Harry Reid and his leftwing cohorts are girding themselves up for single combat against all of president Bush’s major judge nominations. They plan non-stop filibusters against them all. In an effort to see if the GOP is up to the fight, Hugh Hewitt has posed the following question: Does the Senate GOP Go McClellan or Grant if Harry Reid "Goes Gingrich?"
Some might have preferred a different analogy. Something like does the senate GOP go Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill? Given the general lack of knowledge about US history, I’m not too sure that many people know who McClellan and Grant are, but more importantly, just as with the rise of Hitler and the appeasement proposed by Chamberlain, the fate of the whole world could very well rest on the actions of our senate re the confirmation of these important federal judges. Getting these judges confirmed is perhaps the most important thing president Bush could ever do during his remaining four years.
Arlen Specter and his ilk, in a totally misguided effort to appease the hard-core Democratic senators, will make it much more likely that strict-constructionist judges will never get confirmed. What does that mean to all of us? The leftist collection of judges who currently populate the federal bench are much more likely to be soft on terrorists. They are much more likely to make it difficult for our intelligence agencies and law enforcement departments to do their jobs. They are much more likely to allow Islamic terrorists to range freely among us, plotting their next devastating, economy-crippling, morale sapping attack. Such an attack would make us much less able to fend off the Islamic terrorists and their proclaimed ambition of world dominance. And these leftists judges know it, --and don’t care.
The most troubling aspect of Specter’s actions and the milquetoast Republican senators who agree with him is that all their efforts to curry favor with the Democrats, and with the leftist press will fail. The leftists are hard-core ideologues. They will never, never, ever compromise their anti-American pro-terrorists stance on all these issues. They may invite Specter to their cocktail parties, and they may have him on their news programs, but he will never be truly accepted by them. He is merely a “useful idiot” for them. Why he can’t see this, when everybody else can clearly see it, is hard to understand.
It’s clearly time for Senator Frist to engage. He must present a resolution that all federal judges who have been voted out of committee must be voted on by the whole senate immediately. They must be presented for confirmation as a group if necessary. Let the filibuster go on for a day or so, then pass a new rule that cloture of a filibuster can be achieved with a simple majority. The American people want this done. The senators must get the courage to make it so or face their wrath in the next election. The sooner they realize this, the better.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Friday, February 18, 2005
Harry Reid Sets the Obstructionist Tone
Harry Reid, true to form, has set the stage for yet another protracted Democrat led filibuster over the appointment of federal judges. President Bush has re-nominated each of the candidates who were prevented by the Democrats from getting an “up or down” vote by the senate last term. Shamelessly, Reid says they have been “rejected” by the senate. Of course, he knows they have not been rejected by the senate, but instead, never have been considered for approval by the full senate due to Democrat led political chicanery. He also knows that if they are given the chance, each will be confirmed by a majority of the senate.
Senator Reid appears to be unaware that one of the reasons Tom Daschle is no longer a senator is because he led the obstruction of President Bush’s nominations, -and the people of South Dakota held it against him. The people of Nevada will do the same, and Senator Reid will hopefully become former Senator Reid.
One thing needs to happen right away. The senate needs to pass a rule that cloture of a filibuster can be achieved by a simple majority vote of the senate. There really is no reason to allow 40 misguided senators to hold up the people’s business. Senator Frist needs to get it done – now.
Senator Reid appears to be unaware that one of the reasons Tom Daschle is no longer a senator is because he led the obstruction of President Bush’s nominations, -and the people of South Dakota held it against him. The people of Nevada will do the same, and Senator Reid will hopefully become former Senator Reid.
One thing needs to happen right away. The senate needs to pass a rule that cloture of a filibuster can be achieved by a simple majority vote of the senate. There really is no reason to allow 40 misguided senators to hold up the people’s business. Senator Frist needs to get it done – now.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Kennedy Shows the Democrat's True Colors
On Tim Russert today we saw a very revealing picture of what leftists always propose as a solution to every issue and as remedy to every national problem --tax increases! When pressed by Russert for the Democrat's solution to the Social Security problem Kennedy demanded Bush raise taxes. He specifically said:
MR. RUSSERT: So you would roll back the president's tax cuts.
