10 Reasons Why Losing Was a Good Thing for the GOP

No one likes to lose, especially when the stakes are as high as they are now with huge differences between the two political parties on how the War on Terror ought to be fought; how to best protect the American people, etc. However, even a casual inspection of the outcome of this particular election shows that Republicans didn't actually lose that bad this time around. Here are ten reasons why...

1) Democrats are now in a position (majorities in the House and Senate) to be held accountable for the results or lack of results they produce.

2) George W. Bush made good on his promise to bring a new tone to Washington. He reached out to the democrats at every turn. He signed an education reform bill largely written by democrats. The first round of tax cuts was formulated on a by-partisan basis. In his full-court press to generate support for saving the social security system the president had his own ideas, but he also unremittingly asked the democrats to present their ideas as to how the government will keep its promise to all those who’ve paid social security taxes over the years and who expect the system to be there when they retire.

Not only that, President Bush has refused to return personal insults coming from the other side of the aisle or even comment on them. There isn't room in this blog to catalog the democrats' embarrassing list of vicious insults, partisan attacks, and dangerous compromises of our safety and security contained within every suggestion that Bush lied and got us into Iraq for illegitimate reasons... all while lamenting the absence of civility in DC politics and specifically blaming President Bush for the sharply negative tone in politics since he came to town --- a dichotomy that would be funny if we were describing children who are too young and immature to be aware of their own hypocrisy. And yet these folks do indeed seem to be completely unaware of their own hypocrisy! The party that is home to the folks that invented the strategy of personally destroying any and all enemies decries the politics of personal destruction. And they do so with a straight face!

But now they hold majorities in both houses of congress. Now they have no excuse (as if they had any before). If the Democrats continue with the personal attacks and the same level of partisanship that continues to impede progress (and I am not going out on a limb when I predict they will) they won't be able to blame it on their victim (minority) status. Now, in the sixth year of the Bush administration, the Democrats will hold a narrow majority in congress. Will they still decline the invitation to join the new tone that the President has held to? Yes, they will. Will they finally be held accountable? Yes, they will.

3) Like the proverbial dog that chases and finally "catches" the proverbial mail truck, the Democrats are, for the first time in at least six years, stuck. They are stuck trying to come up with a convincing answer to the perplexing question, ‘Now what do we do?’ Folks, the democrats really do not know what to do. And it’s no wonder; they’ve been so single-minded in their hatred of Bush and in their strident opposition to all things “neo-con” that they haven’t taken any time to come up with exactly what they are for. Up until now, they had their minority status to hide behind as an excuse for having no new ideas. During a photo-op in New Orleans, Howard Dean was asked why the Democrats aren’t offering any ideas of their own and Dean said, “We don’t have to. We’re not the ones in power.” This is good for America. Now that they are “in power” take a look at the democrats anemic list of six big ideas at http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html and, aside from their usual condescending “we-can-do-everything-better” attitude [for example, when they say, “We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart,” read ‘Our national defense might be tough, but it hasn’t been led by people who are very smart. If we were to get our way, we’d be smart with the military’ (like Lynden Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton I suppose?)], none of the items of this six point plan really scream BIG NEW IDEA!

4) The deficit is shrinking much faster than initially predicted. The stock market (in which directly or indirectly 70% of Americans are invested) has reached a new all-time high. When was the last time the unemployment rate was this low? [And by the way, why the heck do we use the ‘glass half empty’ way of reporting the number of Americans working?! Over 95% of us are working, earning a living. It should be the employment rate, not the unemployment rate! Deal with it, all you left-leaning economists who hate to report good news when a republican is president.] Even trade deficits with countries like Brazil and China are going down. In failing to trumpet what good is going on out there – including the good developments in Iraq, for God’s sake – republicans were failing to show why they ought to stay in power. In so doing, among other reasons (such as the slower-than-anticipated progress in Iraq and Mark Foley), republicans lost the right to lead. They failed to stay on offence and they paid the price. The good news is that if they get on message their message is the message that the American people want to hear. The democrats won on the basis of whatever is bad for America is good for democrats – what a horrible calculation. Unfortunately for the democrats, by creating that dynamic by virtue of their crazy flip-flopping positions on the war in Iraq, they have sentenced themselves to the consequences of the mirror opposite situation; that as the insurgency in Iraq is put down and as the Iraqi military gets up to full strength and as its government begins to stabilize politically while taking over its own security challenges, this will be good for America and, by succession, good for republicans.

