Two different political documentaries

It’s been a lazy Sunday afternoon in my household and I had the opportunity to enjoy two, very different, yet fascianting political documentaries. The first, from the right, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, which as the name suggests focuses on the Federal governments involvement in the raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco.

The second documentary, slightly less dark, is from a far Left perspective. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman’s documentary, The Party’s Over, where Hoffman attempts to pull a Michael Moore and takes his camera and crew on the 2000 Presidential election circuit, from the training ground of street protesters through the Democrat and Republican conventions and all of the drama surronding Florida. Though a typical Hollywood Leftist lackey, Hoffman does a good job of getting opinions from people of diverse political backgrounds.

I might draft thorough reviews of both documentaries, after I’ve had more time to digest their content, but for now, I’m left with two main observations.

1.) I found it ironic watching Waco:  The Rules of Engagement, that two of the politicians most vocal in supporting the Federal governments actions in Waco were Vice-President Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Their basic response to the entire ordeal was that David Koresh and his followers presented a danger to the American people; therefore, the actions of the Federal government were justified. However, these same two politicians, bitch and moan about detention facilities for terrorists, such as the one in Guatonomo Bay, Cuba, and the “enhanced interrogation” tactics employed by agents of our government.

On one hand, these Democrat politicians support harsh treatment of alleged religious warriors (i.e.  Waco), but in the other instance they decry the use of more human tactics (i.e. waterboarding at Guatonomo). How can justify this hypocrisy?

2.) Throughout the movie The Party’s Over, Hoffman attempts to show that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, both are run by corporate interests and greed. He continually asks the question, “what is the difference between the two parties?” Mr. Hoffman, as someone who has worked actively on campaigns in both parties, I can tell you the main difference, from a philosophical perspective, is the proper role of the Federal goverment.

Politics of fear

Do you remember where you were on the night of March 18, 2003?

I do. I was at Players, a sports bar, located on the physical border of Texas and Arkanas in the town of Texarkana. I remember because on that night George W. Bush commandeered the airwaves of every major television station and issued an ultimatum to Sadaam Hussein 48 hours–leave Iraq or face the Untied States military. Players catered to a decidedly “red state” crowd and I was anything but a “red stater.”

Just that morning, a letter I wrote to the local newspaper had been published expressing my dissent to the planned invasion. I lost a lot of friends over that letter, but I stayed true to my beliefs. That night, the crowd at Players cheered the TV as Bush spoke from his balls and I hung my head in shame. I felt that these people and millions of Americans across the nation were falling to the politics of fear. I never bought into the “fear Iraq” message and was a vocal opponent to the war effort from the beginning. Over time, I was proven right.

The Left attacked George W. Bush over his lies and his “fear mongering.” Imagine my surprise when, barely into his first month in office, Barrack Hussein Obama decided to play the “fear” card as well, this time in regards to the economy. Every time Obama speaks he tries to convince the American people that we should fear the current economic climate and turn to him and socialist, tax dodging pinkos to save us.

Just like I did with Bush, I’m calling bullshit on Obama’s claims. I didn’t fear Sadaam Hussein and I don’t fear this economy. If anything scares me it’s B. Hussein Obama’s attempts to deal with the economy.

What’s the matter in Somalia?

When the country Somalia is brought up in casual conversation, it is usually in the context of our short lived military jaunt there in 1990′s. However, over the past two years, Somalia has crept back into cocktail chatter all over the nation. 

In 2006, I published Islami Fascists I and Islami Fascists II on my blog. It never generated much of a response and I got tired of bringing the issue up when people would just ignore it. However, today I had a friend bring up the current events in Somalia. In typical Leftist fashion, he made the Islami-fascists out to be the victims of United States’ exceptionalism.  I told him that if you were to take the Islami-fascist agenda and add the names “Jesus” and “Hashem”, the Left would go crazy and demand military action. Since it’s all done in the name of Mohammed, we must all stand by and praise the direction Somalia is headed. Evidently, sharia law is something we all need to experience.

I thought I would raise the issue once again on my blog and see if we could start a discussion this time. Check out the previous posts on the issue, Islami Fascists I and Islami Fascists II.

Islami Fascists II

 

 

I wrote about this previously, but saw this article on MSNBC this morning and felt compelled to raise the issue once again. 

 

While the Bush administration touts Iraq, the media bombards us with horror stories of a nuclear North Korea and the Democrats talk sex, the Islami-fascists continue to destroy Somalia. 

 

Why should we care?

