What has the UN done for you lately? The tsunami victims in Asia might well be asking themselves that questions these days. In the intervening days since the disaster, there appears to be very little in the way of aid from the bloated agencies of the UN. Maybe they haven’t figured out a way they can skim funds from this tragedy like they did from the “Oil for Food” program in Iraq. The UN is irrelevant. The UN is impotent. The UN is corrupt. Why don’t they just go away?
UN officials have commented on the situation however. UN Undersecretary Jan Egeland has called the US “stingy” even though we are, by far, the biggest contributor of aid in this disaster. In fact, we have contributed more to the victims of this calamity than all other nations of the world combined. Much of the aid we contribute is raised from private religious (Christian) sources which is astounding since virtually none of the victims are Christians. When was the last time you heard of Muslims sending aid to Christian disaster victims? I guess it's pretty much a one-way street. Americans -Christians- are NOT stingy!
But Egeland just couldn’t resist the opportunity to bash America. The UN apparently has it, as part of their standard operating procedures, to bash America. Maybe we should withhold next year’s UN dues, -and donate the money to the victims of the tsunami?
It's hard enough to raise private funds from US religious organizations for disaster aid in remote parts of the earth without the bad-mouthing from the UN. If we strip away all the veneer of civility and human compassion, most people outside of the affected area don't really care what happened to the far-off people of Sumatra or Sri Lanka. It sounds cruel, but it is nonetheless true. If the situation were reversed and we had suffered a catastrophic natural disaster in America, they wouldn't care much about us either. In fact, after 9/11, many of them were dancing in the streets. Many of the victims are Muslim. Where is the aid from Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Muslim countries?
Egeland's stupid statement doesn't help ameliorate the problem at all. The USA has always been generous to a fault even if most of the aid is ultimately purloined by greedy local government officials for their own personal use. We've always been far more generous than any other nation in history. Unfortunately, in reality there is little that can be done in the wake of such overwhelming natural force. Whatever aid we throw at this enormous disaster will be like spitting into the ocean. But help, we will. We always do.
And the world will remain ungrateful. They always do.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Some Thoughts On the Mosul Mess Hall Attack
The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are not stupid. There is evidence the insurgency was pre-planned before we ever invaded. They are self-sustaining, well-funded and motivated. Their goal? To keep the old order in place- to prevent democracy- to destroy freedom. They are not, however, Iraqi patriots any more than the Nazis were German patriots. They are thugs and murderers who want to restore the previous regime. It is their only reason for being. It is the only way they will survive and they know it.
We can expect intensified effort by the terrorists in the leadup to the elections next month. Their only hope at this point is to cause the US to decide the cost is too high and to withdraw. This is a dangerous business. We must be prepared to take increasing casualties in this effort. Just how "resolved" we really are remains to be seen.
What can be done to change the situation? How can we protect our troops?
The US military doesn't know where the enemy goes at night, or how they move from one place to another, or who is giving them shelter, aid and comfort. The US military may not know, -but Iraqis do. There are Iraqis who could stop this killing. There are Iraqis who want freedom and democracy for their nation. We can do much, but we can't do it all. It is all really up to them at the end of the day.
Somebody in Iraq knew this attack was about to be stagged. Somebody could have informed the US forces who could have prevented the attack. The fact that they didn't, unfortunately, shows they aren't really convinced yet that they can have a better future without the terrorists. They are scared. Who could blame them? Scared that the coalition forces will pull out and leave them to the tender mercies of these same terrorists. Will we stay the course?
We must demonstrate over and over that we are not going to run away. Only when the overwhelming majority of Iraqis truly believe this, will the terrorists finally be defeated and eliminated. And they will be defeated and eliminated by other Iraqis. True Iraqi patriots.
We can expect intensified effort by the terrorists in the leadup to the elections next month. Their only hope at this point is to cause the US to decide the cost is too high and to withdraw. This is a dangerous business. We must be prepared to take increasing casualties in this effort. Just how "resolved" we really are remains to be seen.
What can be done to change the situation? How can we protect our troops?
The US military doesn't know where the enemy goes at night, or how they move from one place to another, or who is giving them shelter, aid and comfort. The US military may not know, -but Iraqis do. There are Iraqis who could stop this killing. There are Iraqis who want freedom and democracy for their nation. We can do much, but we can't do it all. It is all really up to them at the end of the day.
Somebody in Iraq knew this attack was about to be stagged. Somebody could have informed the US forces who could have prevented the attack. The fact that they didn't, unfortunately, shows they aren't really convinced yet that they can have a better future without the terrorists. They are scared. Who could blame them? Scared that the coalition forces will pull out and leave them to the tender mercies of these same terrorists. Will we stay the course?
We must demonstrate over and over that we are not going to run away. Only when the overwhelming majority of Iraqis truly believe this, will the terrorists finally be defeated and eliminated. And they will be defeated and eliminated by other Iraqis. True Iraqi patriots.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Another Attack on Christians -Yawn!
Hugh Hewitt has once again called upon bloggers to assess the Newsweek hit piece on Christianity. My opinion of Newsweek Magazine as an example of the MSM in general and Jon Meacham in particular can be summed up succinctly: “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:21)
Hugh points out that the author of this article doesn’t have any credentials or background, education, or any other virtue that would qualify him to attack a two thousand year old institution. Christianity can’t be so easily explained or dismissed. It is the world’s largest religion. Its tenets have shaped the world’s culture more keenly than any other religion in history. Western civilization is founded, to a large degree, on Christianity –like it or not.
Many secular writers greater than Meacham have tried over the centuries to destroy Christianity. They all have failed. Jon Meacham has likewise failed. His “smirking” tone, as he blithely dismisses Jesus’ annunciation and immaculate conception as “cover” for an “unfortunate” carnal reality, is utterly offensive to all Christians. He goes to inane lengths to dispute even relatively insignificant issues such as where Jesus was born. He is clearly hostile to all things Christian. Since it is politically correct these days to bash Christians with impunity, nobody can be too surprised by this. One wonders if Newsweek would publish a similarly skeptical and dismissive piece on the founding and dissemination of Islam. –I doubt it.
The fact that Newsweek has done this before, and that they totally failed even to make a half-hearted attempt to balance the article by consulting conservative scholars, but instead relied entirely on left-wing sources, reveals the utter depth of their anti-Christian animus. It’s as if they don’t understand that Christians make up the vast majority of the audience they are trying to reach. I wonder how they can sell advertising?
The bible aptly describes people like Meacham: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,…” (Romans 1: 21,22)
God help him! God help us!
Hugh points out that the author of this article doesn’t have any credentials or background, education, or any other virtue that would qualify him to attack a two thousand year old institution. Christianity can’t be so easily explained or dismissed. It is the world’s largest religion. Its tenets have shaped the world’s culture more keenly than any other religion in history. Western civilization is founded, to a large degree, on Christianity –like it or not.
Many secular writers greater than Meacham have tried over the centuries to destroy Christianity. They all have failed. Jon Meacham has likewise failed. His “smirking” tone, as he blithely dismisses Jesus’ annunciation and immaculate conception as “cover” for an “unfortunate” carnal reality, is utterly offensive to all Christians. He goes to inane lengths to dispute even relatively insignificant issues such as where Jesus was born. He is clearly hostile to all things Christian. Since it is politically correct these days to bash Christians with impunity, nobody can be too surprised by this. One wonders if Newsweek would publish a similarly skeptical and dismissive piece on the founding and dissemination of Islam. –I doubt it.
The fact that Newsweek has done this before, and that they totally failed even to make a half-hearted attempt to balance the article by consulting conservative scholars, but instead relied entirely on left-wing sources, reveals the utter depth of their anti-Christian animus. It’s as if they don’t understand that Christians make up the vast majority of the audience they are trying to reach. I wonder how they can sell advertising?
The bible aptly describes people like Meacham: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,…” (Romans 1: 21,22)
God help him! God help us!
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
The Fair Tax –an Idea Who’s Time Has Come
When the federal income tax lurched onto to the scene in 1913, nobody could have foreseen the obscene creature it would grow into. By 1954, the monster was well understood, but remedies and solutions were mostly confined to gnashing of the teeth and complaining a lot. These days, at last, there is a viable alternative.
There are twin dragons to slay in this arena. First, the unfairness of the income tax, then the excessive amount of taxation we endure. The Fair Tax (HR 25/S 1493) would address the unfairness issue head on. It would replace the onerous, compulsory, confiscatory federal income tax system with an essentially “voluntary” system. You would only pay the tax when you choose to purchase something. It would also be voluntarily “progressive” since those who have more money would spend more money and pay more taxes. Since it has a provision for the universal rebate of the entire amount of tax up to the poverty level, the truly poor would pay no tax at all, for the first time ever. Today, the very poorest worker pays payroll taxes on every penny they earn. The Fair Tax would abolish that.
The essential nature of the government tax dragon is in its voracious appetite. Government will always demand more and more money and politicians will always be looking for ways to pile more taxes on us. The fact is, it’s too late. Big government is a fact of life. It must be fed, -for now. The Fair Tax could raise enough to cover the current expenditures, and do it without unfairly bludgeoning any segment of society. Since the underground economy (drug dealers, undocumented aliens, etc.) would now also be contributing, it would, in fact lower the burden on many of us.
The best way to satiate this omnipresent taxation monster therefore resides in spreading the burden out among as many citizens as possible. Under the current unfair income tax law, the burden falls almost exclusively on the wealthy. The old story of the ten men splitting a tab for a $100 meal in the same way we split up the tax burden is an instructive example of how this works: The first four pay nothing, the 5th pays $1, the 6th pays $3, the 7th pays $7, the 8th $12, 9th $18 and the tenth, the richest, pays a whopping $59. Yes, our current system is that ridiculous!
The Fair Tax solution sounds surprisingly simple: A national consumption tax on the first purchase of new goods for personal use –a national sales tax. The national sales tax would replace all current income, payroll, FICA, corporate and other taxes on the production of income, AND would accomplish the complete abolition of the IRS and repeal of the 16th amendment. It almost sounds too good to be true, yet the more you delve into it, the better it gets. For example, the current system causes all products sold in this country to be priced at about 22% higher than they need be, simply to cover the built in income taxes imposed at every level of production. Since these hidden taxes would be abolished, you would see a corresponding decrease in prices. This is not just “pie-in-the-sky” thinking. Researchers at Harvard have confirmed it. America would become a haven for manufactures the world over who are looking to avoid their own onerous tax schemes.
This is the bill currently pending before congress that would go a long way to solving this nation’s tax morass. It deserves careful consideration.
Summary of HR 25/S 1493:
Imposes a 23% (tax-inclusive) sales tax on the purchase of new goods and services in the U.S.
Lets workers keep their entire paycheck and retirees keep their entire pension.
Abolishes the IRS and ends all audits of individual taxpayers.
Replaces the federal income tax. Frees individuals from ever filing a tax return again.