5) Anyone who watched Howard Dean’s appearance on the November 12, 2006 edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace would have noticed a real difference in Dean’s attitude. To his credit, immediately after the election he doesn’t appear as though his head is about to explode. No name-calling, no conspiracy theories. For the first time after a number of national elections, the leader of the Democratic National Committee wasn’t even questioning the election results! What was going on? Here’s what was going on: Howard Dean knows that though the republicans took a thumpin’ in terms of the number of seats that went to the democrats, the election was, nonetheless, razor thin. Because of this they know they have to be nice. This is revealing of their true convictions. They know that their true agenda has no hope of being furthered; not until they win more seats and, they hope, the White House. This weakness on the part of democrats is an opportunity for conservative republicans who are ready to renounce excessive spending, stay tough on border security until the border is secure, and continue to seek to work with their colleagues on the other side of the isle, which is exactly what the American people want. That, and winning the War on Terror. If the conservatives in congress seize this opportunity, the 2008 elections will be good for republicans (and incumbent democrats who came to do the work of the American people).

6) The democrats didn’t really win; the republican’s lost. Those who say this is a distinction without a difference are missing the fact that this is a big distinction. We have already made the point that democrats are the party of personal destruction, that they have spent the better part of six years being obstructionists, that they have not offered any real ideas of their own, and that eventually – IF the republicans stay on message – they and the president will get due credit for things like the ever-shrinking deficit and the ever-expanding economy. This increases the pressure on the democrats not to mess with what is going so well. I predict that the democrats will not be able to restrain themselves; that they will mess with what is going so well, and that they will pay the price for it, politically.

7) The Democrat Party is the party of scandal. When democrats are in power – whether in the White House or in one or both sides of the legislature – there is no such thing as the passing of a six month period of time where some democrat in Washington is not revealed to be embroiled in some kind of scandal. Even when they aren’t in the majority, democrats appear to be unable to keep themselves out of tawdry messes. It took 9/11 to finally knock Gary Condit off the front pages. Representative William Jefferson from Louisiana has been indicted for taking some $100,000 in bribes (some of which he hid in the freezer of his New Orleans residence). Yes, we have our Duke Cunningham’s and Bob Ney’s. Three important points: 1) democrat scandals outpace republican ones by a three-to-one margin, 2) on balance, democrat scandals tend to be much more serious and egregious than republican scandals, and 3) as a rule, democrats react to the revelation of a scandal by denying it and/or deflecting it (how many times have we heard sanctimonious pronouncements like ‘this is nothing but a right-wing witch hunt --- let’s get back to the real problems that the American people sent us here to solve’), and/or destroying the messenger (real or imagined), whether it be the media outlet that broke the story, the specific reporter, evil republicans in general, evil republicans specifically named (Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, etc.), or a special prosecutor with an extreme right wing agenda. They circle the wagons. They often refuse to resign in disgrace, but rather wear their new victim status as a badge of honor. Ted Kennedy is considered by many to be the most powerful senator in Washington. Barney Frank continues to be re-elected by his constituents. And Bill Clinton was defending the constitution, don’t you know.

Republican’s who go the way of scandal, on the other hand, tend to resign in disgrace. They apologize. They face the music. They take responsibility. They plead guilty. They willingly receive the consequences of their actions without blaming others.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. But I’m not talking about the exceptions here. I’m talking about a historical, verifiable, documented stark contrast between the two major political parties; a difference that goes to whose version of morality, in times when politicians commit minor indiscretions or major violations of the law, better represents the highest ideals of the American people.

When the next democrat scandal breaks, and it will, tell your democrat friends that a republican, if caught in the same unfortunate situation, would not launch a Deny, Deflect, & Destroy Mission as the democrat most certainly will do. Do some homework. You will be able to prove it.

8) Once all the votes were counted in this election that lost the republicans nearly thirty seats in the house and six in the senate, if we were to look at the balance of power as a continuum – with the far left on one side and the far right on the other – we would see that the House of Representatives made a decisive shift to the right. That is a good thing for America. Many of the democrat contenders for house seats that were held by incumbent republicans, some in decidedly “red” districts, won on the basis of their agreement with their opponent on issues like illegal immigration, keeping taxes low, and staying in Iraq until the job is done.

