The Grim Koala

Tried Wordpress for a while...

2009-03-22T15:23:00.001-04:00

... wasn't impressed.

Back in Action

2008-06-13T07:31:00.001-04:00

Yes, it has been a long while and life has changed much since I stopped posting.

There's plenty going on and much to say.

I cleared out some other junk from the site, but left some other marginally constructive posts.

Turkey Polls Poorly

2005-08-12T08:55:00.000-04:00

Turkey seems to have the same mentality as so many others do when it comes to acts of terrorism and what causes it. In a report (see web address below) from Turkish Weekly, it appears that, "Sixty-six percent of participants blamed US Middle Eastern policies as the cause of global terrorism, yet 20 percent pointed to inequality in income distribution and economic problems as the reason for terror."

Global Terrorism is a nifty and possibly meaningless term if it is to include the Bali bombing since the US did not have anything to do with that at all, nor would it go very well for the bombings in Egypt or Turkey itself since Turkey did not let the US send troops into Iraq, and while Egypt is not nearly the same as Iran, Egypt is still not quite in bed with US policy either. But somehow the US is still to blame.

It is also sad to see that one in five Turks still think that poor people are the ones blowing up stuff. Osama bin Laden isn't poor (or we wouldn't be freezing al Quaida's assets), and most of the terrorists we see from 9/11, and London are / were educated, have / had jobs, and know / knew how to use soap too!

By far the saddest survey question found the following: "Only four percent of the Turkish public link terror with religion."

Only four percent, but two-thirds can blame the US for it all. According to a video with ObL in it from December 26, 2001, he said, "After three months passed since the blessed attacks against the global infidelity, against America, the head of infidelity, and after almost two months passed since the beginning of the vicious crusade campaign against Islam, we would like to talk about some of the meanings of these events. These events revealed many issues that are significant to Muslims."

Let's count religious words: blessed, infidelity, infidelity, crusade, Islam, Muslims

That's six in fifty-seven words. Since one is a duplicate, and adds only emphasis, we can take out the " against America, the head of infidelity" and we have five out of a total of 51 words. Almost ten percent - and only four percent of Turkey thinks that religion plays a role in terror.

The US has not run a very good PR campaign in a very long time and it shows. To me, this is the weakest link in our ability to fight terror because we are not doing a good enough job of explaining why this needs to be done. While it seems obvious to me and many others in the US, much of the rest of the world is far more isolated from our ideas and since we are not communicating effectively there is indeed a growing lack of sympathy and understanding.

Full Article: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=16971URL of ObL quote: http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

Regrets of NARAL - Not enough regrets at all

2005-08-12T08:49:00.000-04:00

While I'm prepping to finally go to college and have the amount of hours I'll be working diminish greatly, I've been quite busy either working (getting hours in), or doing all that needs to be done for school.

I've found many items worth conversation, but haven't had time to address them at all. Once this situation stabilizes I will be very happy indeed.

One subject that is quite pathetic is the attempt by liberals to slam John Roberts. From trying to dig for information about his adopted children to the last garbage passed as 'information' by that wonderfully out of touch group called NARAL, this man has been dealing with items that would not be brought up by statesman, nor sophisticated critics.

NARAL is now pulling the ad from television, but not because of the actual statements they made, but because it seems many people seem to be too stupid to understand the true meaning of it I guess:

"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.

How does something get 'misconstrued'? Usually it is either because the item does not contain enough substance or it lacks validity, or if not, then it is because the target audience is simply too stupid to grasp the depth of the subject and draw their own conclusions.

I personally side with the first possibility over the second, but what is telling is like with so many other points of interest these days, people are not regretting the fact that they put up an ad so very bereft of facts and then decide to blame 'many people' for the results instead of themselves. This is in line with the modern version of the timeless idea to blame others for what goes wrong and shrug off any and all responsibility.

In the end, I am still undecided as to how I personally feel about Judge Roberts, but either way, it does not excuse the tactics being employed against him.

Full article: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050812/D8BU4B8G0.html

Blathering..

2005-07-28T21:42:00.000-04:00

Another misguided Judge sputters foolishness in an effort to flaunt his ignorance and has much success. According to a report http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050728/D8BKE0R80.html U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour decided to equate fighters captured in Afghanistan and Iraq by our military units with people in custody by law enforcement personnel in the United States.

Foolishness prevailed, "We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel...The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."

Ahh how true and yet irrelevant. The courts have no authority to do anything to people captured by our military forces and held while there are still hostile zones. The idea that Judge Coughenour even needs to speak such idiocy says much about his inability to grasp the difference between what the military does and what civil police forces do.

There are many good reasons why there are not to be standing armies on US soil unless in a time of war: one usually less important one is that there is a different code of both behavior and responsibilities for the members of the military and a different legal system that operates inside of it as well.

This is another example of an activist judge who feels that being on the bench enables him to lecture and give social commentary. This behavior is more fit for Judge Judy than an active member of our district judges. Let him pat himself on the back for being so bold as to criticize something about which he seems to understand so little because at least the terrorist trash will be rotting for at least 14 years from the date of this sentencing and that I do not mind.

Can We Legislate Morality?

2005-07-27T22:24:00.000-04:00

It's been said many times by many people that we should not legislate morality. On the surface this seems like something that is both true, and even possibly desired, but when one actually examines this statement we can see that it leads down the path of moral and philosophical relativism. To some this is still desirable, but I hope to illustrate why they are incorrect.

For example, there are those who consider some of the debates of today to be battles of morality and thus unfit for legislation: Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, censorship, prostitution, and so forth and so on. They feel that some or all of these issues are all based on an idea of morality that not everyone may share. Because of this lack of universal consensus no action should be taken. Without engaging in an act of reductio ad absurdum (hopefully), if this were the case then we'd have no laws at all since there is no universal consensus about anything - even most murders and rapists can 'justify' their acts.

Let's take a look at some other examples that might enable us to understand that, yes, in fact we are engaging in legislating morality all the time. I found this example from Robert Bork in relation to some debate he was having regarding this issue and it is very striking and clear: Imagine a person who purchases a small island (part of the US though), and on that island he builds a large kennel where he breeds dogs and cats. No one can see nor hear these animals because of the location of the island and the kennel itself.

Every so often this guy goes out and he takes some of the cats and dogs and tears off their limbs and eats them while these animals watch. He then practices other various forms of torture and cruelty on them until they die a slow, horrible death. Most everyone would say this behavior is completely unacceptable, but on what grounds? Do animals have Constitutional rights? No, of course not. Animals do not pay taxes, cannot vote, and have no sense of duty, responsibility, or much of anything else - and in fact they are the property of this man.

Because we feel a sense of disgust, and to most of us it is wrong to do those horrible things, we make laws enabling us to help end the suffering of non-humans that are not even our own property. Based on that argument, should such laws based simply on our outrage and disgust even exist?

It is here that the libertarian arguments fall completely apart. Unless the person is a heartless sociopath, one would not want animal cruelty laws that prevent this type of behavior eliminated, but that very law is only based in emotion and forcing your own beliefs on others who do not feel the same way.

While many people also would like some (or all) drugs legalized, the same argument can be made about this. We, as a society, know the effects drugs have on the family, friends, and most everyone else even slightly associated with someone who is addicted to drugs. This can ruin a marriage, destroy childhoods, and of course drive a family into destitution before all is said and done. Because our society - as a whole - does not feel the individual liberty of using drugs freely is worth the trouble, we make them illegal.

Thus when some states vote on gay marriage, it should left to the states to decide what to do and not up to a federal court to strike down anti-gay marriage laws. If the people of certain states feel one way while those in another feel differently then it should be up to those places to decide. I hear some liberals paying lip service to this notion (only on this issue), but I'm willing to wager they'd be backing such groups as the ACLU who would sue in some federal court.

And on what grounds might they sue? The Fourteenth Amendment of course!
See reference: http://grimkoalas.blogspot.com/2005/07/argument-for-states-rights.html

'Uprising cards' all the rage in Nablus

2005-07-21T18:45:00.000-04:00

I missed this 2003 article, sadly enough. I guess there's a nifty trading card game in the Palestinian occupied areas that immortalize all sorts of types of people... great for kids of all ages:

AP, NABLUS, WEST BANK
Thursday, Dec 25, 2003,Page 7

Advertising Palestinian children are collecting cards showing gunmen and soldiers the way kids in the US trade baseball cards, and some educators are concerned that the hobby is helping to breed a new generation of militants.
The cards are an enormous hit, according to Majdi Taher, who makes them. He said that 6 million cards have been sold over two years and 32,000 albums this month alone in the two main population centers of the northern West Bank -- huge numbers for a territory in which about 1 million Palestinians live -- and he plans to expand his business.
The card craze reflects reality in the West Bank, where three years of Palestinian-Israeli violence has become the dominant reality for children. Israeli soldiers enforce curfews, confining residents to their homes, and often carry out raids in towns and villages looking for militants.
Sometimes children throw rocks at Israeli soldiers or are caught up in exchanges of gunfire. At least 319 Palestinian children under the age of 18 have been killed in the conflict.

A Palestinian girl displays a collage of picture cards featuring scenes of the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank town of Nablus on Tuesday.PHOTO: APIn the West Bank, Palestinian militants carry their weapons openly on the streets and gain the adulation of the young. More than 100 Palestinian suicide bombers have carried out attacks against Israelis, becoming folk heroes in their home towns.
The collectible cards depict real-life Middle East action figures familiar to the children: An Israeli soldier shooting a large gun, a soldier forcing Palestinians off their land, a small Palestinian child dressed in militant's clothing holding a toy gun and Palestinian boys throwing stones.
The albums are sold in cardboard boxes shaped like Israeli tanks and include a dedication from Nablus governor Mahmoud Alul.
A child who fills an album with all 129 pictures can win a computer, a bicycle, a watch or a hat.
Some teachers and parents are concerned about the new fad, trying to forbid their children from buying the pictures, saying they are teaching children violence and forcing them to grow up too quickly.
"I take hundreds of these pictures from children every day and burn them," said Saher Hindi, 28, a teacher at a Nablus elementary school. "They turn children into extremists," she said.
The desire to fill the albums has captivated children in Nablus and Ramallah, teachers say, keeping them from their homework as they spend all their money on the cards.
It's a business success for Taher, who said he plans to expand the sale of the cards and albums to other West Bank towns.
The former candy salesman said he means for the album and pictures to be a history lesson.
Children who are now seven cannot remember incidents from the start of the fighting three years ago, he said.

What Rudolph and Fundamentalism DO Have in Common

2005-07-18T20:58:00.000-04:00

In an effort to paint Christians and Christianity as bad as Islamic Fundamentalists, you know, the 'Taliban-wing' of US government, as Senator Tim Johnson has put it (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/26/politics1456EDT0622.DTL) , we've had Eric Rudolph added to the list just for good measure. The problem is, the United States has put him away for a very long time (4 life sentences), and - in his own words - he prefers Nietzsche to The Good Book. And since one of Nietzsche's most oft-quoted statements is "God is dead" I wonder how that'll square with the left's desire to place Rudolph in the same line as hard-core Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

Certainly, Rudolph qualifies as a complete outcast from civilization and, to me, is a perfect candidate to ride the lightning into oblivion. Feel it, tough guy.

It's not because I am particularly fond of abortion clinics, anyone who's read some of previous posts would know that, but I also not fond of those who wish kill those who's inclinations do not mesh with their own. We are a society with the rule of law, and because of this he should put his efforts at convincing others his way is correct rather than killing people. And with so many modern tools (i.e. the internet and blogs) once can make headway by presenting cases in the same way.

There is one other aspect of Rudolph that came to light to me as a revelation (excuse the New Testament reference - purely coincidental) and that has to do with those certain others who decide that they need to blow up people - people who have no power to change politics or social structure - Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

While I just said that the left is wrong for putting the two together one can wonder why I am now lumping them right back together. The answer is simply this: Mentality.

To Rudolph, he might have thought that ridding the world of those who kill unborn children is, in a way, an act of defending the unborn. This argument has been posed by some, and it is a thought - if you subscribe to the willingness to destroy the rule of law in the process.

To Islamic terrorists, the Western World is a cancer - it is home to The Great Satan - and it must be brought down. There is no negotiating with Satan, and as such there is no negotiating with the West. No matter what the cost, no matter what the risk, a unified Arab state must come into existence and Islam - Wahhabism or some other element - must be the form of all policy and doctrine.

Since the United States is the largest exporter of ideas and objects that directly go against this idea, it is only natural that these people hold nothing but disdain in their hearts for us. The fact that if the US were to stop exporting these items and ideas, the other nations of the west would have follow suit or they'd face the same 'punishment'. This eludes them currently and many mistakenly feel that simply not fighting in a place like Iraq will keep them free from these terrorists.

It is because of this need to build an Islamic empire that these people will never tire, and giving them dane-geld will not make them stop - it will only make them feel legitimatised - and then they will move forward quicker - not slower - than before. It is the same thing with Rudolph, or any other person who defies the rule of law in an effort to make their form of 'how things should be' a reality - this mentality cannot be challenged because they do in fact have their own logic and their own rational plan of action.

It is, has been, and always will be an 'us versus them' struggle, but it is not purely racial, religious, nor even economic struggle, although those elements are used to justify many actions; it is a battle of ideologies and this is why educated people are willing blow themselves up even before the poor and 'downtrodden'. The left's complete failure to understand that is exactly why the left is currently unfit to lead this nation.

If

2005-07-15T22:22:00.000-04:00

I've always liked this, though I've forgotten about it for some time...

IF
by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

Money and Evil

2005-07-14T22:04:00.000-04:00

I heard it again the other day and, despite hearing it so many other times, I was still caught amiss. I heard it as plain as day and with so much confidence one would think it had to be the most obvious of truths the world had ever known: "Money is the root of all evil."

What a foolish line that has been perpetuated and enforced by those who know not what they say. There is an excellent rebuttal to such a line in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand that parts of it most be quoted:

"Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor- your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?"

I'd like to take it a step further and actually entertain the idea of a society without money.

Without a currency of exchange we'd be forced into a system of bartering good and services for other goods and services. This might not seem so drastic until the thought of how quickly we'd decline into a very deep and complete Second Dark Age.

For example, if I knew how to produce insulin, but there were no diabetics, I'd be without any skill and left to hopefully tend a field for a farmer. If I knew how to produce insulin, but the person who needed it was a lumberjack but I did not need wood what would happen? We'd have to come to some agreement that perhaps I needed clothing, and he'd go about and get me some. What would he do until he found some clothes? What would he do next time when I didn't need any more clothing?

What about that farmer who has a field of wheat. What if people in his village didn't want to trade much with him, or even worse, what if he had no need to trade with them? Could he trade enough to get transport to a different village where he might be able to trade more? All of our lives would be taken up with bartering just in order to make ends meet.

Money give us the ability to have a market, a place where a clerk will buy various wares and then hold them until someone else comes looking. The market would be centralized and well known so to attract the largest amount of people - thus ensuring the greatest amount of good and services.

I didn't have time to discuss the foolishness of her statement, but I certain wish people would follow their statements to their logical conclusions. The best quote comes from that book, and sums up people, generosity, greed, and of course money quite well:

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires...
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent."

I certainly do believe that if you are a good person, you will now be a well-off good person with more ability to do good; if you are the most mean and nasty person having money will only permit you to be mean and nasty in new and 'exciting' ways. But in the end your motives will forever be your own.

A Poem Only Too Fitting

2005-07-14T19:28:00.000-04:00

This was written by Rudyard Kipling about the Viking Raids upon England in the hay day of the Norsemen, but the idea of Dane-Geld as a ransom and blackmail is very timely:

Dane-Geld
by Rudyard Kipling

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:-
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:-"Though we know we should defeat you,
We have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to says:-

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Still have doubts?

2005-07-12T19:11:00.000-04:00

I've made bold a certain portion on the article from the Telegraph in London, (click headline to see actual text) just help show you what I said not a day ago in the previous post. The Left just does not get it.

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.
Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.
Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.
A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."

Patton or Churchill (not the Chruchill you might think)

2005-07-11T19:28:00.000-04:00

The differences in tactics for combating terrorism proposed by the left versus the right are more than subtle. For the most part the left does not really have any ideas at all - they simply are the party of "No." and so it goes.

The 'best' ideas the left can muster is to play defense and hope (certainly not pray) that it is enough. The left will blame capitalism for so much of the world 'hating' us as well, and of course terrorists are the poor people who have no hope for anything else.

While we do indeed need to have a solid defense - one which I feel could be made stronger - we also need an offense as well, and it must be a convincing one. How many wars have ever been won by being on the defensive?

Did the Maginot line with the day for France? Yes, it did make the Germans go around it, but in the end all the defense structures did not do much at all except perhaps help keep construction companies going because of all the business. Even France's tanks were made for a defensive war with the Char weighing in at 68 tons, and capable of an overland speed of a mere 8 miles per hour. The idea? Make it heavy, big, and thick in order to withstand a pounding.

Even when faced with the idea that Germany would attack her, France played the game of defense to the extent of not wanting the British Expeditionary Forces to even fly patrols over Germany, and denied permitting them bomb Germany held positions until it was, obviously, too late.

Also, a quote by Patton says something very worth reading: "In landing operations, retreat is impossible, to surrender is as ignoble as it is foolish… above all else remember that we as attackers have the initiative, we know exactly what we are going to do, while the enemy is ignorant of our intentions and can only parry our blows. We must retain this tremendous advantage by always attacking rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, and without rest."

With a nation to protect retreat is also impossible, surrender is as he says it is, and the next part is worth a second look: When you attack you decide the place and time, the numbers to send and the targets and mode of attack. The only think the defenders can do is hope to spoil that attack. If you, the attacker, notice the situation is not to your advantage you do not attack, pull back and wait.

So we can either play defense and slowly watch our civilians die at the hands of motivated attackers while we do nothing but wring our hands and condemn such activity, or we can in fact explain to them and anyone else who might need to remember that we are not in favor of war, but we will not back down from it, either.

The mistake the left makes is saying that they do not like war -- as if this is at all an important statement. I doubt you'll find too many Americans like war at all, but what the difference is understanding that war - aggressive war - is the only way to take the pressure off the defense.

Now, with London having experienced what it has, we hear again from the same voices who refuse to understand anything about the situation, that we are so unsafe and the bombings are proof of this lack of security.

