Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, January 25, 2003

Laura Whitehorn is still going to speak at Duke University. That alone pisses me off, but more importantly is that an infuriating hypocrisy is at play here and I have to say something about it. Ms. Whitehorn is stressing that she planted her bomb to explode on the U.S. Capitol at 11 PM so that no one would be hurt. How considerate. The hypocrisy is that Duke University (or any of the other schools who welcomed Whitehorn with open arms) would never, ever, in a thousand years, for obvious politically correct reasons and perhaps for security reasons, allow a speaker on campus who had bombed an abortion clinic at 11 PM. It wouldn't happen. The PC police would be out in force demanding that no abortion bomber be allowed to speak. I would even agree that a bomber should not be allowed to speak, unless the speaker was prepared to say how wrong they were to have ever equated a bombing with speech. But the only reason the PC police would object would be because of the target. It would have nothing to do with a terrorist being allowed to speak. It would have everything to do with the terrorists target. The campus PC culture obviously accepts U.S. Capitol bombers because it represents the evil U.S. government, but they would never accept abortion clinic bombers.

Jonah Goldberg has a piece on France. Come to think of it, everyone has a piece on France.

France would have us all believe they have reversed positions on the Iraq question because of some principle. That's a load of horseshit. France reversed positions because they do a lot of business with Saddam Hussein:

"And just to set the record straight: The sanctions regime has improved the health of all Iraqi children not under Saddam Hussein's thumb. In the Kurdish North — where American and British, but not French, planes prevent mass slaughter — there is no mass starvation or child-health crisis. Saddam, and not sanctions, has killed hundreds of thousands of children in order to score propaganda points, which have in turn been manfully presented to the world community by Mr. Chirac in exchange for fat oil contracts. In effect, the French (and Russians) do not want a war-for-oil because the current peace-for-oil allows them to collect billions from the corpses of dead Iraqi children.

So when the French now say they are in favor of sanctions and continued inspections, they merely mean they are in favor of preventing the U.S. from changing the status quo and depriving the French of blood money. One would not normally associate the word "chutzpah" with a country so hostile to its Jews, but there you have it."

Friday, January 24, 2003

The Axis of Weasels don't like us. I love it. That would be France and Germany.

(Cowardly Pundit is claiming to have coined the phrase and the term is spreading like wildfire. John Gibson of Fox News used the term the other day on his show, The Big Story.)

"Old Europe" is angry and wants us to practice some more of that containment that THEY practiced during the Cold War. Oh, that's right, that was the US who contained the Soviets and communism during the Cold War.

The "High Noon" analogy was timely and brilliant when it was first used several months ago to explain how Europe was reacting. The US is Gary Cooper. The cowardly townspeople are the French and Germans (the townspeople were originally portrayed as being all of Europe, but it's clear that many European nations don't share their cowardice). As you recall, Gary Cooper was running around town trying to get support from the townspeople to help him fight the outlaws that were coming to kill him. The cowardly townspeople just wanted him to go away. It wasn't their fight and they were afraid to get involved. Cooper had spent years defending the townspeople from outlaws and when he needed them, they turned their back on him. In the end, Cooper and his wife killed the outlaws. The final scene should be how we leave Europe. We should throw our sheriffs badge on the ground in disgust and leave the jerks to defend themselves.

James Robbins in National Review has an article on Scott Ritter. Ritter is the former weapons inspector turned Saddam apologist who was arrested in June of 2001 for attempting to have sexual encounters with under age girls.

Robbins mentions that he and his friends wondered what the Iraqis had on Ritter since he suddenly changed his position on Iraq:

"In my drinking circles when the question of Scott Ritter came up it was never in the context of "Why did he change his mind?" but always, "What do the Iraqis have on him?" Of course, we are all national-security community folks in one way or another, and pretty much look at life through the realist lens. We might come across as cynical, especially after a few rounds, but more often than not we get things right. When allegations of Ritter's planned sexual encounters with under-aged girls surfaced this week, the collective response was a professionally objective, 'Oh, so that was it.'"

I understood immediately what Robbins was talking about. See, during the Monica Lewinsky affair, I made the argument: What if it had been Michael Lewinsky? Could our president be blackmailed? Certainly. That's why, unfortunately, his sex life does matter. That's why I need to know that our president cannot be compromised by sexual deviance or any other personal habit.

Here's my letter to Mr. Robbins:

Mr. Robbins

I just read your "Vice Squad" piece and I was once again reminded of an old argument of mine as to why a US president's sex life should be our business.

Obviously, President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky could have been used against him. It's not inconceivable that a foreign power could have found out about his affair and blackmailed him. That's why it was so important for the man to tell the truth. That's another reason why his perjury was so destructive. Continuing the lie would allow his blackmailers to maintain their power over him.

Now consider: What if our president enjoyed sex with boys of the same age as Ms. Lewinsky? What if, instead of Monica Lewinsky, it had been Michael Lewinsky? How much more eager would our president be to hide an affair with a boy or man? He could be blackmailed and our national security would be seriously compromised.

The blackmail scenario was not used at all to explain to America why Bill Clinton's sex life was relevant to us all. A president's sexual habits could affect us all by allowing blackmailers to set US policy.

Sean Roper

Thursday, January 23, 2003

Wow. We had a pretty big snow last night. The forecast, right up to the last minute, was for about one to three inches. Just before the storm arrived it changed it's approach and the forecast became for between three and six inches. I think we actually got more than seven inches of snow.

The town still hasn't scraped my road and that's a pretty good indicator of just how bad the storm was. A lot of people will be digging out of this one. Me included.