9) And then there was Joe Lieberman. Democrats put a lot of time, talent, and money into the Connecticut Senate race. They were ready to declare Ned Lamont’s victory a stunning indictment against the war in Iraq. The only problem with that plan: Lamont lost. Joe Lieberman; liberal democrat who, nonetheless, is a principled staunch supporter of the War on Terror everywhere it is being fought; won re-election. Lamont’s web site said it all: “A vote for Ned Lamont brings real change and accountability in Washington. A vote for Joe Lieberman means more war.” True, Joe Lieberman’s position is indeed for more war; fighting the war until we win; a concept that is such an antithesis to the average liberal’s mindset that when they say that voting “for Joe Lieberman means more war”, they mean it in a negative sort of way. So, many of the same democrats who campaigned against him will see Joe Lieberman back in the senate every day. Now that democrats failed to present a united front against the war in Iraq (many democrats in the House have supported the war; several more were just elected), the republicans ought to declare that the war in Iraq, as the central front in the War on Terror, ought to be free of partisanship and ought to be committed to by politicians on both sides of the isle until it is won. With the re-election of Joe Lieberman, republicans have been given a stronger voice to do just that … if they are willing to use it.

10) It’s about the War on Terror, stupid. Ever since September 11, 2001 America has been engaged in a war that its elected leaders from both political parties had, until then, refused to acknowledge was being waged against us for more than twenty years. But now we’re in it and we are in it to win it. Just like in WWII when the murderous Nazi socialist fascists promised to take over the world, the uncompromising murderous Islamo-fascists of today do not give us any other options: we must beat them, both on the battlefields of the world, wherever the terrorists are planning and scheming against us, and in the even tougher battlefield represented by the hearts and minds that have been so polluted by an ideology some will still maintain to be a religion of peace.

America cannot long afford to keep elected leaders who largely agree with the terrorists.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush is a war monger.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush is a liar.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the war in Iraq is “creating” more terrorists.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush and the republicans are stupid.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the prisoners at Guantanamo have been tortured and horribly mistreated.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the prisoners at Guantanamo ought to be given constitutional rights.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the American military is an occupying force in Iraq, not the welcome liberators Bush and Rumsfeld said they would be.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the war in Iraq is just like Vietnam and just like in the case of Vietnam and Lebanon and Somalia (where the American military pulled out under pressure to do so), the American forces must leave Iraq before the stated mission has been completed.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the American military has specifically targeted innocent civilians in Iraq and has purposely killed tens of thousands of them and has terrorized many more.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush and the republicans are too pro-Israel.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the Democrat Party is the political party that ought to be the majority political party in the United States of America.

We simply cannot afford to be led by a group of folks who reflect so many points of agreement with our enemies. On positions that can either cast the U.S. in the role of “good guy” or “bad guy”, liberal democrats and the terrorists agree: the United States of America is the bad guy. Good grief; democrats appear to agree with al Qaeda more frequently than they agree with republicans!

Neither should we allow ourselves to be led by spineless Neville Chamberlain’s of the 21st century; too arrogant for their own good and too naïve for ours. If for no other reason, the fact that the most powerful members of the democrat party (the folks that are so much smarter than the rest of us) cannot acknowledge that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror; even though Osama bin laden says it is, even though al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri says it is, even though Zarqawi (al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq before he went to hell) said it is, and even though the soon-to-be-dead new al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, unequivocally confirms that, yes indeed, Iraq is the central front in Islam’s violent struggle against the West; democrat leaders disqualify themselves as credible advocates for victory in the War on Terror.

Therefore, the American people should not give them more than two years to confirm all of the above. When it comes to our money and our security, we cannot afford to keep democrats in office after 2008.

Communists, Democrats, What's the Difference?

Apparently, not much if you compare party platforms. The Democratic Party of today is almost a mirror image of the Communist Party. Long ago, Democrats have abandoned any pretense of traditional American governance in favor of an oppressive, over-reaching Big Brother. Now, the Communist Party is helping Democrats take back the Congress.

I recently visited the Communist Party-USA (CPUSA) site to see how they viewed the American landscape vis a vis the Democratic Party. I was not shocked to find out that they were almost exactly alike.

