Absent Until Possibly Next Week

We close on our house tomorrow at 8am. Sometime during the day we will be losing out phone and DSL connection. DSL will not be re-eastablished until Friday at the earliest, but according to the provider that might or might not happen.

Even if connection is established quickly, moving is a fun time and since my wife works and I'm currently unemployed (anyone know a good job around Baltimore?) I'll be doing most of the moving anyhow so posting will be light until next week no matter what.

Until then, check out some of the sites listed on the right - especially Dennis Prager.

Feel free to listen live between noon and 3pm Eastern US time.

Hope to get back soon,


Ed

Liberty vs. Equality

Both are important, both deal with the legal framework and laws, and both have their place in our society - but not in equal parts.

Before getting into the role each plays, we have to take a look at the function each plays in the structure of the legal framework. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make it clear that the government role in the average person's life should be limited because, as has been the case for all of history, a government that has more control is a government that will be more abusive.

Abuse itself can and does come in many forms. In China, we can see it see it as the totalitarian hand of The Party. In Cuba, it is the hand of Castro. In the old Soviet Union it was in the hands of the oligarchy, the Supreme Soviet. In the United States is has been kept to a minimum and because of it many other western societies have adopted similar forms of government based on their own cultures and environment. Some have been successful; others have been less so.

Abuse in western systems tend to be in the form of irresponsible social programs in pursuit of the enigma called Social Justice rather than the whimsical fist of a tyrant.

Social Justice recommends equality over freedom because it is simply not fair that some people have more skills, a better family life, and yes because some people actually have the money to help open doors otherwise closed. Social Justice determines that freedom is fine as long as it has nothing to do with the economy or the distribution of wealth. These factors need much monitoring and social equality can only be realized when the government has the ability to take wealth from one source and spread it across society.

Social Justice is a major contributor to the rotting of our Justice System because it says that if blacks go to jail too much then it is a social issue – not a criminal issue. It says that if poor people commit crimes it is not because they want to, but it is because society gives them no choice. Since this is the case and is unavoidable in the current system, we need to change the rules for poor people and not punish them so severely as one might others. Social justice says that if police patrol the inner city too much it is because they want to lock up poor black people, and if they do not patrol the inner city enough it is because they do not care if crime is rampant in the black community. Either way racism is the charge and only social justice can help since real justice is just too harsh and not everyone should be expected to have to obey the same rules.

Since a disproportionate number of blacks are in prison the government must make efforts to help them on their way. It has nothing to do with single parent homes, a failing education system, and a lack or role models… it has to do with the government ignoring them and racism. They go so far as to say that black on black crime is due to racism as well.

When given a chance for something different - like school vouchers – they are against it because conservatives are fighting for it so it must be bad. Social justice is not something conservatives like, so the logical fallacy says that people in the inner city must not like conservatives.

Equality is a must for the same of law enforcement and the justice system in general, and this is always true. Black, white, rich or poor, people need to know the rules and have those rules equally applied in law for society to function. There should not be a government recognized caste system.

Equal application of the law is really the only aspect of equality that the government can enforce. At first this may not be as obvious as it is, but think about it: Laws can be equally enforced, and punishments equally handed out.

Equal rights is a bit more tricky because if these rights are social rather than legal there is no real way to enforce them without stepping on freedom. The government must be blind on issues of race, sex, age, politics, and such, but when dealing with who someone can hire it blurs and becomes not legal justice but social justice because it is a private decision that is now a public law.

There are other examples of this in life: If someone wanted to marry you, but you did not want to marry them are you denying them the right to marry? The correct answer is yes. Think about it, if marriage is a social right, then who are you to deny someone this right?

The fact of the matter is that marriage is not a right, because the government has no way to enforce this right legally. Voting is a right because if the laws say you are eligible to vote, there are penalties to those who deny you this that the government can bring down upon them.

It is not a right for you to drive a car on a public road because if you do not pass the tests and act responsibly your license will be revoked. Many people – especially teens feel that it is a right, and quite incorrectly.

People throw the phrase, "It’s my right!" around without actually thinking about what they are saying. I recall hearing on the radio that college tuitions were on the rise and they had some girl on, a college student I suppose, who said that by raising tuition they were taking away her right to go to school. Since when is this a right?

If you can pay for something that is legal to purchase, then if the current owner agrees to sell it, you may buy it. If you do not have the funds to afford it you have no right to it. This is a fundamental difference between the current Rule of Law and idea of Social Justice.

Rights are something that depend on both equality and freedom, but are not interchangeable with either. They have their own place and function and to confuse these ideas is another way to blur the meaning of any of them.

Equality to liberals means that if one person has it, anyone should be able to have it and the government needs the authority to redistribute items, wealth, etc. in order to make this happen. Equality has little to do with application of law and much more to do with social issues and the interaction between people.

Freedom to liberals only means freedom from conservatives and conservative ideals. Freedom is a secondary concern because freedom promotes inequality based on personal habits and decisions. It permits people to collect wealth and give it to their children and those they personally decide to give it to rather than having the government hand it equally to strangers who may or may not care about you at all.

Equality to conservatives consists of enforcing laws equally across the board regardless of who is guilty. Laws are the foundation for success, and government’s role is to enforce the laws not correct every problem society might run into over the course of time. Equality is important, but for conservatives is secondary to freedom.

Freedom enables everyone to be successful so long as the Rule of Law is applied and all of society has the ability to be free. To conservatives freedom is a must because conservatives understand that freedom equates to motivation to do better since what you have is yours and what you do is up to you.

There are reasons that the President of the United States has been considered the leader of the FREE WORLD and not leader of the EQUAL WORLD. Equality as a governmentally enforced social measure is an invitation to disaster and history has shown this to be the case over and over again.

American Dream 2004

The above link is to National League of Cities website with a finished survey of how the American Dream is being taken away from urban dwellers. The dangers that this survey attempts to highlight are so much smaller than the dangers the survey's conclusions project. This is a large pdf file that covers much, and usually I do not like to look at the conclusions surveys draw - I prefer to just look at the numbers and draw my own conclusions - but the commentary and the way everything is framed is not very encouraging for America in general.

There is a companion powerpoint presentation with the title "Resurrecting the American Dream", and this is a good place to start. The idea that we need to resurrect something implies it is dead. This is bad news for America in general and can only do harm to those already struggling in life. Luckily for all of us the help in defining the problem with some handy bullet points:

• Extreme INEQUALITIES based on RACE, CLASS and GEOGRAPHY
• An UNFAIR PLAYING FIELD
• Racial and economic SEGREGATION
• A problem for ALL COMMUNITIES - urban, suburban, rural
• Increased ECONOMIC INSECURITY

There is a talking points document (MS Word format) about each slide as well, and it goes into more detail as to what is 'going on' according tot his group. This document will be cited as well.

This bulletpoint list takes us not to any great insightful observation; instead it brings us back to the leftist, Marxist view of the world. On top of it, the bullet points are redundant. This 'class struggle' is complicated by throwing in race on top of it, but in the end is it actual racism, or is it something different?

According to the next slide, among other reasons for this are: a betrayal of American ideals, an undermining of social cohesion, and that it is in part the government's fault. Of course, instead of realizing that the government can not be the answer to everyone's problems, they determine that since the government has failed them then the government must FIX it. An endless cycle of wasted time, efforts, and money is all they desire.

What are America's ideals to them? Evidently the Marxist idea of the redistribution of wealth because Slide #4 outlines how 20% of the population controls 83.4% of the wealth. This extreme inequality, to them, betrays American Ideals. Yes, to them being successful can only mean oppressing others. On the same slide they also show that Whites control the wealth as well.

It would seem that, to these people, Marxism has been combined with making all the problem into a racist event as well. Money is not even distributed to all people, nor is money equally distributed amongst the races, and to them this must be corrected.

