Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Friday, June 03, 2005

Guantanamo Bay is "the gulag of our time" according to Amnesty International.

What a load of crap!

John Podhoretz compares:
Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.

Number of prisoners in the Gulag: 25 million, according to peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.

Number of camps at Gitmo: 1.

Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.

Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of jets.

Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers.

Financial purpose of Gitmo: None.

Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union.

Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war.
Amnesty International just lost a lot of credibility except among the American and international left.

There is a silver lining here. American leftists will love and cite this absurd claim as further proof that the United States is pure evil which will further marginalize their electoral possibilities and drive people away. Oh, except for the hard core lefties who are foaming at the mouth anyway. They're excited and loving this, but they don't see that this is why they keep losing elections. People don't want elected officials who hate this country. Most Americans simply do not believe that this country is as fundamentally evil as the left would have them believe.

Poor stupid Democrats. They are aligned with a significanct percentage of the population who simply hates this country and there is no way painless to sever those ties. If they do repudiate that constituency they lose a huge part of their coalition and that will guarantee they'll lose even bigger next election. But if they don't, they guarantee a long slow decline. It's the bandaid decision all over again. Slow and painful or quick and bit less painful.

It was almost three years ago when David Steven first reported from the "World Summit" that President Robert Mugabe, the tyrant of Zimbabwe, had been received favorably by the world press. Here's how Steven reported the incident:
Robert Mugabe - hero of WSSD! Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, finished speaking to the World Summit a few minutes ago.

"We shall not deprive the white farmers of land completely," Mr Mugabe said. "They are entitled to one farm, but they want more - 15, 25 or 30 farms for each person."

Mr Mugabe won applause from delegates when he promised to shed blood for the protection of Zimbabwe's independence and, again, when he added "Blair, keep your England, but let us keep our Zimbabwe."

This latter remark was also rewarded with laughter and applause from many of the listening journalists - and there was more applause in the media centre when the President finished speaking.

Mr Mugabe is the 47th Head of State to speak today, but the first to provoke any audible response from the World Summit's media.
I mention this because of something that Glenn Reynolds says in a post today.

First I want to set it up. Professor Reynolds has linked to a story at StrategyPage that warns that Mugabe is on the verge of democide-the mass murder of citizens by it's government. After quoting from the StrategyPage piece, Reynolds offers his own views about what's happening. Let me quote him directly:
Mugabe is the poor man's Pol Pot. And like Pol Pot, he is getting help and support from people in the West who will later pretend not to know what was going on.
Now remember those journalists at the World Summit. They will be the ones Reynolds is talking about. They haven't reported what Mugabe has been doing because they share his views. If StrategyPage is correct and this does happen, they'll be the first to swear that they didn't know this was the road the man was heading down even though they approved of what the man was doing in the beginning. The outcome was set when they didn't raise all holy hell about what the man was doing.

It was at that World Summit that the press gave Mugabe carte blanche to do as he pleased and now it appears as if the man is about to slaughter a bunch of his own people. There is a connection in these types of behaviors. All the symptoms were there in 2002. All indicators should have been on red alert then. Bells and whistles should have been going off like mad in the minds of those journalist present, but they weren't. Why? Ideology.

We've seen this sort of behavior before. Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot and Mao were all given a pass by the majority of the press and by individual leftwing commentators because they shared the same political views as these people. That's why, to this day, Hollywood leftists and leftwing journalists can't and won't condemn Castro for maintaining a police state. Hell, all Jimmy Carter can talk about is how wonderful Castro's health care system is and how literate everyone is in Cuba. I've mentioned how celebrities fawn over Castro:
"It was an experience of a lifetime" (Kevin Costner); "he is a genius" (Jack Nicholson); a "source of inspiration to the world" (Naomi Campbell). But people who should know better make the pilgrimage too. Director Steven Spielberg, founder of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation and winner of an Academy Award for illuminating the horrors of the Holocaust, described his meeting with Castro in November as "the eight most important hours of my life."
Why do leftists keep supporting people like Castro and Mugabe? Ideology. It's that simple. They can't bring themselves to condemn a comrade.

I've said this before and I'm saying it again: We must never forget that today's leftist is the ideological cousin to the above mentioned mass murderers who, collectively, were responsible for nearly one hundred million people last century.
If Mugabe does embark on his campaign of mass murder through starvation or violence, we must know who the real enablers were.

Also, if StrategyPage is correct and this does happen who do you think will get the blame for thousands of people dying? That's right, the United States of America will be to blame. The press will blame us and the world left will blame us and lots of people will accept that as the truth because they are constantly told that greatest evil in the world today, other than the Jews of course, is America.

I want to help people understand how this came to pass. I want to help people remember the way journalists and leftists closed ranks around Mugabe's policies and set the stage for what is to come.

Let's pray it doesn't.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Mark Felt was "Deepthroat."

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

I just finished reading a Times Online follow up article on the French rejection of the E.U. constitution and what happens now when I came across this:
Mr Blair has made economic reform the top priority of his presidency, hoping to make labour markets more flexible in order to tackle record unemployment and sluggish growth across the continent. However, he is now likely to face challenges from President Chirac, who recently called economic ultra-liberalism the “new communism of our age”.
Economic ultra-liberalism is the "new communism of our age". Wow. And let's be clear here. Chirac is simply talking about his country having an economy that more closely resembles the American economy. Free trade. Open markets. That's radical to the French and it only serves to illustrate why the French and European economies are floundering.

To say that ultra-liberalism is the new communism of our age is just about the stupidest thing the man has ever said. If anything the liberalization of his economy will allow his people to make their own decisions instead of the current system whereby crushing regulations and taxes have taken decisions out of the hands of the people. The business minded people in France know they don't have a chance so why even start. The government is standing in their way and there's no reason to even think about expanding or creating a new business. Taxes and regulations will eat them up.

Liberalization would create innovation and would encourage people to start their own companies. The revenue from these enterprises would add to the government tax base. Jobs would be created and the economy would expand.

France just doesn't get it, but someday they'll have to face the fact that socialism is strangling their country.

Monday, May 30, 2005

France has rejected the European Constitution. Good. I'm glad.

France deserves to remain wallowed in socialism and to fall even farther behind the U.S. in standard of living. The adoption of the constitution MAY have led to reform and more acceptance of free market capitalism, but the French people wanted to keep their massive welfare programs. If the French people want socialism, let them have socialism as long as they understand that they will continue to decline economically and influentially. Already the French unemployment rate is about 10%, or almost double the American rate, and socialism is not going to improve that situation. The French tax base will continue to stagnate even as more people take advantage of favorable welfare programs. It's untenable. It can't be sustained and eventually this will lead to the fall of the current French republic.

Good. I want to see France implode. France deserves exactly what they get.

Danica Patrick finished fourth in yesterday's Indianapolis 500. I watched the race for the first time because I wanted to see what the hubbub was about.

All I can say is she's for real. She made some critical rookie mistakes, but battled back to legitimately lead the race in the final laps and had a real chance of winning.

I followed the race because of her, but I became a fan after the race when she made critical remarks about her performance. She admitted that she'd screwed up and thanked her crew. She's a professional and I predict that she will win an Indy race in the future.

She may not be as dominant as Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan in her sport, but she's for real and I believe it's only a matter of time before she wins a race.