• The Communist Party platform is spelled out here.

How does it feel to be a "Communist," you liberals?

Pelosi Exposes Democrat Agenda

Violating the liberal playbook of never exposing what you're really for, Nancy Pelosi has laid out the Democrat plan for limiting free speech, increasing taxation and expanding stem cell research to cloning and beyond. Just as I stated below, this is a far-left, radical agenda loaded with social spending, deep cuts in defense, and a knee-jerk energy policy.

She did leave out a few things I mentioned such as gay marriage, gun control, impeachment of all Republicans and the rest. Ms. "Perpetual Surprise" may have even larger "deer in the headlights" eyes when her party doesn't win thanks to her outing their communist platform of reforms.

Religion of Peace Demonstrates Tolerance

I just had to share these photos from a recent "peaceful" rally in London. I'm glad to see how open our enemy is to peaceful dialogue. It's so encouraging to know we can be reasonable.

Liberals Have Their Heads in the Sand

Sometimes, it's easier to take criticism from your own people. So, for the benefit of liberals who read this blog, feel free to peruse this piece by Sam Harris in today's Los Angeles Times in which he emphatically states:

• "At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.
  
  Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.
  
  I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals."

He states the need for a united effort to fight terrorism (but from a liberal viewpoint) and that liberals cannot be trusted on national security or for fighting an enemy which hell-bent on our utter destruction. Check back here after you have read the piece in toto. You may even enjoy his decidedly anti-Bush stance (nobody's perfect).

It's 9/11 and We Remember You

As we mark the 5th year since 9/11, my hope is, that at least for today, we're all Americans. God bless the families of all who have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we might enjoy the liberty and freedom we have. And God bless you brave soldiers who still fight for us; we thank you. "Git 'er done."

War on Terrorism

It's been a good week for America. We rounded up another important dirtbag in Iraq, heard about successes in our inteligence-gathering efforts, and we'll get to hear from Rush Limbaugh on "Catie's News" tonight. I even had the opportunity to share that optimism with a national audience yesterday on Brian and the Judge. All in all, a good week.

Yet, here come the Windbags of War again. Harry Reid (thanfully, no relation to Nick Reid) called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld again. Not unlike the Democrats of 1864 calling for the resignation of Ulysses S Grant ("too many wasted lives for no victory" or some similar mantra was used then too).

When will we realize that Democrats cannot be trusted on national or international security issues? They're NEVER right! Does anyone remember the stories from Afghanistan that called it a "quagmire" less than 7 days from victory. "No one can conquer that rugged country, the USSR tried and failed, how can we expect to win?" was a common consensus of the liberals. Now, they're telling us that Iraq is "un-winnable" That tells me that we're winning big, Mr. Murtha!

Look at some of the real-world results:

• We're killing a whole lot more terrorists than the terrorists are killing of us.
• The terrorists haven't been able to continue their plan to kill women and children in the US or to blow up portions of major cities here.
• Libya surrendered without a shot being fired and gave up their nuclear weapons program. That is no small victory in the war on terror!
  
• The terrorists have had to continue to resupply a failing Iraqi effort instead of coming here despite Democrat efforts to make it easier for them to get in and plan those efforts without covert intervention by our intelligence agencies.
  

Sure, there have been other attempts at terrorism in other parts of the world. Has anyone noticed that (thanks to our new focus on intelligence gathering which all liberals oppose) we've been able to thwart many of those efforts before they got off the ground? Did anyone notice that Iraq has now held three (3) successful national elections? Did anyone hear that Iraq is taking charge of its own military as of this week which will precede our ultimate objective to pull out after total victory?

Those are difficult topics for liberals to handle. They much prefer the US to lose in war if there is any chance that a Republican can take credit for it. They want to distort the victory by claiming massive civilian casualties and torture of prisoners (by the way, the terrorists in Iraq are killing the civilians while we try to stop them, and I haven't seen our military sawing off any heads like the terrorists like to do to their prisoners). Liberals are only "Americans" if Democrats are in charge. If they're not running (actually "ruining") the country, they are completely opposed to it. Petty, but true.

You don't have to believe me, just listen to the constant calls for surrender, compromise, retreat, resignation, censure, and every other traitorous thing you can do in a time of war, streaming in from the left. Cindy Sheehan is a worthy spokesperson for that crazy, unamerican cause.