They go on to claim that only 1/3 of all jobs created are in the cities proper, while 2/3 of the jobs are going to the suburbs. Instead of noting crime and an unwillingness to go into high crime areas as the reason, they then mention that 3/4 of all welfare-types are located in the central cities.

They never go so far as to actually question WHY a business would want to open shop in an area where crime is high, education is poor, and neither your clients nor employees would want to travel there. They claim it not to be caution, but racism.

Racism makes it so that 72% of whites own a home, while only 47% of blacks, and 48% of Hispanics own homes. I do find it strange that Hispanics have already taken the lead in home ownership considering they have spent less time in this nation as a whole. I guess that would the be racist in me for noticing according to them, and not the victim mentality that powerful leadership figures perpetuate in the community.

They cite idle youth, those 16 - 25, as not having a job, being in school, nor in the military as being part of the problem. It would seem to them that not having good role models and a solid family life is not the problem, instead it is lack of government intervention.

They blame the government for encouraging "White Flight" because the government builds highways and have housing programs. Since whitey can drive to work and does not have to live in the high crime areas it is racist government policy to build a freeway. These people lack all ability to understand and comprehend that people - not just whites, but all people - don't want to live in high crime areas where there are no jobs. The fact that some people leave is considered bad since, I guess, there are less people with money to rob.

They mention local zoning that does not permit affordable housing. Housing prices are a market force determined by supply, demand, and the structures of what price the buyers are willing to pay. Affordable housing means either Section 8 HUD homes, or price controls limiting the ability of people to see their home for what they think it is worth. Again, this is a Marxist ideal, NOT an American ideal.

Next comes the guilt trip, "Things you take for granted":

1) Good Health Care
2) Good Schools
3) Car and / or easy access to public transportation
4) Clean streets
5) Competitive rates on mortgages, other loans

This list is foolish and misleading because I know for a fact that I do not take any of that for granted. I've made decisions in life that enable me to have good health care, I make sure that the neighborhood has good schools, clean streets, and yes I do have a car. My wife and I have made many sacrifices in order to maintain good credit, so yes I should be able to have some decent rates for mortgages. These have been my decisions, and sometimes I've made some poor ones as well, but I LEARNED from them. I may be human nature to blame others, we all like to try to rationalize why things might not be our fault, but at the end of the day you have to live with you decisions, so if you do not care about clean streets, if you would rather have big TVs, expensive cars, and if you do not get involved within the community and you do not stand up for what is right, then those decisions will put you where? Do you think you'll be living in suburbia if you do not hold at least some of these items in esteem?

No. To them what needs to happen is to start conversations about privilege and inequality to the point that they suggest getting the government to make more laws to 'level the playing field'. This translates once again into a Marxist redistribution of wealth.

The presentation concludes with the same old 'get involved' lines implying that we are all helpless without the aid of the government.

The heart of the survey itself highlighted that, when unprompted, 24% of all who responded said that being financially secure was Living the American Dream. This spits in the face of the idea that redistribution is the answer since almost 1/4 of all people when asked off the top of their head thought that making good money was the American Dream.

When given a list from which to choose, living in freedom (33%) jumped to number one, with financial security (28%) at number two. Freedom is different from equality, and as such it makes sense that people do not want equal distribution of wealth, instead they want the freedom to do what they wish and they also want the ability to keep what they earn.

When looked at closer, they found that Republicans prefer freedom at a rate of 44% to 27% over Democrats. This should be obvious since Democrats do not want freedom - they want equality in all forms - including economic redistribution. These items are glossed over in the conclusion section of the survey in favor of the liberal practice of pushing an agenda of doom and gloom.

When asked what the largest barrier to the American Dream, the top answer was poor education (27%), with another answer, 'Inability to find a good job' (19%) obviously being a result of the top answer. Another, very telling answer, is that Democrats say discrimination is the barrier at a two to one ration (20% - 10%) over Republicans. Whether this is because Democrats cater to the idea of discrimination or not can not really be determined.

As far a resurrection goes, 62% of the population says that anyone can make the American Dream happen. With these figures right int heir survey how can they say that it needs to be resurrected?

They also site the meaningless statistic that 95% said that everyone should have a shot at making the dream a reality. I'm shocked 5% said otherwise. The difference is the conclusion they will draw from this 95% as being in favor of taking radical steps to change the way the economy is run.

A minority of people think it is harder to achieve the American dream (46% of woman, and 41% of men think it harder). This does not reflect all the panic this group wishes to push upon the American people. Of course, since 53% of African Americans feel passed over, there must be racist afoot since only 32% of whites feel this way and only 36% of the Hispanic population thinks this, too. Is it racism or victimology?

Another shocking statistic is that 52% of all unmarried parents feel they are being left behind. This being the case, no one wants to come out and say that being an unwed mother is bad for both mother and child, and that explaining that the behavior that leads to this is irresponsible and damaging. Instead, they suggest a larger government check.

When looking directly at political ideals and who is living the American Dream, we see that a full 76% of republicans feel they are living the American Dream. Yes, it is true that conservatives are among the most satisfied and happy people in America and feel that America is a good place to be. It is good remember this when making political decisions. Do you want radical change in a Marxist way, or do you prefer something stable and something that permits people to do things on their own, and rewards them as such -- like in the current system?

Only 56% of Democrats feel that the current system is good enough for the American Dream, with 44% feeling that more government and more laws are required to make equality (a level playing field) over freedom the law of the land.

In the end, it would seem that Blacks and Democrats feel the American Dream is dying or dead in larger numbers than any other groups, and as such is it any shock that people like Jesse Jackson say what they do?

One disturbing trend is that 72% of all people think the government needs to take an active role in helping people achieve the American Dream. While they do not say what steps need to be taken, this loaded question promotes big government, more progressive taxation, and - if needed - redistribution of wealth to level the playing field. Since the survey never says 'how' the government could ever help, this question is reasonably meaningless to any conversation.

Concerning the elections, the one item most people would like to see action taken upon would be to reduce crime (21%) with 27% of people living in inner cities claiming that this is a problem. If this is what they mean by the government taking an active role, then I must say that getting criminals off the streets will do a service for both reducing crime, and cleaning the streets and I would be for this as well.

While it is true that I am not an expert in the ways of polls and surveys, there are some questions that have at least indirectly contradictory answers:

10. It is becoming much harder for young families to achieve the American Dream.
Strongly agree 42
Somewhat agree 28
Somewhat disagree 15
Strongly disagree 13
DK/Ref. (Vol.) 4
Agree 70
Disagree 28


8. Thinking about the next generation, how confident are you that most American children today have a fair shot at the American Dream very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident or not confident at all?
Very confident 22
Somewhat confident 43
Not too confident 24
Not confident at all 9
DK/Ref. (Vol.) 2
Confident 65
Not Confident 33

How can one logically say that is is harder for young families to get to the American Dream, but still say that the next generation will have a fair shot at it? It seems that, after everything is said and done, these questions probably were very slanted and despite all attempts at impartiality, probably ended up biased.

It is either that, or perhaps the people surveyed just didn't get what was being asked.

I personally have the utmost confidence in the American Dream because it is there for you to take if you want it. America is not an easy place at times, but it is because there are so many voices and interests all shouting and yelling and climbing on top of each other all at once. It is confusing for many foreigners, and it is also confusing for those Americans who have not bothered to understand how things work here. It makes sense that most conservatives enjoy America and appreciate the chances we both work for and get lucky enough to find while liberals only find time to whine and complain. The survey - no matter how unscientific - does the conservative attitude a favor by highlighting these basic differences and while it may be true that the ride is not easy the destination is well worth all the effort one might make to get there.

God Bless America.

No Proportion at Post

Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran this article about the election. On the surface it seems to be about how two groups of people (conservatives v. Liberals) don't see eye to eye on in relation to the candidates.

