stood up to a roomful of European leftists and challenged not only their mindless devotion to the concept that the U.S. is responsible for all the world's ills; but the infallibility of their cherished United Nations as well! It's a wonder he made it out of Switzerland alive.
John Howard is a great man.
Greeks and Turks. Palestinians and Israelis. Crips and Bloods. Muslims and....everybody.
It all gets a little boring after a time. The same old vendettas, the same old bloodletting. We need something fresh. A new form of fratricidal enmity to spice things up.
Well, I'm happy to report that there are folks willing to oblige! Presented for your consideration, the brand new blog: "We Hate North Indians".
Brought to you of course by SOUTH Indians.
At We Hate North Indians, you'll learn such things as:
-72% of the Software Engineers of India in India and abroad are South Indians
-AR Rahman gets 22 times as much as veteran music director Anu Malik for a movie....
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Conservatives say "Thanks, Hollywood, for Reelecting W!"
A very nice new blog (as of November) called Zebra Report does a great job of covering the news with a cogent right-wing spin. I learned from ZR about this upcoming billboard campaign by Citizens United "thanking" Hollywood for helping to get President Bush reelected.
How truly mean-spirited. And delicious!
W. As in Walker. Not Whoopi.