Replaces all payroll taxes including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Current Social Security and Medicare benefits would not change.
Replaces corporate and self-employment taxes.
Eliminates all hidden federal taxes.
Provides a universal rebate equal to the sales taxes paid on essential goods and services to ensure that no American pays taxes on necessities.
Replaces all estate, gift, and capital gains taxes.
Dramatically lowers tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans.
Closes all tax loopholes.
Brings accountability to tax policy.
Lets American-made products compete fairly.
There are twin dragons to slay in this arena. First, the unfairness of the income tax, then the excessive amount of taxation we endure. The Fair Tax (HR 25/S 1493) would address the unfairness issue head on. It would replace the onerous, compulsory, confiscatory federal income tax system with an essentially “voluntary” system. You would only pay the tax when you choose to purchase something. It would also be voluntarily “progressive” since those who have more money would spend more money and pay more taxes. Since it has a provision for the universal rebate of the entire amount of tax up to the poverty level, the truly poor would pay no tax at all, for the first time ever. Today, the very poorest worker pays payroll taxes on every penny they earn. The Fair Tax would abolish that.
The essential nature of the government tax dragon is in its voracious appetite. Government will always demand more and more money and politicians will always be looking for ways to pile more taxes on us. The fact is, it’s too late. Big government is a fact of life. It must be fed, -for now. The Fair Tax could raise enough to cover the current expenditures, and do it without unfairly bludgeoning any segment of society. Since the underground economy (drug dealers, undocumented aliens, etc.) would now also be contributing, it would, in fact lower the burden on many of us.
The best way to satiate this omnipresent taxation monster therefore resides in spreading the burden out among as many citizens as possible. Under the current unfair income tax law, the burden falls almost exclusively on the wealthy. The old story of the ten men splitting a tab for a $100 meal in the same way we split up the tax burden is an instructive example of how this works: The first four pay nothing, the 5th pays $1, the 6th pays $3, the 7th pays $7, the 8th $12, 9th $18 and the tenth, the richest, pays a whopping $59. Yes, our current system is that ridiculous!
The Fair Tax solution sounds surprisingly simple: A national consumption tax on the first purchase of new goods for personal use –a national sales tax. The national sales tax would replace all current income, payroll, FICA, corporate and other taxes on the production of income, AND would accomplish the complete abolition of the IRS and repeal of the 16th amendment. It almost sounds too good to be true, yet the more you delve into it, the better it gets. For example, the current system causes all products sold in this country to be priced at about 22% higher than they need be, simply to cover the built in income taxes imposed at every level of production. Since these hidden taxes would be abolished, you would see a corresponding decrease in prices. This is not just “pie-in-the-sky” thinking. Researchers at Harvard have confirmed it. America would become a haven for manufactures the world over who are looking to avoid their own onerous tax schemes.
This is the bill currently pending before congress that would go a long way to solving this nation’s tax morass. It deserves careful consideration.
Summary of HR 25/S 1493:
Imposes a 23% (tax-inclusive) sales tax on the purchase of new goods and services in the U.S.
Lets workers keep their entire paycheck and retirees keep their entire pension.
Abolishes the IRS and ends all audits of individual taxpayers.
Replaces the federal income tax. Frees individuals from ever filing a tax return again.
Replaces all payroll taxes including Social Security and Medicare taxes. Current Social Security and Medicare benefits would not change.
Replaces corporate and self-employment taxes.
Eliminates all hidden federal taxes.
Provides a universal rebate equal to the sales taxes paid on essential goods and services to ensure that no American pays taxes on necessities.
Replaces all estate, gift, and capital gains taxes.
Dramatically lowers tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans.
Closes all tax loopholes.
Brings accountability to tax policy.
Lets American-made products compete fairly.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Postponed Iraqi Elections = More American Deaths
Tim Russert just had Iraqi president Ghazi al-Yawar on his show for fifteen minutes. He spent the whole time badgering him to delay or cancel the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 30, 2005. You must ask yourself, why would an American left-of-center news reporter want the elections in Iraq to be postponed or cancelled? Why do they all oppose these elections -in lock-step?
The only obvious answer is that the leftist mainstream media share the same values, goals and aspirations as the terrorists in Iraq. Think about that! The only logical reason anyone would have for not wanting to have free, democratic elections in Iraq is because they do not favor freedom for Iraq. They favor the return of the repressive former regime.
Why would the leftist press want the murderous, monstrous, repressive terrorists to prevail in Iraq? Only one reason: –they hate George W. Bush. Think again about that again! They are all perfectly willing to throw away the future of millions of Iraqi people just to cause President Bush an embarrassing failure. In order to gain political advantage over George W. Bush, and out of shear illogical, rabid hatred, they willingly support the terrorists.
Make no mistake about it. Each time Russert or any other spokesman for the left suggests a delay of the scheduled elections in Iraq, more American soldiers, more Iraqi civilians, more Iraqi police and national security forces will be killed by the thugs. The terrorists in Iraq, many of whom are not even Iraqi, take great hope and comfort from this opposition to free and fair elections. It gives them a very good reason to go on killing. It gives them a plausible expectation that they will eventually prevail. If you think there is a lot of killing going on in Iraq now, just wait until the terrorists are handed the significant victory of causing the scheduled elections to be postponed or cancelled. That can’t be allowed to happen. Mere political animosity between the two political parties in this country, is not sufficient justification for this ill-conceived opposition on the part of the left to free and fair elections. Iraq can be a free and democratic nation. They deserve our support.
The only obvious answer is that the leftist mainstream media share the same values, goals and aspirations as the terrorists in Iraq. Think about that! The only logical reason anyone would have for not wanting to have free, democratic elections in Iraq is because they do not favor freedom for Iraq. They favor the return of the repressive former regime.
Why would the leftist press want the murderous, monstrous, repressive terrorists to prevail in Iraq? Only one reason: –they hate George W. Bush. Think again about that again! They are all perfectly willing to throw away the future of millions of Iraqi people just to cause President Bush an embarrassing failure. In order to gain political advantage over George W. Bush, and out of shear illogical, rabid hatred, they willingly support the terrorists.
Make no mistake about it. Each time Russert or any other spokesman for the left suggests a delay of the scheduled elections in Iraq, more American soldiers, more Iraqi civilians, more Iraqi police and national security forces will be killed by the thugs. The terrorists in Iraq, many of whom are not even Iraqi, take great hope and comfort from this opposition to free and fair elections. It gives them a very good reason to go on killing. It gives them a plausible expectation that they will eventually prevail. If you think there is a lot of killing going on in Iraq now, just wait until the terrorists are handed the significant victory of causing the scheduled elections to be postponed or cancelled. That can’t be allowed to happen. Mere political animosity between the two political parties in this country, is not sufficient justification for this ill-conceived opposition on the part of the left to free and fair elections. Iraq can be a free and democratic nation. They deserve our support.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Steve Gardner -An American Hero
I don’t know Steve Gardner. I do know that he did this country a great service –twice.
First, Mr. Gardner served in Vietnam. He served under John F. Kerry’s command for a short period. Not that many sailors really ever served with Mr. Kerry since he was only in Vietnam for four short months. Mr. Gardner did, and he got to know intimately Mr. Kerry’s shortcomings as a leader.
Second, Mr. Gardner spoke out about Mr. Kerry as a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mr. Gardner had been apolitical. He really hadn’t been involved in national politics at all until that fateful day when he discovered that his old commander, John F. Kerry, was running for president. Mr. Gardner could no longer remain on the sidelines. He had first hand knowledge that Mr. Kerry was unfit to be commander in chief of this country. He spoke out because he knew the truth about Mr. Kerry. He spoke out because he is a true patriot.
This country owes him, and all the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth members, a great debt of gratitude. Mr. Gardner has apparently been down on his luck for a while now. In spite of leftist blathering to the contrary, Mr. Gardner didn’t get any remuneration for his patriotic Swift Boat activities. In fact it cost him money. As his hometown paper puts it:
"Somebody asked me one time what I gained out of this, and I said, 'Not a darn thing,'" Gardner said. "I've been called a liar and ridiculed. I've been cussed up one side and down the other. I'm 56 years old. I'm looking for a job. I did this for one reason. John Kerry is not fit to be president."
John Kerry isn't president. Steve Gardner is broke.
And he's smiling.
The same cannot be said for the six or seven Swifties the Kerry campaign hired to accompany him all around the country. They were living lavishly as hired political stooges for the Kerry campaign. Mr. Gardner is now jobless, broke and about out of savings.
His plight has been exposed on several radio talk shows and on numerous blogs and hopefully, America will not let this patriot down. He deserves better. Men like Mr. Gardner help keep this county free and should be honored. The least America could do in return would be to provide them an opportunity to work and earn a living.
First, Mr. Gardner served in Vietnam. He served under John F. Kerry’s command for a short period. Not that many sailors really ever served with Mr. Kerry since he was only in Vietnam for four short months. Mr. Gardner did, and he got to know intimately Mr. Kerry’s shortcomings as a leader.
Second, Mr. Gardner spoke out about Mr. Kerry as a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mr. Gardner had been apolitical. He really hadn’t been involved in national politics at all until that fateful day when he discovered that his old commander, John F. Kerry, was running for president. Mr. Gardner could no longer remain on the sidelines. He had first hand knowledge that Mr. Kerry was unfit to be commander in chief of this country. He spoke out because he knew the truth about Mr. Kerry. He spoke out because he is a true patriot.
This country owes him, and all the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth members, a great debt of gratitude. Mr. Gardner has apparently been down on his luck for a while now. In spite of leftist blathering to the contrary, Mr. Gardner didn’t get any remuneration for his patriotic Swift Boat activities. In fact it cost him money. As his hometown paper puts it:
"Somebody asked me one time what I gained out of this, and I said, 'Not a darn thing,'" Gardner said. "I've been called a liar and ridiculed. I've been cussed up one side and down the other. I'm 56 years old. I'm looking for a job. I did this for one reason. John Kerry is not fit to be president."
John Kerry isn't president. Steve Gardner is broke.
And he's smiling.
The same cannot be said for the six or seven Swifties the Kerry campaign hired to accompany him all around the country. They were living lavishly as hired political stooges for the Kerry campaign. Mr. Gardner is now jobless, broke and about out of savings.
His plight has been exposed on several radio talk shows and on numerous blogs and hopefully, America will not let this patriot down. He deserves better. Men like Mr. Gardner help keep this county free and should be honored. The least America could do in return would be to provide them an opportunity to work and earn a living.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Moderate Moslems -Reality or Fantasy?
A "moderate Muslim" can be very simply defined as a Muslim who doesn't have a testimony of the actual content in the Koran. Moderate Muslims, if they exist, are a lot like secular Jews -Muslim in tradition only.
I remain hopeful, but at the same time worried, about the number and the influence of these so-called moderates to mitigate the avowed goals and purposes of the extremist Muslims.