Closer examination reveals a slightly different tone making our many conservatives to be the type to steal signs and even elections:



I guess we're supposed to feel sorry for someone who had their sign taken, but I did not, through the entire article, see any mention of Republican Campaign offices being shot at, broken into, having things stolen from, and even having people being assaulted in them. The best the Washington Post could muster was a bit about some lady's sign being taken, and they even give picture space to a sign that is not only false, but so misleading it is pathetic. The Washington Post also makes no efforts to print a correction in relation to the subject matter of the sign.

So I guess, to the Post, this is a bigger story than all the incidents at Republican offices. It's a judgment call... or is it?

From Russia with Wisdom

While not actually endorsing President Bush, Vladimir Putin did have some things to say that should give pause to all American voters:

"I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

I will be monitoring the evening news as well as some of the cable news stations to see if this gets any mention from now until the election.

Russia was not for the war in Iraq for reasons brought up in many different venues, but it was obvious that there were people on the Oil for Food money siphoning program. Despite Russo's desire to make some money 'on the side', Putin understands - especially now - what it is going on these days and he also has the wisdom to know who will be most able and willing to defend America from terrorism. Putin also understands that if the Senator wins it will change the entire dynamic of how (or if) the war on terror is to be fought.

It is troubling when a foreign leader who has actually felt the sting of terrorism, knows terrorism is not, nor has ever been, a nuisance, and knows that the fight must be taken the them actually has to spell it out for the world, but it also a good thing that someone is willing to do so.

Those nations backing the Senator are the cowards and the manipulators of the United Nations. France, Germany, China and the others are against George W. Bush because he is a threat to the way they feel the world should be run.

Russia, with a long history of understanding what unilateralism means to the security of a nation is more than willing to speak about the situation at hand. It is rather good to hear a nation that is not always aligned with the ideas of the United States still understanding all that is at risk.

In end it also might be because Russia could be on the verge of taking a large, unilateral type action herself against terrorism... something that might not pass a global test.

Palestinians Blame US for Failure

It is reported that, "Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said Monday that the U.S. presidential election was stalling the Middle East peace process and urged other countries to increase their efforts."

What is a shame is that the Palestinians have so little negotiating power and absolutely no legitimacy when it comes to negotiating that they must always other nations coming to vouch for them.

Despite this blame, they tend to also blame the US for not being impartial enough, but now it seems that they see exactly what happens when the US is not involved at all. The fact remains that despite what so many claim, Israeli (read: Jewish) interests do not run US policy since Israel was much more restrained when the US was involved than it is now when it builds it's fence and goes on offensives in terrorist occupied territories.

Palestinians now seem to understand that the US is a pretty good broker in the Middle East process, but we have also come to an end to feeling as if negotiating will do anything productive. Arafat turned down the best deal that could be given to him for one of two reasons (perhaps both):

1) He does not want the terrorism to end because he thinks that, somehow, he'll get a better deal so he holds out.
Or...
2) He can not control the terrorist elements in the territories and thus is nothing more than a faceman and is unworthy of being considered someone worth negotiating with at all.

In the end, the Palestinian officials will always find a way to blame everyone but themselves and the terrorists they permit in their camp. While Israel puts plotting Israelis in prison for wanting to blow up Palestinian places, it only seems that we hear about the Palestinians hanging those who associate with Israel - quite a difference in justice systems.

Only with a bumbling body like the United Nations could this situation exist for over 60 years. History shows that the best way to stop such bombing is to simply remove the element that causes it, but in this 'enlightened' day and age it seems better to perpetuate refuge camps and all the violence and suffering that goes along with it.

Do we need the United Nations to fulfill this role? If you do not think so, then you know to put George W. Bush back in for four more years. If this situation appeals to you, and you find 'nuance' in the policies of multilateral diplomacy over these matters in th Middle East; if the status quo is appealing to you, then you should like the Senator.

China's Take on American Elections

China Daily had quite a unique take on the American Presidency:

Right after the incident on the World trade Centre, Bush implemented his new doctrine the so called "Reign of Terror". He would then rule by the most effective way to control and dominate by instigating and fomenting fear in his own people and the world. The word "evil" became as common in the English lexicon as the other American evil to the world the popular McDonald. The Reign of Terror was created by the Stupid White Man, and what followed was an on going disaster to the world, to the US economy and the geo-political stability of the planet.

It is good to see that China is getting a diverse and well-informed look at American politics. I do not recall when Bush launched the "Reign of Terror" doctrine, but perhaps to the Chinese Government, this is the case they need to make to their people. China seems a bit scared that we are now attempting to bring democracy to that area of Asia too far west to be considered the Far East (Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc). In order to maintain control of the situation China is actively engaging in a smear campaign to destroy the Bush Presidency.

The Senator running against Bush said that he had the support of many foreign leaders, and it looks like France and China are among them. Do you want the US administration to rub elbows with those nations who do not care at all about us?

In the Reign of Terror the usual suspect Alan Greenspan had just told us the we should not be concerned with the half a trillion American debt and furthermore his startling late revelation that we should not also be concerned with the price of crude oil reaching now prices over US$ 50 dollars.

Well, we wouldn't have these prices if we didn't have hurricanes AND an emerging market in China and India where more and more people are now buying cars on a daily basis. This demand on a limited supply will drive prices skyward no matter what we want to do. But yes, blame George Bush because you are not so much against an event like a rising gas price, but you are against a President who does not put foreign interests above those of the American Citizen.

Calling him a Stupid White Man only enforces the idea that Michael Moore is a out of touch with America, and more in line with China, Chinese Marxist Communism, and anti-American rhetoric more than ever before.

And finally:

So the world witness this new drama in the world stage where the protagonist
has already demonstrated that he cannot think or speak for himself with the late display of hidden ear plugs in the second debate with J Kerry . Unfortunately this is not a very convincing performance.

In all of China can't they get a decent English writer or translator? Oh well, if I were George W. Bush I would want ear plugs anyhow. A 'display' of 'hidden' items is of course impossible or they would no longer be hidden, but this is too much for the Chinese propaganda machine. I wonder if Diane Kerry was anywhere to be found.

China, the Communist Party of America, and so many other anti-American groups support Kerry that to vote for him is to vote for every foreign, every destructive force that has a real voice in the world today. It also proves how much conservative ideals are attacked - everywhere and all the time. This is a big election, please vote... please.

Oil for Food Investigation

The Oil for Food Program's corruption will be paid for by the Iraqis themselves with left over funds from the Oil for Food Program itself.

It's not bad enough that so much money was diverted and hidden, but what money as not extorted will now be spent on UN Bureaucrats salaries while they 'investigate' the program.

While it may be true that the the U.N. was permitted to charge Saddam a 2.2% 'handling fee' to make sure everything was going correctly and that all administrative activities required to be done by the U.N. were indeed done, it seems strange use that same fund for investigating itself. But Kofi Annan seems to like the idea of using money that could go to the Iraqis' rebuilding efforts in order to investigate the corruption surrounding why so much money never made it to the Iraqis.

In the end, no matter what figures are claimed, the U.N. is a tight ship in every sense of the word. The United Nations has lifelong bureaucrats who get to keep sealed and confidential records of accounts, names, and actions. There is no oversight committee that actually is made up of even slightly non-biased people who, when finished investigating, report to the public at-large. Instead they report to the same body that could have been the corrupt entity to begin with and then they do what they feel is appropriate.

George W. Bush's rival is in favor of more U.N. power, his rival is in favor of consulting with the U.N. even longer that Bush did, and George W. Bush's rival wants a global test because to him it is more important that corrupt regimes buy in to our security than just making us secure on our own.

Think carefully between now and voting day.

In Honor of Our Troops

There's a news story talking about how a certain group of our soldiers decided that it would better to disobey a direct order rather than transport food and water to combat zones. I will not, at this time speak about this for two reasons: We need to pay tribute to the troops who are doing their job and following all orders no matter how dangerous or how strange those orders may seem, and the liberal media will pick up on that story as 'proof' that the troops are in revolt under Bush. This is not the case, and most troops, according to a survey favor Bush over four to one.

