Frivolous vs. Magnanimous: Intelligence

 
Frivolous: The 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill is headed to a House vote within the next week or two. If it is signed into law, it will direct our intelligence agencies to turn away from fighting terrorism, rooting out spies, and gathering national security intelligence. Instead, it will require agencies to engage in a 30-year projection of the effects of... climate change.

Willfully ignoring 9/11, the plot to destroy UK airliners over American cities with liquid bombs, and the recent Fort Dix conspiracy, Democrats intead call for the study of climate change. The Junior Party is willing to divert our most valuable intelligence resources from their anti-terrorism efforts for reasons that are unserious -- at best.


What could be the true motivation for wasting our intelligence resources in such an egregious fashion? Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps George Soros knows the answer.

Magnanimous: Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) offered his perspective of the fatally flawed Intelligence bill in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required). Put simply, the Democrats under the Clinton administration have gone down this road before.

Clinton's first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, directed intelligence agencies to devote equal efforts to "environmental concerns and national security." The result was an outrageous waste of resources as intelligence analysts reported upon schools of fish and volcano activity. In the mean time, the Jihadi terrorist threat grew, inexorably and remorselessly, under the Clinton administration's watch.


In August of 1996, Osama Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War against the Americans while Al Gore was presumably examining Excel spreadsheets detailing air pollution data. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri reiterated his intent to use Iraq as a base of operations for further attacks against the West. Some things never change.

Reportedly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were too busy measuring the tidal surge to respond.

Frivolous vs. Magnanimous: Energy Policy

 
Frivolous: Democrats claim they want energy independence, but their policies are at odds with their claimed intent.


The accompanying map depicts "The No Zone." This is the region surrounding the United States in which Democrats have forbidden oil exploration. Take, for example, ANWR. The Alaskan wildlife refuge is an immense property. To put it into its proper scale, if ANWR was the size of a football field, the requested oil exploration area is the size of a postage stamp.

Democrats oppose drilling in deepwater, even though Hurricanes Katrina and Rita proved that modern offshore drilling platforms pose little or no pollution risk. As for new refineries, well, the Democrats oppose those, too.

The net impact of Democratic behavior is that America will become ever more dependent on foreign oil.

While alternative energy sources remain an admirable goal, they are decades away from becoming serious alternatives to oil, which is the lifeblood of our economy. Several months ago, Ben Stein described the reliance of our society on oil:

...If we lost all oil and gas products tomorrow, ...the world would simply collapse. There would be an immense depression beyond anything we saw in the 1930s -- the economy would go back to a primitive state. There would simply not be a functioning society. It would be as if there had been nuclear war, minus the casualties from blast and radiation. In a word, we cannot as a modern society or even a modestly industrial society live without oil and gas. That is, [it is not] a luxury or a narcotic. [It is] a basic necessity of life, as basic as almost any commodity there is.

The Democrats simply pretend that this isn't the case by preventing exploration in sensible locations.

In the mean time, Cuba is permitting foreign countries to drain the Gulf of Mexico of its oil. For example, Cuba granted China drilling rights in the Gulf. And, in fact, China will be drilling within 50 miles of Florida.


And while countries such as China will be sucking oil out of the Gulf, Democrats are continuing to stonewall against sensible energy policies.

Many Democrats call themselves "progressives", but when it comes to energy policy, the term "regressive" comes to mind.

Magnanimous: Republicans, if nothing else, are pragmatists. They recognize the landscape of energy dependence and have created realistic gameplans for dealing with the situation.


United States Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) has assembled a powerful set of graphs that illustrate the real problem... and a potential solution.


The bottom line is that in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we must open up new avenues of exploration and refinement. To do anything less is to court disaster, but that seems to be standard fare for the modern Democratic party.

Hat tips: Gateway Pundit and Larwyn. Frivolous vs. Magnanimous is a recurring series. Email us with suggestions!

Frivolous vs. Magnanimous: Immigration

 
Frivolous: While I don't always read the newspaper, I'm pretty certain there isn't a new country on our southern border. Though, to view literature passed out by Democratic solicitors at a 2006 pro-illegal immigration rally in Dallas, you'd never know it.