Make no mistake about it, extremist Muslims, the world over, want you and me to either convert, or to die. That’s the unvarnished truth. Only such a sober, clear-eyed understanding is reasonable. The utter inaction on the part of the so-called "moderates" to control and/or eliminate the extremists remains a very serious concern. In fact, the mainstream moderate Muslims seem to be either taking a direct role in the terrorism directed against us, or, at best, they are complicit in this terrorism by their lack of action to put a stop to it. Suffice it to say, there is much that could be done by so-called “moderate” Muslims in states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere, to round up and eliminate the terrorists. To date, we see precious little being done by "moderate" Muslims to improve things. Much more is being said of course, but there seems to be two versions of every statement by them on the subject: One in English for foreign consumption, and one in Arabic for domestic consumption. Neither version seems ever to contain a really strong, effective repudiation of the Muslim terrorists. There is little doubt that if they really wanted to, the Muslims themselves could eliminate the terrorists in their midst. The almost complete dearth of denunciation of the terrorists by Muslim leaders unfortunately speaks volumes especially when coupled with the complete lack of action on their part. They seem somehow afraid to take on these thugs -or worse- they sympathize with them.
Until and unless actual strong actions are taken by the mainstream Muslims against the terrorists, I'm afraid I will remain unconvinced by their mere words. Talk is cheap -and there has been precious little effective talk by moderates. Deeds are much more important. There has been almost no action by Muslims to put an end to terrorism. And that's scary.
At this point I usually get a spate of “well you’re just an anti-Muslim bigot” reaction. I am not against any religion: Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Shinto, Buddhist, or whatever, as long as they don’t hold, as a tenet of their faith, that it is God’s will for them to kill me and my family. When they begin to profess that particular brand of religion, and worse, begin to put that belief in to action, I must oppose them. Every thinking person in the world should oppose ANY religion who has as an article of faith, the killing of non-believers.
It’s a tough world out there. The sooner we wake up to that fact, the safer we’ll all be.
I remain hopeful, but at the same time worried, about the number and the influence of these so-called moderates to mitigate the avowed goals and purposes of the extremist Muslims.
Make no mistake about it, extremist Muslims, the world over, want you and me to either convert, or to die. That’s the unvarnished truth. Only such a sober, clear-eyed understanding is reasonable. The utter inaction on the part of the so-called "moderates" to control and/or eliminate the extremists remains a very serious concern. In fact, the mainstream moderate Muslims seem to be either taking a direct role in the terrorism directed against us, or, at best, they are complicit in this terrorism by their lack of action to put a stop to it. Suffice it to say, there is much that could be done by so-called “moderate” Muslims in states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere, to round up and eliminate the terrorists. To date, we see precious little being done by "moderate" Muslims to improve things. Much more is being said of course, but there seems to be two versions of every statement by them on the subject: One in English for foreign consumption, and one in Arabic for domestic consumption. Neither version seems ever to contain a really strong, effective repudiation of the Muslim terrorists. There is little doubt that if they really wanted to, the Muslims themselves could eliminate the terrorists in their midst. The almost complete dearth of denunciation of the terrorists by Muslim leaders unfortunately speaks volumes especially when coupled with the complete lack of action on their part. They seem somehow afraid to take on these thugs -or worse- they sympathize with them.
Until and unless actual strong actions are taken by the mainstream Muslims against the terrorists, I'm afraid I will remain unconvinced by their mere words. Talk is cheap -and there has been precious little effective talk by moderates. Deeds are much more important. There has been almost no action by Muslims to put an end to terrorism. And that's scary.
At this point I usually get a spate of “well you’re just an anti-Muslim bigot” reaction. I am not against any religion: Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Shinto, Buddhist, or whatever, as long as they don’t hold, as a tenet of their faith, that it is God’s will for them to kill me and my family. When they begin to profess that particular brand of religion, and worse, begin to put that belief in to action, I must oppose them. Every thinking person in the world should oppose ANY religion who has as an article of faith, the killing of non-believers.
It’s a tough world out there. The sooner we wake up to that fact, the safer we’ll all be.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Mainstream Media -They Report, They Decide
No news will be shown, it seems, unless it’s bad news for the US. And not only bad news, but news that highlights the mainstream media’s obsession with anti-Bush, anti-America bias. It has become painfully obvious that if it’s good news for the US effort in Iraq, they just won’t run with it. This has been noticed and documented by Power Line:
If the Fallujah campaign had been long and difficult, and had given rise to many casualties, the hysteria in the media would have been unrestrained. Instead, however, the Fallujah campaign was one of the most stunning successes in the history of urban warfare. Consequently, it has dropped off the media radar screen. Newspaper attention immediately turned, not to the important strategic advantages of depriving the terrorists of their home base, or to the horrifying discoveries of torture and murder chambers, the "Iraq al Qaeda" headquarters, or vast quantities of munitions that have been captured in Fallujah, but to: 1) video footage of a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist, and 2) terrorist attacks in other parts of Iraq. The point of the latter coverage is not subtle; the reader is intended to conclude that the battle of Fallujah has been futile.
The goal of the MSM is to subvert the upcoming elections in Iraq. They clearly favor the insurgents/terrorists. It’s painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to apply even a modicum of objectivity. If it is bad news, or even something that could be construed to be bad news for the US or the Iraqi interim government, it gets maximum exposure. It’s disgusting.
At the same time, actual evidence of real atrocities by French soldiers in the Ivory Coast gets no coverage at all except in the bloggosphere. The sooner the has-been media assumes their proper place on the ash heap of history, the better.
If the Fallujah campaign had been long and difficult, and had given rise to many casualties, the hysteria in the media would have been unrestrained. Instead, however, the Fallujah campaign was one of the most stunning successes in the history of urban warfare. Consequently, it has dropped off the media radar screen. Newspaper attention immediately turned, not to the important strategic advantages of depriving the terrorists of their home base, or to the horrifying discoveries of torture and murder chambers, the "Iraq al Qaeda" headquarters, or vast quantities of munitions that have been captured in Fallujah, but to: 1) video footage of a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist, and 2) terrorist attacks in other parts of Iraq. The point of the latter coverage is not subtle; the reader is intended to conclude that the battle of Fallujah has been futile.
The goal of the MSM is to subvert the upcoming elections in Iraq. They clearly favor the insurgents/terrorists. It’s painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to apply even a modicum of objectivity. If it is bad news, or even something that could be construed to be bad news for the US or the Iraqi interim government, it gets maximum exposure. It’s disgusting.
At the same time, actual evidence of real atrocities by French soldiers in the Ivory Coast gets no coverage at all except in the bloggosphere. The sooner the has-been media assumes their proper place on the ash heap of history, the better.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Have They no Shame?
It is entirely shameful for the leftist press and pundits in this country to assist international terrorism by blowing all out of proportion the incident involving the elimination of a single terrorist by a young American soldier. He was only doing his duty. He was killing terrorists. That is what he was trained to do and why he is there. President Bush was just re-elected in part, because he promised the American people he would kill terrorists. And now some want to prosecute a Marine for doing so? It's an outrage!
The rules of engagement in the war against terrorists are not very well defined or understood. The recent neutralizing of an Iraqi terrorist in a Fallujah mosque which was being used as a bunker by the Iraqi terrorists is a prime example of how little is known, even by the American press.
Simply put, Iraqis don’t follow any of the rules of war. They use women and children as shields. They execute innocent hostages, women included. They use religious edifices as armories and pill boxes. They commit suicide attacks against the Allied forces and against Iraqi police forces. It isn’t that easy.
In any war, during the heat of action, wounded soldiers are frequently shot. The reality of war is that it is hardly ever convenient to call off the fighting while stretcher bearers carry off the wounded.
The young marine in question encountered several terrorists who had recently been trying to kill him. He saw one of them playing dead. Playing dead is a ruse used frequently by terrorists to get unsuspecting marines to approach in order to kill them. The marine eliminated the threat and moved on.
The marines in Iraq appear to be fighting two enemies in this action: The terrorists and the leftist press. We must support them against both.
The rules of engagement in the war against terrorists are not very well defined or understood. The recent neutralizing of an Iraqi terrorist in a Fallujah mosque which was being used as a bunker by the Iraqi terrorists is a prime example of how little is known, even by the American press.
Simply put, Iraqis don’t follow any of the rules of war. They use women and children as shields. They execute innocent hostages, women included. They use religious edifices as armories and pill boxes. They commit suicide attacks against the Allied forces and against Iraqi police forces. It isn’t that easy.
In any war, during the heat of action, wounded soldiers are frequently shot. The reality of war is that it is hardly ever convenient to call off the fighting while stretcher bearers carry off the wounded.
The young marine in question encountered several terrorists who had recently been trying to kill him. He saw one of them playing dead. Playing dead is a ruse used frequently by terrorists to get unsuspecting marines to approach in order to kill them. The marine eliminated the threat and moved on.
The marines in Iraq appear to be fighting two enemies in this action: The terrorists and the leftist press. We must support them against both.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Election Post Mortem
The fantasy:
Now that the American people have spoken, all sides of the great debate are willing to put aside all differences to make this country as successful as possible. It’s a noble American tradition that sets us apart from strife-torn third world countries where, if elections are held at all, they are often followed by a failure of the losing side to accept the outcome. In fact, these countries are often crippled by endless revolutions. The losing side in any election will almost always take action against the prevailing side. The actions they resort to include claims of election fraud, threats of secession, up to and including armed insurrections. In America we don’t do that–
The reality:
–The failure of much of the left to accept the will expressed by the American people in this most recent election resembles, to a frightening degree, the antics of a third world country.– We seem to be in grave danger of becoming a banana republic.
We hear the silly cries of election fraud. We are assaulted by overblown threats of secession. We are assured by the left that the president’s agenda will be thwarted via the filibuster and the activist judge. All of this seems to be motivated completely by an enormous, irrational animus against the president. And there doesn’t seem to be any rational explanation for it. This president has gone out of his way to placate the left. His education bill, agricultural spending bill, illegal immigrant policy all closely resemble those proposed by the most liberal representatives of the left, yet nonetheless, he gets no credit for huge, –some on the right say too huge– spending on these programs. He is instead showered by the left with ceaseless derision, scorn and ridicule.
How can this rabid, unreasonable, wild-eyed hatred for George W. Bush be explained? How is it that if these same liberal proposals had been enacted by Teddy Kennedy, the left would have found them acceptable, noble and just?
When you strip it all away, Bush hatred appears to all come down to one thing: religion. The fact that George W. Bush openly professes to be a practicing Christian just drives the left blinking, blind, crazy! The fact that he admits to praying to God for guidance in his major decisions causes otherwise rational people to literally foam at the mouth. How dare he believe that God influences the affairs of men! The fact that the majority of Americans share his feelings about God, kindness and good works seems to be the hardest reality of all to swallow for these secular leftists.