Our troops are the world's finest. While it may be true that just about every nation may claim this, and while it also true that some special units may be, at least in drills and maneuvers, better 'on paper', I would still not trade our soldiers for any others.

These volunteers know that, while members of the United States Armed Forces they will be called upon not just by the President or Congress, but also by the international community to fight and 'keep the peace' anywhere in the world. Not many other nations want to do this, and even fewer actually do it.

For America, as proof in our troops, it means more to help people when we can - even when doing so means creating ire amongst the international community, or being told that if we helped country a, why don't we help country b and then claiming a conspiracy because we don't.

No other nation in the world has ever had the military power that we have, and yet we do not conquer nations like the Romans or the Mongols, or even the French or British did. Americans understand what is means to be good or bad, can discern right from wrong, and we wish to spread that which we know is vital for a stable, prosperous future. No one exemplifies this more that the United States Armed Forces.

They fight the fights and right the wrongs all the while people like me can sit on my rear in an office building or at home living out the American Dream (which is alive and well thank you very much -- because of our troops). While I do not like paying taxes any more than most Americans, I will never object to funding our military because without these brave individuals who have, over the course of this nation's life, sacrificed their time, energy, limbs, and life for everyone.

When most nations use the word 'everyone' in the sense I just did they can usually only mean everyone in their country, but the American, it means everyone in the world... nothing less would be an honest answer.

From our revolutionary war which permitted the start of a new form of government thought quaint and to be a curiosity by the more sophisticated elites of Europe - the same nations who have since then emulated our form of government and constitution.

Ever since then we have delivered to the world stability, creativity, ingenuity, as well other more tangible things like our blood and our toil.

Today we have troops covering the face of the earth in almost every time zone. We do this not to rule the world as other nations have done in the past, but to ensure our security and to, when situations permit, advance freedom for the world as a whole. Today we also faced with a difficulty because the world realizes that it is the United States and not anyone else who has the capability to right the wrongs and secure a brighter future for not just America but the entire world. Because these nations are run by the likes of Chirac and others instead of the likes of Churchill and company, the leadership level of the world is in a deficit situation.

The American Soldier has seen and done it all. From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli is more than a line from the Marine's Hymn, it is a true testament to the will, resolve, and ability of those who do indeed fight to keep our nation safe and free.

The American Soldier watched a fleet sink in Pearl Harbor only to later sink most of the important vessels our enemy could build. The American Soldier stopped the spread of Communism and totalitarianism in both the forgotten war of Korea, and the condemned war in Vietnam. The American Soldier has come home to ticker-tape parades and to be spit upon, but the American Soldier secured both of those activities for all.

The American Soldier is America, with all the contradictions and dynamics this nation has been, is, and will become, and because I love this country I love our soldiers.


Thank you to all who have served, are serving, or will serve in the future!

China will thank ACLU and Amnesty International

This is quite disturbing, but not at all shocking:

A Chinese engineer held hostage by Al Qaeda-linked militants in Pakistan
was killed yesterday but his colleague rescued in a commando assault that killed
their five kidnappers, officials said.
Chinese engineers Wang Ende and Wang
Peng were heading to work on a dam project in the remote South Waziristan tribal
region when they were kidnapped on Saturday by USPS and Pakistani militants led
by a former Guantanamo Bay detainee.

It would seem that the pressure to release some people from Guantanamo Bay by international and domestic groups claiming rights violations has lead to one of those guys going back to Pakistan, taking hostages, and getting himself killed.

These leftists groups who claim to want freedom for all, and these groups who claim to represent those who are being oppressed by the Big, Bag, United States of America should feel pretty good about knowing they are wrong in yet another way. These groups seem to think that coalition forces went around and just randomly picked up people and hauled them off. Perhaps some were crossing the street where there was not crosswalk, but surely these people are just guys who got mixed up and are being used as scapegoats for the US.

They could not be more wrong. Now we have a dead Chinese national because the fight to free these people is worth more than the prudence to hold them. It is a horrible way to have to say, "I told you so." to them, but in the end, that is exactly what many people have been saying would happen.

In a Complete Act of Idiocy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135479,00.html

TOLEDO, Ohio — In a victory for the Democrats, a federal judge ruled Thursday that Ohio voters who show up at the wrong polling place on Election Day can still cast ballots as long as they are in the county where they are registered.
U.S. District Judge James Carr blocked a directive from Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, who recently announced that poll workers must send voters to their correct precinct.
The judge said that voters who show up at the wrong polling place after moving without notifying the elections board, and those whose names cannot be found on the registration rolls, should be able our democracy," Carr said.
The decision is a victory for the Ohio Democratic Party and a coalition of labor and voter rights group, which said Blackwell's order discriminates against the poor and minorities.

A District Judge appointed by Clinton seems to have decided that the laws of the State of Ohio concerning voting no longer matter. It seems minorities and poor people are too simple minded to know where to go to vote and how to register correctly if they move so the judge needs to look after them. Can anyone smell the voter fraud that emanates from this ruling?

All you have to do is say that you moved and you can get to vote even if you are not on the voter rolls. The Democrats did this in Minnesota where they have same-day voter registration, and now they are attempting this - and succeeding - in an important swing state.

Using the constant liberal whining that minorities can't figure out how to do something without the government to help them, the Clinton appointed judge permits just about anyone to vote anywhere.

It is now officially much harder to buy a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of liquor than it is to fraudulently vote in the Buckeye State. Way to go liberals!

The leftist party will do anything it takes to win - laws and common sense be damned.

Exposing what is not yours to expose

The Senator, in his debate against George W. Bush, exposed a private side of a person who he had no right to even bring up, let alone tell people what she might say. His comment that, "We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

I thought it was a horrible answer because it is not right to make political that which is not in the arena. While it may be true that she does help out on the campaign trail, her help is for the effort of her father and her family. It it not because she is a lesbian, nor is it because she wants to somehow influence any decision made.

It is also a horrible answer because he acts as if he has a relationship, as if he is inside that comfort level with her to the point that she might actually open up and tell him that. This is obviously not the case, but the Senator still makes it seem as if it is.

After hearing Mrs. Cheney's response, "Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," Mrs. Cheney said. "Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

And then I heard Mrs. Edward's rebuttal, "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs. ... I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. ... It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

If there is one thing I've learned in the short 29 years of my life, it is that you do not tell a mother - any mother - that she is overreacting when discussing a family matter. And then to take it one step further to actually act as if she can play shrink guessing that she is upset that someone might mention that her daughter is a lesbian.

Mrs. Edwards is too caught up in the Democratic sewage to realize that is is not that Mary Cheney was brought up, but HOW it was up. Kerry made Mary into a token gay and to politicize her private life - to expose that which is not to his to expose.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry doesn't reveal her tax records because she says she does not want to have her, nor her children's lives politicized. Like so much else for liberals: You can have privacy if you agree with them.

How dare Mrs. Edwards act as if she does not understand why Mrs. Cheney might be upset, and to then insult her by saying she is shameful of her daughter!

This is why there are so few moderate Democrats still in any places of power. Only the dirtiest of the liberal leftists can possibly stomach the game they wish to play.

The Senator's Most Revealing Lie

When it comes to faith we all know where George W. Bush stands. It is not very hard to see that he is changed man because of his faith and it is equally as obvious that it guides him and gives him, as he put it, calm and strength.

He has said numerous times that his faith is a part of him and affects him and his decisions greatly. These are, for him as so many others, immutable ideas that are woven into the ethics and the morality and do guide them daily.

George W. Bush, when asked about Roe v. Wade and how it relates to Supreme Court Justices was absolutely correct that although it is a large issue it can not be an absolute test for Justices.

Also, the idea that Kerry brought out that no one should revisit a court case that was decided 5-4 AND was decided in a very politically hot climate is irresponsible. In the end I agree with the president that is can not be a focus of appointment - either way.