Do these people honestly think that terrorist cells were simply sleeping since Madrid, and before that 9/11? Who feels comfortable thinking that our safety as a nation should be tied to the ideas of the intellectual left like Ward Churchill, the 'professor' in Colorado, who said, " On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens along with some half-million dead Iraqi children came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable - in fact, widely predicted - result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival."

Of course, the Oil for Food program didn't help, and neither did a decade of Saddam doing next to nothing to help his own population WITH the money from the Oil for Food program, but Ward is tenured, thus untouchable. We all should be rather familiar with his most famous line: " More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

Yes, such profound wisdom from the left is hard to duplicate. Sure, he's tried for a while now to backtrack over his exact words, but is anyone actually going to believe it? If so, I'd like to sell them a bridge.

No, the leftists do not really give a damn about it at all. They'd rather understand those who wish to kill us than to kill them first. To these relativist thinkers, 'us versus them' is an idea as out of touch as 'good versus evil', though I do not see them flocking to live in places like Syria, North Korea, or backwater China.

A defensive effort, while needed, will only work if we have people and resources going after both nations and groups inside of nations who wish us harm. We must get them first because if we do not, they will certainly not wait to 'understand us'.

Democracies and Freedom

2005-07-11T18:58:00.000-04:00

Democracy and a free society has enabled the United States and in fact most every nation that has made an honest attempt at creating one, to be the most successful nations the world has ever seen.

Democracies in a free society have given us all previously unheard of freedoms and previously unpreserved rights all the while fighting and pushing back tyranny whenever the democracies have tried - isolating dictators and those who chose to rule by fiat and force over their populations, if not outright removing them from the face of the earth.

The only thing stopping democracies from continually doing this is the fact that the population in them usually does not feel the urge to rid the world of these regimes. Democracies have lead to 'enlightened' societies who like to fancy themselves so profound and wonderful that the rest of the world is too ignorant, the rest of the world is not cosmopolitan enough to know what to do; and to these types the rest of the world isn't worth saving. After all, according to them, nothing is black and white - who needs to be saved?

These types of people, all the while, try to sooth their minds - and those they try to convince - that if people live in squalor and under a dictator it is by choice and they wonder out loud asking, "Who are we to impose our ways upon them?" Maybe they like it.

When some nations do something they call 'going it alone', they boggle at the lack of a committee, and proclaim that - in the case of Iraq - there are bigger fish to fry. Of course, if asked if they'd support frying any of those bigger fish they quickly turn back to the argument that we should not impose our way of life upon others and that gets back to the top: They do not care what happens to the world because they really are not part of it.

People who call themselves 'citizens of the world' would do well saying that outside of the gates of the fortress our society provides for them. Would that stop them from being beheaded? This counterfeit altruism and confused worldliness does nothing to help anyone not attending their exclusive functions; and then it only pushes back the fact that they know is true: IF it were not for this society they probably would not be able to do what they currently do (especially if they are an entertainer).

Because of this nagging reality they go around and hold concerts and speak about the problems of far-off places because distance keeps it all so much more sanitary. Because they are so out of touch with reality and stand for nothing themselves, when they finally find a pet cause it becomes an obsession and they must recruit others to this belief because it does in fact replace religion for them.

A violation of the First Amendment?

2005-07-10T18:32:00.000-04:00

As is a habit of mine, since traveling was not something to be done this weekend, I decided to - almost at random - find an old text and read it. This can lead to some very, very interesting and also some very, very boring times.

Today, again rather randomly, I picked the Northwest Ordinance. It seemed harmless enough and it wasn't very long either so I thought it a good pick. It was ratified July 13th, 1787 in order to give laws to the territories which might otherwise be lawless. It was also an indicator, a sort of guide, of what was at the very least expected of these territories if they ever wanted to apply to become states in the Union.

It spells out some boundaries, but it also spells out some rights and also what is expected of the governing bodies therein. This is pretty dry, though some of the language used is so much more beautiful and in fact much clearer than our current modern tongue that it does sometimes seem we're taking steps in the wrong direction when it comes to modes and styles of communication.

It would seem that, at the heart of the document, lies a very antiquated idea regarding that horrible beast called religion. Yes, even this document makes mention of religion - not a wall separating church and state - but in fact an inclusion.

Article III starts off by stating: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Religion, morality and knowledge all placed on the same level of importance, and the audacity to list knowledge as the LAST!?!?!? Even in this seemingly innocuous document one can find religion. What were the founders thinking?

Pardon the sarcasm from above (that's not a reference to the heavens - no pun intended), but it certainly does seem that 'We the People' are handed a very poorly construct lie about the place religion and morality are to sit in our public lives. It is truly no wonder why there is so much hostility towards religion by those who have only heard the dominant voice of the atheists and those who despise religion so deeply since we heard those voices daily.

This brainwashing has been going on for quite some time and it has been erroneously supported by courts and judges who did not like the subject to the point where anyone who now says otherwise is considered to be some sort of Bible-thumping pusher of values.

Even in the Northwest Ordinance it seems that the need for a combination of those three very important factors was perfectly understood. And people could run around with guns, crime was less, and the communities were actually groups of people with whom you might want to actually get to know and socialize.
But now… well… we don’t have religion, morality is crumbling, but we do have LOADS of knowledge.

Joseph Hooker and the Press

2005-07-09T23:24:00.000-04:00

Having spent a more than a few weekends either at Gettysburg or Antietam, or reading about them as much as possible since I now live within an hour of Gettysburg, and an hour and a half from Antietam, I happened to run across something from Major General Joseph Hooker written to Major General Halleck that make me chuckle appreciatively:

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, June 19, 1863. (Received 12 m.)
Major-General HALLECK:
I have just been furnished with an extract from the New York Herald of yesterday concerning the late movements of this army. So long as the newspapers continue to give publicity to our movements, we must not expect to gain any advantage over our adversaries. Is there no way of stopping it? I can suppress the circulation of this paper within my lines, but I cannot prevent their reaching it to the enemy. We could well afford to give millions of money for like information of the enemy.
JOSEPH HOOKER, Major-General.

Major General Halleck's reply is telling as well:

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 1863--1.55 p.m.
Major-General HOOKER, Army of the Potomac:
I appreciate as fully as yourself the injury resulting from newspaper publication of the movements, numbers, and position of our troops, but I see no way of preventing it as long as reporters are permitted in our camps. I expelled them all from our lines in Mississippi. Every general must decide for himself what persons he will permit in his camps.
H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief.

Yes, at one point it was up to the military and even the generals themselves to determine who was permitted in a military camp, on the march, and so forth. At the same time that this was true, we still had a media too self-serving to understand the need to report movements and actions not DURING them, but only after them.

For a long time I've considered the U.S. media to be a bit anti-U.S., but in the end I've come to feel that they really don't want the United States to falter or fail, they just want to be there in case we do. "If it bleeds, it leads" is more than a motto, it really is a way of life for the reporter, journalist, or whatever else one might wish to call them. If Union soldiers pass through a town the media honestly think it is in the best interest of someone to report it - preferably with numbers like head counts and time of day.

I recall something Dennis Prager said on his talk show not long ago (I don't know the exact quote): The media does not seem to ask itself, "What might happen if I report on this? What will the results be? Could it harm people who otherwise might not be? Is the story worth it?"

He's absolutely right with that observation. The news only seems to care for shock-value and to be the first with it. When people die in Afghanistan because people don't bother to do their job at a newspaper, the regret is not there and the apology seems forced or contrived. I used to also think this to be a more modern creation, but perhaps it appears that way because of the huge size and role played by the media today.

Of course Joseph Hooker resigned his command not too long after this communication and only a few days after that a completely unorganized George Meade fought in and around that little Pennsylvania town that has become immortalized… unfortunately it seems some traits of the media are as timeless too.

States Rights - The Common Citizen

2005-07-08T23:29:00.000-04:00

While the previous post dealt more with the idea of States' Rights on the level of the Constitution, the Founders, and the more intricate levels of government in general, this post aims to focus the attention on why the states and not the federal government should have more authority in our daily lives.

Simply put, if one lives in Montana, it is easier to think that the mayor and city officials of Huntley (this is just as an example) knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people there than the county of Yellowstone. Yellowstone County, in turn, knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people of Huntley than the capital city of Helena does. Helena knows more about, and honestly cares more about the people of Huntley than those folks in Washington, D.C. Those folks in Washington, D.C. know more about, and honestly cares more about the people in Huntley than the types sitting in the U.N.

Why might this be so? Local control is the answer and very key in everything we do. When you literally drive to someone's house, or wait in the lobby at the Town Hall, your voice means much more than if you are only another number is a large and easily forgotten, ignored, or otherwise lost in a sea of people, ideas, and voices. While I do not doubt that many people in Washington, D.C. do want the best for this nation, the town of Huntley, Montana really means nothing in the overall scheme, but is sure means a lot to the county officials of Yellowstone, and obviously to the people who run that very town as well. And it is in THAT very order mentioned that power and authority should come about. It needs to be local authority and up, not federal authority and down.

This also permits a level of 'experimentation' otherwise impossible. While I personally find the ideas of many people living in California (for example) quite daft, it is always better to be able to prove it is daft by the results of actual attempts than to sit around and 'prove' it daft by arguing hypotheticals.

If a city, or in fact an entire state wish to try something different, then this model gives them the most flexibility and grants them the most autonomy one can find. It is why cases like Reynolds v. Sims and so many others are completely beyond understanding of a Supreme Court who wishes to centralize power and concentrate it in the hands of the few. If Alabama wants to make up how its state Congress is formed and assembled, then why does anyone from New York need to chime in and tell them that they cannot?

Before Roe v. Wade, the states decided the issue of abortion as they saw fit and the more liberal states could do their thing and the more conservative states could do as they pleased as well. This made for no surprises, and at the same time if you did not approve of this, or other situations in the state (one way or the other) you could do two things: Convince people to change the laws by rational argument, or simply move to a state that suited your tastes better. But then came along amysterious usurper of a third option called substantive due process, and what havoc on the states has it wrought.

Centralization of power is always the goal of despots and tyrants, and as a nation we must be weary of those who desire to bleed the authority of the states dry and put the control into the hands of the few.

An Argument for States' Rights

2005-07-07T21:49:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest usurpations of power from the states by the federal government was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. Whether or not this was intentional is irrelevant since, in the end, this is exactly what happened.

The Seventeenth Amendment (17th) over-wrote Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution itself which stated, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote", with, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures."

To many this was a great idea as it broadened the idea of democracy by permitting even more direct election to the people of the nation, but it also had another effect: it eliminated all say that state government had in federal politics.

When the Senate was elected by the state legislatures it was the responsibility of the Senators to monitor bills as to how they'd affect the state in which they resided. This was a way of monitoring and keeping in check federal demands and spending that might affect the states.

For example if you were a state that did not have a large budget, and the state legislature - those who put you in the position of Senator - could not afford to alter the budget as might be required by a piece of US Congressional legislation, the Senator would vote it down and the state's budget would be maintained. This was a great tool when it came to being able to limit taxation and spending at the national level. This in fact happened many times, and one of the more recent examples is the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires all sidewalks to be wheelchair-friendly at all intersections. The federal government decided it knew best for all of the nation by making cities and towns pay the expense of legislation in which they had absolutely no say.

This is not to say that the ADA is a horrible idea, but the enactment certainly has much to be desired. While there was a 'grace period' in implementing the policy, the fact still remained that the states had no direct say in that matter either.

The original idea was that one branch of the Legislature would be elected by the people, and the other branch elected as a voice of the governments of the individual states. While some argued that before the Senate was elected popularly, there was much corruption, I challenge them to find out how angelic our current Senators may in fact be.

Of course, the idea that all elections should be 'one person, one vote' is no where mentioned in the Constitution or elsewhere, but the idea survived even a Supreme Court challenge in Reynolds v. Sims; a case where the State of Alabama has set up their state Legislators as the US Congress had: one house represented a district of a certain amount of people, the other house represented geographically defined districts in an effort to not shut out people who represented a minority voice (like farmers and others living in rural areas). Here the Warren Court made the useless but profound sounding declaration that, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system." He went on to say, " We agree with the District Court, and find the federal analogy inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes. Attempted reliance on the federal analogy appears often to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization offered in defense of maladjusted state apportionment arrangements."

Thus, without a Senate to defend the rights of the state legislations, no bills were drafted to give the states the ability to decide how local and state elections should be arranged. It seems Chief Justice Warren decided that that federal model could not have been an inspiration to the states when deciding how to set up their legislatures. Amazing how much knowledge he must have to accurately assess that.

The amount of power taken from the states is also a direct result of another amendment that also played a role in Reynolds v Sims: the fourteenth. If the federal government is ever to be reeled in, we must reduce the authority of it, and give the authority back to the states, and the people respectively.

Terrorism More Properly Defined

2005-07-07T20:35:00.000-04:00

The term terrorism is often misused, both by those who wish to purposefully obfuscate what it might mean, and also by those who have much more honest and good intentions, but in the end but do the term a disservice by not articulating why something many be considered a terrorist act.

Definitions in the dictionary are too vague and can be misapplied too readily.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

This is a start, but it is not specific enough either. For one thing, the term 'lawful' is meaningless since any revolution would be considered unlawful as well, but the actions would not very well be the work of terrorists. Following the idea of revolutionaries, let's look further…

"… violence by a person or an organized group…", I'm still not seeing the difference between the the revolutionary and the terrorist.

"… against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments…" This still does not draw a distinction between the actions of a military force, a revolutionary, or a terrorist. Now some may say, "But to coerce a society or government is EXACTLY what terrorists want to do.", but to that I would reply, "And so did the Allies when we demanded the surrender of the Japanese after blowing up cities full of people. We could not kill every soldier, so we had to bring the national government and its people to their knees."

"… often for ideological or political reasons." This is slightly better since we moved for militarily reasons, though obviously politics and ideology mattered since we had to fight a Bushido-driven warrior class, but in the end what is missing? Something must be or all those leftist professors are right when they say that a terrorist to one is a freedom fighter to another.

The part that is missing is the purposeful killing of non-combatants as an primary method of reaching one's ends. This is why the term 'collateral damage' is so important - in any combat situation there will be non-combatant deaths, but the method in which this happens is of paramount importance. If the deaths happen because a military force is attempting to eliminate opposing forces then those deaths are not an act a terror, though to those affected the acts are terrible. If the deaths happen in a metropolitan subway and in and of itself is the 'attack' thus leading to the deaths of people simply living their lives, then the act should be considered a terrorist activity.

If one agrees with this idea of what terrorism is then we need to also back down on some other charges of terrorist that really are not. One would be the bombing of the USS Cole. This action may have even been done by a group known to use terrorist activity, but the target was not non-combatants, it was a military ship with military crew stationed in a foreign port.

As an American, I despise the attack and hope all are caught and dealt a similar fate, but by definition, it was not terrorism any more than a U-Boat attack at night during the Second World War.

The Barracks in Beirut in the 1980s is another non-terrorist act. Its mission was simple: Remove the US forces from the region by directly attacking them. While these people did in fact use methods commonly employed in terrorist attacks, the attack was once again against a military force - not non-combatants. And while some non-combatants might have died, it was not the focus of the attack, and the attack certainly would not have happened if the military force was no there. Again, as an American I despise it, but it does not fit the more accurate definition.

Why is such a definition important? Simply because if not then most violence in general is 'terroristic'. If someone gets in a fight at the schoolyard because there is a bully, then since the violence is being used to coerce someone on the ideological grounds that bullying is wrong, what does not fit the definition?

The current vague and general definition can be misused to stylize Israeli forces who knock down a house as terrorists, as well as when allied forces bombed German cities, and of course the use of nuclear bombs on Japanese population centers.

Yes, it can be argued that the bombing of German cities could be justified as an attempt to slow down the production of the German war machine, and it could not be helped if people living in cities like Dresden ended up dying, but then could not Osama also say the same thing about 9/11 as an attempt to strike at the economic muscle that drives our large and expensive military as well?

This is why the distinction must be made - if we do not define it as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group with the designed and purposeful killing of non-combatants as an primary method of reaching one's ends - often as the means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, mainly for ideological or political reasons."
With this definition in place the leftists, nor terrorists, have any way of manipulating the moral high ground of arguments. Definitions are key because in this, and any other environment, people play on the lack of solid definitions, and the lack of popular understanding of various terms in an effort to manipulate those who do not possess clarity on the subject matter.

Horribly sporadic posting

2005-07-07T20:07:00.000-04:00

I apologize for my sporadic posting for months on end now - beeing busy with other stuff, but I have been still getting in the mix and reading both current events and more historical things as well. Posting will pick up.

The 'nuclear option'

2005-06-18T23:16:00.000-04:00

According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061800566_pf.html) the spin from the mouth of the leader of the group called People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, recently commented on President Bush's potential nominations to the Supreme Court - should a vacancy come into being, ""Regrettably, the most often mentioned names certainly seem to be individuals in the mode of Justices Thomas and Scalia... If you look at the last four and half years, the president's always chosen confrontation over collaboration. I hope he surprises me."
According to that pesky document known as the Constitution, (Article II, Section 2) "... he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law..."
The part that raises so many questions is where Article I, Section 5 (only relevant portion cited) says, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
This is where the term 'nuclear' gets thrown around. Some people have called it the constitutional option - and that it exactly what it is, too.
The Senate has set up rules for dealing with the large amount of issues and subjects that might be brought to its attention so to 'arrange' all of them in order of importance and to determine if those items should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and / or vote.
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (http://judiciary.senate.gov/information.cfm) oversees many items including determining if Presidential nominations should get a vote on the floor of the Senate.
Now, enter the fillabuster. The idea goes like this: Before a bill (or anything else - including nominations) gets a vote, the floor can be opened for debate and discussion. The slightly troubling part about this is that there is no rule for the discussion to be on topic, or even near topic. According to Senate rules, it takes a two-thirds majority to stop a fillabuster and get on with the vote. This was done not to create a stalling tactic per se, but to make it so the minority could have time to make its case before the majority in an effort to possibly win them over. This, in itself, is not a bad idea at all and DOES in fact add to the level of democracy in the Senate. However, the idea that someone like Strom Thurmond can stand on the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes and say nothing of any worth (that is the record - est. 1957) is not in anyone's interest at all.
This is what the liberals wish to do to the President's nominations when they come to the floor and this is something that has never been done before in the history of the Senate.
Some conservatives say that since a fillabuster needs two-thirds majority to be stopped, but a yes or no vote for a nomination, according the Constitution, only requires a simple majority that attempting a fillabuster is unconstitutional.
Initially this argument looks reasonable, but the Constitution also only calls for a simple majority for standard votes on bills, but fillabusters have been used there for over a century.
The 'nuclear' option is nothing more than the constitutional option: opting to change the rules of the Senate. The Constitution does not say that once a rule is established it cannot be changed, nor does it say that rules cannot be changed during a Congressional Session. This is not a nuclear option; it is simply the Constitutional option and is the correct way to handle the situation.
When Neas says that the President chooses confrontation, he is mistaken, the President simply wants the Senate to vote on consent regarding his nominations to the courts which is what is required of the Senate on this matter.

