MILNET:

MILNET Opinion
Defective Liberal Logic Disease -- DLLD, 10/03/2004

"Something is very wrong with laws that prevent any citizen from experiencing his or her democratic right, even when they have paid their debt to society..."

- Koretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, NAACP meeting, Portland Maine, 10/03/2004.

There remains in this country, a disease of the mind that continues to pump out not only fictional historical events to support their position but an exceeding proclivity to spout forth with logic that defies intelligence.

Cases in point. Senator John Kerry certainly suffers from DLLD. In the first of this presidential debate cycle, declared that the leader of France, Charles deGaulle made some ridiculous statement about deGaulle that cannot be supported by the facts. As our friend Dr. Mohamad Ibn Guadi pointed out recently in an emal to us, in Kerry's statement in the debate, he said,

"I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

Dr. Guadi points out that the actual events do not match Kerry's memory of things (not only was Kerry not there, but clearly his source may be as accurate as CBS' friend that appears to have faked military orders). Worse, this is hardly buried history that is hard to find. Dr. Guadi found an online reference to the meeting in question:

In French:
"Kent pose une immense photo de Cuba sur le bureau du Général. « Toujours debout, il s'est penché au-dessus des photos pendant que je lui parlais. » De Gaulle reçoit un briefing de renseignement très complet. En militaire, il apprécie les détails techniques et les prouesses de la CIA. Kent poursuit : « Je lui ai d'abord parlé du débarquement du grand nombre de personnel soviétique, et d'équipements de toute sorte - communications, électronique... Puis je lui ai montré les photos d'un site de missiles sol-air qu'il a semblé reconnaître tout de suite.... »

Kent avance ensuite une photo de bombardiers stratégiques IL-28 en partie démontés. « De Gaulle a pris la loupe spécialisée, l'a mise de lui-même dans le bon sens et, après avoir regardé, a dit que c'était là une photo remarquable."

In English:
"Kent posed an enormous photo of Cuba on the desk of the General. Still standing, he bent over it while I was speaking (...) Then I showed him the pictures of a missile site which he seemed to recognize immediately (...) De Gaulle took a specialized magnifying glass (...) and said it was a remarkable picture ..."

Nothing in the text above, even loosely translated matches "And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." Not only did DeGaulle not make such a grandiose statement, he in fact DID look at the pictures in question with some interest, citing them as "remarquable (FRENCH)."

Alas, the disease is still at work, and in American Presidential Politics no less.

Even icons of liberal stature as high as Coretta Scott King, wife of the late Martin Luther King suffer too. On the arm of the junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton another DLLD sufferer, Mrs. King entered a NAACP meeting in Maine where she addressed the membership with an idea that is not only repugnant but berefit of intelligent thought. It is quoted above, but bears repeating:

"Something is very wrong with laws that prevent any citizen from experiencing his or her democratic right, even when they have paid their debt to society"

Her rationale for this remarkable position? The CNN story says "King, praising Maine and Vermont as the only states which allow prison inmates to vote, cited estimates that one in four black men in six states are barred from voting because of their convictions."

What? This defies intelligent discourse. Here is how this logic flows. For some reason, four in six black men are convicted felons who have paid their debt to society. This racial injustice means that, because of the six states's laws, these untold number of blacks cannot vote. Surely something is wrong with a society when four in six black men cannot vote in a particular state.

But wait, the disease is at work so we have to take a moment to analyze this particular bit of insanity. Rather than try to figure out how to educate four in seven black men so that they find alternatives to felonious crime, we are to feel sorry for them and decide society has unfairly imprisoned them for their crimes. Moreover, since they have "paid their debt to society" we should further advance them the right to vote. In fact, let's just let everyone vote. Voting is not an important thing, now is it?

Its funny how any liberal issue creates the potential for increased voters for the liberal cause, yes? And when the liberal search for votes fails to push them over the top with legal voters, they'll jump on any bandwagon that rolls in, including illegal voters.

Soon we will hear that individual states are going to allow illegal aliens, prisoners, and their cats and dogs. What? We are comparing cats and dogs with people? Well, in the eyes of the framers of the Constitution might have agreed. Of course, women were not on the list of legal voters along with blacks, so one would suppose there is some rational for revisiting that ancient document. For instance gays are not mentioned one way or another, yet we are pretty sure history points to homsexuality as existing back in those days. Yes, it may be time to revisit the constitution -- after all its over 200 years old, right?