"Please, Please, Can We Cut and Run Now?"

I listened to a portion of the President's press conference this morning and it was the same theme that the united Democrat and news media have trotted out since the beginning of the Iraq war; Cut and Run.

A variation of the same question kept being asked, "Don't you think, given the increasing violence in Iraq, that it's time to rethink your policy?" I wouldn't have been able to answer as calmly and patiently as the president did, but he answered just as one would when trying to teach little children who are having difficulty understanding.

The Democrats and their "rubber stamps" in the media are still promoting the same cowardly approach they always take. Whenever we run into adversity, we should quit, according to them (I hope they teach their kids that so mine will be more successful). President Bush kept reminding them that if we quit, there are dire circumstances (like having the terrorists follow our soldiers back here and fight us on our own soil). Yet, they would not be persuaded.

Tell me, what game, what endeavor, what purpose is ever achieved by giving up? If it is worth having a democratic ally in the Middle East, if it is worth saving millions of lives, if it is worth avoiding a civil war or an invasion by Iran, if it is worth removing a brutal fascist dictator, if it is worth the lives that were sacrificed for freedom and equality, then tell me how it can be won without continuing the fight until victory is achieved.

I saw this quote on MoveOn.org a while back; "freedom IS free!" I guess we should disband our entire military right now then and set about convincing whoever takes over our government that we get to keep our freedom. Martyrdom is noble only if the cause is worth fighting for and the victory is won. Freedom is not free, it is a noble cause, it requires sacrifice and determination, and it takes time and effort to win.

Patience is a virtue that the left apparently lacks and why they always opt for the quick and easy way out. When you cut and run away from any battle you can and should win, you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, not unlike General McClellan during the Civil War. Fight on, brave soldiers! We're on your side all the way to victory.

To all self described liberals:

...this is a blog where you will be asked again and again to engage in rational, thoughtful, substantive debate. Toward that end, and with permission from my good friend, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, I post a letter that he wrote and which was originally published in the Nov/Dec 1999 issue of American Enterprise magazine.

I was reminded of the letter the other night when an apparent liberal critic of our conservative views left his comments here at Conservative Jungle, calling us Nazi bastards. I responded to that (click here for that exchange) by pointing out that The Left resembles the Nazi's in several respects while the Right resembles the Nazi's in no respect. Of course, the "conservatives-are-Nazis" catchphrase - one of the favorite canards of the Left - is intended to put us on the defensive (as if there is even a scintilla of commonality between conservatism and Nazism). Liberals themselves present the most convincing evidence of the complete emptiness of their charge whenever they are challenged to come up with a single factual correlation between good old Ronald Reagan Conservatism and any of the rotting planks of the Nazi party of Adolf Hitler. They can't.

Liberals: you started it. You brought up the big lie. Go ahead and defend it. Or go one better; why don't you tell us conservatives how you - your beliefs - are substantively different from the Nazi's. Aren't you the real Nazi bastards? Prove you're not. Read this masterful piece from a learned Jewish man, then prove you are all that different from the Nazi's.


The Hitler LetterNovember 1999
By Rabbi Daniel LapinPresident, Toward Tradition

By the miracle of poetic license and a bit of time traveling,we learn how Adolf Hitler might view America as it enters the 21st Century

"I have no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands. There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them."
-Preface to The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis

My Dear Julius,
[Editor’s note: Julius Streicher was a Nazi leader hanged after the Nuremberg trials]
Landsberg prison, which I entered on April 1, 1924 , and where I wrote Mein Kampf, is strangely similar to this place I entered after shooting myself on April 30, 1945 . I found myself in both places involuntarily, yet they have each provided me with peace as well as perspective.

As one tends to do in the timeless eternity of our existence here, I often reflect upon my single most regrettable error—underestimating America . Exactly one month after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor I told you at our Berlin headquarters that America is a decayed country. My feelings against Americanism were feelings of hatred and deep repugnance. Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized and the other half Negrified. How can one expect a state like that to hold together? Well, America did somehow hold together and seized victory from us. However, and this is important my friend, she has finally adopted many of the vital ideas of our movement. Could not this be described as an ultimate vindication of all we lived and died for? Perhaps it is even a victory of sorts.