A glance at Roe v. Wade

2005-06-01T20:46:00.000-04:00

Taking another moment on the issue of Life, humanity, and the lack of desire to define such a concept we should take a look at the decision that took away the right of The States to decide the matter, and handed it to the Federal level: Roe v. Wade.

Without boring all who read this, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html is the full text, but I'll only cite partially but I offer that link for the sake of confirming context and validity. Findlaw is wonderful site by the way... if you like that kind of stuff as much as I do.

Blackmun writes the opinion, and early on states, "We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem."
This should boggle the mind. How does pollution make any difference in the nature of whether or not a state can ban abortion? It is very telling when looking into the mind of a leftist, though. To so many one issue is nothing more than a manifestation of another issue and cannot be looked upon with any clarity individually. This is why when the temperature rises it must be pollution, population growth, and so forth at fault. This is why when terrorists blow up our buildings it must be poverty, racial overtones, and so on at fault.
After making such a bold statement, he then declares, "Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. "
Somehow we're to believe that this means the last paragraph was put in there as nothing more than a college student typing to fill space? We should think that it is void of meaning, and in fact, predilection?
The following paragraph is particularly disturbing, "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."

Taking a closer look, the destruction of a viable baby is permitted if 1) She is likely to suffer irreparable and debilitating physical harm (Something I must say could warrant an abortion - to me), but let's look at the other 'reasons':
2) Being pregnant might cause stress to a woman, thus the complete termination of a viable baby is OK rather than cause this.
3) The woman may become mentally defective of pregnant (rather vague?), and thus the complete termination of a viable baby is OK rather than cause this.
4) Raising the child may take its toll on the mother, both physically and mentally, and thus the complete termination of a viable baby is OK rather than cause this.
5) 'Distress for all' if the unwanted child costs money and time to raise. Thus the complete termination of a viable baby is OK rather than cause this.

Don't worry though, the court is not consistent, and thus also decides to tell the nation when an abortion may be done since the states should not be granted such consideration.

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate"

This is the paragraph that follows the one previously cited. What it does say is that States can not decide the issue, but Texas has a point... sort of, but not really... maybe.
They then follow that up with, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

What magically makes a fetus an 'important state interest', or perhaps the question is actually 'when'? Well, it goes something like this: "A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although [410 U.S. 113, 134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point."
Yes, that's right the Dark Age concept of The Quickening from Catholic and other religious people is used as evidence by a Liberal court to determine law. Just a friendly warning: Don't be Conservative and try this!
Strangely enough, I previously used scientific FACT for my basic of argument, and they used unsupported ideas from the Dark Ages for theirs.
The decision is a horror story of judicial activism, the highest degrees of selfishness and narcissism (to think a child better off to never exist than to live in a poor family!), and a mad scramble for anything that might support the decision they wish to see happen.
It is this same narcissism mixed with the need to keep the extremist feminist leftists in the Democrats' pocket that make abortion a litmus test for judges these days.

Life Defined

2005-05-26T19:03:00.000-04:00

According to dictionary.com:

Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

How can these characteristics be determined?

Humans are a eukaryotic species. A human has 46 chromosomes, (22 autosomes, and 2 sex chromosomes). At present estimate, humans have approximately 20,000-25,000 genes and share 98.5% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relatives, the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo, or Pygmy Chimpanzee

Give the above scientific definitions and evidence, life must begin at conception. It is at this point that 46 chromosomes can be counted (excluding special cases - like Downes Syndrome - but the DNA remains the same), and there is growth, response to stimulus, and adaptation to the environment. This is human life.

The other side of what should not even be a debate, says that it is a matter of privacy for a female. This is the largest and most detrimental logical disconnect one can have. Taking a human life is OK it would seem, if someone's privacy is concerned. But of course there is no privacy, no due process, no equal protection, and no right to life for the other individual human - and as defined by science this is a human life.

Others argue that it is not human because it can not live outside the womb. This fails all tests of logic because if not cared for, a newborn also can not live outside the womb. What do you think would happen if you set a newborn on the floor next to a pile of food? Would it 'survive on it's own'? Such foolishness is a rare sight, and sadly enough, this foolishness is not being questioned by the media, my professors, nor by the scientific community. Why not? Is it because of a 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy'? Think again.

Become Prostitute or Lose Coverage

2005-01-31T10:41:00.000-05:00

The Germans once again divide law from ethics and don't seem to get it at all.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.
Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.
The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.
When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.
"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."
Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.
Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.
"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.
Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.
Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.
Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.
"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.
"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

I do not know what to say

2005-01-28T02:51:00.000-05:00

Hmm.

No Other Words Needed

2005-01-15T23:58:00.000-05:00

Ashamed to be an American?

2005-01-15T23:40:00.000-05:00

As the above link shows, a Miss Berns Rothchild went abroad to London, England but seemed to not like being associated with... the United States.

"I sort of felt ashamed, and didn't really want to be associated with being an American," said Rothchild, who lives in New York City and voted for John Kerry.

Yet another example of who really are the ones who promote division and anti-American feelings. She could have said many things while overseas, yet she decided it best to act as if she weren't American.

Perhaps it's best that she doesn't in the end. If she really can't take being called an American there are ways to stop those charges from ever being leveled against her.

Oh yes, the whole story is about armbands, like Lance Armstrong's anti-Cancer bands. I guess hers might be considered anti-associating-as-an-American, or maybe just take the first and last words and scrap everything in between the hyphens.

So many forms of whining, so few forms of understanding.

Education System and a Prince

2005-01-14T11:23:00.000-05:00

So Prince Harry was educated in the UK (and possibly elsewhere) but I see that they aren't too good at educating people either. It's not that he might not have learned what 2+2 is, but he does not understand what good and evil is.

The fact that his nation was also hit hard, London was left burning, and Europe was left destroyed didn't enter his mind. What mattered was him being aloof and rebellious. What that Nazis did was like nothing else on Earth ever. The reason it was different is because it came from a supposed 'Civilized Nation', a developed nation, a sophisticated nation where the likes of Wagner, Bach, and Beethoven, and if you include Germanic nations with it Mozart and many other of the elite class and intelligentsia.

Here we have another elite member of an exclusive group without understanding that science and art is amoral, and that even parties require no moral or ethical guide. THIS is the largest problem with what some say, and those who defend him, or wish to down play the whole mess: Your life should never be separate from your ethics or morality. Everything you do is a reflection of who you are and what you value. We all make mistakes, but realizing them does not absolve us from having made them.

I recently took a tour of the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. now that we life close to the nation's capital (and Capitol), and although I knew much about it and World War Two as well since I am an avid reader about history, that place took the knowledge and put in closer to reality.

There is one exhibit of nothing but shoes from the victims. Countless shoes are in one area. They had to remove them once they arrived and before they were 'deloused'. Every two shoes is one person. I kept saying that to myself, but I could not quite get a grip on any number since I could not count the shoes. And the shoes were of all different sizes: baby shoes, frumpy old shoes, females' shoes, and the list goes on.

Seeing that and so much more gave me an understanding, a perspective of the knowledge I already had. I've stated before, and I believe it more now than ever that knowledge without perspective is useless and can actually do harm.

Wearing such a uniform in such a casual and even joking way is more than a 'goof', it is reprehensible.

Dean paid Bloggers for Positive Spin?

2005-01-14T09:21:00.000-05:00

Say it isn’t so!

Actually, this is a story that, despite what some might make of it, is idiotic. Campaign Finance Reform has been nothing but a joke and lie. The only thing it successfully does is make it so that someone like myself can not run for office because in the end I can only accept a maximum of $2000 from any one person. Sounds good in theory, but in reality if I start with zero dollars – which is what I have currently – I would have to go door to door 161288 times and get the maximum amount to equal what only John Kerry had to spend.

CFR also tells me how and when I can spend that money. This is ridiculous since if there one form of free speech and media that should be inviolate it would be that regarding politics and national issues. But no, and it backed by the likes of Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russell Feingold.

With such bipartisan backing it is no wonder it passed 59-41 in the Senate because it protects those in power and those who are well off. But the average person cannot run with such caps and limitations. No one has heard of me, but I’m told that there are limits and restrictions on how I can spend my money, how I can get more money, and what media I can use. How would I ever beat a career politician who can use his position of power and access to free media coverage to beat me before I even have the money to run?

I’m not upset with Howard Dean on this one at all. I’m all for a disclosure of HOW the money was given and how it was spent, but that’s it. The methods used should be up to the candidate and no matter what any court may say if limiting you access to the media (i.e. the press) is not being violated then we should just remove that from the First Amendment.

Cobb County Georgia Loses

2005-01-13T14:20:00.000-05:00

"Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.

This sounds very horrible, how could this be? Here's what the sticker actually says:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Even more proof that the left is not in favor of open minds, they are only in favor of destroying religion. I guess it's time Cobb County Georgia got with the liberal agenda. Not once is God, Creator, nor anything religious mentioned yet some judge who had no interest nor understanding of Cobb County thought it was a violation of a 'clause' that does not even exist in the Constitution. Folly. Perhaps they will have resources to go to the Supreme Court.

The ACLU was of course behind this, since they could not let people of a district make their own rules and decisions... open minded, hmm?

A Strangely Misleading News Story

2005-01-12T09:40:00.000-05:00

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050111/2005-01-11T231117Z_01_N11310356_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-ABUSE-DC.html

The title of the above is, "Iraqi Victim Says U.S. Torture Worse That Saddam".

After reading the story though, I find no reference to the Prisoner ever having said that. Let's examine the quotes and just as importantly a parenthesized word in one of them.

"I couldn't believe in the beginning that this could happen, but I wished I could kill myself because no one was there to stop it,"

Of course he didn't kill himself and now stands to profit for it all. It takes them not ime to learn how to assume the victim role even over there.

"They were torturing us as though it was theater for them,"

OK. I guess he's trying to show that big bad Americans revel in such things. I wonder how much money he stands to get.

"I was extremely emotional because (even) Saddam didn't do this to us."

The added word is 'even'. This irresponsible journalist (Adam Tanner) added a very large word in an effort to give his piece the wonderful title of the US being worse than Saddam.

Does Tanner bother to note that Saddam never permitted victims to have a hearing, a trial, or evn publically complain about their treatment? No, he seems to be far too in bed with the idea of having a shocking headline than actually trying to give perspective and understanding. Adam Tanner represents a very large group of reporters who do not wish to be considered opinion journalists, but offer much more than a reporting of observations, quotes, and facts within the framework.

"Al-Sheikh, well known in Abu Ghraib for having once obtained a gun from an Iraqi guard and exchanged fire with American soldiers, appeared wary in his testimony.

"That Graner guy is a man who hurt his country, hurt his people and I think he will receive his punishment," he said. He said Graner forced him to eat pork and drink alcohol, practices against his Islamic religion."

Ah, now we are to feel that the word of a guy willing to shoot at US guards while in prison is something worth hearing. And we are to sympathize with his plight over pork and alcohol. I'm sorry but the river of tears seems to be stagnate right now. According to Al-Sheikh, Graner hurt the US and the US people by taking such measures upon Al-sheikh. Yes, he must be a good judge of character considering his background. He is doing the US a service by pointing this out, right?

Irresponsible journalism has been around for a while, but it still is a sad thing to read.

Adam Tanner obviously has his biases since he is willing to add word to the testimony of prisoners, but when a US lawyer says that some of the acts are no worse than what cheerleaders, Tanner feels the need to put quotes around cheerleaders. Why?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10209253.htm
Iraqi abuse was like act of "cheerleaders" -lawyer

Before he had a chance to sympathize with Iraqi criminals, Tanner was an environmentalist, "Asians say global warming a cause of recent floods" http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/042.html

anti-Nuclear testing - even on computers "Ultrafast Supercomputer to Simulate Nuke Explosion" http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yJbwofYG1dUJ:asia.tech.yahoo.com/041226/3/1ts5c.html+%22%2BBy+Adam+Tanner%22&hl=en where about half the story says that the computers cost too much and he only interviews those who agree.

In 2002 he was already perpetuating th eimage of Bush making Europe nervous. "Europeans Fret, Fearing a Bolder Bush" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1106-01.htm

He found time to address Rosie O'Donnell's gay wedding, and take shots at Bush for wanting an Amendment http://www.gaypasg.org/PressClippings/2004/February%202004/Comedian%20Rosie%20O'Donnell%20Weds%20Gay%20Partner.htm

He made sure to talk about Ganja, "Passions High as U.S. Ganja Guru Awaits Sentencing" http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16512.shtml

Next time you find a new story, do a searrch on the report's name via Google, the results may be interesting. I now understand why many news agencies do not list the names of contributors: It hides the trail.

Lawsuits and Corporate America

2005-01-11T23:22:00.000-05:00

President Bush promised some tort reform and it will not come soon enough. While the lawsuits are filed even against private citizens, the fact remains that the corporate world is the main target due it having the most money and fame.

Nothing like Jesse Jackson shaking down a business instead of him actually having to find a real job is what he considers to be racist America. Come on Jesse, if you have any skills at all it'd be easy. I'm not at all saying that individuals are not racist, but the American establishment as a whole is not - no matter what he might have us think.

We all recall the moron suing McDonald's because she discovered that coffee was served hot. We've seen the idiotic warning labels on all sorts of items, and we all hear about the new lawsuits all the time.

Why? There has been a growing attempt in the sophisticated left over some decades to vilify anyone or anything that makes money. When communism failed, all the diehards had no place to go, no place to revere, and no example of what they though was a better way. This didn't stop them. It is another example of the Anyone But Bush mentality. It's the Anything But Capitalism mentality. Since the Soviets could not bring McDonalds to its knees, they'll sue them into oblivion.

Another method is the smear tactic. As old as any political campaign, leftist love to kick corporate America around. They coin terms like Corporate Citizenship and then go out to prove that a company like McDonalds really doesn't care about society as much as they do making money.

This actually surprises people on the Left. They seem shocked to discover that after McDonalds sells you a hamburger and you pay for it, they owe you nothing. Sales complete, have a good day. Of course those greedy corporate-types say, "Come again," just to get more of your money.

The left does well to attach Boss Tweed-type names to the corporate world: Big Business, Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Tobacco, Big Guns, Big Pharmaceutical, so forth and so on. They missed two though: Big Government and Big Unions.

This is not to say that it wouldn't be nice to have corporations give freely and help out those who might live in the same neighborhoods who might purchase their products, but some do and some do not. It is the same with individual charity: some people are more inclined than others.

The idea that because some people decide to pay into the triple digits for a pair of shoes that Nike owes the community something is both foolish and childish. To the left all the corporate world looms over society taking from it while giving nothing back.

Many people I know on the right - myself included - do not feel this way. We feel that, as a rules, the corporate world is amoral. It wants money, market share, etc., and for its own survival it must compete to get these things. The product may be $120 shoes, or a new medicine that will help cure a disease, but in the end the corporation is doing it for the bottom line.

This is not to say that making a medicine can not be motivated by a desire to help the world, but the desire to help the world alone will not pay your bills. If you think otherwise please tell the collection agency that you're a nice person and that that you mean well, but you feel it unreasonable that they want money you do not have. If you're an employer tell your employees that you know they like money but to constantly expect a check instead of a pat on the back is capitalist and unacceptable. As an employee how long would you work there?

As a consumer I do expect the best product I can get, and I must match my ability and desire to pay for said object against the quality I seek. In the end I hope to find the common ground that will result in a sale. I do not expect the company to put me through college (though it would be great!) because in the end they didn't say they would, nor did I buy their product expecting a college grant.

The corporate world is like the science industry: the same technology that make the nuclear bomb can be used to end a bloody war, or destroy a city of millions who only want to do their own thing from day to day.

We need to be responsible individual citizens when dealing with the corporate world and if we witness behavior we do not like out of a corporation we need to have the moral fiber to discontinue buying from them and let them know that we will not support them as long as said behavior or policy continues - even if they have the best price, are the highest quality, or the only ones who make a certain item.

Europe and the US Left

2005-01-02T22:28:00.000-05:00

The modern left is a strange beast indeed. For Europe it is a natural progression from the days of Kings and Queens who ran everything without so much as considering the population unless the threat of revolution seemed unstoppable. Even then royalty sometimes decided not to act in the interest of the populace, preferring to use force to put down all those who voice a disagreement.

Europe is still running away from this type of government – and I can’t say that I blame them. France has had five governments in the same amount of time that the United States has had one. Germany… well, we all know about Germany. The rest of Europe has not fared much better historically and as such it seems logical that they may be slightly apprehensive when it comes to The Church and even religion in general after the Inquisition and other such terrors.

Authority – in its various forms – has not been kind to Europe. Indeed, historically, Europe has had a decent share of despots and totalitarian systems and it seems to have made them gun shy.

This may serve a bit of understanding in an empathetic way as to why so much of Europe does not understand the US, and in many cases why Europe does not like the US either.

The United States has not had a totalitarian regime, has not been run by either despot or theologian, and has a Constitution protecting the freedoms and rights of the people against the government itself.

So why then does the American left react with such revulsion towards religion and even the rule of law? They attempt to portray our system of government in the exact say way that they portray those in Europe. They may mention slavery or the lack of civil rights as evidence, but if one looks at the nature of America in contrast with the nature of Europe during those same periods one is forced to observe that the US is no worse – and often times better – than our European counterparts.