 

Like the regressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Islami-fascists trying to control Somalia seek to establish a government based on the principles of sharia law. Do we really need another Afghanistan? God knows the average American didn’t even realize that Afghanistan was a country prior to 9/11, much less understand the nature of the religious nuts that ran the country.

 

At least with Somalia there is some recent history.  Sadly, we didn’t finish our mission in that country.  For political reasons, many on the left would like us to pull out of Iraq, just like we did in Somalia.  It’s safe to assume that if we pulled out of Iraq now it too would turn into another Afghanistan or Somalia.  That’s why in spite of my objections to the war in Iraq, I feel it’s imperative that we maintain our presence.

 

Did the Bush administration lie? No doubt…

 

Should we have attacked Iran instead of Iraq? Of course…

 

But it’s too late to second guess.  We’ve left Iraq with no legitimate government and no legitimate army and the minute we pulled our troops out the world would have on more government led by militant Muslims. Let this story be reminder of why, regardless of your political affiliation, we must “stay the course” in Iraq.

Islami Fascists I

A tiny article, buried on Page 9A of today’s USA Today, caught my eye.  Apparently, government officials in Somalia agreed to peace talks with the Islami-fascist militia terrorist group that has long terrorized the country and region.  Evidently, the United Nations caved in to what the wire report characterized as “pressure from the international community” to recognizing the Islami-fascist militia as a legitimate government.  Are you kidding me?

 

• Why Is This Story Not Getting More Publicity? During the summer of 2000, NPR ran several stories regarding a regressive regime in Afghanistan that destroyed centuries old Buddhist statues, closed down all the nations swimming pools and forced all the nation’s Hindu population to wear yellow ribbons around the arms.  I remember bringing these stories up to friends, yet no one had heard about this regime.  A little over a year later, everyone knew about that Taliban, but the damage had been done. 

 

It’s obvious that the Islami-fascist militia in Somalia wants to establish a Taliban-like government in a country that has not known a true government since the early 90’s.  This will create yet another safe haven for terrorists.

 

UPDATE!!! As I write this blog entry MSNBC has posted the following:

From the Archives: August 10, 2004

Please note, the following is the first of a multi-part series entitled, “From the Archives,” an attempt on my part to consolidate my previous blogs. The following entry, entitled, “Fear This,” was drafted following the 2004 Democratic National Convention, on August 10, 2004, and is extremely relevant in this election cycle. It’s amazing how my thoughts on Barack Obama have shifted since that time (see the other posts on this blog). This post will remain here for one week, at which time I will move it to August, 10, 2004.

Throughout the Democratic National Convention speakers referenced the immortal words from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” Roosevelt’s words spawned over 30 years of progressive politics, government reform, and foreign policy that made this country what we see today. During this span, from Roosevelt’s first term through the Johnson administration, the United States went from an isolated power in the grips of a “Great Depression” to a shinning beacon of freedom, prosperity and equality for all the world to see.

The policies of this period engendered an internal metamorphosis of the Republican Party, which transformed the Republicans from the “party of Lincoln” to the party of fear. Conservatives launched gratuitous attacks against the “New Deal, “Fair Deal”, and the “Great Society”, pandering to public fears caused by economic and social changes. In a similar fashion, Republicans today feed off fears of an American public caught in the midst of a changing world. The Bush administration understands the simple precepts of fear: Fear is the product of ignorance. Keep American’s uninformed or present only partial information and fear will rein supreme.

Recently, Annie Jacobsen wrote an article for the conservative publication Women’s Wall Street, detailing “suspicious activities” of 14 Syrian passengers on a flight. On the surface, Jacobsen’s article delivers an alarming report on government oversight and inactivity on the part of air marshals, but the questions not asked confirm the true nature of the article. Terrorists proved through 9/11 that with five people they could bring down an aircraft, why sacrifice 14 terrorists on one flight when their numbers could be better divided on more flights and inflict more damage? Could these people be traveling together and wish to associate with each other for that reason? Authorities determined that the 14 Syrian passengers were musicians traveling to a show in Las Vegas-is it not logical that musicians, traveling in a country where people judge them by their ethnicity, would stick together?

While Jacobsen paints a poignant picture of families crying, the stewardess desperately searching for someone to take action, and even Jacobsen’s own “spiritual rebirth”, the article clearly illustrates how many in our nation have become incapacitated by fear. On September 11, 2001, passengers on Flight 93 saw suspicious activity and instead of being paralyzed by fear, they rose to the occasion and saved countless lives in the Washington, D.C. area. Where were the heroes of Jacobsen’s flight?