Any yet, this country remains overwhelmingly religious. Predominantly Christian, but with a significant portion of Jews, Moslems, Buddhists and other sects who, while they differ wildly in doctrine, all share one belief: They all believe God wants us, as individuals, to live good lives, to do good to our fellow men, to make the world a better place. They also believe in evil– that there is in the world a dark side that is bent on the destruction of all that is good, decent, praiseworthy. These two opposite forces --good and evil– have been debated endlessly by all the world’s religious philosophers for thousands of years.
But the secular left look upon “doing good” as largely a governmental mandate instead of an individual duty. To them compulsory charity is the ideal. The more government can compel you, by force of law, to give your wealth over to them, for redistribution according to their notion of what is just, the better. And of course the left wing elites look upon themselves as best suited to be the ones who make the decisions as to who gets what from the government. After all, they are so much smarter.
The religious among us will allow a “higher authority” (God) to proscribe certain self-destructive behavior which would impede our ability to do good. We will do good and avoid doing evil because we want to follow God. We will avoid “bad” behavior because we don’t want to offend God.
The secular left rejects any “rules” set down by “God” which would prohibit them from doing anything they want to do. They claim the right to do whatever they please. They think allowing God or religion to govern any aspect of their activities takes away their freedom.
Religions speak of the dual nature of mankind. Christians specify the “light of Christ” or our “better nature” to describe our good side. Conversely our “carnal nature” or the “natural man” in us describes the evil tendencies that we all seem to possess. Christians look at religious regulation not as a deprivation of freedom, but rather as a template that allows our better nature to dominate our carnal nature. Therefore, when followed, religious teaching and regulation foment joyous living. “Wickedness never was happiness” said the prophet. Religious people who seriously follow the dictates of their religion find that to be uniformly true. Rebelling against your religious traditions, may bring a temporary feeling of euphoria, but will never result in any long-term happiness.
Secular leftists don’t ever seem to be happy. This is the single most likely cause of their rabid, irrational hatred of George W. Bush, and their hatred of all professing religious people. That these religious people are so obviously happy with life drives the miserable left crazy. They can’t stand it. They think it somehow smug and wrong of president Bush to be smiling and enjoying his life, –while they are miserable! How dare he!
But this frustration and misery is entirely predictable by those who understand the joy and peace religion brings. Since the left is relying on the arm of man for everything, they are frequently disappointed. They engage in a never-ending pursuit of obliging others to support their particular secular notion of what is “good” for mankind. They think nothing of imposing laws to force others to “donate” to the favored leftist causes, yet very often are very unwilling to give generously themselves to any real charities. They are engaged endlessly and fruitlessly in the pursuit of carnal pleasure via drugs and immorality. Yet, in the end, they only find bitterness, despair and unhappiness. You can see it all around you: wickedness will never result in true happiness. Those who seek the freedom of carnal pursuits to find joy are certain to reap only bitterness in the end no matter how much they delude themselves along the way. What’s worse is that even the most dissolute among them retains in them what Christians call the “light of Christ”. They are pricked by the subconscious knowledge that their wicked behavior is wrong. They know in their heart of hearts that they shouldn’t be doing what they are doing, and it plagues and torments them.
Thus, since the left is not by nature and inclination happy, they hate –and envy– anyone who is happy. George W. Bush is happy. He embodies all the things they have failed to be. And they hate him for it.
The immature blathering about secession, and vote fraud in the wake of this election will fade quickly from the scene because of it’s ridiculous nature. The struggle between good and evil however will not fade away. There will always be a mighty battle between these two forces. Those who understand this must remain eternally vigilant lest we be overcome by the leftist secular notion that “evil” doesn’t really exist. That notion is, in and of itself, is a pure manifestation that evil does indeed exist. Evil would be only too happy to have us believe otherwise. We must be willing to fight against evil, and to understand the unhappiness of those who allow themselves to be swept up in it. The future of our nation demands nothing less on our part. It is our patriotic duty.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Kerry’s Hoards –Just can’t take “NO” for an Answer
John F. Kerry, belatedly and reluctantly, showed some good sense on the day after he was rejected by the American people. He knew he had no choice other than to “concede” if he wished to retain any credibility in his remaining years in the senate. He remains enough of a political animal to sense that evident fact.
While Bush supporters like Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved are waxing very conciliatory, and gracious in victory, Kerry’s minions are another matter. Some of them, such as those in the MSM are just stunned. Others seem perfectly willing to hang on to the fraudulent notion that somehow, Bush stole the election. “There are none so blind as those who will not see” so the old proverb goes, and this bunch of self-deluded “whackos” are in very great need of a seeing-eye dog named –reality! They somehow seem comfortable with the notion that hundreds of mostly democrat poll workers in dozens of precincts all over Ohio and Florida blithely looked the other way while evil Bush operatives removed, spoiled, discarded and otherwise invalidated thousands of Kerry votes. They even have it that Kerry’s 10,000 lawyers somehow caved under the spell of Karl Rove and backed away from claiming what was rightfully Kerry’s. Of course, this is all nonsense. All the garbage about pregnant chads, hanging chads, disenfranchised African-American voters, uncounted provisional ballots, etc. is pure bunk. And Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and perhaps the blindest of them all, Greg Palast know it very well. Their goal is to keep the “coalition of the wild-eyed” all lathered up. That way they hope to give cover to the Democrats' continued obstruction of Bush-nominated judges, income tax reform, much needed tort reform, Social Security reform, etc. If you believe the Bush victory was “stolen”, well then, it’s OK to sabotage all of his agenda goes their thinking.
The actual unintended consequence of this foolishness however is likely to further weaken the already badly fading Democratic party. Zell Miller tried to spell it all out for them at the RNC convention. Hopefully they will continue to ignore his warning. Then we can have Republicans elected for years into the future. Come to think of it –Go Crazies! (Republicans need the help)
While Bush supporters like Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved are waxing very conciliatory, and gracious in victory, Kerry’s minions are another matter. Some of them, such as those in the MSM are just stunned. Others seem perfectly willing to hang on to the fraudulent notion that somehow, Bush stole the election. “There are none so blind as those who will not see” so the old proverb goes, and this bunch of self-deluded “whackos” are in very great need of a seeing-eye dog named –reality! They somehow seem comfortable with the notion that hundreds of mostly democrat poll workers in dozens of precincts all over Ohio and Florida blithely looked the other way while evil Bush operatives removed, spoiled, discarded and otherwise invalidated thousands of Kerry votes. They even have it that Kerry’s 10,000 lawyers somehow caved under the spell of Karl Rove and backed away from claiming what was rightfully Kerry’s. Of course, this is all nonsense. All the garbage about pregnant chads, hanging chads, disenfranchised African-American voters, uncounted provisional ballots, etc. is pure bunk. And Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and perhaps the blindest of them all, Greg Palast know it very well. Their goal is to keep the “coalition of the wild-eyed” all lathered up. That way they hope to give cover to the Democrats' continued obstruction of Bush-nominated judges, income tax reform, much needed tort reform, Social Security reform, etc. If you believe the Bush victory was “stolen”, well then, it’s OK to sabotage all of his agenda goes their thinking.
The actual unintended consequence of this foolishness however is likely to further weaken the already badly fading Democratic party. Zell Miller tried to spell it all out for them at the RNC convention. Hopefully they will continue to ignore his warning. Then we can have Republicans elected for years into the future. Come to think of it –Go Crazies! (Republicans need the help)
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Kerry –Classless to the End.
John F. Kerry didn’t learn anything from the beating he just took. He still remains the same elitist, effete snob that he has been his entire life. The American people soundly rejected him both in the popular vote and the electoral vote, yet he arrogantly refused to acknowledge his loss like a gentleman, and instead sent out his lap-dog trial lawyer, John Edwards, to defiantly intimate that he intended to “make sure every vote counts.” He threatened illicit legal action against the very American people who just rejected him, in a childish, vain hope of tinkering enough with the election to give himself an edge. Never mind that under any scenario, even remotely feasible, the math would not give him a victory in Ohio, he still chose to deny George Bush and his supporters their well deserved late-night election celebration. He just doesn’t get it! He’s out of touch!
Hugh Hewitt has it absolutely right. Pete Coors has class. John F. Kerry does not. Here’s hoping he will just go away.
Hugh Hewitt has it absolutely right. Pete Coors has class. John F. Kerry does not. Here’s hoping he will just go away.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Democrat Vote Fraud Expected --Beware!!
With all polls showing this year’s election a statistical dead heat, many Republicans are worrying a lot about the Democrat tradition of voter fraud. It is a very troublesome problem. It was a big problem last time. It's certain to be a bigger problem this time. There are articles about Democrat fraud in 2000 here, and here.
It is well understood that ballot box stuffing, voting more than once, having dead people vote, manufacturing votes, etc. are long-established election stealing methods which have been employed by Democrats for years. It’s so widespread it reminds us of the old joke: “When I die I want to be buried in Chicago or New Orleans so I can remain politically active!” In fact, it is so common that it has taken on tongue-in-cheek quality. “It’s just those Democrats doing what they always do.” is the attitude. No big deal! Boys will be boys! Wink, wink, nod, nod! In most years and in most races, this “irregularity” doesn’t really make any difference. The margins are large enough to discount the fraud. The deserved candidate is elected comfortably in spite of the fraud.
But is it serious this time around? Yes, it is! This time it could be critical.
In 2000, there were seven states where the margin of victory was 2% or less. Gore won all but two of them. Gore won in all but one close electoral-rich states such as Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin where the popular vote was a virtual dead heat. Coincidence? Hardly! It's the result of vote fraud pure and simple!
Oregon’s “mail in ballot” is made for fraud. Nobody has their ID checked. Nobody has to look anybody in the eye and attest that they are voting legally. Nobody knows who is actually sending in the ballot. In Milwaukee there were precincts where more than 100% of registered voters voted; there were also cigarettes handed out in exchange for votes. The only way that could happen would be as a result of fraud. Similar things were reported in Minnesota and Iowa. New Mexico was stolen by manipulating, at the eleventh hour, the Native American vote.
Bush won in Florida. But it was not for a lack of effort by the Democrat fraud machine.
James R. Miller includes some of the evidence in his piece on the subject excerpted below:
Was there anything suspicious about the first recount in Florida? Yes. It produced an improbably large gain for Gore of 1,484 votes. To see how improbable this is, just think about the recount process. In all except some of the smallest counties, where they use paper ballots, the election workers simply ran the same boxes of ballots through the same counting machines. If there were no clerical errors the first time, one would expect almost the same results on the second run. ... You would expect the counts to be almost the same, rather than identical, because people do not always mark their ballots clearly enough to be read the same way each time. With punch card ballots one would expect small gains for each candidate, because running them through the machines tends to clean out loose chad. In most of the counties, this is exactly what happened, and there were trivial changes between the first count and the first recount. (In Washington state, which used a similar process to recount the votes in the Gorton-Cantwell Senate race, there was an insignificant difference between the first and second counts. Washington, like Florida, uses a mix of punch card, optical and paper ballots.)