The American left is running away from Dark Ages Europe and through this mental disorder the entire structure of the nation can be seen to be slipping into the grips of Torquemada ever so slowly. With George W. Bush being re-elected, this slippery slope can be seen to be increasing in the steepness of the grade and soon Dominican Monks will be going around burning all the infidels at the stake.

The modern left in the US has no ideas of its own and as such it is dependent upon Europe for them. From Universal Healthcare, to gun control, to pushing religion further and further out of the lives of citizens, the left’s reliance can be seen for what it is: An attempt to make the New World into Old Europe.

Europe’s consensus-style of governing and their esteem for the UN fall right into line with American leftist ideology as well; making the American left simply Labour Party Light.

Anyone but Bush did not win, although that was the battle cry of the left since it didn’t matter who ran – it was not W and that was good enough. President Bush rejects most of the ideas of Europe and because of that he has distanced us from them, or perhaps they are the ones who are shifting away from us. The United States has always been about and for the United States, and there is no shame in that no matter how Europe tries to make the term ‘Cowboy’ into an insult. I rather like it, actually.

When the Democrats were of the JFK-style things were different. These Democrats understood that we cannot ever again afford to idly sit around as the world turns. Kennedy understood the need for pre-emptive strikes in Vietnam and Cuba, he understood the need for tough talk and the resolve that tough talk needs to be backed by tough action when he went on the offensive during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Imagine a tough Democrat last election. Imagine if these were some of this fictional candidate’s quotes:

“Whether of not you may agree with going into Iraq is now moot. We are there and under my leadership we will win, it will be decisive, it will be complete, and it will be bring honor upon our military and our nation as a whole.”

“Now is not the time to second guess the ability or the plans of our military. I know that no matter how the orders are given, and I know that no matter what condition the equipment may be in our soldiers will win the day. This is not to say that I agree with all the strategic aspects as prioritized by the current administration, but it seems that no matter what the mission may be our soldiers are up to it.”

“We are a nation who now has a very rare opportunity in the world: We have a chance to both secure our citizens and secure the citizens of another nation by removing a horrible, horrible person from power. We have both an obligation as well as a desire to help ourselves and the world and we will not falter nor shall we stumble.”

If these were the messages without the flip-flopping and all the half-steps, this election may have been very different.

But the current Democratic Party has no concept of America First, unless it is to blame America First, and it shows. Self-loathing has no place in a nation as grand and as wonderful as this one, so perhaps all those leftist who promised to move to Europe or Canada (Europe Jr.) should so. Let the rest us get back to finding ways to make America better – but not necessarily better in the eyes of Europe.

Haloscan

2005-01-02T22:01:00.000-05:00

I've been reading about this suggestion so we'll see how it works.

Religion and the Rule of Law

2004-12-21T08:28:00.000-05:00

Religion and the secular rule of law have much in common – especially under a constitutional system. Both oblige those under each to respectfully know and, to the best of their ability, follow the rules set forth.

In the secular world the rule of law is important because it provides stability and when applied consistently it permits both people and businesses to know what is expected of them on a regular basis. The rule of law when applied to constitutional matters is the highest form of law and is why there are courts of appeals to aid in the interpretation of the constitutional laws.

This rule of law is why our system is a stable as it is, especially compared with dictatorships, because even the most benevolent of dictators still rules on the whim and not the written law. Would you want to live or open a business when you must keep a dictator pleased lest he comes down on you with a heavy hand? It would be even less pleasing if it happened to you after you saw others getting away with it. No one would invest in a place like that and as such the nation would be in peril.

Are all laws good or even just? Of course not, but a lack of consistent and expected application is by far the crueler form.

With this in mind and centuries of proof to support it, we look at God and see that those who worship and hold God dear obey a spiritual rule of law. Jewish Scholars have found 613 laws in the Old Testament that are to be followed if a Jew is to be considered holy in the eyes of God. Some are obscure, some are obvious and very much part of Christian faith as well. Different Christian sects (and Jewish for that matter) have their own rules appended to these laws while removing some of the laws they do not feel are as important anymore.

Not matter what, there are certain laws and rules that all Christians and Jews follow and can be expected to follow in their day-to-day lives. This gives a sense of community and stability – both of which we can see as being very important for the development and advancement of the society in which they belong.

Where then does the person without God turn for guidance and stability? Nowhere. All decisions and judgments are based on their own brand of right and wrong, good or bad, love and hate. Each person being a set of standards unto themselves. This creates the unpredictability of the modern left we see today. If you are a religious person the odds are high that your behavior will be predictable – not always because we all make poor decisions… sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly. In the end, that person can be corrected and persuaded to understand why what they did may be wrong.

When someone lives by their own set of standards that are independent of others and even kept from view in fear of being criticized, how can one be corrected or persuaded? More instability. The person without God becomes a dictator for their own life and by ruling on the whim, on the spur of the moment; it is easy to see why the chaos around them exists. They refuse to judge others as being good or bad and in this way they also tend to associate with those who do not hold any of the same ambitions, desires, nor beliefs they do. Even more instability results.

They can look and see the ‘unthinking sheep’ of the religious communities and they view them with scorn not because those without religion have it better, but because they have it worse. These ‘unthinking sheep’ are actually quite sophisticated people who know what they want, are willing to sacrifice, what to me is “unneeded freedom”, for the stability and comfort of people who feel the same way.

This is not to say that everyone feels THE SAME WAY, but in the end people of a congregation of any type all have the basically same idea as to where they wish to head and have a game plan as to how to get there and it is that ‘same way’ which is important and meaningful.

Where does the average leftist want to go? Does the average leftist who is without religion want a better world? Perhaps. But how so? The average leftist is not willing to fight for it. The average leftist is not willing to sacrifice for it. The average leftist is a splinter in the larger leftist movement as a whole and this movement can not have a real game plan because there is no consensus as to where to go nor how to get there.

It is this ‘Balkanization’ that we see today. All the hyphenated-Americans are a result of leftist ‘ideals’. People must feel like victims and people must not like the status quo. At one time there were many victims in this nation and the status quo was not so desirable for many. We’ve worked on it and we’re making it better so the left has to keep finding things to hate and to vilify. We work on it within the system of the rule of law. We do not need to riot, protest violently, nor call for so many other things leftist do.

When America’s Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they understood the importance of all of these things and no matter what faith they may have been they were all men of faith. Lo and behold despite this faith they managed not to turn the nation into a theocracy, but yet we still here the cries from the left that this nation may become a theocracy with the likes of President Bush. This nation is too stable and too well rooted for that to happen… unless you tear down set standard of ethics and morality, then anything can happen because everything is equally ‘good’.

ACLU and Christmas

2004-12-20T22:11:00.000-05:00

It would seem that if the ACLU ran the nation - and at times it certainly seems they have quite a bit of authority - terrorists would be freed unless found guilt post-facto, rights would be continually manufactured out of thin air, and religion would be outlawed.

Too extreme? Perhaps, but religion certainly would be under attack. The Salvation Army has fewer places to ring their bells because spineless companies (Read: Target) fear a different organization suing them over 'sapce'.

With the desire to redefine marriage it is easy to see that tradition is meaningless in the quest for being the most self-centered and ego-driven entity or group. The desires of the majority have been pushed to the side by groups of loud and narcissistic views.

This 1% - 3% of the population described as homosexual (Kinsey's 10% is untrue) wants to push the 97%+ others into legally having to accept both relationships as being the same. Idiocy.

According to the CIA World Factbook, all but 10% of the people in the United States say they are religious, and take out the 1% Jewish, and 1% Muslim and the 10% 'other', and we find that 78% are Christian of some sort. 78% are people who will celebrate Christmas, yet it is improper to say, "Merry Christmas" anymore lest you offend.

The word Christmas itself seems to make the ACLU's ilk gasp in horror, and that is a very sad shame. Attempting to shut down the majority for the sake of a small minority on such a strange issue as Christmas only goes to show how far the nation has come on issues that do matter. 'Civil Liberties' must be a good state of affairs if the ACLU has to moan about the Baby Jesus being on public property.

Also, though I'm not a legal expert (I like to think I am at times though), I was curious if this has ever been argued and if not why not:

The Constitution states that 'Congress' is: A1:S1-4 (partial quotes)

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states..."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state..."

That's Congress. That is what it is and who makes up its membership.

Now, the ever famous 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Let me repeat part of it, a very important part: "Congress shall make no law..."

So, how can judges declare that what the city of Clumpville does for Christmas to be unconstitutional UNLESS the Congress of the United States MADE Clumpville put the Baby Jesus in a manger on public property?

If the City of Los Angeles wishes to have a cross on the city seal, if the Feds didn't make this demand, why oh why is it unconstitutional? It actually goes against the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part of the first amendment.

If any of your are legal experts, or know someone who thinks of themselves as one, please have them get in contact with me because I have yet to get a good answer. Oh, and as you see there is no 'separation of church and state clause', only that Congress can't establish one religion as being 'better' than another.

For more proof, let's look further in the Amendments:

Am2: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Hmm. Congress is not mentioned is it? Looks like NO ONE has the right to infringe on this one - if we followed the Constitution.

Am3: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Hmm. Since the Feds declare war, I guess the Feds make war-time policy. But in peace not even the Feds have authority. No one can force soldiers into your house.

Am4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Tricky. It doesn't say that only the Feds have to do this, it does not make a distinction, so no one has the authority to violate this. Partiot Act... I don't mind it, but is it actually constitutional in all parts? No.

Am5: (pleading the fifth) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

Self explanitory, again no direct mention of who can or can not do this, so everyone or no one must be implied for civilians.

Am6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "

One of the few times the Constitution speaks about how States and lower need to do things. This says who can do what and how. It is clearly stated though, and not that confusing.

Am7: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"

Inflation has changed the value, but not the idea.

Am8: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

This is what they argue in death penalty appeals (Cruel and Unusual). But since it doesn't say to whom this law is for, we must assume it is for EVERY court.

Am9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

This basically says that the internet, though not invented when the Constitution was written DOES fall under press when it comes to being able to convey ideas, thoughts, opinions, and standard reporting of events, etc. What about TV? Should the FCC exist then?

Am10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Basically, if the Constitution does not speak on it, the States can make up laws or rights for the people as they see fit. A lack of a law does in fact mean it is legal as well.

This might be long, but as you can see some questions can be posed as to if certain things are Constitutional or not, but having a federal judge say that Three Wise men on the lawn of Town Hall at Christmas somehow goes against the Constitution is to have an abusive and agenda-driven judge because NO WHERE does it say that a city can not do as it pleases when it comes to religion and as you can see from the other Amendments the founders made it quite clear who was granted or denied authority in every case.

Merry Christmas to you all, sorry for spelling errors, I'll correct them tomorrow.

Two Weeks... or Two Months

2004-12-20T10:32:00.000-05:00

OK, so I was off a bit. Ok, I was off a lot. Getting DSL out here in Reisterstown is a pain, really. Between that and calling around to correct my resume at various places since I had no / very limited internet access was problematic.

Alas, I am still an unemployed guy, but the house is clean and the local Home Depot is taking the little money we currently have as I learn to be a Do-It-Yourself master.

Much has happened since my last post, but I was doing all I could to make sure George bush won... Though it was for naught in the state of Maryland.

I see Anon is still as useless as usual, the liberals are whining about religion, and there is quite a stir in the media about what to do about it all.

Well, time to get this back up and running with a larger variety of views and takes now that the election is over and I have the time and ability to post. Gotta get my large (ok, that's a lie) readership back as well.

Stay tuned!

Ed

Absent Until Possibly Next Week

2004-10-19T22:49:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-19T13:41:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-19T11:20:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-19T01:10:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-18T17:17:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-18T07:53:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-17T22:51:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-17T09:25:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-15T18:45:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-15T01:05:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-14T23:16:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-14T18:29:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-14T09:05:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-13T14:11:00.000-04:00

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?

2004-10-13T09:59:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-13T07:43:00.000-04:00

"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

2004-10-12T21:32:00.000-04:00

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?

2004-10-12T20:58:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-12T17:03:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-12T16:19:00.001-04:00

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?

2004-10-12T16:19:00.000-04:00

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?

2004-10-12T08:44:00.000-04:00

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.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
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
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

2004-10-11T13:42:00.000-04:00

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'

2004-10-10T16:25:00.000-04:00

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

2004-10-09T10:28:00.000-04:00

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...

2004-10-08T15:30:00.000-04:00

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.

You vote not just for a President

2004-10-08T15:05:00.000-04:00

This November when you go to vote, you are voting for more than just a President you are voting for up to three Supreme Court justices, you are voting for the next four years of federal courts - including appellate. I stress the courts of appeal because it is there that liberal judges have done a number on the rule of law. The 9th Circuit (read: California liberal) has do some much damage to conservative values that it is almost unbelievable.

Not every Republican, not every conservative agrees full force with the party line, but as a Republican, as a conservative, we all must understand that winning 80% of the time is much better than only winning 20%.

This also goes for all House of Representative and Senate votes. Remember: Control of the House and the Senate enable Republicans to set the tone, the pace, and the agenda for the nation. Hopefully, with 9/11 going further into the distant past, and the wars in the Middle East should stabilize as more domestic forces are trained, we can have not just a Republican Congress, but a CONSERVATIVE Congress that is much more fiscally in control.

When a nation faces so many threats from so many sources it is not the time to try some sort of good-will attitude with global tests, or even global justifications. Nor is it time for talk to countries who do not really want to talk; trying to negotiate with the same nations making money in the Oil for Blood, I mean Oil for Food Program run by the United Nations.

France's Chirac has come out condemning American culture and influence, yet the Democrats want to build coalitions with them.

You vote not just for a President, you vote for a way of governing. Your vote speaks out loud saying that America and America alone will decide what America does, and your vote also says that America is smart and wise enough to make decisions on its own without having to discuss the interests of other nations.

When you go to vote this year it will be important and historic. Who's side will you be on when the vote is counted?

The Idea behind Islamic Terror

2004-10-07T09:04:00.000-04:00

Islamic Terror is its own breed of terrorism, complete with motivations and ideology to further the 'cause'. The 'cause' that is in the background of every bombing, school massacre, or any other act of violence is not to gain a victory because of it, because the reality is that if knocking down our buildings with out jets did not do it, then odds are they can get the United States to surrender.

Even in the light of Spain's election after Madrid, Spain was still targeted and probably financed by Islamic terror. They got what they wanted when Spain withdrew did they? Why would they continue to fund terror operations in Spain? To many it does not make sense because they think that Madrid gave them what they wanted. In reality it did give them something they wanted - a withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq - but that is not the only reason to bomb, it was only a reason to bomb sooner rather than later.

Islamic Terror and Islamic Fundamentalism demands that the rest of the world fall in line with the thoughts and ideas they hold. Islamic Fundamentalism has a very strict doctrine centered around Sharia, sometimes Wahhabism, sometimes smaller less organized ideas lead by muftis in a certain region. One thing they all have in common is the need to humiliate those who disobey.

This is why there are 'honor killings' for families who have a female who may have had a sexual relation outside of marriage. It does not even need to be proven to be true, it only needs to be a possibility of being true. This is enough to kill a female relative. Females can be killed even if they are the one who is raped, if they did something to lead to the rape (eye contact, suggestive dress, suggestive walk, etc.) and sometimes just because the family feels dishonored.

This mentality of even non-terrorists who have authority in these systems of governance to punish and permit the punishment of people - namely women - in such ways and for such reasons begin to make it obvious as to why terror is the way they decide to operate.

The world, especially western society, and very particularly the United States who is looked upon as the leader of western society, must fall in line under the rules of Sharia and Islam. Since the west has failed to do so, we have humiliated them and their rules. This would not be so bad if they did not have to live with western society every day and in so many ways. If Osama is still alive, he communicates with inventions made in the west. From the cell phone, to the satellite phone, to the vehicles he drives in to the medicines he might use for his condition - none of it was invented by Islamic Fundamentalism.

The very planes they flew into the very buildings they destroyed were designed and built by western minds. They could not even escape this reality in the terror they commit. So they live in a time where Islam was a vital force in the way of knowledge and science. They revel in the time of Saladin and the battles fought against Europe. But they have no large army, they have no leader to take the helm. Osama thinks that he is such a leader, and has a following that thinks this is the case as well, but it is hard to play the role of a Saladin when you are ducking NATO and regional forces border jumping back and forth trying to hold onto your power base as others try to usurp that very power.

This is why Islam in general does not speak out against these activities: While they do not have the heart or courage to do anything themselves, for many they want Islamic Law to be world wide and they will not denounce any attempt to make it so. They do not care how it comes about because who are they to define the way Islamic Law is to be realized? And of course, if they do come out against it, they risk being killed as well. Salman Rushdie questioned some things, and has a million dollar bounty on his head.

Because of the reality of the world today, Islam can not conquer everything, but Islam can punish those need to learn some humility. Russia, who attacked Afghanistan, and Russia who will not grant Chechens their own state needed to learn humility. While Islamic Fundamentalists wait for an army and a leader for that army, they must be content with terrorism as their primary way to mette out justice upon the world.

The West has humiliated Islamic Fundamentalism with technology, ideology, and freedom, thus punishment and humiliation of the west must continue. They do not expect to win, but they do want the west to leave them alone until they have the power to conquer. This is something the west can not permit and it is a shame so many do not understand this... yet.

Could This Be?

2004-10-06T07:40:00.000-04:00

I'm no D.C. political insider, I'm just someone who, like so many others, has been paying attention to what is being said, and trying to make some sense of it. There is one very disturbing but perfectly possible conclusion that can be drawn, and here is the case for it...

1) Kerry came back from Vietnam and used his 'tour' as a way to further his anti-war agenda. This happened during Nixon's Administration (a Republican).

2) Kerry voted for the cancellation of all those weapon systems DURING the cold war, this was during a time that the US was winning and would within only a few years actually knock the Soviet Union into the history books. This happened under Reagan (a Republican).

3) When the Democrats wanted to look like proud Americans they all voted for things like going to war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as passing the PATRIOT Act. They all got to give speeches, hang out with Republicans and looked like 'we are all in this together'. This may have been under a Republican, but the term bi-partisan was used heavily and only the lunatic fringe leftists opposed the legislation.

