The Will to Win (Long, But Excellent Read)

We live in perilous times. The threat to America from al Qaeda, from Iraqi bitter-enders, and other external sources can be defeated. But the threat from within - from Democrat candidates who would be president, and from their media enablers, who regurgitate lies about Iraq, the war on terrorism, the economy, everything, because of their desperation to bring down Bush for their own short-term political gain - has the potential to be far more serious, and far more dangerous for the long term.

Those trying to bring down this president seek to convince us that we should hate, not terrorists who hate us, and are still trying to kill us, but the president and his administration. Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial from a self-proclaimed Democrat who stated the danger clearly: "Think what it will mean if we elect a Democrat who has committed himself to an anti-war posture in order to get his party's nomination. Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war [against terrorism] on the battlefield that matters - American public opinion. So, they will continue to kill Americans, whenever and wherever they can, because it works. And, if we elect a government that subverts, or weakens, or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that comes from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end."

Libya's recently-announced decision to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction (that they always denied possessing), rather than being a cause for celebrating the lessening of one more terrorist threat in the world, has brought out the worst instincts of the Democrats - the urge to prostrate themselves, and the nation they would lead, before the false gods of global institutions. The lesson the Democrats took from this historic event, is that we need more diplomacy through international bodies such as the United Nations - despite the fact that the agreement with Libya was achieved by the United States and Great Britain acting alone, not by the United Nations, and certainly not by our appeasement-minded so-called allies France and Germany, who were left completely in the dark until the final deal was announced to the world (imagine how much would have been given away to Gadhafi, if Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan had been involved in the talks).

There is also no denying that most of the Democrat axis - from their party candidates to their think-tanks to their ivory-tower academicians - is far more comfortable in the salons of Paris and the conference rooms of the United Nations, than with the whole concept of American exceptionalism. As for the rest of what makes up the modern Democrat party - the Howard Dean and special interest pressure group axis - they just hate. Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was quoted by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi as saying, "I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." Yet it is precisely the exercise of American power, without the permission of the United Nations, which the Democrat axis finds so distasteful.

One of the (many) reasons for opposing the subjugation of American citizens to the International Criminal Court is that the standards of protection for the accused, under the ICC, are lower than those guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. Yet leftists - including Democrat presidential candidates and other elected Democrats - insist that American politicians, who are accused of wrongdoing in international affairs, and American military personnel in particular, be subjected to ICC criminal trial standards, which are lower than the standards to which they are entitled as American citizens. Contrast that with left-wing demands that any trial of Saddam Hussein be conducted, not by an Iraqi court, but rather by the standards of "international justice" (probably the ICC).

The biggest difference seems to be that Iraqis want to retain the death penalty for Saddam; while "international justice" has eliminated the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crimes, or how clear the evidence of guilt. Kofi Annan made that abundantly clear. For Americans, standards lower than those prevailing at home; for a dictator, higher standards. How long do you think it will be, before we start seeing "Free Saddam" signs alongside "Free Mumia" signs at left-wing protest rallies?

In a recent interview, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was asked, "Do you worry that the terrorists, that these nihilistic people who want to kill, no longer see the U.N. as a neutral helpful hand?" between themselves and the civilized world; that terrorists "see you as the enemy too?" Annan replied, "That has been a worry..." Wanting the United Nations to be seen as a neutral party (even a "helpful hand") between killers who explode bombs to murder innocent people, and the innocents who are murdered, is taking the concept of moral equivalency to dangerously preposterous levels.

This is the pathetic organization to which Democrat presidential candidates (and the "shadow candidate") would like to subordinate America's national security. On December 3, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution A/RES/37/43 which reads, in pertinent part, "The General Assembly reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle." The language "all available means" could include anything, including terrorist bombings. On April 9, 2002, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed the "all available means" language by passing Resolution E/CN.4/2002/L.16, which reads, in pertinent part, "The Commission on Human Rights Affirms the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation by all available means."

Any comments from our Democrat presidential contenders? How about it - do they still think we should entrust our national security and subordinate our sovereign freedom to act in our own self defense to the United Nations'? Of course, they do.

If leftists succeed in creating a self-supporting left-wing talk radio network, will that mean taxpayers will no longer be forced to pay for the left-wing talk radio network that already exists - National Public Radio?

It is truly obscene to see the politicians in our government, integral parts of the kleptocracy that confiscates by force 40% of everything we earn, and even more when we die, vilifying private business for "greed," when every dime earned by business comes from consumers, who voluntarily patronize their products or services. Try telling the IRS that you choose not to patronize their business, and then see whether income taxes are "voluntary" (as some opponents of income taxes like to claim).

Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean (and others) has promised to increase the tax bite even more by repealing part, or all, of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration. And, given the penchant of Democrats to subordinate America to the will of the United Nations, how long will it be before any of those Democrats, if elected president, agrees to Kofi Annan's schemes for new global taxes, payable into U.N. coffers?

The New Year is time for taking stock of the year just past, and the year ahead. In the year ahead, of course, we will re-elect the current president, or choose a new one; and the entire House of Representatives, and one-third of the Senate are up for re-election. There exists the potential of radically altering the course we have been on, so it pays to examine that course. It is depressing to note that over the past year, even with a Republican president (but with slim Republican majorities in the House, and particularly in the Senate, with the resultant growing ideological stalemate in our judicial system) our Bill of Rights and Constitution have again been seriously undermined; and our media has moved front-and-center in the battle over both the Bill of Rights and Constitution - sadly, on the wrong side.

Howard Dean was right about one thing, when he wrote in a Washington Post editorial, "A critical presidential campaign is now underway. Americans face a choice between two very different views of our role in the world." The decision American voters make, less than a year from now, will be one of the most consequential in our history. Dean represented one view - the democrat/leftist view - of America's role in the world in his Q&A following his foreign policy speech on December 15, when he said, "Had the United Nations given us permission, and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force, I would not have hesitated to go into Iraq. But that was not the case."

"Permission" was the word Dean used, clearly announcing that if elected president, he would not act in America's national self-defense, until he received permission from the United Nations to do so. Democrats claim that Bush's policy of acting preemptively to thwart an attack is new and "radical," but history demonstrates that the policy of acting first to prevent an attack is not at all new. What is new and radical - and dangerous - is the Dean/democrat/leftist idea that America is no longer a sovereign nation, entitled to act in its own self defense, without first getting permission from the United Nations.

We have seen the outrageous actions by all three branches of our government to stifle criticism of itself, with the enactment of the BCRA - criticism that (in James Madison's words) "may expose them to contempt, or disrepute, or hatred, where they may deserve it, that, in exact proportion as they may deserve to be exposed" - passed by the congress, signed into law by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court, in total disregard for the free speech protection of the First Amendment. But at the same time we are told the First Amendment does not protect political speech, we are told that it does protect obscenity and cursing on the public airwaves.

As for that portion of the First Amendment stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," that, we are told, prohibits a cross in a public park, but protects a swastika in a public demonstration. When the Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," we are told that means that the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - but not the right of the people, except Hollywood and media elites hiding in gated communities with private security and bodyguards. When the Fifth Amendment says that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation," that, we are told, means that private property can be taken for public use without just compensation, as long as someone in the government thinks it's a good idea.

We all know the sad fate of the rest of the Bill of Rights, right through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which, we are told, are nullities - superfluous words with no meaning or consequence. We have allowed the judiciary to establish themselves as uncontestable lords over us, appointed for life, and granted the final say in the survival of the individual liberties of the people, who are the true source of ultimate power in our republic; thereby proving the truth of Lord Acton's adage that "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

All of the domestic policy complaints conservatives have, with the Bush administration, pale to insignificance before the long-term international challenges we face. Do we retain our national independence, or do we become merely one more inferior subject in the left's global "village?" Can we confront threats to our national security, when our own elected officials believe we are at risk, or will we need permission from unelected bureaucrats in global institutions before we act? On the domestic front, the challenge, unfortunately, is to decide which political party will cause less harm to our individual liberty, since neither can be acclaimed as great defenders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Will we begin the long, hard task of restoring our Constitutionally-protected Liberty, demeaned and degraded by all of our elected officials and their special interest hacks; or will we stand by, mute, as the rest of our freedoms become "nullities?" Will we rise to the occasion next November, will we defend our freedom and our national sovereignty against those who would destroy both; or will appeasement and meek submission to tyranny be our legacy?

Kim Weissman says he's "just a retired private citizen, doing what I can to restore fidelity to our Constitution."

This may be preaching to the choir, but he raises some excellent points about our enemies within. The site listed at the source link is a place where everyone in here should read now and then - don't let the name fool you. The site is all about keeping this nation sovereign, and freeing us from the tryanny of the UN and the left.

Thanks for posting. I thought it was an ecology site and was pleasantly surprised by some very interesting articles.

2 posted on 01/23/2004 9:43:09 PM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)

I thought the same thing when I first found out about the site, "Why go to some environazi place?". Then I read the content.

4 posted on 01/23/2004 10:19:16 PM PST by 11B3 (Let's get as much of our nation back as we can in 2004.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Commentary...

The Will to Win