If you are Not Voting for Bush, Read This

This email went to Andrew Sullivan. Some think it is an honest inquiry as to Why Bush?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I'm wondering if you could answer for some of your politically torn readers a question. I know I speak for myself and a lot of GOP Undecideds, when I ask you this question in all sincerity: I voted for Bush, was pro-war, and now, along with many others, concede that Iraq has become a debacle and (unlike yourself) think the War on Terror (not Iraq) would have been more efficient, better funded, and as a whole more successful if we had not marched into Baghdad. I know you don't agree with this, but let me tell you, this is the sentiment of a lot of moderate, even conservative Republicans who are disgusted by Bush's arrogance. A lot of my friends like to say that Bush would be better on the War on Terror than Kerry, and I want to believe that, I really do, but no one has convinced me of that, much less the president himself. No matter how "single-minded" (obtuse, in my opinion) the president is, he's done nothing to shore up support in his REAL BASE--southerners and midwesterners like myself--who don't see how a lunatic fiscal policy, right-wing social policy, and a general F-U to the world in general improves America or its War on Terror. My point is this: I really loathe Kerry, but when it comes down to it, if you exclude Bush's support for the war, why does he deserve four more years? And to all those who think this administration dropped the ball in Iraq, how can we believe that that they will make us safer? I haven't voted for a democrat since Kennedy (at the time I lived in California and knew what kind of moral idiot Nixon was) and I don't want to--but frankly, can someone please make the case for Bush? Because no one has, and frankly, to the Republican faithful like myself who roll our eyes at Sean Hannity, Bush has a heck of a lot of convincing to do."

Before I would begin to even approach answering this person's supposed desire to make the case for George Bush, I would tell this person that he has a heck of a lot of thinking to do, and for his own sake, he should not leave it up to politicians to tell him how to think. That is not what a free society is about. By asking the question in this way, he has almost made a case for not thinking about the important issues of the time because the politicians are not successful in making them think for themselves. This is a free country, there is plenty of information out there. Get it, learn it, think, and while you are at it, learn what it means to be an informed citizen who thinks for himself. As I ponder his question, for my own sake, I'd also have to split apart in my own mind, all those thinking "mistakes," all the dropping of context, all the facts and principles he has ignored. Then I'd make the case:

1. There are some people who are so intimidated by terrorists that they would prefer to cuddle up and apologize to terrorists in an effort to convince them that they mean them no harm, hoping that will be enough to stop their attacks - they are willing to deal with their own anxiety by withdrawing America from the world and sticking their heads in the sand - this is also an indication of the state of mind of their leadership

2. We cannot survive on such an unprincipled strategy - we have to fight criminals by fighting them and killing them - just like we fight the mafia and bank robbers - they must be caught and/or killed

3. A pre-emptive military strategy against those who are terrorists or who hide them and otherwise support terrorists is an extension of that policy of getting the criminals (it is called "being an accessory") for the following reasons:

4. Terrorists are not freedom fighters. They are criminals, murderers, thieves, money launderers, drug pushers and rapists. They will always be criminals. You cannot convince them you love them because they think you are a fool and sucker for living your life honestly. If you want to establish "peaceful-co-existence" with a criminal, he will rob you after he kills you.

5. Terrorists need a weak country that they can control where they can hide, train and plan - this is because the world is out to jail them, and the freer, more open countries, particularly the citizens in those countries, won't allow them to operate as openly as they need in order to be successful

6. Where terrorists cannot find someone to hide them they will find a weak country and create instability, then use that instability to hide, train and plan - we must develop a policy for such countries - help strengthen them so they can fight terrorism and help them become freer and more prosperous so the citizens will not "feel" that they have a reason to hate (this is our challenge in the Philippines for instance).

7. If a country makes it known that it supports terrorism and that it will fight the U.S., for the sake of our people, we will have to do whatever it takes, militarily, politically, economically and internationally to ensure they are not a threat - and that they don't provide sanctuary for the terrorists. If we cannot change you by means of any of those methods, we will take you down and liberate the people from you - ensure security and then hand the government over to respectable leaders who do not support terrorism. (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) (Take heed, Iran and North Korea)

8. We do all of this because we are determined that no one will ever commit terrorism against us again - it is an indication of our unwillingness to live in a world where children cannot be happy, where businessmen cannot pursue trade, where honest people cannot honestly debate. Give me liberty or give me death.