SEN. KENNEDY: That's a possible--for one-third, he wants to make it permanent. You can roll back just one-third of it and solve the Social Security problem. ...
No other way to paint what he said. He proposed raising taxes. Russert even acknowledged it. And anyone who thinks he only wants back one third of the Bush tax cuts doesn’t know Senator Kennedy very well. He wants continuous, huge tax increases to fund the laundry list of socialist programs he has promised his left-wing core constituency ranging from socialized medicine to government guaranteed so-called “living” wages. It's the only solution to every problem in the democrat play book. It's the first thing they think of. It's what they suggest every time. They go right to it, --raising taxes almost is a Pavlovian response. You sound a whistle, they scream "raise taxes." Of course, raising taxes never works. Throwing more money at a social problem never works as a solution. They threw billions at poverty during LBJ's War on Poverty. The result: more poverty. Throwing more money at problems by raising taxes only accomplishes one thing: It provides more money for Democrats to spend on their pet programs. They buy votes with this tax revenue. That's why they always oppose tax cuts and always support tax increases. Higher taxes is their life blood. It’s how they survive.
Fortunately, the American people are no longer buying it. The "raising taxes" solution has largely fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans. The past two presidential election cycles demonstrates that fact. Bush campaigned on cutting taxes twice, and was elected --twice. He therefore has a clear mandate to cut taxes, not raise them. Kennedy can urge higher taxes all he wants. He’s unlikely to get them.
Raising taxes won's solve the Social Security problem any more than it solved the war on poverty problem, or the horrible inner city schools problem. The more taxes and spending are increased, the worse these problems get. Throwing more taxpayer money something accomplishes only one thing: --It wastes a lot of taxpayer money. The only solution that will work to "fix" Social Security is to abolish it. Bush has proposed doing exactly that --incrementally. Hopefully, within this century, Social Security will consist of what it should –each individual taking care of himself and his own family, and donating funds through charity to take care of those who truly can’t take care of themselves. Having government dipping its fingers into the administration of charity is always a bad idea. Expecting people to care for themselves and their families is always a good idea. Bravo Mr. Bush!
MR. RUSSERT: So you would roll back the president's tax cuts.
SEN. KENNEDY: That's a possible--for one-third, he wants to make it permanent. You can roll back just one-third of it and solve the Social Security problem. ...
No other way to paint what he said. He proposed raising taxes. Russert even acknowledged it. And anyone who thinks he only wants back one third of the Bush tax cuts doesn’t know Senator Kennedy very well. He wants continuous, huge tax increases to fund the laundry list of socialist programs he has promised his left-wing core constituency ranging from socialized medicine to government guaranteed so-called “living” wages. It's the only solution to every problem in the democrat play book. It's the first thing they think of. It's what they suggest every time. They go right to it, --raising taxes almost is a Pavlovian response. You sound a whistle, they scream "raise taxes." Of course, raising taxes never works. Throwing more money at a social problem never works as a solution. They threw billions at poverty during LBJ's War on Poverty. The result: more poverty. Throwing more money at problems by raising taxes only accomplishes one thing: It provides more money for Democrats to spend on their pet programs. They buy votes with this tax revenue. That's why they always oppose tax cuts and always support tax increases. Higher taxes is their life blood. It’s how they survive.
Fortunately, the American people are no longer buying it. The "raising taxes" solution has largely fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans. The past two presidential election cycles demonstrates that fact. Bush campaigned on cutting taxes twice, and was elected --twice. He therefore has a clear mandate to cut taxes, not raise them. Kennedy can urge higher taxes all he wants. He’s unlikely to get them.
