January 31, 2008
McCain’s positions on too many issues seem more aligned with the left of the Democratic party. The one exception, for which I give him credit, is on his support for the ongoing war against the Jihadists. On the other hand, his position on waterboarding the likes of KSM and OBL shows someone more concerned with pleasing the leftist elites of the world than defending his country.
On immigration, his position is indistinguishable from Teddy Kennedy’s position. His connections to Unavision billionaire Jerry Perenchio and Open Borders advocate Dr. Juan Hernandez show he has been bought by pro-illegal immigration forces.
On judges, his proven position is to only allow judges that the Democrats approve, and to heck with the constitution. His comments on Justice Alito, that he has tried to walk back, are especially disturbing. As one of the Captain’s commenters, notes Margaret Thatcher famously said that compromise is the absence of leadership. On this issue, as on so many others, McCain is a compromiser, not a leader.
McCain sounded like John Edwards in his attacks on profits and capitalism in last night’s debate. That’s not a good attitude in a potential leader of the free world. No Reaganite he.
McCain has also bought into the greatest scientific swindle of this generation; the idea that humanity can only stop catastrophic global warming by cutting back on CO2 emissions. (In contrast, Romney avoided taking about global warming and turned it into a discussion on alternative energy sources).
If McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will be bad news for the GOP. If he actually wins, it will be bad for the country. He will govern like a left-of-center Democrat on domestic issues, and convince a compliant GOP minority in the Senate and House to go along.
I would seriously suggest that we would be better off with Hillary as President. That would lead to gridlock in the Senate and House and limit the damage inflicted on the country. She would capitalize on Bush’s effort to win in Iraq and take all the credit. If it was a choice between Hillary and McCain, I really would be torn as to who to support (and I loathe the Clintons).
If Obama wins the Democrat nomination, McCain will lose. It will a replay of 1996, when a tired old GOP war-horse lost to Clinton.
In the meantime, I will contribute nothing to the GOP while McCain remains a candidate for President.
Update: Riehl World View wonders what a McCain platform would look like. It isn’t pretty.
January 24, 2008
Medved’s opinion piece Six Big Lies About John McCain makes the case that McCain has been unfairly cast as a RINO. On the McCain/Kenndy immigration plan, Medved writes:
No President will ever succeed in driving out all 12 million illegals – the greatest forced migration in all human history. Illegals represent more than 5% of America’s work force and the cost of firing and, ultimately, deporting for forcing out every one of those people would cripple the economy far worse than any recession. The immigration bills McCain supported (along with President Bush and the Senate Republican leadership of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott and John Kyl) never granted “amnesty” or automatic citizenship for undocumented aliens. Instead, McCain’s idea of immigration reform always emphasized “earned legalization” and assimilation– not automatic privileges – in an effort to separate the immigrants who wanted to begin playing by the rules and to enter the American mainstream, from those who continued to defy those rules and have no long-term stake in the country. It’s not amnesty to charge $6,000 in fines and payment of back taxes, to require background checks and mastery of English, and to demand registry with the government and acknowledgment of wrong-doing before an immigrant received legal status. Before an illegal could become a citizen, the process required at least nine years (and in most cases fourteen) of cooperation, commitment and patience. Moreover, two crucial elements of last year’s immigration bill received almost no attention: under the bill any immigrant who attempted to enter America illegally after the passage of immigration reform would be apprehended, identified, finger-printed and biometrically recorded, and forever banned from receiving legal status to work or live in the United States. Second, the unfinished (and ultimately unsuccessful) compromise bill included a “trigger provision”: no illegal immigrant would receive legal status until after Congress certified that the border had been effectively secured.
The 12 million illegals apparently succeeded in coming here, most of them since the Reagan amnesty. In Medved’s terms, that represents one of the greatest migrations in human history. So, what is so hard about them making the return journey? We’re already seeing that the rigorous enforcement of the law in Arizona has resulted in illegals returning to Mexico. They can, and will, self-deport. All they need is the incentive to do so. No free health care, no free schooling and no jobs will see to that. Rather than encourage the illegals to leave, McCain gave them an incentive to stay:”It’s not amnesty to charge $6,000 in fines and payment of back taxes, to require background checks and mastery of English, and to demand registry with the government and acknowledgment of wrong-doing before an immigrant received legal status. Before an illegal could become a citizen, the process required at least nine years (and in most cases fourteen) of cooperation, commitment and patience. ” So, we let them stay in the US for nine years, paying, maybe $12,000 total, and then grant them citizenship. That is a form of amnesty and a slap in the face for the millions of better qualified legal immigrants who are patiently waiting for their green cards.
The economic argument is bogus. The illegals pay few taxes, displace legal residents from paying jobs, consume tax-payer funded health care and education, and remit billions of dollars back to Mexico. It’s a good deal for Mexico, which has been exporting its poverty problem to the US.
Maybe McCain will win the GOP nomination. Since the alternatives are worse, GOP supporters are going to have to support him and hope he stops doing dirty deals with Democrats. but the signs on that score are not good. Mark Holzer in Frontpage Magazine documents McCain supporting Kerry against the Swift Boat Veterans:
The authors write concerning the press conference for the anti-Kerry film, Stolen Honor, one POW arrived late for the press conference, Col. George ‘Bud’ Day. Day was a legendary military figure, a veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam who had been awarded the Medal of Honor for his incredible 12-day effort to escape from his captors after his F-100F Misty FAC was shot down over North Vietnam in August 1967. Senator John McCain, his former cellmate in Vietnam, had called Day ‘one of the greatest men I have had the honor to know.” Now, Bud Day was at McCain’s Washington office, asking his old friend to tone down his criticism of the Swift Vets. Day pointed out, as had Admiral Roy Hoffmann, that the Swifties were witnesses to what Kerry had done in Vietnam, but McCain was not.” (My emphasis.) (The source for this statement, another POW, is unimpeachable.)