Is there any part of that that includes George W. Bush? Is there any part of that that requires George W. Bush? Is there any part of that that includes compromise with murderers, or violations of our basic principles as a free people? So why do so many liberals hate George Bush? This strategy of pre-emption against known enemies is not new, it has been practiced by other Presidents before and successfully. Why is it wrong now? Because George W. Bush is arrogant? How much arrogance did John F. Kennedy have, or Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan or even the first Bush? And because George W. Bush is arrogant, we want to elect someone that wants to turn it all over to the UN, an organization that does not and never has had our freedom or well being as a goal? What happens if they fail to protect us?

If we understand that the "pre-emptive" approach is the best way for us as a nation, if we want to have a future, then you know the nature of the enemy that merely attacks our President personally. They do not have a viable alternative strategy and are either ignorant of history or deliberately ignore it in order to defeat Bush. They are willing to sell out for the sake of a momentary political power, they are context droppers and liars who need a weak America in order later to loot it. (They are functioning like Al Queda - trying to weaken our country so they can operate openly)

They want George Bush out of the way for the same reason Al Queda wants us out of the world - so they can take over. I certainly disagree with Bush about his domestic "theocratic" tendencies and I will fight them when the time comes. But I don't torture myself in interminable self-doubt about it and ask myself how could I support such a man when he has botched a war (that he hasn't botched).

As you will recall it is John Kerry who carried the banner against the Vietnam war and it was he who insisted that the U.S. get out of Vietnam unilaterally in the early 70s, presumably (in retrospect and as John O'Neill suggested) in order to assist the North Vietnamese in taking over the country rather than allowing an honorable retreat that left two sovereign nations. The crowd of protestors led by Kerry worked consistently toward that goal and they spared no measure of argument and deception to denigrate the U.S., it's policies, leadership and military in order to win out on this issue.

Out of these protests, and their subsequent involvement in working against Nixon in Watergate (Hillary et al) the careers of many Vietnam protestors were launched. They became what was then the new left and is today the liberal left. Their impetus, their modus operandi, was to question power, particularly Republican power. What they have repudiated is the idea that we should all pull together to win a war and then discuss the problems in the aftermath which was the WWII model. Their primary method was to divide the American public into the working classes and the rich leadership, to create controversies and policies and programs that were based on unproven class divisions. In war time, their method was to work for any war if a Democrat was in power and against it if a Republican was in power.

John Kerry is their leader and has been their leader, even more than Hillary, since the beginning. This explains why they are accusing Bush of lying, deceiving and plotting a war. It is the same tactic Kerry used in his Vietnam protest days. They do not care whether it is a just war. 9/11 is only an obstacle to their gaining power, it is not a cause (until they get power - then it will be used as a cause for turning over our troops to the UN to fight the war on terror). This is why they will do anything, say anything, invent any lie, scandal and even create them. They want power pure and simple. They are not concerned about the American people. They want to win and win at any cost.

Unfortunately, for the American people, once they get in power, they squander the position as Clinton did and become limousine liberals enjoying their parties and diversions...rather than doing what they were elected to do which is to lead. I think the American people are getting wise to this crowd and their deceptions. In effect, they are nothing more than liberally educated ultra rich who use the trappings of the common man and cynically champion any cause that will help them create their caretaker government...not for the sake of anyone except their socialist (Marxist) founding fathers. They are hiding behind a cloak of "normalcy" but beneath that cloak, they still hold the pro-communist (or socialist, if you will), pro-Soviet and anti-American beliefs that they held back in the 60s.

This is not a mere election, this is the most important election in my life, for the future of my children and grandchildren, and for the future of the only type of system that leaves people free to pursue happiness. Anyone that lies and drops context about such an important issue cannot be a mere honest person seeking to understand, they are a context dropper in their own lives and don't care or don't see that what is at stake here is our survival. It is either or. It is either coddling terrorists and becoming slaves or it is being free people. Which do we want? The fact that this questioner bases all his doubts on George W. Bush's supposed arrogance and other personal flaws is a tip to the fact that this person doesn't know what this election is about and wants you to drop the context along with him - wants you to wring your hands in doubt and confusion (just like an American, the terrorists think, while they build their bomb). Or worse, they know what they are doing in making George Bush the issue.

The person who asked the question above has no idea of what the war on terrorism is. He just supports it, kind of like, well, "I'll go see 'Spiderman 2' today and 'I, Robot' tomorrow, just 'cause I feel like it." To this person, our whole strategy is based upon his assessment of the situation in Iraq that is derived from an essentially liberal and media bias. He even says, it is based upon the fact, that yes, he supported the war, but we should not have gone into Baghdad? There was a lot that went into going into Baghdad that this person has now ignored. Our troops destroyed thousands of Iraqi soldiers and had they not gone in, we'd probably still be fighting them instead of dealing with terrorists. That's kind of like saying, "Oh, I agree with the war, but we should have gone into Tikrit on Thursday June 8th rather than June 9th and for that reason the war is a debacle and we should blame the arrogant George Bush." See what is being done here? This person is not seeking to get information to make an electoral decision but to plant seeds of doubt. He is merely trying to change the debate away from the real issue, our future, our security and our strategy to defend ourselves and turn it into "personal" decisions and "personal" character flaws of George Bush. That is his strategy - to turn you away from the war on terror and how to fight it.