In several Gore counties, notably Palm Beach, Gadsden, and Volusia, the results of the recount were suspicious. Consider the Palm Beach recount. It produced gains of 787 votes for Gore and 105 votes for Bush, for a net gain of 682 votes for Gore. Remember this result came, supposedly, from running the same punch cards through the same counting machines. By way of comparison, Broward county, which is larger than Palm Beach, found 43 additional votes for Gore and 44 for Bush. Both the size of the changes, and the bias in the Palm Beach recount, are completely implausible, without some human interference. Several researchers have made statistical estimates that these Palm Beach recount results happened by chance; all found more that the odds against it were more than 1,000,000 to 1. (Although the Palm Beach recount was obviously unethical, it may not have been illegal. One would have to know what was done to the ballots and what is allowed by Florida law to decide.)
In Gadsden, the election board went into a room and "reconstructed" some 2000 ballots, secretly, and came out with 170 new votes for Gore and only 17 for Bush. This secret count is illegal under Florida laws. (The board says that people could watch through the windows, which seems obviously insufficient to me.) In Volusia, the seals on the ballot containers were open when they were brought out for the recount, suggesting that some one had tampered with the ballots. A ballot bag was found in the trunk of an election workers car. And, 264 absentee ballots, counted in the first count, disappeared in the second. All three of these counties have histories of electoral fraud, which will not surprise you at this point.
The Democrats really, really wanted to steal the Florida vote last time out, and will stop at nothing this time around!
What can we do about it? First and foremost, we must VOTE!! Every Republican, in RECORD numbers, must vote this time!! Even in states where Bush has a comfortable lead, it is very important to vote if only to take away the “Our guy won the popular vote!” argument. Second; extra vigilance. We must watch and report loudly any irregularity we see. We cannot be cowed by charges of “racism” or “voter intimidation” that were common in 2000. If what they’re doing is illegal, we must report it –regardless of their race, creed or color. The laws apply to all. Third; we must let them know we know about their methods and intentions. We should never sit passively by while Democrat party hacks sequester ballot boxes until they find out how many additional “votes” they need to manufacture such as happened in New Mexico and South Dakota in recent elections. We need to let them know we will no longer tolerate this kind of mischief.
But the single most important thing we can do is to WIN!! Only by winning will we be able to ensure judges are in place who, unlike the Florida Supreme Court, will enforce election law. It’s too important to leave it to chance. We must make a difference this time out!!
It is well understood that ballot box stuffing, voting more than once, having dead people vote, manufacturing votes, etc. are long-established election stealing methods which have been employed by Democrats for years. It’s so widespread it reminds us of the old joke: “When I die I want to be buried in Chicago or New Orleans so I can remain politically active!” In fact, it is so common that it has taken on tongue-in-cheek quality. “It’s just those Democrats doing what they always do.” is the attitude. No big deal! Boys will be boys! Wink, wink, nod, nod! In most years and in most races, this “irregularity” doesn’t really make any difference. The margins are large enough to discount the fraud. The deserved candidate is elected comfortably in spite of the fraud.
But is it serious this time around? Yes, it is! This time it could be critical.
In 2000, there were seven states where the margin of victory was 2% or less. Gore won all but two of them. Gore won in all but one close electoral-rich states such as Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin where the popular vote was a virtual dead heat. Coincidence? Hardly! It's the result of vote fraud pure and simple!
Oregon’s “mail in ballot” is made for fraud. Nobody has their ID checked. Nobody has to look anybody in the eye and attest that they are voting legally. Nobody knows who is actually sending in the ballot. In Milwaukee there were precincts where more than 100% of registered voters voted; there were also cigarettes handed out in exchange for votes. The only way that could happen would be as a result of fraud. Similar things were reported in Minnesota and Iowa. New Mexico was stolen by manipulating, at the eleventh hour, the Native American vote.
Bush won in Florida. But it was not for a lack of effort by the Democrat fraud machine.
James R. Miller includes some of the evidence in his piece on the subject excerpted below:
Was there anything suspicious about the first recount in Florida? Yes. It produced an improbably large gain for Gore of 1,484 votes. To see how improbable this is, just think about the recount process. In all except some of the smallest counties, where they use paper ballots, the election workers simply ran the same boxes of ballots through the same counting machines. If there were no clerical errors the first time, one would expect almost the same results on the second run. ... You would expect the counts to be almost the same, rather than identical, because people do not always mark their ballots clearly enough to be read the same way each time. With punch card ballots one would expect small gains for each candidate, because running them through the machines tends to clean out loose chad. In most of the counties, this is exactly what happened, and there were trivial changes between the first count and the first recount. (In Washington state, which used a similar process to recount the votes in the Gorton-Cantwell Senate race, there was an insignificant difference between the first and second counts. Washington, like Florida, uses a mix of punch card, optical and paper ballots.)
In several Gore counties, notably Palm Beach, Gadsden, and Volusia, the results of the recount were suspicious. Consider the Palm Beach recount. It produced gains of 787 votes for Gore and 105 votes for Bush, for a net gain of 682 votes for Gore. Remember this result came, supposedly, from running the same punch cards through the same counting machines. By way of comparison, Broward county, which is larger than Palm Beach, found 43 additional votes for Gore and 44 for Bush. Both the size of the changes, and the bias in the Palm Beach recount, are completely implausible, without some human interference. Several researchers have made statistical estimates that these Palm Beach recount results happened by chance; all found more that the odds against it were more than 1,000,000 to 1. (Although the Palm Beach recount was obviously unethical, it may not have been illegal. One would have to know what was done to the ballots and what is allowed by Florida law to decide.)
In Gadsden, the election board went into a room and "reconstructed" some 2000 ballots, secretly, and came out with 170 new votes for Gore and only 17 for Bush. This secret count is illegal under Florida laws. (The board says that people could watch through the windows, which seems obviously insufficient to me.) In Volusia, the seals on the ballot containers were open when they were brought out for the recount, suggesting that some one had tampered with the ballots. A ballot bag was found in the trunk of an election workers car. And, 264 absentee ballots, counted in the first count, disappeared in the second. All three of these counties have histories of electoral fraud, which will not surprise you at this point.
The Democrats really, really wanted to steal the Florida vote last time out, and will stop at nothing this time around!
What can we do about it? First and foremost, we must VOTE!! Every Republican, in RECORD numbers, must vote this time!! Even in states where Bush has a comfortable lead, it is very important to vote if only to take away the “Our guy won the popular vote!” argument. Second; extra vigilance. We must watch and report loudly any irregularity we see. We cannot be cowed by charges of “racism” or “voter intimidation” that were common in 2000. If what they’re doing is illegal, we must report it –regardless of their race, creed or color. The laws apply to all. Third; we must let them know we know about their methods and intentions. We should never sit passively by while Democrat party hacks sequester ballot boxes until they find out how many additional “votes” they need to manufacture such as happened in New Mexico and South Dakota in recent elections. We need to let them know we will no longer tolerate this kind of mischief.
But the single most important thing we can do is to WIN!! Only by winning will we be able to ensure judges are in place who, unlike the Florida Supreme Court, will enforce election law. It’s too important to leave it to chance. We must make a difference this time out!!
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Yet Another Big Kerry Lie Exposed
So Kerry’s story about meeting with all the members of the UN security counsel before voting to authorize Bush to go to war is yet another –big fat lie!? Again!? The Washington Times sure thinks so. RedState has the same story, as does Powerline. Any bets the MSM will ignore it?
Kerry, it seems, just can’t help himself. He lies, he lies, he lies. He frequently lies to beef up his own bona fides, even when he doesn’t have to . His are not innocent, harmless little lies like Al Gore’s about inventing the internet or inspiring Love Story. No, Kerry’s lies involve important foreign policy issues. His lie about going to Cambodia Christmas Eve is one example. His lies about seeing large numbers of war atrocities committed by fellow soldiers in Viet Nam is another.
The result of his lying is that he often has to tell additional lies to try and cover up the lies he told before. For example, when fellow Swift Boat veterans started showing up, Kerry, lied by saying they didn’t serve with him in Vietnam and that they were all lying about him!? What!? You mean those 254 Swift Boat veterans, from all over the country, from all walks of life, from every political persuasion... are all lying about what they saw, heard, experienced? They’re all lying-- except Kerry?
Sounds a little far-fetched to me.
This reminds me of an old story about Mrs. Kelly:
Mrs. Kelly had a neer-do-well son, named Jim. Jim was a little slow, a little uncoordinated, a little short of a full load-- but NOTHING could diminish the admiration and unbounded enthusiasm his mother had for him.
He was always the last pick for playground games-- didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly: "they're just jealous, Jim!" She would tell him.
He always got the lowest marks at school– didn't faze Mrs. Kelly:
"The teachers all hate him" she would pine.
One day, all the students were to march in the St. Patrick day parade. While the band master fretted and worried about what he could do, since the head master wouldn't let him exclude Jim, he finally decided to let him march carrying a banner in between his two finest marchers. He hoped they would inspire him to do well. But it wasn't to be.
Sure enough, when the parade came along... Jim's feet were striding just the opposite of all the rest of the band, even though he wasn't even playing any instrument.
Didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly though. She beamed with pride, loudly exclaiming: "Just look! They're all out of step-- but Jim!"
When will Kerry’s “band” admit he is out of step? What level of lying will cause people to start doubting everything he says. IMHO he passed that level years ago. Here’s hoping the Times’ efforts at setting the record straight will help us send this liar back to be the Jr. Senator from Mass. He can lie all he wants there. They like liars. They must, they keep electing Teddy!?
Kerry, it seems, just can’t help himself. He lies, he lies, he lies. He frequently lies to beef up his own bona fides, even when he doesn’t have to . His are not innocent, harmless little lies like Al Gore’s about inventing the internet or inspiring Love Story. No, Kerry’s lies involve important foreign policy issues. His lie about going to Cambodia Christmas Eve is one example. His lies about seeing large numbers of war atrocities committed by fellow soldiers in Viet Nam is another.
The result of his lying is that he often has to tell additional lies to try and cover up the lies he told before. For example, when fellow Swift Boat veterans started showing up, Kerry, lied by saying they didn’t serve with him in Vietnam and that they were all lying about him!? What!? You mean those 254 Swift Boat veterans, from all over the country, from all walks of life, from every political persuasion... are all lying about what they saw, heard, experienced? They’re all lying-- except Kerry?
Sounds a little far-fetched to me.
This reminds me of an old story about Mrs. Kelly:
Mrs. Kelly had a neer-do-well son, named Jim. Jim was a little slow, a little uncoordinated, a little short of a full load-- but NOTHING could diminish the admiration and unbounded enthusiasm his mother had for him.