The Weekly Standard describes what has happened to Jesus Soriano of Venezuela:

"The militia identified Soriano and captured him. They then tied his hands and feet, lifted him up, and paraded him through the street like a sacrificial lamb chanting "Judas! Judas!" The entire spectacle was recorded by a cameraman who works for the official government television entity. Soriano was beaten so severely that he was left at the hospital emergency room. At the hospital he was detained by the DISIP, Chavez's secret police, and taken to their headquarters for questioning.

During his interrogation, fingernails in his left hand were torn out. After being further tortured and injected with drugs, the secret police took him into the bowels of the building and placed him in a cell. His cellmate: Joao de Gouveia.

Gouveia has the keys to the cell and comes in and out of the secret police headquarters at will. His only restriction is that he must sleep in the precinct, lest Chavez's police are revealed as allowing a confessed killer to roam free. Soriano's mother (who is also a Chavez supporter) tearfully claimed that Gouveia sodomized Soriano and beat him with such force that Soriano cannot open his eyes."

Soriano was a Chavez supporter. If they did this to him, imagine what happens to opponents.

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

Michael Kelly has a must read editorial in the Washington Post. I say must read because everyone must understand exactly who organized and lead the anti-war protests this past weekend:

"Last weekend, the left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."

There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary -- the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam Hussein and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas."

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Iran has been teetering on the brink of revolution for months now and I am beginning to wonder if it will actually happen. Michael Ledeen keeps speaking of "when" instead of "if" the theocratic government in Iran fails. I'm skeptical. Castro has held on against all odds. Saddam has too. I hope Iran becomes a democratic nation, but it's not at all clear to me that it's a matter of when.

From the "You Gotta Be Shittin' Me!" file.

The Telegraph is reporting that England gave asylum to a former Taliban soldier:

"A Taliban soldier who fought British and American troops in Afghanistan has been granted asylum here because he fears persecution from the new Western-backed government in Kabul."

What's worse is that the man will probably receive welfare benefits as well.

Last Thursday, Best of The Web had this piece about a speaker at Duke University that the university described as a "political prisoner." I took exception to that characterization because the person in question, Laura Whitehorn, was not imprisoned for speech as the term "political prisoner" implies. She was jailed for planting a bomb at the US Capitol. It wasn't merely a question of semantics. There's a huge difference between being a political prisoner and being a terrorist. Duke University was trying to portray a terrorist as a political prisoner. Anyway, Duke's president got this letter:

Ms. Keohane

I understand that Duke University has labeled Ms. Whitehorn as a political prisoner. Here's the link from The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal where I first read about Ms. Whitehorn.

Planting bombs in the U.S. Capitol in 1983 does not make her a political prisoner. She was not exercising speech. She was committing a violent crime and as far as I know bombs are not protected speech no matter what you leftists would have us believe.

I'm very angry that a public university would attempt to deceive people in this manner. The truth is that woman is a terrorist no matter how you attempt to twist and spin that fact. Are you afraid to tell people who she really is? Is bringing a terrorist to campus really the best way to teach African and African-American studies?

Never mind the evil of multiculturalism that the word African-American implies. I won't even go into that whole politically correct disaster.

Sean Roper

Now Duke has changed their characterization of Ms. Whitehorn in this press release. They now clearly say the woman was arrested for planting a bomb. No more of that vague "political prisoner" crap. I like to think my letter played a small part.

Monday, January 20, 2003

I have never heard of Bayard Rustin, but this Martin Luther King Day he is being honored with a documentary on PBS titled, "Brother Outsider."

Frontpage Magazine also features a piece by Joshua Muravchik that briefly details his life and importance to the civil rights struggle.

"In 1955, blacks staged their first mass civil-rights protest, a boycott of the buses in Montgomery, Ala., propelling the leader, 25-year-old Martin Luther King, to national prominence. Rustin, then 43 and with a lifetime of activism already under his belt, provided the tactical guidance and tutored King in the philosophy of nonviolence. In 1963, when the civil-rights struggle climaxed in the famous March on Washington, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech, it was Rustin who ran the show."

David Horowitz reports on this past weekend's anti-war demonstrations in Washington D.C. and he notes the disturbing presence of prominent Democrats at these vile, anti-American hatefests:

" Another striking fact about this march in support of global terrorism was the presence of prominent Democrat officials on the platform. In San Francisco, the most powerful Democrat legislator in the state John Burton screamed, "the President is full of shit" and that the President was "fucking with us," while encouraging the general sentiment that America rather than Iraq was the outlaw state. In Washington, Democratic hopeful Al Sharpton attended and DC ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney read a speech with the following claim: "In no other country on the planet do so many people have so little as they do in this country." This from a person who notoriously commandeered a taxpayer-funded limousine to take her from her townhouse one block to her congressional offices every morning.

More disturbing by far was the presence of two of the most powerful Democrats in Congress, the potential head of the Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel and the potential head of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers, who is of course the author of the Reparations Bill and the icon of the Communist organizers of both marches. Rangel's appearance was especially troubling because he has been a nightly face on TV news shows presenting himself as a patriot and a veteran (he served fifty years ago in Korea) who wanted a military draft so that all America would be invovled in the nation's defense. His critics thought he had other agendas, like using conscription to sabotage the war effort. Apparently his critics were correct."

This is why it will be a long time before I ever vote for a Democrat again. They simply can't be trusted with our national security.

The Observer recently spoke out editorially in support of war against Iraq:

"War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world."