4) Before and during the primaries, Kerry was still mostly for the war because the only people who were voicing opposition were people like Kucinich (getting only a fraction of the vote). Once Dean started talking about being anti-war, Kerry came out and mocked him too -- until Dean picked up steam, then Kerry was cautiously 'pro-war', and decided to go after safer topics like the economy and slamming his Democratic opponents.

5) Iraq starts to look like it won't be going as well as it might have and Kerry jumps in with the "wrong war, wrong time, etc" routine. Kerry mocks those nations who have been there with us calling them bribed.

6) Kerry decides to vote against funding the troops. This is the single most destructive thing because he constant says how more nations are needed in Iraq, but he himself is unwilling to fund those already there.

Like when Kerry came back from Vietnam, he is using the American soldier as a political tool to further his own desires. This has only been hinted about because the charges are so very grave. It would appear that Kerry has a history of using the lives and well-being of the American Soldier in order to push his career forward.

How else can you explain testifying to Congress that his fellow soldiers were war criminals? The 1960s just ended, but anti-war activism was still strong and it was what was getting the most attention at the time and since Kerry needed the spotlight he was there.

He was more than willing to sell out the troops while he was one of them, and he is more than willing to sell out the troops now.

He even says I voted yes before I voted no. This is idiocy because it shows that at one point it seemed right, but then after checking polls, he decided to do something else. Nothing is sacred, and this man has no honor.

He divorced his first wife after she had a nervous breakdown (a political liability not to have a smiling wife hanging around you), only to marry some other rich woman who seemed able to handle politics. Nothing is sacred - he lacks integrity.

Now Kerry expects us to think that he'll do what is needed for the troops today? For our security today? Kerry says he'll do what it takes to keep us safe. Kerry also says it needs to pass a global test. He backtracked on his statement, but like so much else, he would need to back track over 30 years of selling out in order to clear the record and this is something he has not done.

Kerry is willing to risk troop lives in order to smear Bush on Iraq. It is almost blackmail when he says that if he is elected he will get 40,000 more troops in the military (how would he fund them since he voted against funding our troops in combat today?), he will 'win' in six months (why not advertise how to do this in order get it done TODAY?), Kerry talking about getting nations to fight, but who will fight a war that is wrong, or that is a quagmire? Who will fight if they are going to be considered bribed or coerced?

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam – How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" he asked. According to Kerry there were over 50,000 mistakes in Vietnam. I think there were 50,000 heroes.

Kerry is willing to let people die under Bush in order to make the body count look bad enough to get himself elected. He has always used the dying American Soldier as a tool politically and this is disgusting. This is not only disgusting, it is a breech of faith to a degree that can not be adequately described and is not a quality worthy of any public office - especially not that of President.

Real Life in the Way

2004-10-05T08:44:00.000-04:00

Been busy with real life the last couple of days...

The Year was 1187

2004-10-04T07:57:00.000-04:00

On this morning of (May 17) rabi II, two days after the victory, the Sultan sought out the Templars and Hospitallers who had been captured and said " I shall purify the land of these two impure races." He assigned fifty dinar to every man who had taken one of them prisoner, and immediately the army brought forward at least a hundred of them. He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and surfis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve.

- Imad-ad-Din, Secretary and Chancellor to Saladin

So what exactly has changed in 800+ years except for the name of the person doing the writing?

While the Senator Manicures

2004-10-02T08:43:00.000-04:00

So many people who call themselves experts said that Kerry won the debate on Thursday though I do not know how. They suggest that Bush was tired, annoyed, and looked a bit off his game. While this may be true, why does that mean a freshly made-up and manicured elitist won? It is the looks over content idea that is most disturbing.

There is also something else very telling about what was going on Thursday: While the Senator sat around getting his fingers dolled up for a debate in which it was good to have nice fingers so you could see them shaking, our President was visiting places in Florida, speaking to those who have suffered losses, and also discussing the situation with authorities and FEMA.

Something else was also in the mix, something you have not heard much (if anything) about in Iraq: US and Iraq joint operations in Samarra. "Qassim Dawoud, minister of state for national security, said Friday that more than 100 insurgents had been killed and 37 others captured, including members of Saddam Hussein's regime."

Samarra has been a troubled area because the US would go it, hand it over tot he locals who would then cave in to fundamentalists and let them rule again. What is changing is that there are more and more trained Iraqis ready to actually hold what is taken without the US 'occupying' the region.

Another telling part is the fact that old members of Saddam's regime are running around organizing these take over. Still using fear as the major bartering tool, these people will be losing ground as more and more Iraqis are trained as well.

This is why so many times Fundamentalists have gone after people going to or coming from training: Kill those being trained and discourage others from becoming trained. When Iraqis comes in to an area the Fundamentalists are contesting, the Iraqi police will be the new sheriffs, and when they establish a system of rules and laws the Iraq economy will also be given a boost as well because people and businesses need the rule of law and stability in order to function; they need to know that if they open their store they won't be robbed, and they need to know that, except for standard taxes, the money they make is their own to keep.

It gets worse for the Fundamentalists when it has been reported that, "In a later statement, the military said that members of 36th Iraqi Commando Battalion had secured the historic Golden Mosque, a sacred Shiite shrine, to safeguard it from insurgents. They also captured 25 rebels at the mosque with weapons, the military said."

This means two things: First it means the Iraqi forces are able to take very large Mosques on their own. It also means they can do it quickly enough to take prisoners instead of having them fortify positions and hold out. It also shows your average Iraqi that the US is not lying when we say that these Fundamentalists do not give proper respect to Islam by bringing weapons into mosques, using them as HQs and staging points, and otherwise abusing the idea that mosques are sacred and used only for worship.

Of course, out of all the people in a city of between 200000 - 250000, they found this guy to quote: "We are terrified by the violent approach used by the Americans to subdue the city," said Mahmoud Saleh, a civil servant. "My wife and children are scared to death and they have not being able to sleep since last night. I hope that the fighting ends as soon as possible."

The media is as idiotic as it usually is.

Good news elsewhere according to the report as well: In the southern city of Kufa, security forces prevented hundreds of Shiite Muslim supporters of the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr from entering a major mosque for Friday prayers, the first such action since the fall of Saddam last year. The police fired in the air to disperse the faithful, but there were no reported casualties.

All of these reports do mean one thing, the Senator was wrong about the training of Iraqis, about the actions on the ground, and of course wrong about the entire status of the war.

While the Senator was getting his nails done, the President was being briefed on the events that were about to take place in Iraq. The results are being seen, though the news outlets will only focus on Kerry 'winning' the debate despite all his false rhetoric.

The Senator was too busy... windsurfing?... to be present when Allawi was addressing the US in D.C. recently. But then again the Senator hasn't been around to vote on many bills in the Senate, either. Presidential material? Hmm...

Kerry vs. Kerry

2004-10-01T15:40:00.000-04:00

This says it all.

An Italian Hostage Speaks

2004-10-01T13:23:00.000-04:00

... and the message is horrible.

""I said it before the kidnapping and I repeat it today," she told Corriere della Sera newspaper in an interview published Friday.
"You have to distinguish between terrorism and resistance. The guerrilla war is justified, but I am against the kidnapping of civilians." "

Right now the two are almost indistinguishable considered that they used roadside bombs not to kidnap civilians but to blow them up while training to be policemen to keep Iraqis safe, these people knew they could not win against the American Military in a real fight so now they do it in a way to wear down our will. And you, my dear, are a useful idiot.

Describing the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi as "a puppet government in the hands of the Americans," Torretta said elections planned for January would have no legitimacy: "During my days in detention ... I came to the conclusion it will take decades to put Iraq back on its feet."

That is quite a conclusion to make when you're being held against you will with no contact to the outside world. Yes, your opinion on this subject should be considered expert...

"... I believe that (the kidnappers) were a very political, religious group and that in the end they were convinced that we were not enemies."

Political? Ba'athist. Religious? Fundamental Islamic Terror is the religion. Of course they came to the conclusion you were not the enemy - TODAY. No, today you are the useful idiot who can go give validity for the situation in Iraq for them. For the sake of western civilization, it appears releasing you might have been a mistake because the words you say are not true, and they give aid to the enemy who wants to kill Iraqis who do not want an Islamic Fundamentalist State (the people you want to help, no?), and the want to kill Coalition Troops - something you do not care about.

Not being the enemy of Fundamental Islamic Terror is something you should not be so willing to label yourself, but it is obvious that not everyone thinks this. Indeed not.

Italy Caves In

2004-09-30T08:20:00.000-04:00

Italy Trades Two Lives for Today in Exchange for Undisclosed Amount in the Future

Ransom: The purchase of that which neither belongs to the seller, nor can belong to the buyer. The most unprofitable of investments. -- Ambrose Bierce

Italian intelligence officials were closely involved in the release of the two female aid workers held hostage in Iraq, it emerged yesterday.

It is suspected that they were freed in exchange for a $1 million ransom, a belief that has cast a cloud over national celebrations of the release.

According to La Repubblica newspaper, the deal also included an agreement that 30 sick Iraqi children would be sent to Italy. Last night the Italian Red Cross said six children and three adults had arrived for hospital treatment.

A million dollars in order to get two people out of there, and for the right to treat 30 children.

It is the dollars and the children that make me the most nervous because the money can be used to buy so much more weaponry, or even worse: technical expertise. Not just WMD expertise, but just the ability to hire out people to make fake passports, falsify other documents, and bribe officials. There are people who make a living supplying this type of 'product', and now they have loads of cash to do it.

It may be true that Italy can somehow track these funds, but it is a risk none the less in addition to the public (terorrist public especially) thinking that the money is free and clear. In the end if a special forces mission takes them out, it will not matter because the method used to catch them will not be explained. Even if it is explained, right now terrorists are very excited about the chance to kidnap women (Italian at least) and then ransom them.

The children part is the most disturbing because it makes a terrorist look like a hero because they can appear to be not just blowing up roadside bombs, but they can do some image repair by saying they care about the children. Remember: Everything is always about the children. Politicians use this angle to paint an opponent into a corner; they add provisions to bills that might not get support that include something to help children and then, if the opposition still doesn't like the proposal, they say that the opposition does not care for children.

Politics for votes in a democracy is one thing, playing politics in a nation like Iraq by permitting terrorists to improve their image is idiocy. This information will spread: 'The group who took those hostages didn't just ask for money, they wanted to help our children... What has the US done for your children?'

If the average Iraqi feels that the process is moving too slow and can now begin to count on terrorists to barter westerners for help at home for children, the elderly, and the infirm, our road will be even harder because the average Iraqi can turn to a fellow Arab instead of an infidel.

Think these terrorists do not have this in mind? Think again: Miss Torretta told magistrates that their captors sent them on their way with 10 copies of the Koran translated into English, and copious supplies of sweets.

So, they are pretty good at PR, and that can not be by accident. It gets better for the terrorists even still: The information they obtained showed that our work had been transparent and in the interests of the Iraqi people. In the end they actually asked our forgiveness.
"They treated us with great respect, and were even attentive to our needs," said Miss Torretta, who headed the office in Baghdad of the Bridge to Baghdad charity, which worked in health and education. The women were seized at gunpoint from the office on Sept 7.

They tended to their needs?!?!?!?!?!? How about letting them travel freely? If this continues with kidnappers looking like friendly guys who are in a situation no one really likes and is only doing what they do in order to help children the road is a dark one.

Perhaps it is time we all played the videos of what these people really do.

Kerry Needs a Leash for his Dog

2004-09-29T19:40:00.000-04:00

Here's an example of how liberals can't take a joke without flying off the edge and frothing at the mouth.

DULUTH, Minn. - Something about Sen. John Kerry darker appearance has caught Lynne Cheney's eye.

During a campaign stop with her husband, a group of volunteers moved into the crowd with microphones for the question-and-answer period. Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters to look for the people with dark orange shirts.
When Cheney paused as if searching for the words to describe the shade of orange, Lynne Cheney said, "How about John Kerry's suntan?"
The remark drew a big laugh from the crowd and the vice president.
Responding to her comments, Kerry campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Is Mrs. Cheney jealous considering how hard it is to get sun in the undisclosed location with her husband Dick? Or is she distracted over how red-in-the-face George Bush should be considering his failed presidency?"

Earlier I pointed out an example of this with a piece on Jay Leno, where he even said, "The interesting thing is, I have found that the Republicans respond much more to jokes about themselves than the Democrats do. Democrats take it very, very seriously. You know, when Al Gore was here in 2000, we said we want to do this bit, and then it was, 'Can we run it past our people?' 'Can we make these changes?' Then the day of the show, 'We're going to pass.' Bush shows up. We had a bit where we're playing Jeopardy, and he's going to look kind of stupid. But then, in the end, the joke's on me. 'Yeah, fine, whatever you want.' It couldn't have been easier."

The same thing applies here Bill Burton. Take a breath, it wasn't even that funny of a joke and it seems to be tossed to her softball-style as well.

Sounds to me, if I may read into this a bit, that Mr. Burton's boss - the esteemed Junior Senator from Massachusetts - must be getting a bit hot under the collar as is sensitive about the remarks. Is this an example of a dysfunctional campaign where you all go home and kick the dog?

So there ya have it, yet another example of the elitist world of John Kerry where he has dogs attack jokes as if those jokes were barbed. The same elitist world that seems to think Kerry must tan before the debates or he may appear to look like a guy from a New England state (oh... wait...).

Good work campaign crew for the Democrats!

Oakland's Whining Illegals

2004-09-28T19:19:00.000-04:00

The Oakland Tribune reports that authorities are now not going to use sobriety checkpoints because it seems they are nabbing too many... Illegal aliens. And that's just not fair.

"The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.
"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk.""

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight:

You come into this nation illegally -- willfully breaking the law to get here -- and then drive around and feel cheated when you're caught? I'm supposed to feel sorry for your smuggled child despite the fact that you obviously don't care enough to instill values like honor and respect for the law and authority into your child? I don't think I will since there are loads of people who are here legally trying to make sure they do all they are supposed to in order to get citizenship. Things like getting and holding a job, obeying the laws, and at least partially integrating themselves into society.

So now when Oakland police bust you for being here illegally, driving illegally, and doing everything you do illegally since you are not supposed to be here, you complain to the very establishment who's laws you only feel like obeying when you want to? If I do not have insurance I can expect all sorts of headaches if I were to be stopped and I am a perfectly legal citizen. You want something (else) special? It would see so:

"The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.
"It's simple common sense," De La Fuente said. "You don't want to stop people going to or from work. If there are kids in the car, give someone an opportunity to call someone to pick up their kids rather than create chaos.""

So now get this, both drunks and illegals can find out ahead of time where the checkpoint is in order to avoid it. This is not simple, nor common sense, this is someone who obviously has more of a connection with helping illegals than following the laws of the land in which he lives.

The police checkpoints do not create the chaos, the people who are breaking the laws create the chaos. This is another example of liberals blaming something or someone other than the problem.

"While officers have some discretion, the cars of unlicensed drivers are usually towed. To get their cars back, owners must pay $125, plus any storage fees. That is a significant burden to many illegal immigrants, Rodriguez said."

Cry me a river. They certainly should not be here if they don't have $125 plus other fees. We have enough poor people without work who are citizens that we certainly do not need to add people here illegally to leech of the system.

Luckily there is someone who is looking out for the citizens, "I don't care if they are illegal immigrants," Reid said. "They should not be driving on our streets without a license, without insurance. I expect the Oakland Police Department to do its job and get them off the street."

Perhaps it is true that our current laws and our current situation make it hard - if not impossible - to enforce, but what needs to be addressed is how to fix the system, not ignore the laws and even claim that other laws should not apply since they are illegally here. Common sense, is it?

Support for Israel - Part II

2004-09-28T08:49:00.000-04:00

It was when I started to see what has happened since Israel has become a state that I gained some background on why things are the way they are.

The United Nations has many condemnations against Israel, and we always head how Kofi and the rest of the UN 'condemns' violence from 'all sides' when addressing the problems with Israel / Palestine. This is another attempt to make all violent the same - whether it is a targeted strike against a Hamas leader, or if it is a bombing of a bus in Jerusalem it makes no difference to those people who sit around offices in New York, Geneva, and elsewhere.

The media also is part of the problem because, as the saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads."

The Israeli military follows rules and always attempts to minimize collateral damage when engaging the enemy. The problem is when the enemy decides to pick civilian areas as the battleground areas. Palestinian 'militants' attack Israeli forces in a way that makes firing back a potential civilian blood bath.

These people do not care about life, rules, or decency and it shows in their methods and policies. How can I back such people? While I have nothing but sadness for those children growing up in the mess, it is those people who raise them that cause the perpetuation and as such there is no way for me support them, or their actions.

When a society cares so little about teaching their children good values and what is right and instead teaches them to hate people (Jews) and to go play around tanks there is a level of neglect impossible to fully explain and this is what happens thus I can never support it.

Why I Support Israel - Part I

2004-09-27T23:47:00.000-04:00

No nation is perfect, and although I support Israel, I support the United States far more than any other nation, Israel included...

During my younger days I initially fell for the 'scoreboard' attitude that so many others do when it comes to the Israeli / Palestinian problem. "Oh my, the body count is 2:1 or worse!" and the Palestinians are fighting tanks with rocks. This can not be happening.

Then I woke up and realized it wasn't. Don't get me wrong, of course people are dying, and yes more Palestinians are dying than Israelis, and Palestinians are taking on tanks. But none of that was in context. As I've tried to point earlier, people can rattle off facts quite easily, but how did those facts become facts? What are the events surrounding everything that happens and what is the foundation of this whole mess over there? So I set out to find not just facts, but some wisdom. Here's what I found:

Many things had been done to the Jews around the world even before Nazi Germany came to pass. Russia had pogroms, and Europe in general was a hostile place for many Jews.

Britain, in an effort to get Jews out of Europe as much as to 'give them a home' came up with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 which said, "His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

By 1939 the caring British along with most of Europe (and the US) put severe movement / immigration restrictions on Jews leaving them cut off from any real chance to leave Europe. The British White Paper declares so, even in the area set forth for Jews. "Ambiguity" is the reason why, or so they say.

So we have World War II, and we have the aftermath and we have the reaction around the world as to what happened to the Jews of Europe. The United Nations declare that the area controlled by the British (after WWII) should be made into two homes - one a Jewish State, and the other an Arab State for the Palestinians.

