Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. Happily they did not capture it in Europe, and were glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.
Leonard Liggio, Christianity, Classical Liberalism are Liberty’s Foundations
Indeed.
Mohammed has a a great deal to say in a recent entry over at ITM. Tucked into the middle of it, we see this:
… For example so far I have never met one Iraqi who could answer the few simple questions I usually use in a conversation that begins with “they’re stealing our oil”. The questions are “do you know the GDP of the US?” or “do you know how much money the US military spends in Iraq alone?”
The common answer is “I don’t know” and sadly the people I usually talk to have at least finished a college.
Then comes the other question “Ok, so do you know what Iraq’s GDP is? Or the UK’s or Spain’s or Israel’s or Iran’s…?”
Almost in every case I get no answers …
Reading this makes me wonder: do you suppose that this is the source of the shrill cry of ignorant bandwagon jumpers in the United States? People who are so desperate for a cause that they will latch on to anything, no matter how flimsy the case may be, in order to pursue their own agenda, ultimately at the expense of the Iraqi people?
Whatever you believe regarding the necessity for the United States’ invasion of Iraq in the first place, the simple fact is that what’s done is done. It’s long since time to stop wishing we hadn’t and pretending that an exit will take place in the next few months, or worse, that this is something that will benefit Iraq. As PFC Torin Howling Wolf said in a recent documentary:
Our goal here is to help an oppressed people. Our goal here is to restore one of the most ancient and beautiful civilizations of all time.
Some will call these honorable men and women misguided. While it is true that there are criminals in the military, there are also criminals in any group or society. These are the exception rather than the norm. Most U.S. soldiers believe they are there to help the people of Iraq. Most want Iraqis to control their own destiny. Most simply want to go home, but only as soon as their job is done.
Let us hope that Mohammed is not a lone voice in the wilderness, for our sake and particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people.
Via PoliPundit, a smashingly astounding display of ignorance:
Starting at noon on September 1 2006, major websites and blogs all across the internet will replace their front pages with the single word “Impeach” in simple white text on a black background. (See this page for an example.) For 24 hours, web surfers and blog readers will see that word first when they visit their favorite sites. In this way, we hope to get the public talking about the one tool guaranteed by the Founders to restore our Constitutional Democracy.
(Emphasis is mine.)
My objection, friends, in a mere seven words: The United States is a Constitutional Republic.
It’s tempting to assume that the United States is a democracy, especially if you go by dim memories of what you recall from elementary school and those pesky required high school courses in American Government. Put simply, though, a pure democracy is mob rule. The Founding Fathers, quite sensitive to the potential failings of such a government, chose to set up a system of checks and balances which limits the power of the government.
Here’s what Wikipedia says:
… The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
There’s a lot more where that came from. I encourage everyone who believes that either
to read the entire entry on Wikipedia.
Mob rule ain’t pretty, folks.
You’d think that people who make a living with words would make it a priority to understand what those words actually mean.
Andrew Sullivan, clearly wanting to engage with the “deranged”, has asked that I provide evidence that an attack was imminent, and therefore, as I argued, that torture to obtain information about the impending attack was necessary and legitimate. The entirety…
Is it just me, or is Mr. Sullivan’s strawman downright laughable? Of course, I expect that he will reject the evidence provided as unverified or unreliable. Or – and this is a serious point – he could argue that you can never prove that something was imminent if it ultimately didn’t happen. You see, even the actual airline tickets are not proof that something would have happened. Who knows, right? I mean, those tickets could have been intended to enable a meeting with an al Qaeda operative in the United States, or perhaps a meeting with Mike Wallace.
Those in the know, of course, understand that these so-called “tickets” are the product of a Bush-driven CIA conspiracy to imprison innocent Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40. Just ask the DU. They’ll tell you.
Via PoliPundit:
LA Times caught lying to protect Murtha
Part of Murtha’s libel defense is that he was only repeating what he was told when he accused U.S. troops of murder “in cold blood.” The LA Times, in May, assisted in this assertion:[Marine Gen. Michael] Hagee last week briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of …
More details here.