Having failed at derailing the president's re-election, the media turned to delegitimizing it. Crazy theories kept afloat on left-wing blogs and Keith Olberman rants failing, they left now has a new election to destroy: the upcoming Iraqi elections. They of course want them delayed, as with the violence and possible boycott of the Sunnis, they won't be "legitimate". Of course, any election they lose is illegitimate. With their willign accomplices in Europe and the UN, thet want the elections delayed, and they are using the previously delayed Afghanistan elections as the model.

However, comparing the upcoming Iraqi elections with the Afghanistan elections just exemplifies the lengths they will go to thwart the president. There is absolutely no similarity between Iraq and Afghanistan. What held up Afghanistan was as much structural as anything. Afghansistan was somewhere between the 5th and 6th centuries as far as development and technology are concerned. There weren't even roads to many of the villages.

What does it mean if we delay the Iraqi elections? It means that violence and terror are effective means at achieving a desired outcome. The terror will be emboldened and violence will only escalate and worsen if they discover that will deligitamize the elections. This puts the control of Iraq's future in the hands of the terrorists.

For the Shia and the Kurds, it means that once again, the 20% of the population can control the other 80% through violence and intimidation. The surest way to lose the support and the faith of the Shia and the Kurd will be to delay elections.

In 1996, 49 percent of eligible voters voted in the presidential elections. President Clinton received 49% of the popular vote. Thus, 25% of the population elected him to office. Was his election illigitimate? Hardly. What makes an election legitimate is that theose ready, willing, and able to particpate, do, and when they do, their votes are accurately counted. Just because 10-20% of the Iraqi population are not ready, willing, and able, no more discredits the eleciton than when half the population of America stays home.

We must hold the elections January 30th. Whatever the outcome, the UN and their cronies are going to claim it's invalid. The Iraqi people will know better.

Charles Krauthammer writes in the NY Post: US Doing too much of the fighting:

...But when those offensives are over, the Sunnis will have to make a choice. Either they join the new Iraq by participating in the coming election or they institutionalize the civil war their side has already begun.

I wrote on 11/18: Time to pick sides:

The Sunni: Having been a minority ruling population for several decades, they are least likely to see any benefits from a democracy. Even thought most Sunni didn't see the benefits of the Baathists, they fear a Shia majority rule. Thus, it is safe to assume that though the majority of the Sunni don't overtly support the insurgency, it is also fair to conclude they don't oppose it either. There is no way that several thousand insurgents could keep control over the several million Sunni without some level of general complicity.

Krauthammer writes:

People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side is fighting it. The other side, the Shiites and the Kurds, are largely watching as their part of the fight is borne primarily by the U.S. Both have an interest in the outcome. The Shiites constitute a majority of Iraqis and inevitably will inherit power in any democratic arrangement. The Kurds want to retain their successful autonomous zone without worrying about new depredations at the hands of the Sunni Arabs.

This is the Shiites' and Kurds' fight. Yet when police stations are ravaged by Sunni Arab insurgents in Mosul, U.S. soldiers rush in to fight them. The question is: Why don't we unleash the fierce, well-trained Kurdish Peshmerga militias on them?

I wrote:

So now US policy must take a decidely pro-Shia/Kurd position and force the Sunni areas to police themselves. The Sunni had their chance and they passed on it, just the Palestinians did with Arafat. The US could then pursue with much greater might the insurgents and put even greater pressure on the Sunni to come into the fold.

We cannot allow a small minority of the population dictate how and when, or even if there'll be elections. We have stayed neutral for far too long. It's time to pick sides, and this time, we can pick the winner.

Many argue that civil war is the worst possible outcome though this is wrong. If we support the Shia and the Kurds, they will do what we failed to do, defeat the Sunnis. The same thing happened in 1919 when Germany lost the war but wasn't defeated. History reminds of the gruesome results of that failure. A civil war will surely find a winner and a defeated loser, that like 1945, will yield a peaceful outcome.

Seems Dr. Krauthammer was reading my blog perhaps.

For those who don't know, I am a high school history teacher at a southern California school in a fairly upper-middle class suburb north of Los Angeles. The town I teach in has grown rapidly over the past 10-15 years, from about 100,000 to over 150,000. In that time, the median home price has more than doubled. New homes are being built by the thousands, most starting well over $400,000. The town has regularly been ranked in the top 5 safest cities in the Untied States. What was once a rural, cowboy town, has become the new home to the upwardly mobile, the professional, educated class.

Recently, the school has experienced some racially motivated incidents. The usual bromides persist, that we need to address intolerance, we need to implement "tolerance" training, and we need to crack down on any instances of racially motivated incidents. But there is a deeper issue here, and it has nothing to do with racism.

First, the cancerous over-emphasis on racial identity has finally metasticized. The students have segregated themselves along racial lines, most notable the African-American students, who seem to be in an ever increasing attempt to out-black each other. Much of the clothing the kids wear looks like it comes out of a rap video, the language no better.