This goes before a vote of the UN member nations, the list of those nations who voted against the creation of both is telling: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.

Arab mobs storm Jerusalem and Muslim 'irregulars' (the term Terrorist has yet to be coined) attacked civilians around the area called Israel as soon as the vote passes. As soon as Israel declares itself a nation (14 May 1948) Arab neighbors invade both the area for Israel and the area for the Arab State causing the refugee problem we see to this day. Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Egypt all invade (note the nations who voted no for the creation of the two states).

During this time parts of Jerusalem fall to Transjordan, but Israel manages to push Egypt out of her territory and even all the way off the Sinai. Egypt retains control of the Gaza Strip. After a treaty is signed, Israel GIVES BACK the Sinai to Egypt due to pressure from the UK and the US.

The West Bank unites with Jordan, yet where are the Palestinian outcries for Gaza and the West Bank? Seems they only care about having those when it is held by Jews, but not when it is conquered and controlled by invading Arabs.

In 1964 the PLO is established in Egypt with Arafat as leader, a year later Syria declares that there is only one solution for the Palestinian situation - no Israel. In 1967 Israel is attacked by Arab nations again, the UN condemns such attacks, Egypt kicks out UN peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, and moves forces near to Israel. The Six Day War leads to Israel taking over lands that made hard-to-defender borders easier and this time doesn't give the lands back (except Sinai). This was a 'pre-emptive' strike by Israel, but it was also the last major combat seen.

PLO terrorists get a bit out of control and begin to attack Jordan as well since it has a large Christian population (Black September). PLO ends up in Lebanon. Terrorists of various cells begin hijacking planes, making demands. Later in the '70s we have terrorists killing Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich and much more.

Every time the Arab nations failed to conquer Israel, they would complain and whine to the United Nations that Israel took their land. These same nations who have no regard for the UN when they invade magically want the UN to listen when things do not go their way. Sadly, the UN listens and condemns Israel many times.

Meanwhile, the refugee situation only gets worse as the UN has made literal CAREERS out of keeping people in camps since 1948. There are people in those camps over 50 years old who do not have any citizenship because their Arab brethren refuse to grant it to them. The Arab brethren would rather they stay fenced in rather than join the populations.

Why? Their suffering makes for better PR than the Arab nations integrating them would be -- there would be no starving children to show to the world as 'proof' of Israel's nastiness.

The reality is the Arab nations never wanted a Jewish State, Arab Nations have tried military attacks to rid the world of a Jewish State, and when that didn't work they turned to funding terrorism to get the job done. This has not worked either, and has at times backfired on them, too. If the Arab nations wanted it to succeed all they would have to do is pool some oil money and you would have a very well to do society ready to buy the best, invest well, and have a good economy. Arab nations instead fund bombs and guns to destroy Israel in hopes of having it all for themselves. They care not for the Palestinians, they care not about the UN (unless it serves them), and they will stop at nothing to destroy Israel.

One reason I support Israel is because they have proven to be more than honorable when you look upon the events of the last 50 years and you see exactly what could have happened at any point if the Arabs had won against her; Israel would be no more and there would be a second genocide against the remaining Jews.

Americans usually don't understand what it means to be surrounded by nations who want you dead, nor do we understand what it is like to have terrorists walking around your places, casing locations, and getting ready to blow up a busload of people simply because they are Jewish. Because Americans do not have a grasp on this, they do not understand how things got this way and why. It is not that I no longer care about the Palestinians because, in all truthfulness, they are being used by the Arabs - their Muslim Brethren - as tools to continue the war against Israel.

Israel does exist as a state, and although it was 'given' to Jews in what seemed to be charity (though the reality was to get those pesky Jews out of Europe - NOT to do them a favor), they have given enough blood to make it their own and as such they should keep it. As long as the Palestinians side with Terror and permit themselves to be run by the likes of Arafat then nothing good shall come to them.

The first reason I support Israel is because Israel has done what is right far more than her neighbors - even at the potential cost of her own security.

Are We Ignoring War on Terror?

2004-09-27T13:27:00.000-04:00

John Kerry seems to think that the War in Iraq is a distraction, and that a nation the size of the United States, with the capacities we have can not possibly hit al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and do anything in Iraq as well. This poor assessment of the United States is yet another reason - all its own - not to vote for Kerry since he is so mistaken.

The Australian (named after a nation who is going it alone with us) is reporting that Amjad Farooqi was killed in a battle with security forces in Pakistan, "His elimination is a crushing blow to the al-Qa'ida network in Pakistan because he was the man who had been providing al-Qa'ida terrorists the manpower for carrying out attacks in the country."

Farooqi was also wanted over the 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded on video after being lured to Pakistan on the false promise of an interview with senior al-Qa'ida figures."

What many people everywhere do not understand is that bringing down a group like al-Qaida is similar to bringing down the mob. This is because, like the mob, terrorism is a rather abstract entity with no set boundaries, populations, and even motivations. Terrorism has many families like the mob does, and many of these families might not always get along, but like when the FBI comes knocking door, when anti-terrorist security forces come knocking, these groups have a common enemy.

It so happens that one of the largest terrorist families with the greatest reach and very large bank accounts is al-Qaida. Another family is Hamas, another is Hezbollah, another is Abu Sayyaf, another is Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, another is Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and PFLP - General Command, another is Ansar al-Islam , and the list could go on and on.

As you see, we could name groups for a while and not get them all, and this is why saying, "We're going after al-Qaida," is such a huge mistake because if we can get rid of any of these or other groups we should do so. We can say that we are going after al-Qaida, but we should make it an exclusive activity.

What if al-Qaida closed up shop and decided to call themselves Little Brown Puppies? Could we claim victory? No, we'd have to go out and wage war against Little Brown Puppies. People often attach too much value to the name as opposed to the agenda of any organization.

Saddam was backing suicide bombers, Saddam also was known to kill his neighbors as well as so many of his own people. We know Saddam was not our friend. Do the math. Should he stay or should he go? It also gives us a base of operations in one of the most volatile parts of the world. Strategically this was the right thing to do.

This method of dealing with individuals, groups, and those nations who support them is nothing new. In the 19th century we send the US 6th Fleet to the Mediterranean to fight the Barbary Pirates. They still operate in that area to this day. Why did we go there? To protect American and indeed, to protect western shipping upon the seas. These pirates were privateers who operated on their own, but were supported by certain nations.

The Marine Corps Hymn mentions 'the shores of Tripoli', and it was from these days and battles it originated.

Nothing was easy, nothing was fast, but we eventually made it not worth the while to decide to try to raid the shipping lanes. It is this attitude we need when dealing with the war on terror. Bush was right when he said it will never be completely over because in the end, it only takes one person with a bomb to keep it alive. This requires much more than responding to terrorist acts, playing defense, and hoping we don't let anything slip by. This requires action, this requires resolve, and this requires a plan that will give us a long term security and stability that Kerry's short-term thinking can not possibly address. What we can do is destroy the infrastructure and make it not worth the time of those who have the funds to support such terrorism as we discover and when we discover it.

What we can do is exactly what we are doing, but those who lack perspective and understanding seem to think our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan / Pakistan are not related or feel that fighting in Iraq is not helpful. The Democrats have a candidate who fits this unfortunate profile and now is not the time for that.

Heinz-Kerry foolishly prattles on...

2004-09-26T21:51:00.000-04:00

Teresa was busy acting important and is reported as rebutting a 'heckler' in Colorado.

During a question and answer session, a young man demanded to know why Kerry voted to give Bush authority to attack Iraq but voted against an $87 billion appropriation bill to support the war effort there.
"Is that the kind of thing he would do as president?," the man asked.
Heinz Kerry sharply asked the man whether he had read the legislation that was voted on.
When he said no, she told him that Kerry had supported $60 billion in military appropriations for Iraq, but would not vote for the full $87 billion because he considered it a "blank check."

When the term 'blank check' is commonly used, it means a signed check with no amount to be paid filled in, or is figurative for total freedom of action; carte blanche. Since there is a limit ($87 billion) this excuse she gives is not very accurate. Her attempt to belittle someone for not reading legislation is also a shame considering Kerry himself did not read the Patriot Act, though we all know the course that has taken.

She of course goes on to mention Halliburton, ignoring the reality that Clinton also used Halliburton in the Balkans despite Dyncorp winning what is known as LOGCAP, or Logistics: Civil Augmentation Program (hiring non-military contractors to do certain things).

Clinton basically sole-sourced Halliburton all of Bosnia until 1999 - despite agreeing to terms with the contract winner Dyncorp in 1997 for contracting out civilian operations.

This is not being mentioned to condemn Clinton's choice because his advisors were correct - Halliburton could do the job they needed, Halliburton was already there, and Halliburton had the most expertise in the field. For more information, read this by Byron York.

No Teresa, you husband didn't vote for the bill because he doesn't want the President to have a real chance of success. See, without the money how can we AFFORD more troops to send over there even if Bush wanted to -- how will you afford your 40,000 more troops for the entire military?

They blame bush for not having enough bullet-proof vests, but with Kerry voting no, where would we get the money for them? He determined the risk of Halliburton making money to be worth saying no to the very bullet-proof vests he would condemn Bush for not having for the troops. He even brings this up on his own website in a way to blame Bush for underfunding.

Making sure Halliburton doesn't make money is more important the equipping our troops as long as there is a Republican President it would seem. But once he's in office, *poof!*, he'll fund hiring 40,000 more troops. This is the most partisan, selfish, and immoral act to risk the lives of troops in order to smear your opponent.

Teresa then opened up the bag of idiocy and naivete in a way that only the sheltered and uniformed could possibly reach into, and pulled out this gem, "The way we live in peace in a family, in a marriage, in the world, is not by threatening people, is not by showing off your muscles. It's by listening, by giving a hand sometimes, by being intelligent, by being open and by setting high standards..."

Here we go again, echoing the same line as her husband on matters of how to run international affairs.

The way I live my life with my family or my marriage is really between me and those directly involved. No one of my family will fly a plane into my house, blow up the bus I ride, nor cut off my head!

But the world is a far different place than my family, and as such we need a far different approach. She is nothing short of a dim-wit to think listening, giving a hand, or pure intellectuality will stop terrorists, Iran, or North Korea.

She is the perfect example of the end result of years of relativism and deconstructionalism: We have someone who thinks that if we just sit down and talk everything will be fine since in the end we're all just humans. The sad part is only the prosperity and security of Western Civilization has made it possible to think this way, but it also Western Civilization that people like her find so very offensive and wrong.

This does not work and history shows us this with every castle, wall, moat, piece of armor, and weapon ever made. To ignore this reality is to put the entire nation and all our allies at an unacceptable level of risk and danger. A vote for Kerry is a vote for just this.

November approaches, as do our enemies.

Defining Terrorism

2004-09-25T08:44:00.000-04:00

In order to 'understand' terrorism it first needs to have a definition that is accurate enough to actually know if what we are looking at is really terrorism.

The FBI defines it as, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. "

It can be seen that this definition lacks a clear meaning because any revolutionary force could fall under this definition and here's how:

Group A is fed up with the current government for whatever reason, and decide to take action. This in itself - staging a coup - should not be considered terrorism because as Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

This grants the rights to people to take arms against governments they find to be oppressive. It would make sense that Jefferson feels this way since the United States ended up having a bloody revolution in the end.

And in the end the US Revolution was about coercing the current king of England to giving up control of the colonies. We did indeed convince his to back off, and had to again 1812.

When examining the three points of the FBI definiton, the colonists were acting illegally of course, and violently in the end; these actions were of course to coerce the king to let us go, what other reason does one fight a government but to make them see things in a different light? And since these actions were all around things like the Townshend duties and the Intolerable Acts, thus their initiation was deeply founded in political and social issues and objectives.

It is for this reason that we need to give a better definition to terrorism. Here is a beginning (though probably not complete in itself it is a start).

Terrorism is the willful and targeted destruction of life and property of those who are not in direct control, nor have direct authority, of the political or social cause the enactors are against. Exceptions would be the military or other tools of the government structure directly involved with the enforcement of the political or social policies in question.

This basically enables our Revolution to happen without any significant number of people being called terrorists. It also enables the French Resistance and many other groups to not be called terrorists.

It does however make just about any attack on the US Military a non-terrorist activity, but in the end those actions are not the same as killing people who are not armed, trained, nor in the service of the government to enforce the desires of the government.

You can not compare the Cole bombing to a bus load of civilians being blown up because one is there on official US government business, the others are not there on the part of any government business, they are simply trying to mind their own.

The Marine Barracks in Lebanon is another one. This is not a terrorist act because of the same criteria. Taking a plane of civilians and flying it into another building full of civilians is definitely terrorism.

What about a nuclear attack against Hiroshima? What about firebombing Dresden? How about V-2s over England? These are all questions that need to be asked to see if the definition stands the test.

War blurs the lines - it is true. For example, when there was a sensible peace after the First World War (i.e. no unconditional surrender, the aggressors were left relatively intact) there was only a lull in the fighting. To say that there was a First and a Second World War is actually not to look at the history of the time in between. It was nothing more but a ceasefire and a time to regroup and reorganize.

France knew this, proof is the Maginot Line.

As a matter of fact there longer and more prosperous times in breaks of fighting during the 100 years war. The Peloponnesian War was a fight amongst make Greek groups, but mainly between Athens and Sparta. At one point, after ten years of fierce fighting, Athens agreed to a treaty called the Peace of Nicias that said there would be no more fighting for fifty years. In all her ancient wisdom Athens did not realize that Sparta only used this time to rebuild the war machine - not the cities. Athens, with all her sophistication was too busy talking about peace to realize the outcome.

Sparta attacked after a failed campaign by Athens against Sicily and eventually sacking Athens and destroying her society. Sparta was allied with the Persians who waited until the time was right and then moved in as well. Nothing remained except what you can see as a tourist today.

What does that have to do with the questions mentioned above?

When nations battle each other the aim is to conquer. Perhaps not in the empire-building sense, but to take over and at least start over. In order to start over there must be a willful commitment from those who lost not to attack or do it again. Promises are not enough as those in Athens and France and England can attest.

The victorious side must take the will to fight away from the enemy. With terrorism there is no real way the terrorists would conquer a city let alone a nation so the ends are not the same. The ends is to manipulate the current government and population for the terrorists desires. This difference is key. And while yes the bombing of Dresden was to destroy the capability of the city to produce weapons to be used against allies we also understood the secondary result of taking the will to fight out of the people.

Scorched Earth Policy is the same. Make the enemy understand that to do this again will be even more costly and horrible, thus the desire to rebel, attack, or attempt to conquer will not be as likely.

V-2s over England had the same effect. It was to frustrate the English, show them that Germany had technology that they could not stop, and to slowly erode the will to fight. Those bombs unto themselves could not win the war, but they could cause attrition of will which is a good start.

Nation versus Nation fighting is very different that a group versus a nation, or a group versus a society.

Sparta knew what Athens did not - fighting will continue forever without decisive victory because people have pride. Any victory must eliminate all pride in the previous government and its accomplishments. The Treaty of Versailles failed this, and the result is well known.

Thus terrorism is not possible when one nation engages another, despite the horrors of combat and war on the population.

Kerry's Plan is Naive

2004-09-24T21:54:00.000-04:00

Here is a transcript of the Kerry Plan.

Kerry still likes the W. is for wrong idea, so Kerry's Sesame Street letter of the campaign continues.

Bush is wrong on this, wrong on that, wrong over here, wrong over there. Ok...

His international plan is as resolute as any post-JFK (the real JFK) democrat has been, but that isn't saying much.

"Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan ... the president rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice."

Kerry of course voted for this measure. But he'd have never actually gone to war... really... or something.

"Instead of bringing the world together against the terrorists ... the president alienated the countries whose help we need to defeat them. That was the wrong choice."

Despite France and Germany and so forth being unwilling to send troops they are still cracking down on terrorists in their own country and they are still keeping lists of finances to block, etc. They didn't want to go to Iraq because of that wonderfully successful Oil for Food program that was permitting them to make a decent amount of money. Aren't you, Senator Kerry, upset with them for this?

"Instead of facing the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran ... he allowed these dangers to mount on his presidential watch. That was the wrong choice."

We'll get to that one...

His solutions show how much he and his advisors understand the world, current and recent events, and the personalities involved:

"As president, I will expand our Army by 40,000 troops so that we have more soldiers to find and fight the enemy..."

But didn't you just say Bush was going to bring back the Draft? How will you do this without a draft Senator Kerry? It sounds more like you want the draft. Hmm...

Side note to speech writer: FIND and FIGHT the enemy sounds better than fight and find...

"And we will accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies to track down and bring down terrorists."

Going to bring Al Gore in to invent something cooler than the internet? Here's where the ideas get really good:

"I will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years."

Good luck considering there are many undocumented nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union. Maybe if we do a Google search...

"This week, Iran announced its intention to process enough raw uranium to create five nuclear weapons.
I will make it clear to Iran that we will lead an international effort to impose tough sanctions if they do not permanently suspend their uranium enrichment program and provide verifiable assurances that they are not developing nuclear weapons."

Tough sanctions on an international level. Where have I heard this before? Oh yes, the United Nations. This isn't tough enough Senator Kerry, this is not tough enough at all. How will you verify it either? Sounds good on paper, but...

"Yesterday, there were reports that North Korea are preparing to fire an intermediate-range ballistic missile that may be able to carry a nuclear warhead. I will work with our allies to get the six party talks with North Korea back on track and I will talk directly with the North Koreans to get a verifiable agreement that will eliminate their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly. We have to get serious about diplomacy with North Korea now. Only then will we have the support of our allies for action if diplomacy fails."

You stupid, stupid man. This is the most dangerous nation on the earth right now, and you propose the most idiotic things in the world right now.

Talking directly to the North Koreans is exactly what they want. It works like this Senator:

Kim Jong-Il is an egotistical, maniacal dictator. He wants to do things his father could not, and demanding that the United States sits down with North Korea as equals - and make no mistake this is what you'll be doing when you sit down alone with them - will permit North Korea to say how they have intimidated the most powerful nation in the world. They will say that it is only with power and defiance that America listens, and this will be a rallying time for all those North Koreans to see how powerful they have become under the wise and daring rule of Kim Jong-Il. This will rally the people - something North Korea needs desperately to do - and something we can not let them do.