He was always the last pick for playground games-- didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly: "they're just jealous, Jim!" She would tell him.
He always got the lowest marks at school– didn't faze Mrs. Kelly:
"The teachers all hate him" she would pine.
One day, all the students were to march in the St. Patrick day parade. While the band master fretted and worried about what he could do, since the head master wouldn't let him exclude Jim, he finally decided to let him march carrying a banner in between his two finest marchers. He hoped they would inspire him to do well. But it wasn't to be.
Sure enough, when the parade came along... Jim's feet were striding just the opposite of all the rest of the band, even though he wasn't even playing any instrument.
Didn't matter to Mrs. Kelly though. She beamed with pride, loudly exclaiming: "Just look! They're all out of step-- but Jim!"
When will Kerry’s “band” admit he is out of step? What level of lying will cause people to start doubting everything he says. IMHO he passed that level years ago. Here’s hoping the Times’ efforts at setting the record straight will help us send this liar back to be the Jr. Senator from Mass. He can lie all he wants there. They like liars. They must, they keep electing Teddy!?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Why I Blog - Why You Should Blog Too
John Kerry and his surrogates are in desperation mode at this point. They are dashing about the “swing states” telling one outrageous lie after another. Some examples: Bush will restart the military draft! Bush will take away your social security! It’s Bush’s fault there is a flu shot shortage! I won’t raise your taxes. I will fight a vigorous war against terrorism! The economy is a mess! Iraq is a mess! Our foreign policy is a mess! Mess, mess, mess! I have a plan! Etc.
Of course these are all lies, but even so, Kerry seems to be able to get away with telling them without any consequences. He tells a whopper –and it just seems to lie there, like a pile of dog droppings. Nobody seems to want to notice it. Nobody will touch it.
Kerry supporters, of course, either aren’t smart enough to figure out that he is a serial liar, or, even worse, they do know full well he is a liar, but because of their rabid Bush hatred, they don’t care. Not much anybody can do about those people. They won’t be changed.
The lack of response from Bush supporters is a little harder to explain. It has always been true that Republicans make terrible political street fighters. They want to play the game of politics in a genteel, polite way, using the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Democrats are perfectly willing to bite, scratch, spit, gouge, kick, use knifes and brickbats. Democrats play to win. For that reason, Republicans will never get much mileage out of an actual scandal on the part of a Democrat politician, while Democrats are always able to get tons of mileage out of even a hint of scandal on the part of a Republican politician. Democrats almost always get a total pass from their allies in the main-stream liberal press. Republicans are hounded and castigated mercilessly by the same press for their shortcomings, real or imagined.
What is the effect of this disparate treatment of lies and scandals? When the Illinois republican senate candidate was recently accused by his opponents of visiting a sex club, he had to drop out of the race in disgrace. Conversely, when a Democrat president was caught, red-handed, lying under oath, he didn’t have to resign from anything. In fact he became a hero to the coalition of the wild-eyed. He was given a kind of cult status by the press for sticking it to the GOP. Republicans don’t ever seem to be able to do anything in response to the lies, distortions, and unfair treatment by the Democrats and the press, except wring their hands and complain. They look pathetic. It’s frustrating.
There is another group who is more troublesome than either the Republicans or the Democrats. These are the moderates. They sit back, ill-informed, and wait to be spoon-fed their opinions in some vague way that doesn’t involve using their own gray matter. Where do the get their views? You guessed it; from the partisan press. Like Virginia O’Hanlon, the little girl who wrote the New York Sun newspaper to get information about Santa Clause, these people seem very naïve. Virginia wrote: “Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, If you see it in The Sun, it's so.” Like Virginia, they believe that if it’s in the Sun, or on CBS, or on NBS, or ABS, or any of the alphabet stations, it is true. And they vote based on that alone. Sad but true.
What to do? Yes Virginia, there is an alternative press! Our only option at this point is to go around the mainstream press. That’s the point of blogs. That’s the beauty of the internet. My advice? Blog away oh ye intrepid. Only a bloggers army can fight this fight. And it can have an effect --just ask Dan Rather. Oh yes, it's our duty to keep telling the truth --via the Blog!
Of course these are all lies, but even so, Kerry seems to be able to get away with telling them without any consequences. He tells a whopper –and it just seems to lie there, like a pile of dog droppings. Nobody seems to want to notice it. Nobody will touch it.
Kerry supporters, of course, either aren’t smart enough to figure out that he is a serial liar, or, even worse, they do know full well he is a liar, but because of their rabid Bush hatred, they don’t care. Not much anybody can do about those people. They won’t be changed.
The lack of response from Bush supporters is a little harder to explain. It has always been true that Republicans make terrible political street fighters. They want to play the game of politics in a genteel, polite way, using the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Democrats are perfectly willing to bite, scratch, spit, gouge, kick, use knifes and brickbats. Democrats play to win. For that reason, Republicans will never get much mileage out of an actual scandal on the part of a Democrat politician, while Democrats are always able to get tons of mileage out of even a hint of scandal on the part of a Republican politician. Democrats almost always get a total pass from their allies in the main-stream liberal press. Republicans are hounded and castigated mercilessly by the same press for their shortcomings, real or imagined.
What is the effect of this disparate treatment of lies and scandals? When the Illinois republican senate candidate was recently accused by his opponents of visiting a sex club, he had to drop out of the race in disgrace. Conversely, when a Democrat president was caught, red-handed, lying under oath, he didn’t have to resign from anything. In fact he became a hero to the coalition of the wild-eyed. He was given a kind of cult status by the press for sticking it to the GOP. Republicans don’t ever seem to be able to do anything in response to the lies, distortions, and unfair treatment by the Democrats and the press, except wring their hands and complain. They look pathetic. It’s frustrating.
There is another group who is more troublesome than either the Republicans or the Democrats. These are the moderates. They sit back, ill-informed, and wait to be spoon-fed their opinions in some vague way that doesn’t involve using their own gray matter. Where do the get their views? You guessed it; from the partisan press. Like Virginia O’Hanlon, the little girl who wrote the New York Sun newspaper to get information about Santa Clause, these people seem very naïve. Virginia wrote: “Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, If you see it in The Sun, it's so.” Like Virginia, they believe that if it’s in the Sun, or on CBS, or on NBS, or ABS, or any of the alphabet stations, it is true. And they vote based on that alone. Sad but true.
What to do? Yes Virginia, there is an alternative press! Our only option at this point is to go around the mainstream press. That’s the point of blogs. That’s the beauty of the internet. My advice? Blog away oh ye intrepid. Only a bloggers army can fight this fight. And it can have an effect --just ask Dan Rather. Oh yes, it's our duty to keep telling the truth --via the Blog!
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Should dumb people vote?
Walter E. Williams, One of my favorite columnists over at Townhall.com wrote an excellent piece today pointing out that demagoguery only works in a populace which contains a sufficient number of ignorant voters. They’re the only ones who would ever fall for the scare tactics Kerry and his minions have resorted to:
Politicians have a field day misleading Americans who, as a result of having been dumbed down by our education system, can't think, reason or analyze. How many times have we heard the political lament "There are 43 million Americans without health insurance"? While that observation might very well be true, what are we to make of it? Does it mean that there are Americans dying on the streets for want of medical treatment? Were that the case, you can bet the rent money that the major TV networks would feature nightly stories of medically indigent Americans in various stages of pain, suffering and death.
I've seen no such stories. So what does the absence of health insurance mean? Among the things that it might mean is that you don't receive medical treatment on the same terms as a person with health insurance. You might spend a day waiting for treatment at a clinic instead of having an appointment at a chosen time at a physician's office. It might also mean that you'll receive a smaller quantity and lower quality of medical care such as hospitalization in a ward instead of a private room, interns rather than specialists, and treatment at voluntary clinics and free hospitals such as Shriners.
Let's face it: People who can buy insurance get benefits that those who cannot afford it don't. Those with lots of money get things that those with little money don't. Whether we like it or not, these are facts of life. By the way, a healthy young person might opt for self-insurance and not purchase health insurance because he believes that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
According to some of the electoral rhetoric, President Bush has been responsible for shipping the best American jobs overseas, thus turning us into a nation of hamburger flippers. But according to a study by Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, "How Outsourcing Creates Jobs for Americans," over the past 15 years, foreign corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left. "Jobs insourced to the United States increased from 4.9 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2001," reports Bartlett. There's been an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourced jobs. Moreover, because of the higher and increasing productivity of American workers, the jobs that move here pay more than the ones that leave. Insourced jobs pay roughly 16.5 percent more than the average domestic job, and one-third of them are in the manufacturing sector, says Bartlett. Americans who lose their jobs due to outsourcing might have to make painful adjustments. But should we listen to political proposals to ease their pain by erecting trade barriers that will make the nation as a whole worse off?
Speaking of jobs, let's look at the numbers. Our unemployment rate, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics put at 5.4 percent in September, is one of the lowest in the world and in our history. France's unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, Germany's 9.9 percent and Italy's 8.6 percent. Our Canadian neighbor's is 6.6 percent. The only reason for today's hysteria over jobs is because it is an election year, and one of the ways politicians gain power is to create fear among the electorate. The next time you hear a politician whining about our "awful" job climate, ask him which European country we should look to for guidance in job creation. The fact of business is that our country is the world's leader not only in job creation but in terms of where the world wants to invest its money.
Politicians have a field day misleading Americans who, as a result of having been dumbed down by our education system, can't think, reason or analyze. How many times have we heard the political lament "There are 43 million Americans without health insurance"? While that observation might very well be true, what are we to make of it? Does it mean that there are Americans dying on the streets for want of medical treatment? Were that the case, you can bet the rent money that the major TV networks would feature nightly stories of medically indigent Americans in various stages of pain, suffering and death.
I've seen no such stories. So what does the absence of health insurance mean? Among the things that it might mean is that you don't receive medical treatment on the same terms as a person with health insurance. You might spend a day waiting for treatment at a clinic instead of having an appointment at a chosen time at a physician's office. It might also mean that you'll receive a smaller quantity and lower quality of medical care such as hospitalization in a ward instead of a private room, interns rather than specialists, and treatment at voluntary clinics and free hospitals such as Shriners.
Let's face it: People who can buy insurance get benefits that those who cannot afford it don't. Those with lots of money get things that those with little money don't. Whether we like it or not, these are facts of life. By the way, a healthy young person might opt for self-insurance and not purchase health insurance because he believes that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
According to some of the electoral rhetoric, President Bush has been responsible for shipping the best American jobs overseas, thus turning us into a nation of hamburger flippers. But according to a study by Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, "How Outsourcing Creates Jobs for Americans," over the past 15 years, foreign corporations have moved jobs to the United States at a faster rate than jobs have left. "Jobs insourced to the United States increased from 4.9 million in 1991 to 6.4 million in 2001," reports Bartlett. There's been an 82 percent increase in insourced jobs compared to a 23 percent increase in outsourced jobs. Moreover, because of the higher and increasing productivity of American workers, the jobs that move here pay more than the ones that leave. Insourced jobs pay roughly 16.5 percent more than the average domestic job, and one-third of them are in the manufacturing sector, says Bartlett. Americans who lose their jobs due to outsourcing might have to make painful adjustments. But should we listen to political proposals to ease their pain by erecting trade barriers that will make the nation as a whole worse off?