Raising taxes won's solve the Social Security problem any more than it solved the war on poverty problem, or the horrible inner city schools problem. The more taxes and spending are increased, the worse these problems get. Throwing more taxpayer money something accomplishes only one thing: --It wastes a lot of taxpayer money. The only solution that will work to "fix" Social Security is to abolish it. Bush has proposed doing exactly that --incrementally. Hopefully, within this century, Social Security will consist of what it should –each individual taking care of himself and his own family, and donating funds through charity to take care of those who truly can’t take care of themselves. Having government dipping its fingers into the administration of charity is always a bad idea. Expecting people to care for themselves and their families is always a good idea. Bravo Mr. Bush!
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
The Supremes Got it Right
The recent Supreme Court decision allowing drug sniffing dogs to be used for finding illegal drugs during routine traffic stops is a refreshing breath of fresh air in an era of “soft”, criminal-friendly decisions by the same court. One is almost tempted to hope that they have had a sea-change in their philosophy in the wake of the recent presidential election. The “red state” tidal wave makes it clear that most Americans are in no mood for nonsense when it come to crime and criminals. The court couldn’t have avoided noticing that.
The decision basically says Americans have no “right” of privacy to violate the law. If you buy a dime bag, you have already committed a crime by that very act. The crime occurred when you got the drugs, not when the police caught you during a traffic stop. And law enforcement is not engaging in an unreasonable search when they let their dogs sniff your car. Police dogs, as law enforcement officers, have the right to “observe” you. They do that by sniffing.
Of course, not every action of law enforcement is reasonable. Nobody would approve of letting law enforcement officers wrestle you to the ground, strap a rubber hose around your arm, and draw a syringe of blood while you are strolling peacefully through the public park, even though that activity might catch a few drug users. That would be an invasion of your privacy –to say the least. However, this decision was limited to traffic stops only. It should have been taken further. For example, if while walking their dog through the parking lot at Wal-Mart, the dog signals you have illegal drugs, --you’re busted! Why couldn’t that be justified as follows: An “officer” of the law, using his specialized powers of observation, had reasonable cause to suspect a crime had been committed? In other words, the dog smelled your drugs. Wouldn’t the same officer be within his rights as a law enforcement agent if he visually observed something illegal in your car? Why not if his dog, -also a law enforcement officer, “observed” the same thing.
If you don’t want to be subject to such, don’t buy illegal drugs, --and if you do, don’t take them to Wal-Mart or anywhere else with you. You might get stopped for a broken tail light. If you do, you have nobody to blame except yourself when you get caught with the drugs.
The Supreme Court has said so.
The decision basically says Americans have no “right” of privacy to violate the law. If you buy a dime bag, you have already committed a crime by that very act. The crime occurred when you got the drugs, not when the police caught you during a traffic stop. And law enforcement is not engaging in an unreasonable search when they let their dogs sniff your car. Police dogs, as law enforcement officers, have the right to “observe” you. They do that by sniffing.
Of course, not every action of law enforcement is reasonable. Nobody would approve of letting law enforcement officers wrestle you to the ground, strap a rubber hose around your arm, and draw a syringe of blood while you are strolling peacefully through the public park, even though that activity might catch a few drug users. That would be an invasion of your privacy –to say the least. However, this decision was limited to traffic stops only. It should have been taken further. For example, if while walking their dog through the parking lot at Wal-Mart, the dog signals you have illegal drugs, --you’re busted! Why couldn’t that be justified as follows: An “officer” of the law, using his specialized powers of observation, had reasonable cause to suspect a crime had been committed? In other words, the dog smelled your drugs. Wouldn’t the same officer be within his rights as a law enforcement agent if he visually observed something illegal in your car? Why not if his dog, -also a law enforcement officer, “observed” the same thing.
If you don’t want to be subject to such, don’t buy illegal drugs, --and if you do, don’t take them to Wal-Mart or anywhere else with you. You might get stopped for a broken tail light. If you do, you have nobody to blame except yourself when you get caught with the drugs.