Let me explain. First and foremost we were socialists. As national socialists, or Nazis, we presumed that government and the people were hostile to one another. Thus, we understood that the old German tradition of citizens’ owning guns had to end. On March 18, 1938 , we enacted our Law on Weapons and ruled that only government agents may own firearms. You can imagine my approval as I watched Senator Thomas Dodd craft America ’s Gun Control Act of 1968 by having our own law of 1938 translated for him by an official of the Library of Congress. My dear Julius, we can be proud of how similarly the two laws read. Those gun control efforts are naive and well-meaning, but their results will resemble ours. We told the German people that gun control laws were needed to curb gang activity and preserve democracy, but what those laws did was help us prevail.

We Nazis understood that every German citizen must live for the state. And in the same way that wise farmers accept responsibility for the health of their herds, we used the power of government to keep our flocks healthy. We were disgusted by the addictive powers of cigarettes, since both mind and body were supposed to belong to the Führer. We succeeded in almost criminalizing the smoking of cigarettes.

Our Ministry of Science and Education ordered elementary schools to discuss the dangers of tobacco. Government-sponsored cultural and educational events were declared “smoke-free.” In the late 1930s we called for increased taxes on cigarettes and later instituted bans on cigarette advertising. I am most proud of the legislation we introduced prohibiting sales of cigarettes to minors. We set up counseling centers for the psychological treatment of smokers, and we established smoke-free restaurants.

We soon managed to prohibit smoking on Luftwaffe properties and followed that with prohibiting smoking in post offices, government buildings, and many workplaces. In 1940, S.S. Chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all on-duty police and S.S. officers. Our comrade, Hermann Goering, decreed soldiers may not smoke in public, and most cities banned smoking on public transport in order to protect the ticket takers from second-hand smoke. We can indeed be proud that today America has also come to realize the importance of central government taking the initiative in regulating what people do not have the good sense to do voluntarily.

Do you remember that awkwardness in late 1940? The American consulate in Leipzig reported on our policy of conducting compassionate euthanasia on the patients in the Grafeneck Mental Asylum in Württemberg. What an uproar resulted in America ! But now one of America ’s most prestigious institutions, Princeton University , has appointed as professor of bioethics one Peter Singer, who openly advocates putting to death the mentally defective, the terminally ill, and even severely disabled infants. He would give parents and doctors the right to actually kill (not just withhold treatment from) newborns with, for instance, spina bifida and hemophilia. Singer insists a newborn has no greater right to life than pigs, cows, and dogs. So the ridiculous idea that all human life is sacred is now finally under attack in America . A sitting President was re-elected after affirming the legitimacy of exterminating infants during birth, and doctors in their province of Oregon have begun doing away with the elderly and weak. Yes, America is certainly coming around to our way of seeing things.

Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.” I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?

I know you have a question to ask me, my friend: What about the Jews? After all, how can I say that much of America is adopting our views when Jews still exert such disproportionate influence in that country? Grasp the genius of your Führer. You see, dear Julius, with well-meaning earnestness, most American Jews are solidly behind the ideas I have been describing. In the mistaken belief that they are making America safer for minorities, American Jews have joined those advocating ever larger and ever more powerful government. In reality, what they are doing is making America more hospitable to national socialism. When it eventually arrives, they too will see the real dangers, but then it will be too late. Now they only see danger in illiterate thugs with no hair on their heads. American Jews are frightened by a handful of the sort of people we used to execute, instead of being terrified of the institutionalized danger they are helping to create—government with limitless power that could one day be hospitable to tyranny.

We didn’t just kill Jews—we were obsessed with them. We knew and understood the power their God conferred upon them. It was either their 3,000 year-old vision of holiness or our modern ideas of scientific progress that would prevail. Do you recall that Israeli thug, Isser Harel, who founded their cursed Mossad and captured our brother Eichmann in Buenos Aires in 1960? Harel was astounded when Eichmann, upon realizing that he had been captured by Jews, called out the Hebrew prayer Shema Yisrael, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Eichmann understood. You, Julius, you also understood. You ascended the gallows in Nuremberg and your very last words were “Heil Hitler!” (for which I thank you) and then “Purim Fest 1946.” You knew that when the Allies hanged my ten friends, they were playing out a modern day version of the biblical book of Esther in which ten enemies of the Jews were hanged on the festival of Purim.

