Race-Colored Glasses

Ever notice you are never asked for identification when you vote? Basically, this country's voting system is based on the honor system. The past several elections have proven, if nothing else, that some people are not honorable and perhaps its time we did something to combat fraud.

In Cynthia Tucker's world, if you think it might be a good idea for people to show some form of I.D. before voting, you are a racist.

She doesn't argue that showing I.D. is unnecessary, redundant, time consuming, impractical...No, if you favor some sort of cursory attempt to verify the people who are voting are who they say they are....you are a racist.

You have to show I.D. to drive a car, write a check or get on a plane. You may have to show I.D. to buy alcohol, get into a "PG-13" or "R" rated movie, pick up your kid from school or even use your own credit card. But asking for I.D. to vote? Racist!

Because you are a racist, Cynthia Tucker doesn't have to defend the status quo that gave us Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. See how easy that is?

Lies to the Editor

I suppose if I looked hard enough, I'd find the policy the San Francisco Chronicle uses for it's Letters to the Editors page. In this section, I would hope to find some standard about printing letters with known falsehoods.

The Chron has always played it loose with this rule, but a letter published last week about Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame was beyond the pale.

For someone who presumes to hold the "truth" in high regard, Leo M. Mar's letter is shockingly short on it. Virtually nothing he wrote is true.

Mr. Mar begins:

President Bush used discredited nuclear claims in his January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was a nuclear threat.

Far from being "discredited", Bush could repeat those "16 words" in the State of the Union concerning Saddam, Niger, British Intelligence and yellowcake uranium today and they would still be true.

Joseph Wilson had discovered the claims were bogus and had informed the White House of the facts nearly a year before the address.

Let's clear something up right here - Joe Wilson did not and could not have "discovered [Bush's] claims were bogus". He could merely confirm or not confirm British Intelligence reports. In fact, his report tended to bolster British Intel. In addition, Joe Wilson's "report" did not reach the White House prior to the State of the Union.

Six months after Bush's address, Wilson finally went public with evidence that proved the administration lied about WMD and nuclear threats.

At no time has Joe Wilson presented any "evidence that the administration lied about WDM and nuclear threats."


The administration decided to send a message, loud and clear, to all who would speak out against them.

They punished Wilson by outing his wife, Valerie, an undercover CIA agent.

Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was not "undercover" or covert and therefore was not "outed".

However, virtually everything Joe Wilson has said about his trip to Niger has been discredited by a bipartisan Senate committee. Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger, who recommended him and what he reported. Not mislead - Lied.

It is one thing for Mr. Mar to be confused (reading the Chron, is no doubt part of his problem), quite another for the editors at the Chronicle.

Before proclaiming "enough divisiveness", Mr. Mar and the Chron may try dividing fact from fiction. Letters like this should not be printed.

Who They Really Are

I usually get a great deal of pleasure when people show their cards are reveal who they really are. While it was disturbing to hear the new "president" of Iran announce he wanted to destroy Israel, it was nonetheless helpful and clarifying for many people to hear.

Democrats and Liberals, in general often couch their statements to conceal or obfuscate what they truly believe (Quick: what is the Democratic party position on Iraq?).

With the media so dominated by liberals, it is good when the curtain is pulled back and we get a chance to understand where they are coming from.

Chris Matthews had such a moment yesterday:

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

The article continues:

He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that have built up worldwide animosity against his administration.

The fact that the world needs to be united against terrorism, says a lot about the state of the world. Believing that Mohammad Atta, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden... merely have a "different perspective", says a lot about Chris Matthews.

What the Chris Matthews of this world forget is half the world celebrated 9/11 and another good portion (including too many American's) think we had it coming.

As usual with this sort of thinking, alternative suggestions and details on how it would pan out were not forthcoming.

Trying to Snatch Defeat

In roughly two weeks Iraqis will be returning to the polls to elect a representative government. Good news! Ah, but we know how the Democrats and the Mainstream Media feel about good news.