Speaking of jobs, let's look at the numbers. Our unemployment rate, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics put at 5.4 percent in September, is one of the lowest in the world and in our history. France's unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, Germany's 9.9 percent and Italy's 8.6 percent. Our Canadian neighbor's is 6.6 percent. The only reason for today's hysteria over jobs is because it is an election year, and one of the ways politicians gain power is to create fear among the electorate. The next time you hear a politician whining about our "awful" job climate, ask him which European country we should look to for guidance in job creation. The fact of business is that our country is the world's leader not only in job creation but in terms of where the world wants to invest its money.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Why I support George W. Bush, the president.
I’m voting for Bush because he is a proven leader. He has a track record of consistent, strong, steadfast leadership that the nation, and the world for that matter, can count on. We know what to expect from his administration. So do our enemies. Al Qeada and the nations that harbor them don’t have to wonder whether or not Bush will take action against them. He will. He has! And we’re much safer as a nation for that fact!. Kerry would submit us to a “global test” before he would take any action against terrorists. We would have to play “mother may I?” with the UN and Europe before we could defend ourselves. Bush knows that would be intolerable.
I'm voting for Bush because under his administration, we will get judges who follow the law, not try to "correct all of society's evils" by legislating from the bench. We would get activist judges under a Kerry administration. I'm voting for Bush because under his administration we stand a chance of real reform in the role of the government. He may not take us to where government only delivers the mail and protects our shores, but he will get us a lot closer than Kerry would. Under liberal Democrats like Kerry, government only gets bigger and more powerful.
I'm voting for Bush because he enacted a real tax cut. Maybe it's not enough, but at least it's real. Kerry would increase taxes to fund the tons of new programs he has promised the deluded to buy their votes! It's a Democrat tradition.
I'm voting for Bush because he will enable local school boards to hold teachers accountable if they don't do their jobs, and will allow parents to chose a better situation if necessary. Kerry would continue to offer only government schools, run by incompetent teachers, who, with their unions, and federal education bureaucrats, force mediocrity and failure down our throats.
I will vote for Bush because he will restore to some degree the role of personal responsibility in our lives. He will enable us to help ourselves, our families, our communities succeed by cutting back some of the onerous regulation and burden the government has thrust upon us all. He understands that only when a person is free to be as successful as possible are they truly free. Kerry would perpetuate the old liberal model where burdensome and unproven scientific theories, cumbersome safety rules, and draconian business regulation have sapped our national spirit to the point where it is almost a miracle that anyone is successful.
I will vote for Bush because he recognizes that while we all will have medical needs at some point in our lives, it is largely our own responsibility and our own business to pay for them. He will maintain a safety net for the truly needy and indigent, but will not be our nanny, our nursemaid, our provider of first resort. Kerry would foster the slippery slide into socialism by nationalizing all health care. We would then be saddled with a system that is neither efficient nor compassionate, but merely an extension of the gray morass of bureaucracy that envelops and deadens the human spirit everywhere it has been tried.
Most importantly, I will vote for Bush because he has restored integrity to the office of the president-- integrity! He will never lie openly about his past experience, merely to enhance his resume. He will not lie under oath-- or to the American people at all. He knows that character matters-- he lives it. Kerry, on the other hand, has shown an utter lack of character when it comes to honesty. His Cambodia fantasy, for example, should have disqualified him from further serious consideration as a candidate for the nation’s highest office. If he was willing to lie about that, for no other reason that to falsely enhance his status as a “war hero”, what on earth would he be unwilling to lie about? He has been, and remains, willing and able to say and do virtually anything –if he thinks it will benefit him in any way, even if just to get a few more votes. He totally lacks the one thing his mother aspired for him to acquire, as her dying wish: –integrity, integrity, integrity! He is in fact a poseur.
For thinking people, who aren’t blinded by shear, vitriolic hatred of all things Bush, the choice couldn’t be clearer. On the one hand, we have a proven world leader, who has met the intractable Islamic terrorist head-on and has made great progress towards defeating him; who has revved up the US economy and made it the envy of the whole world; who can serve unashamedly as a role model for the nation’s youth as a person who isn’t afraid to admit he is guided by principles, honor and valor. He is a president who understands what is meant by the motto: “One nation, under God.”
On the other hand, we have in Kerry an undistinguished twenty year senator; who doesn’t have a record of any legislative accomplishment; leadership, or any kind of progress towards solving any of the nation’s problems. To the contrary, he has been an obstructionist, willing to set up roadblocks to stymie any truly beneficial action on the part of our government including the appointment of qualified judges who he opposed merely because they didn’t fit the paradigm of the special interest groups to whom he is beholden. He has been frequently absent from his committee duties. He has voted against all major weapon systems, against all tax cuts, for all tax increases. He is the most liberal senator of them all. It could be said being the most liberal senator is his only accomplishment in the senate, --if you could call that an accomplishment!
John F. Kerry is in no way fit to occupy the nation’s highest office. Support the president. Reject the pretender. Vote Bush!
I'm voting for Bush because under his administration, we will get judges who follow the law, not try to "correct all of society's evils" by legislating from the bench. We would get activist judges under a Kerry administration. I'm voting for Bush because under his administration we stand a chance of real reform in the role of the government. He may not take us to where government only delivers the mail and protects our shores, but he will get us a lot closer than Kerry would. Under liberal Democrats like Kerry, government only gets bigger and more powerful.
I'm voting for Bush because he enacted a real tax cut. Maybe it's not enough, but at least it's real. Kerry would increase taxes to fund the tons of new programs he has promised the deluded to buy their votes! It's a Democrat tradition.
I'm voting for Bush because he will enable local school boards to hold teachers accountable if they don't do their jobs, and will allow parents to chose a better situation if necessary. Kerry would continue to offer only government schools, run by incompetent teachers, who, with their unions, and federal education bureaucrats, force mediocrity and failure down our throats.
I will vote for Bush because he will restore to some degree the role of personal responsibility in our lives. He will enable us to help ourselves, our families, our communities succeed by cutting back some of the onerous regulation and burden the government has thrust upon us all. He understands that only when a person is free to be as successful as possible are they truly free. Kerry would perpetuate the old liberal model where burdensome and unproven scientific theories, cumbersome safety rules, and draconian business regulation have sapped our national spirit to the point where it is almost a miracle that anyone is successful.
I will vote for Bush because he recognizes that while we all will have medical needs at some point in our lives, it is largely our own responsibility and our own business to pay for them. He will maintain a safety net for the truly needy and indigent, but will not be our nanny, our nursemaid, our provider of first resort. Kerry would foster the slippery slide into socialism by nationalizing all health care. We would then be saddled with a system that is neither efficient nor compassionate, but merely an extension of the gray morass of bureaucracy that envelops and deadens the human spirit everywhere it has been tried.
Most importantly, I will vote for Bush because he has restored integrity to the office of the president-- integrity! He will never lie openly about his past experience, merely to enhance his resume. He will not lie under oath-- or to the American people at all. He knows that character matters-- he lives it. Kerry, on the other hand, has shown an utter lack of character when it comes to honesty. His Cambodia fantasy, for example, should have disqualified him from further serious consideration as a candidate for the nation’s highest office. If he was willing to lie about that, for no other reason that to falsely enhance his status as a “war hero”, what on earth would he be unwilling to lie about? He has been, and remains, willing and able to say and do virtually anything –if he thinks it will benefit him in any way, even if just to get a few more votes. He totally lacks the one thing his mother aspired for him to acquire, as her dying wish: –integrity, integrity, integrity! He is in fact a poseur.
For thinking people, who aren’t blinded by shear, vitriolic hatred of all things Bush, the choice couldn’t be clearer. On the one hand, we have a proven world leader, who has met the intractable Islamic terrorist head-on and has made great progress towards defeating him; who has revved up the US economy and made it the envy of the whole world; who can serve unashamedly as a role model for the nation’s youth as a person who isn’t afraid to admit he is guided by principles, honor and valor. He is a president who understands what is meant by the motto: “One nation, under God.”
On the other hand, we have in Kerry an undistinguished twenty year senator; who doesn’t have a record of any legislative accomplishment; leadership, or any kind of progress towards solving any of the nation’s problems. To the contrary, he has been an obstructionist, willing to set up roadblocks to stymie any truly beneficial action on the part of our government including the appointment of qualified judges who he opposed merely because they didn’t fit the paradigm of the special interest groups to whom he is beholden. He has been frequently absent from his committee duties. He has voted against all major weapon systems, against all tax cuts, for all tax increases. He is the most liberal senator of them all. It could be said being the most liberal senator is his only accomplishment in the senate, --if you could call that an accomplishment!
John F. Kerry is in no way fit to occupy the nation’s highest office. Support the president. Reject the pretender. Vote Bush!
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Kerry -on abortion and other duplicities
John Kerry’s tortured response to the abortion question reveals a disturbing flaw in his personal moral code.
Kerry said: “I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.”
I have a hard time comprehending this kind of thinking. In my view in our core makeup, religious or irreligious, we are virtually defined by our “articles of faith”. They are, indeed, our very essence –they form the root of our personhood-- they literally reflect who we are!
Kerry has no problem enforcing his “secular” articles of faith on everybody. Affirmative action, gun control, so-called civil rights, hiring quotas, hate crime legislation are just a few of the secular beliefs that come to mind which are regularly “imposed” on society by secular politicians like Kerry.
Often these “secular articles of faith” are imposed on us, against our will, and against the wishes of the majority of citizens, by people like John Kerry, who employ the tyranny of unelected judges who take upon themselves the “burden” of requiring everyone to comply with their own particular view of what is “good” for society. They have no other justification for imposing their will on all of us other than the notion that they “know” what is good, just, and noble. They are the enlightened, we are the benighted.
Forced busing is a good example. Left wing politicians like Kerry felt it was just, good and fair to require people of different races to be at the same school based solely on the belief that “being together” would remedy all the ills of disparate educational opportunities between the races. Never mind that it went against the beliefs and will of the majority of citizens, black and white. Never mind that numerous existing studies showed that forced busing would not achieve the “societal good” its backers claimed. They “knew” it was right and the “best thing for society”. They looked down on the benighted masses who weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the moral superiority of their position, and they just imposed their will by order of the court. The reality of forced busing showed that it did not achieve any of the “noble” goals listed. It only served to tear apart established communities, and waste a lot of resources which could have been better spent on real educational goals.