The Supreme Court has said so.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Freedom of Speech? And Equality for All?
Leftist liberals are all frothing at the mouth about George W. Bush’s inauguration. They claim he is spending too much money on it; that it is unseemly during a time of war, that using the Bible and saying “so help me God” violates the first amendment. Of course this is all just a part of the newest leftist craze –bashing religious people like Bush. It’s now OK to bash Christians apparently. It is even OK for some so-called Christians to bash other Christians, as long as the other Christians being bashed are not the darlings of the left. In fact there is a blatant double standard which is very well illustrated by two similar events in the past couple of years.
In December of last year, four so-called Christian preachers were bound over for trial in Philadelphia for “preaching” at a gay-pride event. Most Christians wouldn’t call the confrontational style the “preaches” were utilizing a very prudent or effective method of evangelizing. They are not likely to win many converts among the homosexual community by calling them sinners with huge signs while yelling at them through bullhorns. In fact, they were disrupting the event. They were certainly not expressing the Golden Rule Jesus preached. They were obnoxious, loud, disruptive, and confrontational. But so what? In this country, don’t they have the right to be obnoxious and disruptive on the public square? It’s called free speech. The “gay pride” people were equally loud, vulgar, boisterous and obnoxious. So –we have a standoff of jerks yelling at each other. But that’s not the way the leftist activist judges saw it. They had the obnoxious “preachers” arrested and bound over for trial for exercising their free speech. They face up to 47 years in prison for exercising their free speech! The gays got off Scott free! The obnoxious homosexuals were allowed to escape without consequences! Double standard anyone? Where is the ACLU? Don’t they come to the aid of groups who get into trouble for free speech? That’s what they claim. Why aren’t they supporting the “preachers” this case?
Not that the so-called “street preachers” always get prosecuted for their hateful, obnoxious behavior. It seems to depend on which group they are attacking. If they are going after left-wing icons like the homosexuals or abortionists, they’re in big trouble. They effectively have no first amendment rights. However, if they go after Mormons, well that’s another story. When that happens, the Mormons get arrested and the “street preachers” get off. Their free speech rights are assiduously protected by the left.
Each April and October, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( Mormons) hold their General Conference in Salt Lake City. Tens of thousands of the faithful flock to Salt Lake to attend these conferences. Conference also attracts the “street preachers”, who exhibit obnoxious, loud, rude, hateful and despicable behavior with the huge signs, bullhorns, etc. For example, they openly mock the religious, sacred religious vestments Mormons use in their private worship services by wearing them in public to hold them up to ridicule. They frequently accost young Mormon brides who are exiting the Temple on their wedding day to take pictures and greet well-wishers. They call these newlyweds harlots, whores, and other vulgar names. No matter how confrontational, hateful and disruptive their behavior, the leftist judges in Salt Lake City exonerate them totally, saying they are only exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. But when an outraged member of the Mormon church was moved to snatch away an article of sacred clothing a “street preacher” was waiving about and mocking, he was arrested and jailed. Nobody claimed the “preacher” had incited him to riot. No judge would ascribe any wrong to the “preacher” at all.
If this isn’t an example of a double standard, it’s hard to know what would be. The same obnoxious “street preachers” who are arrested for exercising free speech in Philadelphia, get off without so much as a reprimand while harassing Mormons in Salt Lake City. And the ACLU remains silent. Go figure.