Michael Barone writes:

The Democrats are trying to relitigate the prewar intelligence issue in the
hopes of delegitimizing this administration. But in delegitimizing the
administration, they also tend to delegitimize the efforts of the U.S.
government, including military personnel, in Iraq and generally in the war
against Islamic terrorism. To the extent they delegitimize the United
States, they are hurting the cause of freedom for millions of people. ...

The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of "Bush lied" are
doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States
and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of
whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the
world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our
country.

Ralph Peters wonders if the Democrats even consider the consequences of an American defeat:

So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?

Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"

He then adds:

Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq - not one - has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal.

His conclusion?

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq.

I would only add "Republican" to that sentiment.

I'm wondering if the Democrats are so invested in the "Vietnamation" of war that they cannot conceive of what victory means anymore.

After all, if "War IS the Answer" their world view takes another in a long series of beatings.

California Special Election

What to make of the defeat of all 4 of Gov. Arnold's propositions in last week's special election?

I think the media and nearly all of the analysts have it wrong (as usual) and I hope Arnold comes back swinging.

My take is that Arnold's defeat at the polls confirms the reason he called for the special election in the first place. Special interests, in particular unions representing government workers, are too powerful.

I remember when some Native American group demanded an apology from Arnold after he said "Indian tribes are ripping off California" when referring to tribal gaming.

Shockingly, Arnold responded to their demands by saying "I'm not going to apologize - the are ripping off California". Trust me - racial grievance groups are not used to people, especially politicians talking back to them.

He should trust those same instincts now.

Good News, Bad News

When the Iraqis went to the polls in droves last year and the expected violence failed to materialize the gloom from the Left was palpable. Then just last month, not only did the Iraqis returned to the polls, they ratified their constitution with even less violence than the previous successful election. The Left's reaction? Pretend it never happened (or bury the news on page A16 like the Washington Post). When Saddam was captured, Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean said "I guess its a good thing". When his sadist sons Uday and Qusay were killed in a firefight Mr. Dean's retort was "the ends does not justify the means".

How will this be greeted by the Left and the Democratic party? Says a lot, non?

Liberal gloom in the face of good news almost certainly doesn't just happen with significant events. It also happens with knowledge.

Should America suddenly discover huge reserves of fossil fuels in the Mojave Desert, do you think Liberals would be happy? Is new science which undermines human responsibility for global warming, such as the recent discovery of the increase in the temperature on the surface of Mars (hard to blame on humans), greeted with relief?

Let's not forget those who were hoping for an American defeat in Iraq. What do they think of good news our of Iraq? More telling, what do they think of bad news?

Democrats & National Security

All you need to know to understand the Democratic party's ideas on national security is to think about this question:

Is the Democratic National Party more interested in winning the war in Iraq or damaging Bush?

Note that I said "think" about the question, not just answer it.

Paris Riots

It gives me no pleasure to see the distruction taking place in France. However, it does validate my view of American exceptionalism.

Here are some random thoughts I've come accross on the riots:

1. The experts have been waiting for the "Muslim street to rise up" ever since we first struck Afganistan. Well, it finally did - it only happened in Paris not Cairo.

2.In the late 80s the Japanese model was going to show up the American economic model.
In the late 90s the European model was going to show up the American economic model.

Missing Wilson Talking Points

There are two points that I believe should be stressed at every opportunity on this subject and don't understand why they are not.


1. Even if you are like the media and ignore the fact that Joe Wilson's Niger report seemed to have bolstered the allegations of British intelligence, Mr. Wilson's statements are untrue. Mr. Wilson keeps saying he "proved" the president was lying in the State of the Union. Joe Wilson could not "prove" the British allegations regarding Saddam as false. He could only confirm or not confirm evidence to support the British Intelligence report. The very significant distinction between "proving" a claim as false and "not confirming" a claim as true have been lost.

2. President Bush could call a press conference and say those "16 words" in the State of the Union and they would still be true.