The vast majority of Americans know that “late-term” abortion is an abhorrent, brutal and totally unnecessary practice. Poll after poll confirms this. Yet Kerry supports it and would impose it on all of us! Why? Because in his core beliefs, –in his secular articles of faith– so to speak, he sees allowing late term abortion as right, just and beneficial to society. He has no compunction whatsoever about imposing this secular “article of faith” on others. Since he can’t achieve his “enlightened view” via legislation, he resorts to unelected judges to work his will. And yet, incredibly, he claims to hold “religious” views against it. He claims to “respect” the views of his religious leaders who strongly condemn it. In short, he wants to have it both ways.
Abortion is a troubling issue and many people disagree about rights, choices, and the propriety of the so-called choice. The only clear fact vis a vis abortion is that it is always fatal to the baby. My daughter and a coworker were recently having a political discussion with a patient who was railing against Bush, claiming that he didn’t see how any woman could support Bush, since he was against a woman’s “right to choose”. He fell silent when they pointed out that since they were both adopted, they would both have been dead if their birth-mothers had exercised that Kerry-backed choice. Clear thinking prevailed.
Kerry, and all politicians who feel it is their right to impose secular articles of faith, while refusing to allow societal mores and norms which have evolved from centuries-old religious tradition, need to be utterly rejected. A free society cannot long endure if we allow ourselves to continue to be oppressed by “enlightened” politicians and their activist secular judges. God save us from such!
Kerry said: “I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.”
I have a hard time comprehending this kind of thinking. In my view in our core makeup, religious or irreligious, we are virtually defined by our “articles of faith”. They are, indeed, our very essence –they form the root of our personhood-- they literally reflect who we are!
Kerry has no problem enforcing his “secular” articles of faith on everybody. Affirmative action, gun control, so-called civil rights, hiring quotas, hate crime legislation are just a few of the secular beliefs that come to mind which are regularly “imposed” on society by secular politicians like Kerry.
Often these “secular articles of faith” are imposed on us, against our will, and against the wishes of the majority of citizens, by people like John Kerry, who employ the tyranny of unelected judges who take upon themselves the “burden” of requiring everyone to comply with their own particular view of what is “good” for society. They have no other justification for imposing their will on all of us other than the notion that they “know” what is good, just, and noble. They are the enlightened, we are the benighted.
Forced busing is a good example. Left wing politicians like Kerry felt it was just, good and fair to require people of different races to be at the same school based solely on the belief that “being together” would remedy all the ills of disparate educational opportunities between the races. Never mind that it went against the beliefs and will of the majority of citizens, black and white. Never mind that numerous existing studies showed that forced busing would not achieve the “societal good” its backers claimed. They “knew” it was right and the “best thing for society”. They looked down on the benighted masses who weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the moral superiority of their position, and they just imposed their will by order of the court. The reality of forced busing showed that it did not achieve any of the “noble” goals listed. It only served to tear apart established communities, and waste a lot of resources which could have been better spent on real educational goals.
The vast majority of Americans know that “late-term” abortion is an abhorrent, brutal and totally unnecessary practice. Poll after poll confirms this. Yet Kerry supports it and would impose it on all of us! Why? Because in his core beliefs, –in his secular articles of faith– so to speak, he sees allowing late term abortion as right, just and beneficial to society. He has no compunction whatsoever about imposing this secular “article of faith” on others. Since he can’t achieve his “enlightened view” via legislation, he resorts to unelected judges to work his will. And yet, incredibly, he claims to hold “religious” views against it. He claims to “respect” the views of his religious leaders who strongly condemn it. In short, he wants to have it both ways.
Abortion is a troubling issue and many people disagree about rights, choices, and the propriety of the so-called choice. The only clear fact vis a vis abortion is that it is always fatal to the baby. My daughter and a coworker were recently having a political discussion with a patient who was railing against Bush, claiming that he didn’t see how any woman could support Bush, since he was against a woman’s “right to choose”. He fell silent when they pointed out that since they were both adopted, they would both have been dead if their birth-mothers had exercised that Kerry-backed choice. Clear thinking prevailed.
Kerry, and all politicians who feel it is their right to impose secular articles of faith, while refusing to allow societal mores and norms which have evolved from centuries-old religious tradition, need to be utterly rejected. A free society cannot long endure if we allow ourselves to continue to be oppressed by “enlightened” politicians and their activist secular judges. God save us from such!
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Kerry Lies
What is a lie?
The classic definition of telling a lie would have to be saying something even when you know it to be false. For example:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Bill Clinton certainly knew what he said on national television and in front of the whole world was a big fat lie. He knew it from first hand experience. He was one of the participants in the event he was claiming never took place. He knew it was a lie, but said it anyway because he didn’t think he could get caught. After it was disclosed that DNA existed to counter his lie, he was forced to admit he lied.
Another example:
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia,"
John F. Kerry certainly knew what he said on the floor of US Senate in 1986, and on numerous other occasions, was a big fat lie. He knew that he had never been in Cambodia at any time during his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. He said it to further enhance and embellish his military record. He said because he didn’t think anyone would ever check it out. Only after it was proven to be false was his campaign staff forced to admit that he lied.
What is being mistaken?
The classic definition of being mistaken is asserting something you and others sincerely believe to be true, which later turns out to false. When the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo asserted that the Earth was at the center of the universe, they could hardly be accused of telling a lie. They, and nearly all of the experts, deeply believed that assertion. There were no widely accepted facts to refute the theory. When Galileo and others proved it not to be so, they had to eventually admit their error.
Likewise, when George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and nearly all of the other world leaders asserted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they could hardly have be accused of lying about it. Nearly all of their intelligence experts firmly believed this to be true. Subsequent facts, so far, have not borne them out. The worst that could be said about them is that they were possibly mistaken. They didn’t purposely put forward facts they knew, with certain personal knowledge, were false.
The question?
Given the above, why would anybody, knowing that Mr. Kerry flat out lied about his venture into Cambodia still insist on supporting him for the highest and most sensitive office in the United States? How can you trust somebody who would repeatedly tell such a lie?
The only answer abides in the notion that since Kerry supporters are so caught up in their rabid, irrational hatred of Bush, they are willing to forgive Kerry anything--solely for that fact that he is not Bush! This is astonishing! Face it. Kerry supporters are getting ready to cast their precious presidential election votes for a man who knowingly lied about his military service, and then shamefully made that military service the centerpiece of his whole political campaign! Incredible! Aren’t they the least bit worried about what else he may have lied about? Or what, indeed, he may lie about in the future?
It boggles the mind.
The classic definition of telling a lie would have to be saying something even when you know it to be false. For example:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Bill Clinton certainly knew what he said on national television and in front of the whole world was a big fat lie. He knew it from first hand experience. He was one of the participants in the event he was claiming never took place. He knew it was a lie, but said it anyway because he didn’t think he could get caught. After it was disclosed that DNA existed to counter his lie, he was forced to admit he lied.
Another example:
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia,"
John F. Kerry certainly knew what he said on the floor of US Senate in 1986, and on numerous other occasions, was a big fat lie. He knew that he had never been in Cambodia at any time during his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. He said it to further enhance and embellish his military record. He said because he didn’t think anyone would ever check it out. Only after it was proven to be false was his campaign staff forced to admit that he lied.
What is being mistaken?
The classic definition of being mistaken is asserting something you and others sincerely believe to be true, which later turns out to false. When the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo asserted that the Earth was at the center of the universe, they could hardly be accused of telling a lie. They, and nearly all of the experts, deeply believed that assertion. There were no widely accepted facts to refute the theory. When Galileo and others proved it not to be so, they had to eventually admit their error.
Likewise, when George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and nearly all of the other world leaders asserted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they could hardly have be accused of lying about it. Nearly all of their intelligence experts firmly believed this to be true. Subsequent facts, so far, have not borne them out. The worst that could be said about them is that they were possibly mistaken. They didn’t purposely put forward facts they knew, with certain personal knowledge, were false.
The question?
Given the above, why would anybody, knowing that Mr. Kerry flat out lied about his venture into Cambodia still insist on supporting him for the highest and most sensitive office in the United States? How can you trust somebody who would repeatedly tell such a lie?
The only answer abides in the notion that since Kerry supporters are so caught up in their rabid, irrational hatred of Bush, they are willing to forgive Kerry anything--solely for that fact that he is not Bush! This is astonishing! Face it. Kerry supporters are getting ready to cast their precious presidential election votes for a man who knowingly lied about his military service, and then shamefully made that military service the centerpiece of his whole political campaign! Incredible! Aren’t they the least bit worried about what else he may have lied about? Or what, indeed, he may lie about in the future?
It boggles the mind.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Kerry - No class
It's always interesting to view how politicians will reveal their true character, even if unwittingly, through their words and actions. John F. Kerry started revealing his character years ago after a dubious four month tour of duty in Vietnam, when he came home and betrayed his comrades in arms. Additionally, he quickly started a life-long practice of aiding and abetting the enemies of this country by going to France to meet with the enemy, in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. He has consistently reinforced his image as a less-than-honorable person by voting against the interests of the military, against intelligence gathering, against any tax cut or spending cut; in short-- against the true interest of his own country.
Perhaps the most striking example of his lack of character is the made-up tripe about his supposed war record; especially the Cambodia story. It is amazing that he could lie, blatantly, about this on numerous occasions, without a hint of compunction. What is almost equally amazing is that the major news media has given him a complete and total pass when his obvious lie was brought to light! The depths to which our fourth estate has plunged boggles the mind.
Now, he has cinched the deal by stooping to smear the children of his political opponent in an unprecedented way. This new low in the world of political chicanery deserves a special place in the political hall of shame!
Yet, once again, the major media are attempting to "let it pass." This outrage, along with all others this person has perpetrated needs to be brought out over and over again. Since CBS, ABC, NBC and the other alphabet news networks won't do it, it will be up to us--the new media--, to make sure it happens. We can't let it pass. The stakes are too high. Anybody, who isn't blinded by shear, irrational hatred of Bush should be able to see through this fraud. We must help them.
Perhaps the most striking example of his lack of character is the made-up tripe about his supposed war record; especially the Cambodia story. It is amazing that he could lie, blatantly, about this on numerous occasions, without a hint of compunction. What is almost equally amazing is that the major news media has given him a complete and total pass when his obvious lie was brought to light! The depths to which our fourth estate has plunged boggles the mind.
Now, he has cinched the deal by stooping to smear the children of his political opponent in an unprecedented way. This new low in the world of political chicanery deserves a special place in the political hall of shame!
Yet, once again, the major media are attempting to "let it pass." This outrage, along with all others this person has perpetrated needs to be brought out over and over again. Since CBS, ABC, NBC and the other alphabet news networks won't do it, it will be up to us--the new media--, to make sure it happens. We can't let it pass. The stakes are too high. Anybody, who isn't blinded by shear, irrational hatred of Bush should be able to see through this fraud. We must help them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)