Yes, the man who today would be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, John S. McCain, III, stood up for Fake Warrior (and Senate colleague) John Kerry against the overwhelming evidence that his atrocity stories were damaging lies, eclipsed only by his fraudulent self-created tales of heroism in Vietnam.
Were the full story of McCain’s attempt to undermine the Swifties and bolster the faker Kerry known in detail today, perhaps he would not be doing so well in some of the Republican primaries.
Maybe, in the spirit of bipartisanship, McCain would give Kerry a high profile position in his administration. It wouldn’t be surprising.
January 3, 2008
In TheAmerican Thinker, Janet Levy reviews The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad
By Moorthy Muthuswamy. The author documents the jihad that muslims have been waging against Hindus for the two generations since the British left India. They were doing it before the British came on a scale that would have made the Nazis proud. Levy precises Muthuswamy’s central arguments in a concise statement of Islam’s aims:
In his book, Muthuswamy explains how Islamic religious beliefs and systems function to fuel and, even demand, constant efforts to annihilate all non-Muslim populations. The mosques and madrassas form the power base and central pillar of Islamic life, regulating, influencing and shaping daily Islamic existence. Total control is achieved by blocking progress and wealth creation and enforcing the dictates of the Islamic trilogy: the Koran, Hadith and the Sira. Muslim clerics renounce modern education and exclusively endorse Koranic study and the “noble” pursuit of jihad. The result is a populace kept ignorant, unworldly, impoverished and easily indoctrinated. This engenders dependence on religious leadership and Islamic organizations for subsistence services. It also makes Muslims susceptible to manipulation and fosters feelings of victimization and resentment, which are skillfully directed toward non-believers.
Islamic doctrine also plays a central role in the promulgation and advancement of a comprehensive political ideology that requires religious war and establishes the objective of achieving a worldwide Islamic caliphate under Islamic law, Muthuswamy writes. This ideology is based on the Islamic trilogy, scripture that is immutable and contains the word of Allah (Koran), the biography of Mohammed (Sira) and the rules governing life or the traditions of Mohammed (Hadith). The concept of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” a prominent belief in most religions, is absent in Islam, as is the notion of a “human being.” The Muslim world is simply divided into “believers” and “non-believers.” The closest parallel to the Golden Rule is a prohibition against cheating, lying or killing other Muslims. However, such behavior is permissible against non-believers because it is accepted as necessary to conquer the Dar-al-Harb, the infidel world of war, in pursuit of the Dar-al-Islam, the world of Islam.
Muthuswamy cites research on the Koran, conducted by the Center for Political Islam, which illustrates the Islamic focus on conformist behavior and beliefs. According to the Center’s analysis of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, only 17% of the Islamic trilogy deals with the words of Allah. The remaining 83% refers to the words and deeds of Mohammed. Of all of the references to “hell” in the trilogy, 6% are for moral failings, while 94% are for the transgression of disagreeing with Mohammed. Statistical analysis of the trilogy revealed that 97% of references to “jihad” relate to war and a mere 3% to the concept of “inner struggle.”
Bill Roggio summarized the “State of Jihad:2007”. Besides the incredible violence that jihadists have inflicted on their fellow Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Algeria, to name a few of the hot-spots, there is also jihad against Bhuddists in Thailand, Christians in Philippines, Christians and Animists in Sudan and Nigeria, and non-Muslims in pluralistic countries, including England, Spain and the US.
This ongoing conflict across the bloody borders of Islam is not about the struggles of a peaceful religion, but rather the expression of a violent political philosophy. USS Neverdock had a great post on Muslim attitudes and aims:
Here is what the truth is:
“We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God,” a regular Muslim Joe (or Mo) told the Christian Science Monitor, after the 7/7 atrocities. Or how about a sermon delivered at the Grand Mosque in Leeds, whence the British killers came: “Take up positions in the Jihad, don’t give in to sleep, and don’t give in to failure and disgrace.” In safe company, Muslims say they strive to “fly the black flag of Islam over 10 Downing Street,” in the words of Britain’s Omar Baki. Or, to paraphrase one of our own abstemious Islamists, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, “I want to see the U.S become an Islamic nation.”
Based on Muslims’ own say-so, then, it’s both disingenuous and stupid of Islam’s champions to claim categorically that Muslim aggression is entirely reactive, a function solely of our misguided foreign policy.
Muslim aggression is just one weapon in Islam’s struggle to conquer the world, lies are another.
A religion that wants to fly its flag over our capitals is not a religion; it is a political and military movement that needs to be crushed as surely as the Nazis were crushed. Our next President needs to be a leader that understands the political and military aims of Islam and the threat that it represents to the modern world. So far, only Giuliani and Thompson seem to measure up.
[img]”%%dir%%Islamwilldominate.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”image” name=”image” width=”209″ height=”344″ /[/img]
Picture from Jihad watch.
Note again the black flag of jihad flying over the White House.