In December of last year, four so-called Christian preachers were bound over for trial in Philadelphia for “preaching” at a gay-pride event. Most Christians wouldn’t call the confrontational style the “preaches” were utilizing a very prudent or effective method of evangelizing. They are not likely to win many converts among the homosexual community by calling them sinners with huge signs while yelling at them through bullhorns. In fact, they were disrupting the event. They were certainly not expressing the Golden Rule Jesus preached. They were obnoxious, loud, disruptive, and confrontational. But so what? In this country, don’t they have the right to be obnoxious and disruptive on the public square? It’s called free speech. The “gay pride” people were equally loud, vulgar, boisterous and obnoxious. So –we have a standoff of jerks yelling at each other. But that’s not the way the leftist activist judges saw it. They had the obnoxious “preachers” arrested and bound over for trial for exercising their free speech. They face up to 47 years in prison for exercising their free speech! The gays got off Scott free! The obnoxious homosexuals were allowed to escape without consequences! Double standard anyone? Where is the ACLU? Don’t they come to the aid of groups who get into trouble for free speech? That’s what they claim. Why aren’t they supporting the “preachers” this case?
Not that the so-called “street preachers” always get prosecuted for their hateful, obnoxious behavior. It seems to depend on which group they are attacking. If they are going after left-wing icons like the homosexuals or abortionists, they’re in big trouble. They effectively have no first amendment rights. However, if they go after Mormons, well that’s another story. When that happens, the Mormons get arrested and the “street preachers” get off. Their free speech rights are assiduously protected by the left.
Each April and October, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( Mormons) hold their General Conference in Salt Lake City. Tens of thousands of the faithful flock to Salt Lake to attend these conferences. Conference also attracts the “street preachers”, who exhibit obnoxious, loud, rude, hateful and despicable behavior with the huge signs, bullhorns, etc. For example, they openly mock the religious, sacred religious vestments Mormons use in their private worship services by wearing them in public to hold them up to ridicule. They frequently accost young Mormon brides who are exiting the Temple on their wedding day to take pictures and greet well-wishers. They call these newlyweds harlots, whores, and other vulgar names. No matter how confrontational, hateful and disruptive their behavior, the leftist judges in Salt Lake City exonerate them totally, saying they are only exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. But when an outraged member of the Mormon church was moved to snatch away an article of sacred clothing a “street preacher” was waiving about and mocking, he was arrested and jailed. Nobody claimed the “preacher” had incited him to riot. No judge would ascribe any wrong to the “preacher” at all.
If this isn’t an example of a double standard, it’s hard to know what would be. The same obnoxious “street preachers” who are arrested for exercising free speech in Philadelphia, get off without so much as a reprimand while harassing Mormons in Salt Lake City. And the ACLU remains silent. Go figure.
Monday, January 10, 2005
The CBS Forged Memo Report
CBS still doesn’t get it. The much anticipated Forged Memo report has been released, finally, by Viacom’s internal investigators. The report is a whitewash. While they did throw a couple of executive producers to the wolves, they totally ignored the real kernel, nub, heart and soul of what happened. Instead, they twisted and spun the report to avoid the most important thing that caused Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and all the others to air forged memos in the first place. This report covered up the real story, --hushed it up, --and papered it over.
The events that occurred are quite simple: Rather, Mapes and 90% of all CBS News associates are left-wing, Bush-hating liberals. They are continually looking for anything which may tend to discredit the President. They were fed a very inflammatory, damning set of memos which purported to be authentic but were, in fact, crude forgeries. Rather and Mapes wanted to believe the content of these memos so much they were willing ignore mountains of evidence which told them the memos were fake, including the opinions of several of the document experts they hired to look at them. They had such an active animus against George W Bush, they were willing to totally set aside any hint of journalistic ethics they may once have had, and they simply ran with a story that they knew, or they should have known was a fraud.
The report goes to great lengths to lead us in every direction and to every conclusion, in its search for an explanation for this lapse in journalism, except to the real and obvious one: Rather hates Bush. That is what blinded him and allowed him to ignore all the red flags, ranging from the experts’ opinions, to the checkered background of the source of these memos. He just threw caution to the wind. No other explanation makes any sense at all.