What I glean from this brochure is that Democrats believe in a country called "Texico", which encompasses the former state of Texas and country of Mexico. Kim Priestap at Wizbang summarized this approach with panache:

The Democrats classify people based upon race and then work to corner the racial voting collectives... [and] they are trying very hard to collectivize the Hispanic community by turning the immigration issue into another civil rights issue. ...Power Line points out, one of the organizers of these rallies is A.N.S.W.E.R., a communist organization.

But don't question their patriotism!

Magnanimous: Republican positions on immigration are characterized by a wide range of opinion. On one end of the spectrum: the hard-line stance of Tom Tancredo -- "whose political obsession is to limit both legal and illegal immigration into this country [and] had warned the Bush administration to treat border control more seriously" (source: New Republic). On the other end, President Bush's advocacy for a "guest worker program", which would provide a prescriptive route to citizenship for the current crop of illegal aliens (source: White House).

But, as far as I can tell, Republicans aren't soliciting the new citizens of Texico in a blatant attempt to subvert the voting process.

Frivolous vs. Magnanimous is a recurring series. Email us with suggestions!

Frivolous vs. Magnanimous: the Political Game

 
Let's play a game. I call it Frivolous vs. Magnanimous. It's a great way to highlight the differences between the two political parties.

---

Debate

Frivolous: The Democrats cancelled their debate on Fox News, apparently afraid of partisan "spin".

Magnanimous: The Republican debate appeared on noted pro-Democratic outlet MSNBC and was hosted by liberal pundit Chris Matthews... with color commentary offered by Keith Olbermann. Olbermann, of course, is an unhinged leftist who recently named the GOP the "leading terrorist group" in America. The Republicans were unafraid of political spin and were happy to appear on MSNBC.

---

War

Frivolous: only months after the Iraq war had begun, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pilloried the Bush administration, stating that "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me... and that is the competence of our leader." (source: CNN).

Magnanimous: After President Clinton's 1998 decision to order military strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Sudan:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich quickly sided with the adminstration, saying the president "did the right thing" by ordering the simultaneous attacks against facilities believed linked to terrorists suspected in the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa. (source: CNN)

---

Supreme Court Justices

Frivolous: Democrats split over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts in a harsh, and nearly unprecedented, divide:

On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13-5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29, passing by a margin of 78-22. All Republicans and the lone Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22 for and 22 against. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice...

And Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed by an even narrower margin:

[Alito's] nomination was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote. Democratic Senators characterized Alito as a hard right conservative in the mold of a Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork... The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) formally opposed Alito's nomination... After a failed filibuster attempt by Senator John Kerry, ...the Senate confirmed Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42... Such a close vote along party lines is rare for Supreme Court nominations, making Alito's confirmation one of the most controversial in American history.

Magnanimous: Despite her ultra-liberal background -- including serving as a chief litigator for the ACLU -- Ginsburg was confirmed by the Senate by a near unanimous vote of 96-3. During Ginsburg's confirmation hearings:

...she did not answer some questions involving matters such as abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, rights of the disabled, and so on. Only one witness was allowed to testify "against" Ginsburg at her confirmation hearings, and the hearings lasted only four days. They also pointed out that then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden told her not to answer questions that she did not feel comfortable answering...

---

Voting and Vandalism

Frivolous: Democratic supporters have a long history of vandalism and destruction in their pursuit of political victory. A partial list of violent incidents during the 2004 campaign include:

- Seattle, WA campaign Bush's campaign office was seriously vandalized
- Spokane, Washington - Bush's campaign office was burglarized, vandalized
- West Allis, Wisconsin - Dem. demonstrators stormed a Republican campaign office
- Knoxville, Tennessee - Gunshots fired into Bush-Cheney headquarters>
- Orlando, Florida - Mob attacks Bush-Cheney office
- Madison, Wisconsin - Swastika Burned Into Grass On Bush Supporter's Lawn
- Vail, Colorado - Vandals chainsaw Bush-Cheney sign
- Columbus, Ohio - Purple Heart Iraqi vet attacked
- Gainesville, Florida - Democrat slugs area GOP chief
- In flight, over Canada - Drunken Kerry supporter assaults seatmate in flight
- Dallas, Texas - Family of dead soldier harassed at candlelight vigil
- Huntington, WV - Gunshot fired at Republican headquarters
- Bozeman, Mont. - Bush campaign office vandalized, paint sprayed and rocks thrown

Magnanimous: I found no instances of Democratic campaign offices being vandalized, shot into, set aflame, burglarized, or otherwise damaged.