John Kerry, when confronted with faith takes both roads as he does with so many other topics, themes, and issues. He says he's a Catholic, has been a catholic, choir boy, and forth and so on. He talks about how it has helped him in Vietnam, and guided him elsewhere. This first part sounds much like George W. Bush in that he is a man of faith and with that comes solid, predictable behavior rooted in ethics and morality.

Then he goes off that road in an effort to appear tot he atheist wing of the Democratic party - you know - the tolerant and accepting group of secular humanists. He knows that this first answer will not sit well with them because to them God is to be feared to the point of never mentioning him, and should never ever be given credit or ever worshipped.

So, because of this extreme liberal, extreme leftist group who he does not want to lose to Nader, he says he can not 'push' his faith onto others who may not believe it. He goes on talking idly about moral relativism in the sense that what is right for one person may not be right for another as if that means anything.

By the time he is done speaking you are left without any knowledge as to how Kerry uses his faith in his works - though he says he does, but then says to use faith in decision making is forcing religion on others.

This is the largest and most revealing lie. It is a lie because he is knowingly deceiving and being confusing in an effort to be all things to all people.

If you honestly believe that something is wrong, to NOT speak up and to not act on it is reprehensible and shows that you a weak person. To permit something, anything, to continue despite your own opinions on the subject, to silent approve of those things you say you are against is illogical and unethical.

America needs a leader - be that leader religious or irreligious - who has a set of standards that do not change. Whether or not you agree with George W. Bush's faith you can, at any time, know where he stands on any and all issues. With Kerry, despite what he and the Democratic Party say, you get someone who is very whimsical in the way his decisions and statements change and can be viewed as being either for or against so many things.

Recall Kerry saying that he won't give a veto power to any nation over our security, then right after that, he appeals to those who favor the UN, by saying it needs to pass a global test. He has tried to spin and play off the global test part, but in the end it is a very detrimental thing to say right after saying something completely different.

To the secular left, God has been replaced by the government - taxes are tithe, and as Marx has said, "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion." These leftist have the ear and the motivation of the liberals in the Democratic party.

We've seen how wrong Marx has been, and we see how it affects liberal candidates because they have to appeal to those leftists. This is not a flip-flop at all because in reality Kerry has been consistently contradictory from the beginning.

Diane Kerry's Works

This might be a bit old (almost a month), but the damage she attempted to do is telling:

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

It would seem that Kerry doesn't think we're going it alone quite enough so he has sister go to Australia to try to affect the elections and then after failing that, she tried to affect the political votes to stay in the coalition.

It seems that undermining existing alliances are part of the Kerry Campaign. Kerry votes to go to war, doesn't fund it, attempts to destroy morale by calling it a mistake, and the wrong war, coerced and bribed, says that we're going it alone, says that we've turned our back on our role in the international community, while his sister goes to places like Australia and tries to ruin our relationship by using what amounts to lies and fear.

She is in charge of "Americans Overseas for Kerry" and it would seem that winning at any cost is all that matters - even if it means American soldiers get to die.

Feds to Monitor Politics on Internet?

Looks that way: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041013/D85MHF6G0.html

With political fund raising, campaign advertising and organizing taking place in full swing over the Internet, it may just be a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission joins the action. Well, that time may be now.
A recent federal court ruling says the FEC must extend some of the nation's new campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.Long reluctant to step into online political activity, the agency is considering whether to appeal.
But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling.
"I don't think anybody here wants to impede the free flow of information over the Internet," Weintraub said. "The question then is, where do you draw the line?"

If that doesn't seem to be a strange thing to say it is probably due to the horrible McCain-Feingold Bill that actually put limits on the most important type of speech we could have: Political.

So now the FEC has authority to go around and see who is spending what and what is being said and when it is said. This doesn't bother many people - including the Supreme Court - that anyone with a political opinion can no longer do what they may.

As Scalia correctly stated in his opinion:

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which,within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001),and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about.

Well, the Justice might have more to gripe about because now we have people who feel 'obliged' to concern themselves with what happens on the internet. This was probably just a matter of time as the article states, but it does not make it any more appealing or acceptable.

Although they will not come after me individually, will they come after blogspot for permitting all this political discussion, or do they fall under some sort of loophole? Will the shut down the AARP website if they mention anything related to politics? How about the NRA?

Where do you draw the line she asks as if she she is open to discussion. The FEC will draw the line where they see fit and anyone who might have any audible voice could be silenced. If there is one thing I totally disagree with Washington on; and I say this because McCain-Feingold was a bipartisan effort to limit free speech in relation to elected members of the government.

In another quoting Max Fose, a Republican gets it all wrong:

Max Fose, a Republican Internet consultant who helped Arizona Sen. John McCain, a sponsor of the new campaign finance law, raise millions of dollars online for his 2000 presidential bid, is wary of the judge's ruling.

"Whenever there's something new and emerging and it's still developing, to place restrictions on it I think is going to hurt how political candidates and elected officials look to use the Internet, to not only be elected but look to get voters involved," Fose said.
It has nothing to do with new and emerging, or old and sinking; it has to do with permitting people to say, write, or otherwise communicate opinions of political matters. There is nothing more important than political discourse because politics and the laws created by politicians affect us in every way.

They regulate the speed at which you drive, to the amount of money you get from your work, from the funding for police and fire to what goes on with our schools, from how we treat those who wish us harm to where we send our troops. All these things and so much more are on the line and to not be able to speak openly and freely in every form of communication readily available is a limitation that is completely unacceptable.

The best criticism Fose could come up with is not whether or not the substance of the whole idea to regulate is correct, for he obviously feels it is a proper role of the government to limit how much people may criticism members therein, he is only concerned about the growth of the internet in general as it not the right time for this kind of regulation.

There is no right time for this kind of regulation.

From Abe Lincoln to Ernie Pyle

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

Lincoln is supposed to have said that, though I have yet to find that quote in any publication that is not pro-Bush. I'm obviously not asking for a pro-Kerry, or a pro-Mark Dayton place, but just something a but more neutral.

I thought it was a good quote either way and if it really doesn't matter who said it because it is none the less true.

There are, have been, and always will be ways to voice your displeasure with the way something is being done or how some course of action might have been done better. The difference is when you call a war a mistake (not just now, but during the Vietnam War), the wrong war, and to say that, in appraising the war's worth, "it depends on the outcome" is very destructive to morale.

This is yet another reason Bush will not come out and talk about 'mistakes'. This is why Bush mentioned that history will decide, and it is true. History will also give distance to the subject, both in time and proximity, and that is something that is very much needed when you are dealing with putting a 'value' of if it was or was not worth going to any war.

Imagine if there were the reporters and cameras on the beaches of Normandy to kick off the month of June who sent back not images of Allied troops moving up the beach and taking control over the course of the next 6 days battled until solid control over that area - including Carentan - was complete.

What if, after being on the beaches, we had reporters and news crews delivering reports of casualties for Americans saying things like this in their INSTANT reports with video feeds:



Estimates are already at 14000 dead and could actually double that by the time this whole beachhead is secure. British forces report losing 6000, and those could climb to ten as well. Reports are slow to come in because there seems to be a complete lack of organization by the high command. We have heard stories that the new 'parachute' units landed nowhere near their targets and that even though they might have tried to walk there, German forces by mid day on June 6th were mustering to retake this area.

So here we are, stuck between German armor and a sea red with the blood of American soldiers. We can only hope the this beach, riddled with bodies and mines, is worth something more than the chaos we see. High command seems not to want to comment on losing 14000 people in a single day as something bad or negative. After a pep-talk and letter from Eisenhower I guess that is all these soldiers need before going into the meat grinder. Neither is anyone talking about what might happen if we are pushed back. It would appear that losing is not an option and that there is no contingency planning going on here...