Also, sitting down with them alone is to slap the face of South Korea. Currently South Korea is not my fondest of nations either, but there things that need to be remembered. Across, just north of the DMZ, North Korea has over 8000 artillery guns, and over 2700 multiple rocket launchers --all of which can hit Seoul (pop: 10+ million) since Seoul is only 37 miles away. Seoul might think they have a vested interest int hese matters and it would only be polite - as to not alienate our allies - to let them be there, at the table.

North Korea is also smart. Many of the sides of the mountains facing away from South Korea have been made to hide artillery and supply vehicles, some of these mountains are thought to be able to survive nuclear blasts, too.

When you go in to talking to North Korea alone -- hey didn't you mention how bad it is to 'go it alone'? - a very important ally (South Korea) will feel left out of things that are very important to her. This is a bad idea. Since North Korea likes to play with missiles perhaps Japan should be invited to these talks as well.

You are either too uninformed, too stupid, or too egotistical to understand this.

North Korea needs to feel isolated and without anyone to talk to on it's own terms. North Korea can never feel like it has the upper hand, nor can they feel that they can tell the US, or any other nation what to do or how to do it. I am not an expert in the field of behavioral science, but to me this is obvious when dealing with a maniac.

Senator Kerry is incapable of understanding why certain elements of politics are the way they are, and this is yet another reason we need George W. Bush for FOUR MORE YEARS.

Kerry: More Help or More Harm?

2004-09-24T08:42:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post seems to think that when conservatives get upset about Kerry's remarks over Iraq, and his wonderful wife's comments hinting about bin Laden, that is 'rhetoric'. Dana Milbank's article is headlined with, "Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits".

So what exactly are some of the things Kerry has said to make people think that? As stated earlier, he's said that al Sadr was a legitimate, or sort of legitimate voice in Iraq when he decided it was the right thing to be critical of Iraq and Coalition policy that removed his newspaper (which was used to promote and organize violence) from publication.

The most telling sign that Kerry does not understand that what he says about Iraq is, if not emboldening the enemy, it is not making life for our Soldiers easier. Check this out:

The words written behind this 'misunderstood' figure say, "No More Bush".

Kerry also likes to say, "They're charging 17 percent more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That's the wrong choice; that's the wrong direction; and that's the wrong leadership for America."

Of course, it has been mentioned that 17% of all the coalition are not the U.S., but go it alone still seems to be his response. Either he is willing to snub and mock our allies, or he is completely uninformed as to what is actually going on in Iraq. Either case is a bad case for someone who wants to be President.

Does talk like his embolden?

Terrorists thought so in Spain where a cowardly attack lead to Spain pulling forces out of Iraq. It is true that the election was a close one, but after the attack people decided to grant the terrorists their wishes. Is that considered emboldening?

Kerry talks of sagging troop morale, but just as with Vietnam, Kerry is a source of negative attacks and comments when he uses words like quagmire , failure, and all the rest that add up to saying that our troops are in fact dying for everything groups like ANSWER say they are - things like oil, US Imperialism, and of course many leftists say our troops are dying for nothing at all.

Has Kerry ever said anything positive about U.S. Troops and not taken those statements back? EVER?

The Democratic Party picked a horrible candidate and it shows.

Take another look at the image and you will see why we need FOUR MORE YEARS.

Tolerance

2004-09-23T11:40:00.000-04:00

The leftists of the world love to paint conservatives as intolerant. Intolerant of minorities, intolerant of homosexuals, intolerant of 'those not like us', and intolerant of anything else hat might seem like conservatives are terrible people.

There have been times in the past where conservatives most certainly have been on the wrong side of issues of tolerance, but since no party can claim the formula for utopia, a permanent condemnation seems inappropriate.

Tolerance, however, is also a costly proposal when used to further the ambitions of those who wish harm towards the very society where tolerance is a cherished characteristic.

Tolerance demands that all profiling is wrong, that statistics which may say one group is more likely to do this or that are racist or xenophobic, and tolerance also says that we must respect other cultures' values as if they were our own.

When people fly airplanes into buildings, we need not try to understand them for the sake of anything but to know how to stop them from doing it again. Their motivation is as equally irrelevant.

When a guy named al-Sadr prints a newspaper not offering a point / counter-point in Iraq, but prints how Americans should die and be kicked out of Iraq, John Kerry says, "It's interesting to hear that when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq and, well, let me change the term 'legitimate.' When they shut a newspaper that belongs to a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."

Tolerance and open-mindedness make Kerry's vision cloudy. Not to mention that he's a partisan who really has never cared about American forces on the ground since his testimony the 1970s.

He is trying to cater to the emotions and appeal to the crowd of 'pacifist' who see this war as white versus non-whites, blood for oil, and all those people who look for reasons to blame the United States for (fill in reason here).

There can be some who say that, "Well Bush said that we won't win the war on terror and then made a correction, Kerry does the same here."

Bush did make a correction yes. And since we don't know the entire interview Kerry might have been slanting all the questions one way in order to make a point and then got caught in his own spin. It happens, and it doesn't make you a bad person either.

What does make you a bad person is when you publicly say that, "...aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment." So Hamas and Hezbollah are only sort of terrorist groups? Are you daft Senator Kerry?

When Hamas blows up a bus of people in Israel are they sort of dead?

Leftists try to embrace that which is unworthy of being embraced and this is yet another example.

Leftists have a hard time tolerating historical symbols of a place called 'The Angels" (Los Angeles). Leftists do not like public expression of Christian faith. Leftists despise Bush because he takes his faith more seriously than they would like to see. Relativism comes into play and leftists say that Bush's Christian ideas remind them of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. But the strangest thing is they really do not come out to condemn Islamic beheadings of Westerners in Iraq, but they do condemn Bush's policies.

The tolerance of the left is a lie. It is a tool to make those who disagree with them look unthinking, uncaring, and incapable of understanding the situations and problems facing others. Leftists prefer not to tolerate America, leftists prefer not to tolerate people who make Christianity a central part of their lives, all the time leftists do tolerate Islamic Fundamentalists, they do tolerate tyrants in places like Iraq, or Syria (while characterizing Bush as being Hitler).

Kerry has aligned himself with these people - if he himself is not already in their camp anyhow. People like Lieberman have been pushed to the side of the Democratic party and marginalized because he is a voice of reason and articulation who will not be tolerated in the camp of the tolerant.

Another good decision by Kerry - Edwards 2004.

Respect and Judgments

2004-09-22T23:34:00.000-04:00

Ever hear, either directly or indirectly, "You (he, she, whatever) have to earn my respect," by someone who obviously doesn't really have a clue that most of the time respect is a two way street.

What ever happened to the idea that you should respect everyone until they have proven to be unworthy? How in the world can someone 'earn' the respect of someone who initially doesn't respect them?

Is 'earning' this person's respect worth the investment? Usually it is not because 'earning' actually means bowing down to them and treating them like some sort of god or goddess. This can usually be heard from young people too stupid to know when to shut their mouth, and too full of themselves to even know they should. The statement itself is a way of saying I don't care about you so let's just skip the formalities.

These same people also have another habit of saying things like, "You need to accept me for who I am."

More people need to say something like, "No actually I don't. In order for me to accept you, you need to earn my respect." Ohh the look on their face I could imagine... "Hey, that's my line."

The reason this is being mentioned is because, after reading the article about convicted felons and them whining about voting, or being told to whine about voting something struck me.

These exact people ARE being told that society does not have to accept them at face value anymore and that is driving them crazy. Society needs no criminals, and society needs no criminals influencing the events of the day for normal citizens. If the whole civil process were so important then perhaps criminals should understand how important order and the rules are.

I can honestly say that I do not respect ex-cons, I do not care about their time spent the 'the pen'. I've seen too many honest people struggling away every day - myself at times included - to feel any real emotion for those people who felt the need to destroy the way normal Americans want to live.

At the same time I'd not be mean to them, but their deeds are unworthy of proper respect and they must earn the rest of it back.

In those states where felons lose the right to vote, this is exactly what happens. These states have decided that felons time served isn't enough to ensure a responsible citizen. Since habitual crime is an issue and a concern they have every right to be concerned. The idea that serving your time absolves you of your past actions is untrue since many felons can never buy a gun, and some felons have to report where they go to authorities at all times, too.

These rules / laws have both stood up to courts of appeal, thus are perfectly within the rights of the state to create and enforce.

The fact that the majority of these types (criminals) are Democrats speak poorly of the party since obviously they see the Democrats as nothing but marks. With so many causes to champion, championing the cause of criminals should be a low priority.

Congratulations Democrats on another cause unworthy of supporting.

Convicts Feel Cheated

2004-09-22T20:18:00.001-04:00

This is a sad article.

There seems to be a few people hard at work to solidify the minority vote for the Democrats and it looks as if they have some people working as 'news reports' at Reuters and Yahoo.

"Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting. "

Those laws simply state that if you are a felon you lose your right to have a say in the workings of society because you have decided to act as if you were not part of society. Also, every state has a State Clemency Board that permits some felons (mostly non-violent or those who have been a responsible member of society for a while) to re-gain the right to vote as well.

If the right to vote is so important 1) don't be a criminal, or 2) once you serve your sentence be good and prove yourself worthy of taking part in society.

And yes of course blacks are disproportionately felons, so yes blacks are disproportionately blocked from voting. This is not racism, this is simply a pattern of criminal behavior.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

Behind on rent or utilities will be arrested? People believed it? I guess they might have a point after all with idea the butterfly ballot was too hard to understand.

As far as parking tickets go... If you have outstanding fines levied against you by court order, then you just might qualify for being arrested. Personally I think this is a good idea to catch criminals. But then again you might not want my opinion about profiling.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Impersonating an officer has been illegal for a long time now, but I guess since according to these people having police around a voting place might discourage people from coming, there is no one there to check on these things are there?

Video cameras on public grounds like schools or churches -- places you usually go to vote -- are not against the law. Don't be scared people, just go vote.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University. The federal government does not require people to produce a photo identification unless they are first-time voters who registered by mail.
"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

Don't get your license suspended, don't break laws, act like normal citizens and everything will be fine. If blacks don't care enough to bring a license, or keep their license then they have more pressing matters than just voting.

While the Federal Government might not make demands about licenses, but states can. Voter fraud is big (see my previous post), and it seems that a photo ID being required to take place in a very sensitive and important activity (voting) is not too much to ask. How do they buy liquor, is that an unfair requirement, too? Cigarettes?

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

Sounds like a lack of true role models, parental guidance and a total disregard for authority are taking quite a toll in some states. Again, don't be a criminal.

"This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Didn't I bring this word up earlier? Communities don't have 25% of its members being convicted felons. Communities need to teach responsibility and ... dare I say it... values.

Jessie Allen, let me explain why people convicted of a felon should not vote unless they ask for the right back: They do not care about society. They are not responsible people. These people need not vote nor run for office (Marion Barry) just because they got out of prison. Let them ask if it is important to them. Let them work at being citizens and examples to the community.

Responsibility. Learn it. Embrace it. Then none of this will matter to you.

Forced to Take a Car at Gunpoint?

2004-09-22T18:54:00.000-04:00

Although I'm not a big Oprah fan - mainly for her glossing over of women in Islam with her deceitful interview with Queen Rania of Jordan - her car givaway seems to have left some people whining about having to pay taxes on the 'winnings'.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that some of the people just can't deal with paying the taxes on the car.

"As I was standing up there, the responsible portion of me said, 'This is very nice, but where am I going to get the money for the taxes.'"

Well here's a hot tip for your responsible rear end, tell them to give the car away to charity, or perhaps just not accept it. It is quite strange to hear all these people whining about a car offer for them that basically ends up as a 75% off sale being turned into something undesirable.

People really need to look at themselves when they say things like, "We have to pick the car up between Oct. 1, 2004, and Feb. 28, 2005," said Nelson. "We've decided that we are going to wait until the first of the year so we can have all of 2005 and the first four months of 2006 to figure out how to pay for this."

Figure out? Well, you can either get a loan, or just not take the car. It all seems pretty simple to me. Waaaaah!

Iran Learns from CBS's Blunder

2004-09-22T16:43:00.000-04:00

The BBC is reporting that bloggers and the internet in general are a need of an attitude adjustment.

"...some recent reports have now suggested that Iranian authorities are considering the creation of a national intranet - an internet service just for Iran - which would be separate from the world wide web."

Yes, the internet is a dangerous place, even its inventor, Al Gore has seen his child turn into a Frankenstein when he says, "The Administration works closely with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'"

Mr. Ex-Vice President, would you prefer the Iranian suggestion? You're trying your darnedest to keep Nader from being able to run for President, so I think we all know your true feelings about how things should be.

Kommisar, my papers are in order!

Liberals and Little Folk

2004-09-21T19:56:00.000-04:00

Liberals always claim to be for the little folk. They are the ones who are 'lookin' out for ya', they're the ones who want to keep big bad capitalists in check - usually through taxation and regulation, and yes, they're the ones who are supposed to be the type who is willing to go to bat for you when no one else will.

Unless you stand in their way. Once that happens all the colorful words used to describe those capitalists, conservatives, and other stupid and / or greedy types now are used on you.

Welcome to the club Ralph Nader. See Ralph, I might not like you much, but you do indeed stand for something and won't sit in the back when you don't get it. Although this characteristic is bad in everyday life, in politics and commentary is is a valuable trait.

Ralph has a game plan that scares the Democrats because they can not stop him. Ralph knows that the lunatic fringe of the liberal world is his, and he also understands what his followers mean to the left in general. He is attempting to leverage these voters to bring the Democratic party more in line with where he thinks it should be heading.

It also scares the Democratic Party because his supporters are as fanatical as they come in the world of American politics and they will not miss a meeting, protest, nor a vote.

Being the defender of liberty and the rights of the little guy, what do you think the Democrats would do to someone expressing their unalienable right of free speech and to run for political office?

Force them off the ballots of course. Like Al Gore, they Democrats depend on the courts to try to either change or ignore the laws in place. They look for technicalities in the signatures collected, they try injunctions and restraining orders in court, and they of course sling mud at them.

This poor minority of free-minded liberals are outcasts to their own side of the fence and are treated as if they were carrying a very dangerous disease. Of course they are carrying something -- ideas that the Democratic establishment does not like.

Keep it up guys, let those true colors keep shining through.

Kofi's Lack of Perspective and Understanding

2004-09-21T13:35:00.000-04:00

Kofi decided to show his lack of ability to grasp proportion and, as I've been saying over and over, it shows his lack of ability to understand context and cause and effect.

Here's an excerpt from his speech today:

Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world. Again and again we see laws shamelessly disregarded: those that ordain respect for innocent life for civilians, for the vulnerable, especially children.
To mention only a few flagrant and topical examples. In Iraq we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief workers, journalists and other noncombatants are taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion. At the same time we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused.
In Darfur, we see whole populations displaced and their homes destroyed while rape is used as a deliberate strategy. In northern Uganda we have seen children mutilated and forced to take part in acts of unspeakable cruelty, lands seized and needless civilian casualties caused by Israel's excessive use of force.
And all around the world we see people being prepared for further such acts, through hate propaganda directed at Jews, Muslims, against anyone who can be identified as different from one's own group.

OK, let's take a close look at what he said in front of a world audience and attempt to gain some understanding of why the world thinks the way it does.

He invokes 'the children' as all people do, but like most of them he knows that no one will disagree with him since they do not want to look like they support what happened in places like Beslan.

In Iraq we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief workers, journalists and other noncombatants are taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion.

He and I both agree on this point. People who have no real tactical value are being murdered and killed for no real reason at all. Journalists, at times, actually might be on their side, too.

At the same time we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused.

And then Kofi loses balance and focus. Some how he finds it fit to put Abu Ghraib into the same paragraph as those who kidnap and murder people. Relativism at work right here.

In Darfur, we see whole populations displaced and their homes destroyed while rape is used as a deliberate strategy. In northern Uganda we have seen children mutilated and forced to take part in acts of unspeakable cruelty...

So Kofi, what is an enforcer of the 'Rule of Law' like the UN going to do? Will you intervene or will you simply idly mention it from your very comfortable place in New York since this was brought up quite vocally by the United States at the General Assembly? Since the UN is so unwilling to help out in Iraq (and that's every nation's decision most certainly), I'm sure Germany and France has some troops to help out with that. Will you ask them? Of course not. Lip services in matters of life and death is horrible.

...lands seized and needless civilian casualties caused by Israel's excessive use of force.

They've been whining about that since 1968, and even before. Since Kofi really doesn't know what it takes to secure a nation it makes sense that he'd not grasp why Israel actually kills Hamas leaders, builds fences, and otherwise does what it thinks it needs to do to secure safety for its citizens.

Israel is a whole other topic that needs its own posts -- and soon shall.

And all around the world we see people being prepared for further such acts, through hate propaganda directed at Jews, Muslims, against anyone who can be identified as different from one's own group.

Israel is prepared and needs to be prepared or it could face complete destruction at the hands of some friendly neighbors.

I am curious Kofi, where is all the hatred propaganda directed against Muslims?

This is a very international example of postmodernistic relativism and how it equates naked human pyramids with beheading civilians. They consider Israel to be guilty of 'excessive force' because Israel will not knock on the door and attempt to arrest the Hamas leaders anymore. Israel will not risk their own people when they have other ways to stop Hamas activities.

This is also what is being constantly fed to people at the universities around the US and the world.

Document Fraud not the Biggest Concern

2004-09-21T11:54:00.000-04:00

CBS means nothing in the light of this!

Will this story make the headlines anywhere at all?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - About 46,000 people are registered to vote in two states, New York and Florida, a violation of both states' laws that could affect the outcome of the November presidential election, according to an investigation by the Daily News.
Many New Yorkers spend the winter months in sunny Florida, which played a pivotal role in the 2000 election after George W. Bush narrowly won the state in a contested ballot recount. Florida could be a crucial state in the November presidential election.
The New York tabloid examined computer records to ferret out duplicate registrations in New York City and Florida.
The Daily News said it could not provide an exact count of how many people vote in both places, because millions of names are purged between elections. But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday.
The duel registrations have gone undetected because election officials do not check voter rolls across state lines, the newspaper said.
"There's no extensive investigation normally on a voter registration form," Steven Richman, general counsel for the city Board of Elections, told the paper. "We accept it at its face value."