And that is the liberal strategy; not to convince you by offering a reasonable alternative view but to scare you into thinking that George Bush is arrogant, to give you lies and propaganda and then to ask for your vote. The Democrats claimed, in their political convention, to be lovers of freedom. This liberal crowd has nothing to do with loving or implementing freedom. All their talk about freedom and inclusion and the American dream is purely smoke. Their goal is power and once in power, they have no intention of ever giving it up again.

The real issue here is what does this mean about the liberals and what will they do when they gain power. This is just a tip of the iceberg and consider that the trial lawyers are key here. Once in power, groups like moveon.org, that are now trying to destroy Fox News, will go mainstream, and use the Kerry administration to squash political opposition. I keep saying, in the liberals, we are looking dictatorship square in the face. The consistent, blatant deceptions and lies are not just a clue to what they are about, the lies and deceptions are what they are about and when they get into power, they make no bones about it, things will change in the following ways: 1) all political opposition will be squashed and put out of business in the name of "free speech." 2) taxes will be raised on the rich back to 60% and on the middle class to about 39%, 3) anyone who dissents will be faced with "visits" by the government and be terrorized by IRS audits and interrogations, and 4) the government will take everything over ala Fascist Germany - and every last dime will be squeezed out of businesses as a matter of being allowed to function and only those businesses that pay to maintain the power of the liberals will be allowed to function, but they won't be allowed to make a profit unless they are approved of "politically" by the government. Don't forget the Kyoto Accords. They will be used as the method for achieving #4. The shakedowns will be done in their name. The UN will be brought in to forever manage all elections into the future, in order to ensure a liberal victory every time, as well as to take over many functions now accorded the federal government and for our own "protection" the U.S. will not be allowed to defend itself in the world because the U.S. military will become the means by which "peace" is maintained around the world through the UN.

Keep in mind, I'm only basing this on what has been stated explicitly by the liberals. This is their time, it is now or never, and this will be their last chance to take over. Notice the air of unreality surrounding the convention. Every speaker talks about patriotism and freedom, yet none of them have ever talked like that before. The lofty ideas about freedom and what this country stands for and what they stand for are connected to nothing, they are just words...they are connected to no policies, no principles, no ideas...they are just there floating in the ether and give you the lie...this is 1984 double speak where every word means its opposite. Fortunately, no one cares and no one is watching, but that is the danger...it will help them too since they are the only alternative to Bush and those that don't want to vote for Bush are voting, not out of freedom and a desire for it but out of envy of the rich. This is seriously dangerous stuff and there are few people who understand that what we are moving toward is state control of everything. If you think I'm exaggerating, just listen to what they say.

In totalitarian regimes, propaganda and lies were used to gain power. Terror was used to maintain it. Consider the following quote:

"The most efficient fiction of Nazi propaganda was the story of a Jewish world conspiracy. Concentration on antisemitic propaganda had been a common device of demagogues ever since the end of the nineteenth century, and was widespread in the German and Austria of the twenties. The more consistently a discussion of the Jewish question was avoided by all parties and organs of public opinion, the more convinced the mob became that the Jews were the true representatives of the powers that be, and that the Jewish issue was the symbol for the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the whole system." (1)

This "Jewish question" is what the Nazis took advantage of, and the lie, developed over centuries that the Jews were responsible for the condition of Europe provided the foundation for Hitler's rise. Today, lies about George Bush, rumors about a conspiracy of "capitalistic" power, theft of oil, ulterior motives for going into Iraq and many more distortions, are designed to create hatred of George Bush and the wealthy in our nation. The "Jewish" conspiracy of pre-war Europe will become the "global capitalist" conspiracy of our time and wealth will be outlawed and taxed (stolen) out of existence. After, the election, if the liberals win, it will be accepted that all their propagandistic lies are true and to think otherwise will be the height of ignorance. Those who have a different opinion will find that they have lost their media voices, are drummed out of their jobs and forever isolated to such a degree that terror will be the common emotion of all citizens. Propaganda will get the liberals power. Terror will seal it. The liberals will turn America into a UN controlled European-like serf-state where never again will we be allowed to defend ourselves - all in the name of defense - and where no opposition will be allowed to raise its head.

Now you decide: Kerry or Bush

1. Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt

See below for a selection of my works available for sale:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------