Wait, I have another report, we now have casualty estimates that put losses at over 20,000! They could be as high as 30,000 by the time events settle - if they settle - here. 20,000 lives for a beach? High command still refuses to say this was a mistake. Soon they think Rommel will be en route as well, and that has to be on the minds of everyone here that if these second tier German commanders can kill 20,000 young American boys just imagine what Rommel will do.

Do we have anyone willing to comment at the White House at all?

Of course, in the end figures said that 29,000 Americans gave their lives securing that beachhead, another 106,000 wounded or missing.

We had people willing to walk into machinegun fire for the sake of the effort just to push the line forward. How can you ask anything of your troops - let alone ask them to die - when all you do is spout horrible words about the effort and NOT FUND THEM either?


Side note:

Here's a real article by Ernie Pyle and this is why we were able to win that war. Compare it to reporting from Vietnam forward and then talk to me about some sort of 'even handed' media:



NORMANDY BEACHHEAD, June 15, 1944--The ship on which I rode to the invasion of the Continent brought certain components of the second wave of assault troops. We arrived in the congested waters of the beachhead shortly after dawn on D-One Day.
We aboard this ship had secretly dreaded the trip, for we had expected attacks from U-boats, E-boats, and at nighttime from aircraft. Yet nothing whatever happened.
We were at sea for a much longer time than it would ordinarily take to make a beeline journey from England to France. The convoy we sailed in was one of several which comprised what is known as a "force."
As we came down, the English Channel was crammed with forces going both ways, and as I write it still is. Minesweepers had swept wide channels for us, all the way from England to France. These were marked with buoys. Each channel was miles wide.
We surely saw there before us more ships than any human had ever seen before at one glance. And going north were other vast convoys, some composed of fast liners speeding back to England for new loads of troops and equipment.
As far as you could see in every direction, the ocean was infested with ships. There must have been every type of oceangoing vessel in the world. I even thought I saw a paddle-wheel steamer in the distance, but that was probably an illusion.
There were battleships and all other kinds of warships clear down to patrol boats. There were great fleets of Liberty ships. There were fleets of luxury liners turned into troop transports, and fleets of big landing craft and tank carriers and tankers. And in and out through it all were nondescript ships--converted yachts, riverboats, tugs, and barges.
The best way I can describe this vast armada and the frantic urgency of the traffic is to suggest that you visualize New York Harbor on its busiest day of the year and then just enlarge that scene until it takes in all the ocean the human eye can reach, clear around the horizon. And over the horizon there are dozens of times that many.
We were not able to go ashore immediately after arriving off the invasion coast amidst the great pool of ships in what was known as the "transport area."

Everything is highly organized in an invasion, and every ship, even the tiniest one, is always under exact orders timed to the minute. But at one time our convoy was so pushed along by the wind and the currents that we were five hours ahead of schedule, despite the fact that our engines had been stopped half the time. We lost this by circling.
Although we arrived just on time, they weren't ready for us on the beaches and we spent several hours weaving in and out among the multitude of ships just off the beachhead, and finally just settled down to await our turn.
That was when the most incongruous--to us--part of the invasion came. Here we were in a front-row seat at a great military epic. Shells from battleships were whamming over our heads, and occasionally a dead man floated face downward past us. Hundreds and hundreds of ships laden with death milled around us. We could stand at the rail and see both our shells and German shells exploding on the beaches, where struggling men were leaping ashore, desperately hauling guns and equipment in through the water.
We were in the very vortex of the war--and yet, as we sat there waiting, Lt. Chuck Conick and I played gin rummy in the wardroom and Bing Crosby sang "Sweet Leilani" over the ship's phonograph.
Angry shells hitting near us would make heavy thuds as the concussion carried through the water and struck the hull of our ship. But in our wardroom men in gas-impregnated uniforms and wearing lifebelts sat reading Life and listening to the BBC telling us how the war before our eyes was going.
But it wasn't like that ashore. No, it wasn't like that ashore.

Senator Mark Dayton

According to CBS Senator Mark Dayton has closed his Washington D.C. office:

Sen. Mark Dayton said Tuesday he is closing his Washington office because of a classified intelligence report that made him fear for the safety of his staff. Dayton, D-Minn., said the office will be closed while Congress is in recess through Election Day, with his staff working out of his Minnesota office and in Senate space off Capitol Hill. "I take this step out of extreme, but necessary, precaution to protect the lives and safety of my Senate staff and my Minnesota constituents, who might otherwise be visiting my Senate office in the next three weeks," he said on a call with reporters.

I see one of two very different reasons the Senator did this, and neither of them are very comforting at all.

The first possibility could be political. Yes, this gives ammo to the liberals to say that not even Senators feel safe after Bush's actions and lack of action in the matter of Homeland and National Security. This would be the ultimate scare tactic and a complete abuse of power and privilege granted to his station. I am finding this to be not very likely, and I hope this is not the case.

The second possibility is one that can blend with the first, but again, I do not know this man, and I am hoping he is above such politics. Of course, it can be argued that this, the second possibility, is worse because it means the threat is real.

If he really and honestly had access to classified intelligence documents and decided to publicly state that there is a clear and present danger to the degree that he does not wish to stay there, nor keep his staff there then we have an abuse of power and authority to a degree that is definitely impeachable and, in my opinion, worthy of time in prison.

The same party that complains and moans about Joe Wilson's wife being 'outted' as an agent claiming it a horrible risk to the very ability to spy, now seems to have its own members using national intelligence reports to make personal decisions and possibly lead to public panic.

He is not even bothering to keep this information quiet, but instead he is very willing to talk:

Asked what advise he would have for Minnesotans who want to travel to Washington over the next few weeks, Dayton said, "I wouldn't advise them to come to Capitol Hill. I would not bring my two sons to the capitol between now and the election."

Perhaps they can visit you in a Federal Prison because these actions and statements are unprofessional and an abuse of the information given to him in secret and confidence.

Germany might Flip-Flop?

Germany seems to be waffling on whether or not troops would be considered for Iraq.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government's resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying: "At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future]."

This weasel-like statement seems a perfect match for the Kerry campaign. First Germany says heck no, now it says that, depending on what happens and on what the future holds, it might.

Mr Struck said he could envisage Germany making a larger "political contribution to stability in the [Middle East] region", building on mediation efforts in recent years by Joschka Fischer, foreign minister, regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

Yes, Herr Fischer has done much in the way of the Palestinians hasn't he? Arafat has all those groups in line and the peace process is moving forward since there are no more people bombing Israelis. Oh wait, I guess Herr Fischer isn't so good at that stuff, but we know he likes Kerry over George Bush.

The largest problem with this is the same way Europe has tried to influence the election by putting tariffs on products made in states that Bush either barely won or lost in 2000 in order to affect employment and income.

This is destructive to our democracy and only shows that they are not allies at all, and instead they should be treated like the dirty dogs they are until they decide that such short-term tactics are more destructive to our relationship than not sending troops to a thousand battles could ever be.

Dennis Prager Re: The Debates

At Townhall.com Dennis Prager has this to say about the debates and it is very, very well done. Below is the article in full and is a very important piece to read.


How Kerry won
Dennis Prager

October 5, 2004

This column, which could be titled, "Whatever your position on Iraq, John Kerry is your man," is dedicated to Sean, a listener who called my radio show the day after the presidential debate. He enabled me to understand why most people believe John Kerry won the debate.

Sean explained that he was an opponent of the war in Iraq and only now could he finally vote for John Kerry. I asked him what Kerry said that confirmed that the Democratic candidate was his man.

Sean: "I believe he has a plan." (Kerry said he has a plan some 12 times.)

Prager: "A plan to do what?"

Sean: "A plan to withdraw our troops."

And then I understood. No matter what position you hold about American foreign policy and the war in Iraq, John Kerry holds your position.

Sen. Kerry accomplished this so subtly that recognition of it had eluded me.

