PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

...snowed under in worldly chores (and the computer I had been using now has a half fried screen). Probably won't be posting for several weeeks. Please have a look at my "Big Rants" or check out the other sites amongst my links.

...'Time consuming errands -- the horror...the horror.

"Do not try to bend the [rules]. That would be impossible. Instead, try to understand that there [are no rules]…"

Awhile back a movie was made that graphically depicted an assassination upon the current President. This was just one of many examples of the bizarre hate Bush obsession of our time. Of course, those of us who follow politics know that this style of venom was directed toward Ronald Reagan with equally great vigor, excepting the fact that the forces from the left have more traction this time (with the average Joe and Susan brain-dead from a one track style of "education," journalism, and "entertainment").

Celebrities and "thinkers" have been quick to remind us of how much they hate the guy who has dared stand up against Islamo-terror Inc. One constantly hears media, "entertainers," "scholars," and common armchair gasbags pontificate on just how horrible this guy from Texas is. (Sorry, the excess use of quotation marks is quite necessary when referring to some of these "job" classes).

I recently realized, to my great satisfaction, that the left in general, and the new move on Democrat party have really put all their eggs in one basket regarding the "Bush is Hitler" issue, because their boogeyman will be gone in two years [!] -- then what? Will John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani then become "Hitler?" That's something that would surly fly back into the face of a motley crew of increasingly unhinged fools.

The George Bush magnet for insane accusation just might not make that power grab for world control all the left-wing nut cases have promised (hell, he still hasn't even scored all that Iraqi oil he was supposedly after). What will the Jacobin nut-jobs have left if – and I think this is a real possibility -- Bush just goes back to Texas to play on his ranch and write a typical presidential memoir? 'Not much melodrama in that, is there?

Oh, there's always the "income gap," the "plight of the poor," and "excess materialism" to fill in the space once occupied by their conjured demon de jour, but those passions really don't fly well with normal folks who actually work for a living.

With Journalists and "educators" help, a great demon has been made of a guy who has had the fortitude to act decisively against a genuine threat from a resurrected fascism, in other affairs he's been fairly mediocre and has even bowed to the goals of many bureau-socialists (we still have a – completely unnecessary – federal Department of "Education"), but the Jacobin opposition has really messed up this time. They've told us that all evil in the world is the result of one man – and forgot that this one man will likely be riding a horse around a ranch in a mere couple of years.

Thank god (not "Allah") for the left's excess, misjudgment, and stupidity.

In a recent e-mail forwarded to me, a (typical) leftist made some of the usual random statements regarding America's style of government and some issues at hand relating to George Bush, WMD's, and the conflict in Iraq:

"The beautiful thing about a democracy is that we have faith and trust in our institutions." …The classic leftist interpretation of a "democracy." First off, America was established as a republic -- a "democracy" is mob rule or sometimes "majority rule" (where the majority 51% can vote to kill the minority 49% -- or at least raise their taxes or force them to go to a bureau-monopoly school).

The word democracy is often used to vaguely describe free society (if that was indeed its definition I would certainly have no cause to take issue with it). The actual definition is more attuned to Rousseau's idea of a "general will" that can somehow be "interpreted" by a philosopher or a committee with power. In several historical instances, "democracy" has been a euphemism for dictatorship. This has been the case with the word republic as well, but that particular term more honestly describes a system where public officials are chosen in elections to represent one's particular interest or geographical area. America is a republic with a philosophical foundation of self-government and limited state authority. It's constitution is a document that defines and limits the authority of the state not, as some like to fantasize, a list of rules that define how individual citizens are to live. Power – as the country's political structure was originally set up – is supposed to be widely diffused amongst a variety of contending interests both public and private which are to ultimately leave individuals the freedom to choose what they wish to create, buy, do, and think.

Our current circumstance puts us in a situation of too little republican representation and increasing "democracy" – the idealistic illusion that a popular political figure, party, bureau, or mystical "general will" can somehow determine what is best for all and then impose such values on autonomous individual citizens.

The "beautiful thing about democracy" (as the word is often commonly used to denote free society) is that one is able to NOT have faith or trust in "our" institutions. Faith and trust in institutions is for fools or fellow control freaks that gladly kiss the boots (or other less dignified areas) of "institutions."

Regarding another cliché talking point of leftland; Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. No one was "duped" -- the guy had WMD and used them and threatened to use them again. He was a dictator and there is no question that such authoritarian types typically develop aggressive instruments when they can with the full intention of using them to impose their dictatorial power. (It's just a matter of time before Hugo Chavez "needs" a nuclear program).

General complaints about violence in Iraq are equally misplaced. This "long term war" is long term because of ridiculous constraints placed upon coalition forces by international media and bureau-minds whose only motivation has been to rally hatred for the Bush administration and the United States no matter what course of action it may pursue. By most definitions, what is occurring in Iraq is not a "war." Vast geographical areas of the country have less violence than most European or American cities. The Iraqi economy is surging.

If one were to send the Marines into violent sections of inner cities where gangs were seeking power and authority and where police and soldiers were regularly ambushed or bombed in stealth attacks, it could euphemistically be called a war of course, but hardly by accurate definition. When a great portion of France was recently engulfed by Islamist inspired youth violence, few people called it the "French War." Definitions can always be points of dispute but saying that Iraq is currently a war that the forces of freedom are somehow loosing, or that we should leave or cooperate with the totalitarian thugs of Islamo-fascism, is just plain wrong. The violence would be considerably lessened and free society with all its benefits could firmly take root if many influential groups and individuals would just get over their hatred for George Bush and America in general and take a firm and consistent stand against the Islamo-fascists – would that really be so bad? It would mean an end to the violence and the establishment of a free and open society for the Iraqi people. Why is the left so consistently opposed to this end? They certainly know that coalition forces leaving Iraq would ultimately leave it in the hands of the most ruthless, authoritarian, and violent elements yet, like their love affair with communist dictatorships, their sympathies always lie with the most clearly evil rather than the "questionable motives" of free societies (ours!).

Regarding those Democrats who are so vehemently "anti-war" after having voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable (another point in the forwarded e-mail I initially noted); it does matter who was for or against the war if one side now continually protests that we're "in a mess" that they actually voted to enter into (and consistently seek to undermine success in). The strategy in the conflict has been carried out by the military but has been constrained by an "anti-war" press that was claiming we were in a "quagmire" just a week into the conflict (and has helped to put us into one since then). Any progress or development has been belittled or relegated to back page status. Every indiscretion or error exaggerated to absurd scales (discomfort is not "torture"). Any attempts to defeat the enemy or confine them have been made major news items with negative spin on the forces of civilized open society while organizations like Amnesty International seem to care less that the violence in Iraq is perpetrated by terrorists! Putting a Jihadist in an air-conditioned cell with a Koran sparks a manufactured "outcry" but cutting a random private contractor's head off is just "terrible" – a neutral annoyance (as if no party or institution is behind it).

Instead of complaining about Guantanamo Bay and the comfort of terrorists we should have been executing our strategy as if we were really up against an enemy and not merely someone with "rights" and a difference of opinion.

To the cliché whines heard so often from leftland, I can only say; Long live republican / self-government, defeat terror scum, and keep the media's Chomskyite spin away from our hopes to establish free society in Iraq.