Republicans hope to incapacitate voters by fear. Not only do they constantly raise and lower the “terror threat level” without giving us hard evidence, but they also issue ambiguous warnings about election terror and are seeking powers to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack. Wouldn’t a terrorist attack be the perfect time for an election? Obviously it would be a sign that our elected officials had failed us.

Perhaps even more frightening are the “social fears” raised by the Bush administration. While our economy continues to sink and our own soldiers continue to die in Iraq, Bush felt a threat from homosexuals who seek to participate in the rights of marriage. They warned American’s that homosexuals threatened the “sanctity of marriage”. Clearly, Bush has never associated with homosexuals and neither have the people who buy into his thinking. Homosexuals present no threat to anyone. The only threat to marriage is marriage itself. Evangelicals try and convince my generation that marriage is the only appropriate vehicle to engage in certain activities. As a result, many young people flock to the altar to marry for the sake of marriage and the honeymoon is short lived, divorce rates skyrocket. Until we dispel the Puritanical myths of the “right” marriage will continue to crumble.

Republicans tell American’s to “fear” Democrats because they will raise taxes. Yes, Democrats do wish to raise taxes but only on those who make $200,000 or more a year and deserve and can afford to contribute more to this great nation. To those of you in the upper class I say congratulations you’ve made it, but with your wealth comes extra social responsibility.

In his acceptance speech, John Kerry said, “The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.” How fitting to close the convention with these encouraging words. The same convention that introduced the world to young, vibrant leaders such as Barack Obama, pushing a message of unity and strength, closes with a message to combat fear in our homeland.

Pacifistic Ponderings!

               

War confounds me!  The simple theory that mass destruction, mass murder, and mass hysteria brings peace, harmony and justice.  This paradox gained more reality throughout the course of the past two weeks due to the terrorist acts we experienced.  Extremists attack our nation; the people grow outraged; the president feeds on emotionalism and charges his citizens for war.  Events, such as the terrorist attacks, require an educated review and assessment not an emotionally charged battle cry.  I fault the United States dealing with the attacks because war will not prevent future attacks; this war is an attempt at an Eastern battle with a Western mindset and the hypocrisy of returning violence for violence.

War cannot prevent future terrorist attacks.  During World War II our nation’s soldiers fought in Europe against a demented dictator.  Wiping out Nazi Germany did not rid the world of evil dictators.  Castro soon rose to power in Cuba and more recently Hussein took power in Iraq.   Terrorist groups run on abstract principles impervious to bombs or special operation forces just as dictators’ feed on the abstract principle of world domination.  It seems to me that as long as the principles exist the acts will follow.

These abstract principles stem from an extreme form of Islam, a subject many Americans are oblivious to.  An attack on Afghanistan represents an attack on Islam.  Attacking Islam results in a jihad.  Western civilizations recognize certain shared values. When a coalition enforces these values by might they become the standard, not so in the East.  Extreme Muslims stand firm on their beliefs.  They realize inevitable opposition threatens their survival and believe that the award of Allah awaits them if they die protecting the sacredness of their faith.  Such devotion creates a stubborn warrior unyielding to reason.  Resolution depends on reason. Thus, attacking Afghan people unleashes a vicious cycle of incessant violence.

The hypocrisy associated with violence returned for violence bewilders me.  Attacking Afghanistan accomplishes nothing except the destruction of innocent lives.  Terrorism is defined as “the calculated use of violence to obtain political goals through instilling fear, intimidation, or coercion.”(Handout)  An Untied States attempt to overthrow the Taliban and annihilate the terrorist groups, through force and fear, is by definition terrorism.   Consequently, each bomb we drop, each soldier killed represents a terrorist act condoned by our government.

 America faces a quandary.   The realization of our vulnerability unleashes an outpouring of fervent emotions.  Acting on these emotions, instead of analyzing the facts and formulating a diplomatic resolution, lacks logic. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960′s exemplifies this philosophy.  Dr. Martin Luther King’s rhetoric moved this nation towards looking past the color of one’s skin.  Similarly, Gandhi’s firm stand against the British government resulted in India’s independence.  When Americans stand united, helping each other in times of need, we defy the intentions of these terrorists. 

I fault the United States dealing with the attacks because war will not prevent future attacks; this war is an attempt at an Eastern battle with a Western mindset and the hypocrisy of returning violence for violence.  Violence accomplishes nothing but ruin.  Peace and love preserve liberty and freedom.