Voters who want America to leave Iraq and voters who want to stay there and win -- both heard Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.

Voters who want America to act alone in the world when the world disagrees with us and voters who want America to proceed only when we have the international backing and an alliance with others -- both heard Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.

Voters who believe the war was a colossal mistake and voters who believe that our soldiers in Iraq are fighting for a noble cause -- both heard John Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.

Voters who want to believe that John Kerry has almost magic-like plans -- to get more allies, to leave the war, to win the war, to end the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats -- heard John Kerry say exactly what they wanted to hear.

Even voters who share Michael Moore's conspiratorial theories about the war and the Bush presidency heard what they wanted (in Kerry's reference to Haliburton).

Regarding the war and foreign policy, there is no segment of America that John Kerry did not appeal to.

Here are direct quotes from John Kerry in the debate.

On staying in Iraq:

"I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning."

"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq."

On leaving Iraq:

"And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there ..."

"I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam."

What was it that John Kerry "learned in Vietnam?" To leave a war he regarded as a mistake.

On America acting alone:

"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."

On America acting only with world support or within an alliance:

"But if and when you do it (act alone), Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test ..."

And what if acting alone does not pass "the global test"? Then presumably we won't act alone. Kerry made references to the need to be in Iraq in alliance with other nations eight times.

On the war being a mistake:

"This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment."

"The president made a mistake in invading Iraq."

"The war is a mistake."

On the war being important enough to have to win:

"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that."

After hearing Kerry call the war a mistake, the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the logical question: "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

John Kerry's answer: "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that I'm offering."

Now what does that response, arguably the most important thing the senator said in the debate, mean? Does it mean that American soldiers won't die for what John Kerry continually labels a mistake because he will prosecute the war more effectively? Or does it mean that Americans won't die for this mistaken war because he will leave Iraq and then there will be no mistake to die for?

The answer, again, is that it can mean either.

I believe that this debate can lead to only one conclusion: Either John Kerry is a man of few principles who will say almost anything on the most vital issues of life and death in order to get elected; or he is personally so confused on this issue that he will repeatedly make self-contradictory statements.

There is no other explanation for this unassailable fact: John Kerry won the debate because he sounded better; and he sounded better in large measure because he got away with saying whatever any voter wanted to hear.

That is one reason President Bush looked so annoyed at times. It is very hard for the principled to listen to the unprincipled.

LA Times screwed it up again

Yahoo has reported that "U.S. Steps Up Iraq Attacks Before Ramadan" in a new article on their website.

Recently the L.A. Times had reported that the Bush Administration would not make any major moves before the election. They say, "U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders to halt operations in the weeks before the November 2 U.S. election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season."

This paragraph is very different than their headline which says, "Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote".

With that info in mind, Yahoo is now reporting that:

U.S. troops went on the offensive from the gates of Baghdad to the Syrian border Tuesday, pounding Sunni insurgent positions from the air and supporting Iraqi soldiers in raids on mosques suspected of harboring extremists.
American and Iraqi forces launched the operations ahead of Ramadan, expected to start at week's end, in an apparent attempt at preventing a repeat of the insurgent violence that took place at the start of last year's Muslim holy month.
Clashes broke out in a string of militant strongholds from Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, northward along the Euphrates Valley to the Syrian border town of Qaim — all major conflict areas.
Some of the sharpest exchanges took place in Hit, 90 miles northwest of Baghdad, where residents and hospital officials said U.S. aircraft attacked two sites, killing two people and wounding five. The U.S. command had no comment.
U.S. helicopters fired on a mosque in Hit on Monday and set it ablaze after the military said insurgents opened fire on Marines from the sanctuary. Scattered clashes were reported overnight, killing at least two Iraqis and wounding 15, hospital official said.

So we have people sitting around at the Los Angeles Times implying that nothing big will happen in Iraq, while not a day later we have reports from Yahoo (via AP) that the US and domestic forces are pushing on certain areas quickly and strongly in an effort to hit the enemy before and even during Ramadan.

This is happening while our forces are negotiating with al-Sadr forces to stop fighting, and I doubt this is a coincidence. It would make good sense to show those who wish to have peace that they can indeed go home, but to those who still want to fight a fight will be delivered to them. Keeping the momentum on our side is important and to think that Bush or his administration would not permit our forces to clean up some scum, or to exploit any discovered weakness is very much without merit.

It seems that once again, our modern day journalist thinks that they know exactly what the administration isn't saying based on what they wish they were saying. The LA Times translates 'no new major operations will probably be approved' to be 'we won't attack anyone'.

In this case, the irresponsible reporting didn't do much... if anything it might have even given us a little bit more of an advantage with this move we're now seeing since some of these 'insurgents' might have been caught by surprise.

Supreme Court to Hear Tuna Can Case?

The Supreme Court agreed to consider Tuesday whether family members can sue in federal court after a 14-year-old girl cut her finger on a Star-Kist tuna can and suffered permanent damage.

The case raises a technical issue over the family's access to federal courts if their alleged harm does not amount to at least $75,000 — the minimum required under U.S. law — but the girl's separate lawsuit alleging physical damages and pain and suffering does.

Beatriz Blanco-Ortega, then 9, was at school in Puerto Rico when she cut her finger on the tuna can and bled profusely for nearly 30 minutes. After a nurse stopped the bleeding, her mother took her in for surgery. The doctor reported she suffered scarring and a minor permanent impairment that could get worse over time.

Blanco-Ortega and her family then filed separate lawsuits in federal court against Star-Kist Foods Inc. The girl's suit alleged physical damages and pain and suffering; the relatives claimed emotional distress after seeing the girl's anguish...

Here we go again. We have a mom, and I'd guess at least one other person since the wording said "... the relatives (plural) claimed..." who could have seen this happening, but did not, or did nothing until the accident actually happened. I remember, when I was about this girl's age as of the accident, that I was licking the inside of a can of something and my grandmother said, "don't do that you'll cut yourself." in a calm voice. I of course continued to do so because I have a history of being stupid and ignoring advice until I cut my tongue. It hurt, I bled, and to top it off I couldn't eat because it hurt so I didn't even get to have the finished food - whatever it might have been. It would never have crossed my grandmother's mind to sue anyone, nor would I think of it today if it happened to my family.

The tuna can is to blame though, and the evil corporation who designed it should be the one to pay for this poor child's situation. And people wonder why there needs to be a limit to the lawsuits related to injury.

George Bush understands this, and with a good November election something might actually happen to limit the amount of these cases in our courts.

People have surrendered all ideas of responsibility in favor of blame. Become a victim and make money. The American Dream should be that success in life comes from hard work and determination combined with a few smart and lucky choices, not making a mistake and then suing any and all parties in order to gain wealth.

This all began with the post-modernistic approach that no one is better or worse than anyone else, and 'good' decisions and 'bad' decisions are subjective and thus hold little value. When you combine this attitude with the anti-capitalistic mentality that says if you have any money at all you have probably taken advantage of people and so if you can be sued, then you probably should be. They call it 'social justice', and is very different from actual justice.

While some also gripe that only the poor go to jail, I would be willing to wager that the family of this girl would not feel that justice was served if the CEO of the tuna company went to jail. Punishment is not the objective, but getting money is.

While I deplore corporate greed and corruption, I also deplore people who think that they are entitled to some sort of Robin Hood'esque pay out because they were either stupid, ignorant, or acted with neglect. We should not need warnings stating not to use hair dryers in the shower, not to aim nail guns at our face, nor should we have to have our coffee cooler because some dolt can't drive and hold coffee at the same time.

There are exceptions, like when a product is very new and people really don't understand how to make it work, and so forth. But a tuna can is not a new product, nor is a sharp edge in general, so this is idiocy.

I do feel sorry for the girl if she does lose more and more function with her finger, but I can not see how awarding her any money for the injury - let alone pain and suffering for her AND HER FAMILY is going to make anything right or just.

Why Bush?