---

Fair Voting Practices

Frivolous: Democratic voting rights front group ACORN (the "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now") has been tied to a wide variety of illegal behavior, including forged voter registrations, payment for votes, voting fraud, and paying for votes with crack cocaine:

...four persons working for [ACORN were indicted], accusing them of submitting more than 15,000 voter registration forms with fictitious names, phony signatures and bogus addresses... The Wall Street Journal reported that an Ohio ACORN worker was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent voter registration cards. Many of the newly registered voters were deceased, underage or were named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy or Jive Turkey... In Minnesota, authorities founds hundreds of voter registration cards in the trunk of a car owned by a former ACORN worker suspected of registering voters twice so he could double his fees...

Magnanimous: Most complaints against Republican voting activities don't center around fraud and criminality. Instead, most of the outcry relates to requiring a valid ID before voting, preventing felons from voting, and accusations of "gerrymandering." Though there have been sporadic reports of voter registration cards being thrown away if the prospective voter was a Democrat, I can find no record of arrests, indictments, and paying for votes with drugs and cash.

---

Free Speech

Frivolous: Insight reports that Rep. Maurice Hinchey and Sen. Bernie Sanders are spearheading Democratic efforts to stifle the only media channels espousing conservative opinion by reinstituting the "fairness doctrine". Sanders stated, "now is the time to begin asking that if networks provide their listeners with 99 percent of talk shows being with right-wing extremists, whether that really is what public trust is about." Bottom line: Democrats seeks to eradicate conservative talk radio, because it has dominated its competition (consider the bankrupt Air America network).

Magnanimous: I can find no serious effort by Republican leaders to suppress free speech. To the contrary, I've found only examples of Republicans defending the right to dissent.

---

Media Criticism

Frivolous: Pulitzer-prize winning Washington Post columnnist David Broder recently called Harry Reid an "embarrassment" after the Senate Majority Leader declared the ongoing Iraq war "lost". In response, all 50 Democratic Senators published a joint letter roundly criticizing Broder for his comments.

Magnanimous: on September 8, 2004, Dan Rather led off his CBS Evening News broadcast with a major scoop: CBS had in its possessions documents that proved George W. Bush had skirted his duties in the Texas Air National Guard. The story subsequently exploded: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, ABC, CNN, and NBC breathlessly covered the story. But within two days, the documents had been proven forgeries of the lowest quality. By September 20, when CBS finally admitted the story was a "mistake", the only response from the White House was exceedingly mild. White House spokesman Scott McClellan simply questioned the source of the memos and noted, "[the witness, Bill Burkett] in fact, is not an unimpeachable source, as was previously claimed."

---

Climate Change

Frivolous: With the introduction of a new "Intelligence Authorization bill", Democrats intend to divert funds from national security intelligence efforts in order to consider "the effects that climate change has on national security." In other words, Democrats view global warming as a threat that justifies stripping funds away from fighting terrorism.

Democrats view any criticism of global warming as intolerable. Al Gore notes a "scientific consensus" though some scientists point out that such a phrase is nonsensical, at best:

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Magnanimous: Republicans have generally raised valid questions about the man-made causes of climate change. In 2003, Senator James Inoufe asked, "an obvious question: If the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than the age of coal-fired power plants and SUVs, what role do man-made emissions play in influencing climate? I think any person with a modicum of common sense would say, 'Not much.'" Pop quiz: how did Greenland get its name?

Further, Republicans have noted complaints about a conflict-of-interest inherent within the UN's panel on climate change. Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists -- on the left, mind you -- believe that the IPCC's carbon-offseting schemes are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse.

---

Conclusions

I call this study Frivolous vs. Magnanimous, but the term 'frivolous' is inadequate. The current Democratic leadership is a petty, partisan bunch more interested in reading polls than defending the country. And they've changed positions on Iraq so many times they could illustrate a political Kama Sutra.

Unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, Democrats* instead suppress free speech, use violence and drugs to win elections, and treat national security and the Constitution like partisan punching-bags. It's just something to consider the next time you prepare to cast a vote.

*Today's Democratic Party is brought to you by George Soros™.

Author's Note: this post has been updated; hat tips: the incomparable Anchoress and the irreplaceable Larwyn.