And it wasn’t just the Jews. Joseph Goebbels put it quite well: “The Führer is deeply religious though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so; it is a branch of the Jewish race.”

We can be confident America will preserve and develop our Nazi ideas of scientific human perfectibility because of one stroke of genius even Reich minister of propaganda, Goebbels has to admire: Those who are advocating socialism in America, whether deliberately or inadvertently, have succeeded in turning the term “Nazi” into a slur that may only be used against those on the right, such as Christian conservatives. Never is it used against those on the left who are precisely the Americans doing most to advance our agenda. We are winning Julius, we are winning. Heil Hitler.

----------

Liberals: we welcome your comments.

Liberals interested in civil conversation: please watch this, then come back with your comments: www.youtube.com...

Liberal Ideas Need Government Support

I paid a vist to our liberal buddies over at MoveOn.org to see what had their panties in a bunch today. Typically, they're raving about their huge victory in Connecticut and bragging about moving polls with their attack ads against Republicans. But I noticed one issue that they were really panicked about; sensorship.

The two items they were promoting as key issues were keeping the internet free of filtering (those liberals need their porn, you know) and government funding of their allies at PBS. They said, "Congress must save NPR, PBS, and local public stations. We trust them for in-depth news and educational children's programming. It's money well spent."

Two problems:
1. MoveOn.org trusts their news coverage.
2. "Children's programming" can mean more than one thing.

Should taxpayers be forced to pay to promote the views that MoveOn.org trusts? In fairness, should we then be forced to pay for coverage that every other political group trusts; the Libertarian News Network, the Conservative Channel, the Nazi Network? Actually, disregard the Nazi Network since that would give MoveOn two networks.

The plan being considered is a phase-out of government money that would force PBS and NPR to stand on their own by selling ads or attracting like-minded corporate support (good luck to the anti-corporate liberals who run the networks). In essence, "if your network can't support itself, then the public at large shouldn't be forced to keep it alive for liberal news coverage's sake."

The issue of "children's programming" can be taken two ways, and if you've watched much PBS you know what I mean. It can mean the benign "programs for children" or it can mean "children's indoctrination." I contend that the focus of many of the shows is the latter. I don't set my children in front of the tube to become zombies for "peace" and environmentalism. Neither should I be forced to support that for others' children.

Liberals are quite "concerned" and are "ready to fight" every time they think the playing field is about to be leveled. Their ideas cannot win and their "truth" becomes exposed as only opinions if they're forced to compete and debate openly. They need PBS, NPR, AirAmerica, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and all the rest because "conservatives have FOXNews." Maybe, if FOXNews were as conservative as liberals say they are, they'd have even more viewers. One thing is certain, only liberals need your money to promote their ideas. We don't need your stinkin' money.

Copperheads

In the midst of the American Civil War, there was a political party that was unapologetically anti-war and campaigned (sometimes violently) for peace. Not coincidentally, they were Democrats out of touch with reality. The war was almost won and they were protesting for an instant peace.

In Washington and around the country this week, the "Copperheads" are going to be back. This time protesting against Israel and the United States and their efforts against global terrorism.

In 1864, the Democrats adopted a platform of "peace" and immediate reconciliation with the southern states. Led by Clement L. Vallandigham, they denounced the Lincoln administration for pronouncing the Immancipation Proclamation, called Lincoln a "liar and war mongerer," and were against any further military funding of the war effort. They circulated literature that called Lincoln "Africanus I," illustrating him as a black man with a crown (a racist gesture).

Vallandigham was earlier arrested for his traitorous activities (wouldn't that be nice if we still did that?). Later released by Lincoln and exiled to the country he loved (the pro-slavery South), he would sneak into Canada and run for Governor of Ohio in 1863. He lost as most "peace sneaks" did, yet his ideals carried over into the Democratic presidential platform of 1864 when George McClellan ran on the Democratic ticket.

Even though McClellan was "pro-war," he wanted to negotiate with the south on the brink of victory. Does that sound familiar? Now the neo-Copperheads want Israel to negotiate on the brink of victory and for the US to pull out of Iraq completely so that another civil war can erupt in our wake. They try to maintain (with a straight face) that they are for the military; they just always seem to be against what "those baby killers" do. It sounds just as stupid now as it did then to a majority of the voters.