It is easy to always criticize someone you just don't like, and I've been doing that for some time. While I do not feel any of the points made are neither inaccurate nor inflated, they do focus upon the negatives and not the reasons to vote for and support Bush other than when I mentioned how much else will be affected.

It is very true that maintaining conservative power in D.C. is the most important thing when it comes to knowing how to handle international relations and putting American Interests first. It is also true that appointing justices to federal courts (including Supreme Court) will require a conservative president or we'll have even more 9th circuit decisions across the country.

Reasons like those are more 'Why Conservative' as opposed to 'Why Bush' specifically, so let me explain.

He is the right president at the right time. Bush has relations with world leaders - despite what the liberals want people to think - and those relations are also taken on context with the events of and after 9/11. This is important because he knows what has been said, he knows how opinions have changed, and he knows what forces exist in the background that might push or pull on a foreign leader. Because of these things, when Bush says that having big summit won't do much, I have no reason to doubt it.

He has a game plan that is in motion. While it is true that Iraq is a dangerous place, there is nothing else to do but drive the terrorists out and kill them. Israel has understood this, and this is why they have targeted attacks against known leadership. Iraq is also a complex place because US forces need not only to do their job, but now follow many of the rules and laws that the domestic government has made. There have been complaints about us using air power to hit targets, and the DoD and State Dept. have been working with them in order to get things straight.

Some groups do control more of certain towns than either domestic or American forces, but they are stuck in those towns -- a point you do not hear from Rather or other news sources. While it is a sad situation for those people also stuck in those areas with those people, a war of attrition is sometimes the best way to go to minimize death.

In between all of these things are the day-to-day operations that we do not know about, as well as the talks between the Iraqi government and us which we do not know about.

When Kerry says he has a plan and is vague people do not seem to mind, but when Bush is vague people say it is a sign that there is no plan, but like a football game, you do not give your playbook to the media because you know that there are many other types listening. Keeping our troops safe should be our number one priority, and President Bush is doing just that.

On other issues, like the economy and jobs Bush might not be the biggest creator of jobs, but what the liberals talk about is not very true in relation to the whole of the economy.

Unemployment across the board is at 5.4%, which does not tell the whole story either. If you look at unemployment among people 20 and over it is currently at 4.6%. I use this data set because most people understand that people under 20 aren't usually in career-type jobs, nor are they the best at holding jobs of any kind.

It is certainly true that this is not a huge boom time for many economic indicators, but home ownership is at an all time high which is a great indicator for saying that people expect jobs to be in the area that they live, and that those jobs will be good enough to make a house payment. For now, I also feel that stopping terrorism and stabilizing international forces is the primary issue thus making the economy a secondary concern.

Below is a month-to-month table showing unemployment for 20+ year olds since 1994. Notice what happened after 2001 (i.e. the new tax year) -- no one employed people because of the world of uncertainty. Bush has done well despite this.

Series Id: LNU04000024 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Rate - 20 yrs. & over Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent Age: 20 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1994	6.7	6.5	6.2	5.5	5.1	5.2	5.4	5.4	5.0	4.8	4.7	4.5	5.4
1995	5.6	5.2	5.1	4.9	4.7	4.8	5.0	4.9	4.7	4.5	4.6	4.5	4.9
1996	5.6	5.3	5.1	4.7	4.6	4.5	4.8	4.5	4.4	4.2	4.4	4.4	4.7
1997	5.2	5.0	4.8	4.2	4.0	4.2	4.2	4.2	4.1	3.8	3.7	3.9	4.3
1998	4.6	4.4	4.4	3.6	3.5	3.8	4.0	3.9	3.7	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.9
1999	4.1	4.2	3.8	3.6	3.4	3.6	3.8	3.6	3.4	3.3	3.2	3.2	3.6
2000	4.0	3.8	3.7	3.2	3.3	3.4	3.5	3.5	3.2	3.1	3.2	3.2	3.4
2001	4.1	4.0	4.0	3.7	3.6	3.9	4.0	4.3	4.2	4.4	4.7	4.9	4.2
2002	5.8	5.6	5.5	5.2	4.9	5.1	5.2	5.1	4.8	4.9	5.0	5.2	5.2
2003	5.9	5.8	5.6	5.3	5.2	5.6	5.5	5.5	5.2	5.0	5.1	5.0	5.4
2004	5.7	5.5	5.5	4.8	4.7	5.0	4.9	4.8	4.6

The Senator's Wife Speaks... Again

So, Teresa decided to speak up after calling anyone who might oppose Kerry's healthcare plan an idiot, buy saying that, "John will never send a boy or girl in a uniform anywhere in the world because of our need and greed for oil."

Wow.

Kerry: Before 9/11 Terror was a 'Nuisance'

In an unbelievable statement to The New York Times Magazine Kerry said, "We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Is an intifada against Israel a nuisance? It must have been a nuisance for American Leon Klinghoffer to have to be shot in his wheelchair, then pushed over the side of the Achille Lauro. Perhaps it was also a nuisance for the Israeli Olympic Team to have the terrorist group Black September kill eleven team members. I suppose the German policeman experienced the nuisance as well.

Was it a nuisance to have an attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993? I don't recall people using that word then, but I haven't checked all the news reports. IT was probably a nuisance for Pan am Flight 103 to blow up over Lockerbie - at least for the Scots who had to clean up the 'litter' left by the plane.

The list is long, though nuisance is not the word used to describe it -- until now.

How much more evidence is needed for the American public to realize that Kerry does not understand what the stakes are in this war on terror. A nuisance is France's political sandbagging on so many issues, Islamic Terror is NOT, nor has it ever been a nuisance.

Maybe this story is fictional, like the CBS documents, and Kerry did not say this at all. We can hope for the sake of the nation and the world, because this is an amazing example of pure idiocy if it is true. We have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote since NY Times wouldn't misquote Kerry in a negative way, so I'd say that upon further review the quote stands.

Having to jump through all the hoops at an airport just to catch a flight is a nuisance. Having that flight blow up while you are on it because of a shoe bomb is, at least to me, slightly more than a nuisance - whether before or after 9/11.

We were all caught off guard on 9/11, but the world will never be the same because we (should) understand that there will always be people who despise us for any number of reasons and among those people will be the type who are willing to destroy our buildings, kill our people, strike fear in our hearts, and otherwise disrupt our lives. It is true that, because of these facts, there will be no unconditional surrender in the War on Terror, but when terrorists kill and maim and destroy calling it a nuisance is irresponsible in a way that is unpresidential.

Australians Re-Elect John Howard

Australian Prime minister John Howard retained his position after the Labor Party was defeated!

Not that John Howard is a conservative, but as far as foreign policy goes he is the one who understands that terror needs to be defeated elsewhere in order to minimize the risk of terror at home.

Australians realized this, now Americans need to as well!

An important detail...

In 1995, Kerry had some votes that prove he is willing to risk American Soldiers for the sake of sinking a Republican President.

Here we have a bill that says,

HR 2606: Bosnia Troop Deployment

Vote to pass a bill to prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for the ground deployment of U.S. forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation or implementation force, unless funds for such deployment have been specifically appropriated by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.

Kerry voted 'No', meaning that he gave a blank check to the military to use Department of Defense funds to fund the war in Bosnia. Bosnia, as I've mentioned had a certain company working in it. This company is called Halliburton.

So, on a much smaller scale of troops and involvement, Kerry though it OK for the experts to run the war as they saw fit with all the assets they may need.

When we are in Iraq and he himself complains about troop equipment and supply needs, blames the President for not giving it to them, and talks of how everything is a quagmire, he still votes 'No' to give authority to fund the war effort.

The difference: He will support Clinton (Democrat), but he will let troops be underfunded under a Bush (Republican).

So then a question must be asked: What would you consider to be a bigger threat to American security: Bosnia, or Iraq?

I guess we know where Kerry stands and why.