One other factor is also very important. CBS, Rather and all of his main-stream media colleagues, in all of their arrogance, have most certainly misunderestimated the power of the blogosphere. They have been accustomed to being the only source of mass information for many years. They simply weren’t prepared for the possibility that Web sites such as Little Green Footballs, and others would uncover these forgeries within minutes of their publication. They didn’t understand the reach and power these Blogs have at all. This episode, more than any other in recent history, shows the decline of the main stream media and the rise of the blogosphere. Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, points this out in great detail. Dan Rather and his ilk can no longer rely on the power of their “one source, one-way” media empires. There will always be a hoard of independent media critics in the blogosphere checking and re-checking everything they say. They just can no longer get away with false and biased reporting. No wonder so many of them have retired. It’s no longer fun for them.
Will this change the fundamental nature of the establishment press? No, they will remain virulently left wing, and anti-Bush. But maybe they will be at least a little more circumspect about letting us all see their true colors. We can all hope so.
The events that occurred are quite simple: Rather, Mapes and 90% of all CBS News associates are left-wing, Bush-hating liberals. They are continually looking for anything which may tend to discredit the President. They were fed a very inflammatory, damning set of memos which purported to be authentic but were, in fact, crude forgeries. Rather and Mapes wanted to believe the content of these memos so much they were willing ignore mountains of evidence which told them the memos were fake, including the opinions of several of the document experts they hired to look at them. They had such an active animus against George W Bush, they were willing to totally set aside any hint of journalistic ethics they may once have had, and they simply ran with a story that they knew, or they should have known was a fraud.
The report goes to great lengths to lead us in every direction and to every conclusion, in its search for an explanation for this lapse in journalism, except to the real and obvious one: Rather hates Bush. That is what blinded him and allowed him to ignore all the red flags, ranging from the experts’ opinions, to the checkered background of the source of these memos. He just threw caution to the wind. No other explanation makes any sense at all.
One other factor is also very important. CBS, Rather and all of his main-stream media colleagues, in all of their arrogance, have most certainly misunderestimated the power of the blogosphere. They have been accustomed to being the only source of mass information for many years. They simply weren’t prepared for the possibility that Web sites such as Little Green Footballs, and others would uncover these forgeries within minutes of their publication. They didn’t understand the reach and power these Blogs have at all. This episode, more than any other in recent history, shows the decline of the main stream media and the rise of the blogosphere. Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, points this out in great detail. Dan Rather and his ilk can no longer rely on the power of their “one source, one-way” media empires. There will always be a hoard of independent media critics in the blogosphere checking and re-checking everything they say. They just can no longer get away with false and biased reporting. No wonder so many of them have retired. It’s no longer fun for them.
Will this change the fundamental nature of the establishment press? No, they will remain virulently left wing, and anti-Bush. But maybe they will be at least a little more circumspect about letting us all see their true colors. We can all hope so.
Friday, January 07, 2005
More Roadside Bombings?
The US has the best trained, best equipped military in the history of the world. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to be the victims of so-called roadside bombings on an almost daily basis. This, more than anything else, continues to sap the will of the American public. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many to support the concept of staying the course in Iraq. This military failure (there is no other way to put it) also leads to a very frank and unblinking question: Why!? Why on earth do we continue to lose troops to this relatively crude form of attack? Why, after almost two years, haven’t we figured out a way to stop them!? This stuff is not rocket science. What gives?
Roadside bombs, which are really land mines, are often detonated by wireless remote control. Hasn’t anyone been able to come up with a way to jam the signals? Roadside bombs are put in place by people, presumably at night. Don’t we have patrols with night vision equipment sweeping the supply corridors in Iraq? Somebody knows who is building and placing these bombs. Don’t we have any intelligence sources who can tell us who? when? where? Roadside bombs have to be placed near enough to our convoys to cause a direct blast effect. Don’t we have “secure” supply routes which are off limits to anyone other than our own people? Don’t we patrol these corridors with helicopters and other aircraft? Don’t we make it perfectly clear to all Iraqis that for the duration of our stay there, these corridors are “off limits” to anyone, and anybody who goes there will be presumed to be a terrorist and shot? Since our supplies pretty much go to the same places over and over again, why can’t we secure the supply routes? It’s a very basic requirement of warfare and has been for centuries.