After all, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, all those original framers, perhaps including good ole' boy Hancock, owned cats, dogs and slaves. If they mistakenly did not include women, blacks, cats and dogs, then surely we must write them in.

Blacks and women, and yes, even convicts and those released after serving their time have the ability to signify yea or nay. Actually, so do some dogs, and I haven't checked yet, but maybe do some cats.

My goldfish appears to be a Republican, however, so maybe goldfish are out. Illegal aliens, terrorists, convicts, transients from all over the world should be allowed to vote in the U.S., since we are the nation of free choice. Let 'em all vote, damnit, so we can hurry up and change this country to that great unwashed ideal of global citizenship. We are, after all, Terran's right?

Now obviously we've carried the argument too far. But take heed. This is exactly where we are headed. First convicted felons (Maine and Vermont already permit this), then the convicts serving, illegal immigrants, then non-citizens of any sort. "Attention all the worlds convicts and felons, come to America where you too can elect the President of your choice!".

Pick any state and look at the legal history of their constitutions and you will easily find that the reason felons are not allowed to vote is because they have abrogated that right by committing serious crimes. Even casual analysis of the intents of lawmakers in the early years of our countries thirteen colonies will reveal that felons were not considered as having the proper judgement to make political decision, and moreover that felons were not to be trusted to judge a fellow felon as an inappropriate candidate. In other words, felons will most likely elect their cronies to office.

And there, you see, is the problem. Mrs. King's issue is that four in seven persons in some states will not be able to vote. Using race as the emotional cry is an all too common practice used to make racial every issue the liberal disease can conjur up.

Unfortunately this is not a racial issue. It is a voter number issue. Voters who are likely to vote for other people who's unfortunate inability to obey the law has provided them with an injust voting disability. The entire issue simply does not pass the smell test, the aroma of male bovine excrement rises off the ideas in waves. B.S. of the worst kind.

And smiling right along with the champion of injustice against blacks, is Hillary Clinton. Not immune to her own predicalation to scraping up voters, the junior Senator appears to happily champion this great cause. Why are we not surprised.

All you have to do is look at the number of voters she is likely to encourage -- the list of felons in New York Prisons, the number of felons registered in state, and the estimate of unregistered felons is quite a voting block. If you add in illegal aliens, the next step in this effort, it all becomes clear.

It has also not escaped our attention that a large number of New York State voters retain dual registeration in Florida as well as in other southern states. Oh dear god, what is this? A loophole in the laws only make it a felony if the dual registered voter votes twice, a condition that until this appaling election scandel was reported, would be almost impossible to discover without states comparing the results of their voter records, which in turn appear to be confidential except to influential politicians. In any case, from reading chads to dual voting privilige and Jimmy Carter (one of the oldest sufferers of DLLD) proclaiming Florida to have worse voting conditions than Iraq, you'd think the U.S. is no longer the land of the free.

So where do you find voting officials who are not associated with any political party (Jimmy Carter's desire), voters who haven't voted in the past, and voters who are not particularly happy with conservative ideals? In the jails, on the rolls of convicted felons and illegal aliens of course. My friend Dr. Guadi would proclaiom "Sacribleau, can I vote too!"

Let's be clear. Our system is not perfect. I am a Republican whose vote will not likely count in this election -- I will vote anyway, but the chances of the majority of Californians suddenly voting for a Republican Candidate besides Colin Powell are pretty slim. Therefore my Republican vote is useless. Just like a Democrat's vote in Florida in 2000. But I didn't jump up and down and call for a recount in California, change the consititution or declare California's election another Banana Republic election.

So here comes the MILNET recommendation. We should build a new mental health institute. The Ronald Reagan Institute for the Mentally Ill Liberals with DLLD. We'll put Ted Kennedy in as our first patient, he's been whacked since that unfortunate drive off that pier. We'll add Al Sharpton who is as crazy as a loon. Then we'll have Hillary accompany Mrs. King, both are obviously ready to do anything to get a few more votes for the junior Senator, and then we'll invite Jimmy Carter to supervise their recovery. It shouldn't take more than thirty years of shock therapy. And in the end, John Kerry will have to visit them all regularly, far too often to allow him to continue in politics. He's needed to rewrite the history of the patient's stay, if not to find some way to give them a V for Valor on their records too.

Sources:

L'Amerique contre de Gaulle, le nouvel Observateur, October 5, 2000 (English Translation from Google, MILNET Mirror)
Corette Scott King: Let Everyone Vote, CNN Online, 10/03/2004