Busing has long since ended. These kids are living in the same neighborhoods, drive the same cars, have the same jobs. They certainly want for nothing that any other student does. They are as far removed from the "street" as can be.

The entire student body has been inundated with anti-racist teaching from the time they are young. There was no previous history of segregation or remnants of the "old days" to remind the population of past grievances. And the rise in racially motivated acts are a relatively new occurrence.

Without the usual suspects, there has to be a reason. Since the beginning of time, teenagers have been a rebellious lot. They will always try to upset their elders, to challenge the status quo, to seek their own identity. They constantly push until they meet resistance. That's what they do.

But there are two factors that have radically changed. One, the level of responsibiltiy and importance of decisions have dramatically increased. And two, the level of adult toleracne has concurrently dramatically increased.

Teenagers have to make more and tougher decisions, from school, drugs, sex, and jobs among others. It is getting harder and harder to go to college, as more and more students seek the same number of positions. Students more and more see a longer and more difficult path to success and are under greater pressure to perform. Those tahat don't, see no use in trying. There are far more dangerous temptations luring teens today than 20 years ago. There is less and less opportunity to jsut be a kid.

This is coupled with an increase in the level of tolerance for behavior. There is no better place to look than with clothing. Teenage girls come to school wearing next to nothing. Shirts are low cut on top and rarely cover the midriff, combined with pants cut so low below the waist, little is left to the imagination. This unofficial dress code applies to all level of students, that the most scantily clad of young women are as likely to be A students as not.

If the attire is not shocking enough, the langugage certainly will be. The vulgarity, swearing, and sexaully laced speech is as common among girls as it is boys. But it goes beyond that. Students address teachers by their last name only, without prefacing it with a Mr. or a Mrs. And the teachers by and large allow this, choosing to be more thier "friend", their "equal", rather than their teacher.

How does this relate to the racially motivate incidents? It is the only way the students can get adults' attention. They know their dress, their language, even their conduct, will not raise a stir. They have only one way to get attention, to push the buttons, to rebel. Having been bombarded with "tolerance" for years, they have no other alternative.

This isn't a an excuse for otherwise unacceptable behavior. We have allowed the boundaries to be pushed so far, the lines to be so thoroughly blurred between chlid and adult, that they are trying to act like adults without adult understanding.

They aren't working in factories and they live ostensibly in the lap of luxury. Almost all of them have cell phones. It isn't what they have, but what they have to do, and that is to be far more mature than their years allow for. I know these kids, I see them on a daily basis. They're all great kids. They aren't wearing white sheets and burning crosses and they aren't shaving their heads and moving to Idaho. They are just trying to get our attention. They have, and we haven't a clue why, or what to do.

The most recent spate of articles from the left on the election results only confirm what should be obvious to even the informally cognisant. The left generally has contempt for democracy.

The current theme is that the people are too stupid to make the right decision. Jane Smiley's diatribe is just one example. Even now, "researchers" from UC Berkely have publihsed a report that purports to show that (summary):

"Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.Bush in Florida."

As evidence they cite several factors:
- number of voters
- median income
- Hispanic population
- change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
- support for President Bush in 2000 election
- support for Dole in 1996 election

In other words, it is impossible to think that someone who voted for Clinton, and even Gore in 2000, would even consider voting for Bush in 2004. Talk about contempt for the electorate.

Keith Olberman was on television within days of the election with conspiracy theories about closed vote counting, overcounts, and all sorts of chicanery. Of course, these were debunked within hours, but this only means that the left has to keep looking.

But none of this negates the fact that the left has contmept for demcoracy. For example:

In 1973, a right (abortion) was created from a right (to choose) which was created from a right (privacy) by the courts.

Affirmative action was not the result of legislation, but rather court dictate.

Courts have wreaked havoc using environmental laws to stifle business and even schools from building.

A single Massachusetts jurist forced the legislature to write laws legalizing same-sex marriage, while a San Francisco mayor decided to subvert the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Public schools in California have refused to follow the law and still teach non-English speaking kids in bilingual education classes.

A single judge in California threw out proposition 187, which passed overwhelmingly by a 2-1 margin.

The list can go on for pages. What is clear is that the left has complete contempt for the will of the people and the rule of law. There is not one instance where the conservative agenda has been implemented, forced on the public by the will of the courts.

While the left went apoplectic over Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, all he did was implement the law. It cannot be argued he did anything outside legal authority.

There is certainly a reason for the assault on the election. It is a concerted attempt to subvert the democratic process, to cause people to lose faith in our democracy. The left has a long history of doing this. Up until now, they have waged a covert war. Now, they are in full assault mode. The next four years will bring unprecedented attacks on the president and everything he does.

I wrote in March, Their hate knows no bounds

The liberals hate President Bush so much that they are willing to sacrifice our national security and our war on terrorists. They are willing to lie, to support a liar, and to turn the 9/11 commission into their last ditch attempt to remove President Bush. Their hate is so intense it is all that guides them...They hate Bush more than al Qaida hates America.

We face two enemies: one abroad and one at home. Both have great contempt for democracy.