When we have to deviate from our supply corridors are we in the habit of taking the same route over and over? It seems we are. That the roadside bombers would be able to know in advance where we are likely to travel suggests we are stupidly being predictable! Why? We have equipped our army with combat vehicles which are capable of going anywhere. If you travel off road, you’ll never be hit with a roadside bomb! Why would we make it easy for our enemy by taking the same route everyday? It’s hard to explain.
Drive-by suicide bombers are another problem. Why haven’t we made it perfectly clear to everybody in Iraq that any vehicle which approaches within 200 yards of any US Military vehicle will be presumed to be hostile and will be destroyed? We should put out the word that if you see a US military vehicle, you should turn around and drive the other way—or you’ll be shot at. It seems to be easy enough to understand that if the bad guys can’t get close to you, they can’t harm you. Why don’t our forces understand it?
Most Americans are still in favor of staying the course in Iraq. Most Americans understand that unless we stay the course and prevail against these terrorists, the consequences will be intolerable. What most Americans don’t understand is why, it seems, we are making it too easy for our enemies in Iraq to pick off our troops. Our leaders had better figure out a way to mitigate this situation, and quickly, or they may very well have to face the very thing they fear the most: A collapse in the will of the American people resulting in an embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq. The left around in this country and the world would dance in the streets at that outcome. We must take steps, now, to see that it doesn't happen.
Roadside bombs, which are really land mines, are often detonated by wireless remote control. Hasn’t anyone been able to come up with a way to jam the signals? Roadside bombs are put in place by people, presumably at night. Don’t we have patrols with night vision equipment sweeping the supply corridors in Iraq? Somebody knows who is building and placing these bombs. Don’t we have any intelligence sources who can tell us who? when? where? Roadside bombs have to be placed near enough to our convoys to cause a direct blast effect. Don’t we have “secure” supply routes which are off limits to anyone other than our own people? Don’t we patrol these corridors with helicopters and other aircraft? Don’t we make it perfectly clear to all Iraqis that for the duration of our stay there, these corridors are “off limits” to anyone, and anybody who goes there will be presumed to be a terrorist and shot? Since our supplies pretty much go to the same places over and over again, why can’t we secure the supply routes? It’s a very basic requirement of warfare and has been for centuries.
When we have to deviate from our supply corridors are we in the habit of taking the same route over and over? It seems we are. That the roadside bombers would be able to know in advance where we are likely to travel suggests we are stupidly being predictable! Why? We have equipped our army with combat vehicles which are capable of going anywhere. If you travel off road, you’ll never be hit with a roadside bomb! Why would we make it easy for our enemy by taking the same route everyday? It’s hard to explain.
Drive-by suicide bombers are another problem. Why haven’t we made it perfectly clear to everybody in Iraq that any vehicle which approaches within 200 yards of any US Military vehicle will be presumed to be hostile and will be destroyed? We should put out the word that if you see a US military vehicle, you should turn around and drive the other way—or you’ll be shot at. It seems to be easy enough to understand that if the bad guys can’t get close to you, they can’t harm you. Why don’t our forces understand it?
Most Americans are still in favor of staying the course in Iraq. Most Americans understand that unless we stay the course and prevail against these terrorists, the consequences will be intolerable. What most Americans don’t understand is why, it seems, we are making it too easy for our enemies in Iraq to pick off our troops. Our leaders had better figure out a way to mitigate this situation, and quickly, or they may very well have to face the very thing they fear the most: A collapse in the will of the American people resulting in an embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq. The left around in this country and the world would dance in the streets at that outcome. We must take steps, now, to see that it doesn't happen.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
We're From the UN -And We're Here to Help?
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.
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.
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)