Wow. Conspiracy theories are no longer needed because the conspiracies real and factual.

Hat tip to the Dennis Prager Show for making me go out and hunt this down.

With the Sunset Comes the Vampires

2004-09-21T07:45:00.000-04:00

While screaming that blood will flow in the streets, many leftists blame Bush for permitting the ban on 'assault weapons' to expire. We all know that if Congress wanted this to continue it would have, but as I've stated context and evidence is not enough to stop the attacks again our President.

CNN jumps on board the facts-without-context-boat claiming that, "Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. And because existing weapons and large ammo clips were protected by a "grandfather" provision, many pre-ban guns remained in use."

CNN does not bother then to ask, with all of the loopholes and grandfather clauses, how could this be effective legislation?

Reality says that it was not. First of all fully automatic weaponry was already banned, and not too many militaries would really want to launch an assault with the guns this law banned as their primary infantry weapon because these still were only semi-automatic rifles.

The law said that rifles with removable magazines and two or more sinister characteristics could not longer be made for public sale, nor sold new in the US. One of these characteristics was a folding stock. Obviously these enlighten lawmaker types like Dianne Feinstein thought that a folding stock would make it easier for criminals to hide the weapons. They also banned pistol grips, and even pistol grip-like entities associated with wooden (or synthetic) stocks.

My personal favorite - because I felt safer without them being on the streets and in the hands of thugs was when they decided that bayonet lugs were worth banning as well. When two robbers want to rob a gas station I have seen so many police reports where witnesses has heard the robbers say, "Fix bayonet!" before entering the building. Often, while watching our local news, we hear about people being held up in the street at bayonet point, too. Perhaps since they've tried to ban all magazines capable of carrying more than two rounds these elected officials think that criminals will resort to poking the victim into submission if they run out of rounds.

No, these people are idiots when they claim this law did any good. I'll grant them the 'noble experiment' award and send them on their way.

They do not use logic, they use emotion to decide how to make a law, and since some guns look mean and others do not, then it is those gun that need to be banned. Basically, if they've seen the gun - or any gun that looks like it - in a movie then it probably needs to be banned. This is firearm profiling and it needs to be stopped!

Russia Hauls in People

2004-09-21T01:44:00.000-04:00

According to a story out of The Moscow Times, it seems that, "In two days of raids, Moscow police have rounded up more than 11,000 Russians and foreigners on suspicion of living in the city without registering with the authorities."

It would appear that Russia has some problems, and without having two oceans to help protect it from so many terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, it looks like the Mama Bear might be up and about in her cave.

OTHER NEWS:

I was curious to see some statistics on how many people have been arrested in the United States since September 11th, and especially those arrests tied to the evil Patriot Act. It goes to figure that there were some conflicting stories associated with it.

NPR had a piece from May 24th of this year stating, "In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of arrests have been made..."

Thousands as of May 24th... good to know. Of course, since it was NPR I wanted to be a bit more responsible than CBS so I decided to check for some more data since I was not comfortable with that source all together.

In a less vague report from The Washington Times reported something quite different, "The USA Patriot Act has helped federal, state and local terrorism investigators arrest 310 persons since the September 11 attacks, 179 of whom have been convicted, and has proved to be "al Qaeda's worst nightmare," the Justice Department said yesterday in a report."

Ah, so it is the evil and demonic John Ashcroft is the one who does the count. So I said let us look at the DoJ's site and see what we can find. Bingo! It did not take long to find some answers.

Over the last two years:

Our intelligence and law enforcement communities, and our partners, both here and abroad, have identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells;
Worldwide, nearly two-thirds of al Qaida's known senior leadership has been captured or killed -- including a mastermind of the September 11th attacks;
Worldwide, more than 3,000 operatives have been incapacitated;
Terrorist cells across America have been broken up, in cities including Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa and Portland (Oregon);
361 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;
Already, 191 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and
Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.

So, I was still looking for the arrests number in the thousands. The Washington Post cites from the DoJ, NPR just kind of blathers... I do admit that 361 people being CHARGED has nothing to do with arrests in the sense that they are being held without charges being filed. This is understood. What is also needs to be understood is that you shouldn't just go around spouting numbers as if they were opinions about the weather when you can not substantiate those numbers.

It never fails that even when just looking around for some simple figures you can run into some very biased 'reporting' on the part of even government funded programs.

True Liberalism has already Won

2004-09-20T13:49:00.000-04:00

Little do the modern leftists realize, but thoughtful, considerate liberalism has already won. Modern liberalism really took roots after World War II when the average American realized how injust and cruel the world could be and many people decided to take action.

These people raised a generation in the hopes of never having to even see the same films brought home by the likes of Ernie Pyle, let alone actually have to fight and die.

These modern liberal become very outspoken as they grew up and while many of them shirked their duty and fled from Vietnam, many others still did what has to be done in the same way the previous generation did.

The modern liberals did notice some of the injustice in the United States, and thus starting in the 1950s and continuing on through the 1970s, helped create an environment that enabled change.

While it is true many were loud, many were also thoughtful, intellectually stimulating, and knew how not just to convey emotion but a logical argument for change. Many of the older generation were also fond of these ideas - people like John F. Kennedy who was a tough, strong, and very pro-American on foreign policy, yet understood enough about the world to realize the need for a good public image and got the Peace Corp moving.

Kennedy also pushed the civil rights movement into high gear with freedom rides and James Meredith. Kennedy also increased US 'advisors' in Vietnam from 1000 to 16000 by November of 1963. Kennedy understood what it would take to keep the United States at the top and he also understood that at all times forces and powers align against us and must never be taken too lightly.

This was also the time of the ignorant, loud, spoiled, and angry leftists. These people had no understanding of anything other than yelling, fighting, and hating the United States. These people embraced ideas like Communism, Marxism, and of course Soviet-style Stalinism because, like a youth stuck in rebellion over the authority of the parents, none of these people understood what they were really doing, they only did it because it 'felt good', 'seemed right', or offered them the adventure and sense of belonging they thought conformity would not grant them.

It was not the rioting in the 1960s that made the average American realize that racism was wrong. It certainly was not the protesting of our troops in Vietnam that finally made us leave. It was not the burning of bras, nor the burning of draft cards that made us realize some of the things we did.

It was thoughtful, logical, engaging liberals who changed public opinions on the issues I've mentioned and so many others.

We now are a society with more equality, and more chances for those considered minorities
to succeed than any other place in the world. We have the foundations and resources of so many brilliant minds that it is now impossible to even know everything in one subject let alone many. Our advances are a result of the thoughtful, concerned liberal who really did want the best for this nation and the people who live here.

These wonderful people are no longer considered liberal. They are considered middle of the road and sometimes even conservative. Those liberals who remain have gone from noble crusader who only wants what is right to the shake down artists who are more of a problem than an answer to any of the current problems we still may have.

The anti-war crowd never got their way and now we see them protesting again, this time with another generation of spoiled, loud, angry leftists who are not interested in intellectual debate. These types once again would rather just yell and scream because they are people without substance, they are motivated more by catch phrases than by research and analysis.

True liberalism, patriotic liberalism, won the day and we all see the results. Discrimination exists on such a small and fleeting level that people like Jesse Jackson really do not have much to do today. We have come far, and we do have to thank people like Kennedy and other true liberals for helping us get here.

As far as the leftists who are yelling, screaming, and even putting down people like John F. Kennedy go, we must all understand that they do not wish for anything but conflicts and insults. Let them shout and cry and have their protests and their puppets. They are nothing more than the marginal fringe who worship the likes of Moore and wish for American failure in order to help their cause because they alone can do nothing since they are without wisdom, context, and values.

Accusational Journalism

2004-09-20T01:32:00.000-04:00

Dan Rather's pressure for George Bush to 'explain himself' in the light of the whole idiocy concerning the forged military documents is a telling example that gives an idea of exactly how far someone might go to keep a subject alive -- despite the lack of anything credible.

It reminds of something China might do at a trial against an enemy of the state. By producing fake documents accusing someone of something, the prosecution taints the judge and jury. Even after being disprove, the documents have had a lasting effect because the prosecution can simply ask, "While the documents might be forgeries, they bring up some points that should be addressed. Since the defendant refuses to address these points it is obvious that he has something to hide."

This logical fallacy is exactly why the defense is not required to take the stand, and in fact why, according to the Fifth Amendment that no person, "... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...".

Although it might seem strange, the idea that no person should be made to have to an answer to anyone who decides to make accusations is an important one for any free society. The accusations must be compelling and reasonable and currently, without any documents, CBS only has a few biased people running around spouting off on a subject matter most people do not really seem to care about anyhow. All this has done is degrade the level of authority and respect for CBS.

So basically, without that provision in our society, Bush and Kerry both would have to answer to everyone who makes a claim no matter how stupid or how false it may be. Rather seems to think that this is a good way to keep a story alive, but it will only lead Dan down a path of becoming labeled a partisan, badgering, liberal who gives time to a few Bush bashers but not to the Swift Boat Vets because he is too nuanced for their rhetoric.

We must be careful in which direction we head in the light of these events because making demands of people by having them answer the charges of faked documents seems something made up on a tyrannical system where facts are secondary to appearance and attack dogs have no leashes.

A Voice in a Silent Forest

2004-09-19T22:13:00.000-04:00

This is reproduced without permission, but here's the link.

A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims..
Abdel Rahman al-Rashed*

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement." Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.

For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realize the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.

Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the sheikh – the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric – and hear him recite his fatwa about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians.

This ailing sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians.

How could this sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country? How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?

In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives.

At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life.

Then came the neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry.

We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own.

We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.

*Abdel Rahman al-Rashed is general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel. This article first appeared in the London-based pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

A Modern United Nations

2004-09-19T09:21:00.000-04:00

I've taken shots at the United Nations a number of times, but I have never really explained what a modern United Nations would be more fit to do.

Since complaining without giving any alternatives is something for which I have much disdain, I'm going to try to give an outline of what the United Nations is in fact good at doing.

1) A meeting place for nations to speak.

This seems obvious, but it still needs to happen. If one nation has a problem with another but a dialog can not be initiated or maintained then speaking about it in front of other nations might bring them around to being a bit more open. Sometimes not, but it is a good place to start.

2) World-Wide Surveys.

For the most part the UN has a good deal of statistics via UNESCO and these statistics do serve as a good guide in determining who is where on subjects from education, to technology.

These can be valuable, and are indeed good indicators of what is going on in certain nations compared to others.

3) An Arbiter

If nations agree, the UN - with all its research ability and members - could make a wonderful arbiter. This would have to be set up to facilitate an escrow project as well since there would be no way to enforce a decision once it is made. For example:

Nation A feels that Nation B has been slant drilling. This process has cost Nation A close to a billion dollars over the last five years. Nation B says that it has not, and insists that Nation A has engaged in negative attacks upon Nation B across the region for what could be decades. In order to make sure 'frivolous lawsuits' do not come into play, what ever compensation one nation asks for must be risked in order to get it.

So, both Nation A and Nation B put up the billion dollars and the arbitration begins. Once a decision is made -- though they could come back with no decision, return the assets, and call it even -- then the escrow account is tapped and one party is compensated. This simple system could replace the international court as well.

4) Many of the aid programs the United Nations oversee are very much worth doing and should be continued. Obvious the Oil for Food program was a sham and corrupt, but for less political places having an international body to help is never a bad thing.

5) The World Health Organization deserves much credit when it comes to diagnosing, treating, and increasing public awareness of diseases and other health issues around the world.

These are the major reasons to have a body like the United Nations because, in reality, no single nation can do this as impartially. I scoff at using the term impartial in relation to the UN as much as the next critic, but I also know that most of the impartiality has been lost because of the UN's role as a political body.

Some side notes to consider as well: Membership is only a membership to the group of nations for the sake of meeting. NOTHING is binding unless agreed to on a nation by nation basis. In other words there are no vast international treaties. If the US wants a treaty with 10 nation the US will go to each nation individually and get a treaty. The UN is not a power broker nor is it a blanket treaty maker. This is a large problem today with silly things like Kyoto. If the US doesn't sign for some reason other nations decided Kyoto was not important and no it has fallen apart. This is daft and shows that UN treaties are more political than practical and this needs to end.

Membership dues are voluntary, and failure to pay is failure to use the facilities. An exception is when a nation faces destruction, etc. I think most Americans would be very willing to pay the dues (they'd be much smaller) and go on.

Since there would be no 'international military force', nations who wanted aid would need to ask nations for help.

Nations which do not have a system of arbitration in place for their own people shall not be granted the use of it in disputes. There is no reason to extend the very rights that a dictator or supreme ruler will not give to his or her own people. These nations may sit in and observe, but nothing more.

These are some of the main considerations we all need to think about when determining the role of the United Nations in this new century and millennium.

Another Bark without Bite?

2004-09-18T23:44:00.000-04:00

Fox News reports that the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency has given an ultimatum to Iran. Fox News has jumped the gun on this one in its use of the word 'ultimatum'. The actual wording is closer to 'strongly urging' Iran.

The situation is the same as it has been for so long: The UN has 'experts' look at various things relating to the given situation. These experts then bring the findings to a meeting and from there a bunch of unelected bureaucrats talk about what should be done.

Strangely enough, there is nothing binding with the Iranian 'ultimatum', nor is there a specification for action if this 'ultimatum' were to expire (November). So by January this board, this committee will be up in arms acting all shocked that Iran did not follow the directive.

'Then what???' you might ask -- as if you do not know.

We'll have 17 or so more of these or the next twelve long years. That's once scenario, but there is another much more hopeful scenario that I am hoping to see take place: Israel takes action.

Tammuz, or Osiraq, or even Osirak depending on who you are, was the nuclear facility that Begin eliminated for the sake of not only Iran who was directly engaged in a war with Iraq, but also for Israel since we now can see exactly how much Saddam did in fact sympathize and support terrorists intent on destroying Israel.

Soon it may be time for Sharon to step up to the plate and I anticipate that the strongest of actions will make Iran a nuclear-free zone for many decades to come.

Also, by having Israel do this job and not the US we run less of a risk of getting China even more nervous as times move forward. China's close ties with Iran, its resentment and paranoia about so many western (read: US) troops in Afghanistan, and what is perceives to be a large powerplay by the US to up the regional influence in the Middle and Far East all add up to a delicate situation with the large nation.

One could also hope the perhaps Russia might decide to take an interest in Iran, but this is perhaps too hopeful at this time.

In light of the words the UN has for Iran we are left not wondering what Iran might do, but what the UN might do once November comes and goes.

What has changed since Beslan?

2004-09-18T10:53:00.000-04:00

Now that Samil Basayev is in what he thinks to be a safe location he has come forward naming Shahid Brigade Riadus-Salahina as being the 'crew' responsible for the downing of two Russian airliners as well as the revolting actions in Beslan.

His statement speaks volumes when he says, "Kremlin vampire destroyed and injured 1,000 children and adults, giving the order to storm the school for the sake of his imperial ambitions and preserving his own throne" in relation to Putin and the actions taken by those Russian forces in Beslan.

Basayev claimed Russian special forces had a plan to storm the school from the beginning of the two-day siege. The Russian government has said it didn't want to storm the school but had no choice after gunfire and explosions erupted on the third day of the siege.

Basayev somehow expects people to think it wrong for Russian forces to come up with a plan for taking the building by force. Since Russia will not give these terrorists camera time, Basayev wants to blame the deaths on Putin. Not too many people are buying it so Basayev had to make sure everyone understands that when he takes a school full of children, teachers, and parents captive that if they die it is not the fault of the people who lined the building with explosives and held everyone at gun point.

It certainly is not the fault of those who shot those who tried to flee and then dragged them back into the building and dropped the body in the gym for all to see. How could we blame these terrorist thugs for shooting and burning all those children when obviously it was Putin who did all this?

He speaks the same language of those who claim that America brought 9/11 upon itself. mother Jones has a take on it, as do so many others. There will always be people who refuse to understand that in this world there are people, groups, and sometimes nations who just don't like you. Every once in a while they get enough power, or if not power, at least nerve to strike at you.

For the most part we have been safe from such attacks because of oceans and, for the longest time, the only people with any power were either our allies or those who understood the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction while we pointed weapons at each other.

The enemy today does not have the direct backing of any nation willing to admit it (I stress willing to admit). This is because the US and our allies have sent a strong message to nations who might consider overtly backing those who will do us or our allies harm.

People always forget or ignore the fact that Abu Abbas was in Iraq. It also seems to slip their minds that Abu Nidal just happened to die in Iraq.

There are some nations who have taken us at our word and one of them is Libya. Our actions do make a difference and they do send a real message to terrorists everywhere.

Now Russia is faced with a 9/11 of her own and to expect this nation to cringe in a way reminiscent of Spain. When Spanish leader Zapatero was quoted (see above link) as saying, "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our allegiance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration." it sent a message that bombing trains works, and the election fix was then on in a way that Democrats who complain about Florida could never understand.

Russia will not be such an easy mark to bring down. What ever the history people wish to claim as an excuse for willfully murdering children in a school as an objective to further your cause, the Chechens have some learning to do and that learning might happen as the Hinds and T-90s come rolling back in.

Europe is scared because there is a nation who does not huddle behind internationalism right next to them. Europe has a right to be scared though because Russia will not be so kind as the United States if (when?) the Mother Bear comes out of her cave.

Community vs. Diversity

2004-09-17T22:06:00.000-04:00

This has been on my mind for some time, so I'm going to touch on it though not in as much detail as it might take since this is a blog and not a book.

We often hear slogans and phrases talking about diversity and how we need to celebrate it, and how important it is in the work place as well as in our daily lives.

What these slogans do not specify is what type of diversity is to be celebrated and embraced.

The more that 'diversity' come into the focus the starker it looks. It is not diversity of opinion since our universities certainly are not diverse in opinion.

Studies like those done by The Chronicle of Higher Education have found that only 15 percent of the professors consider themselves conservative. Also cited in that link is data from Frank Luntz - a pollster - who found that only 3 percent of all Ivy League professors consider themselves conservative. With these numbers the nation needs to understand who is an elitist and why.

The diversity they wish for is only skin deep. Diversity of opinion is shunned because after all, conservatives are all stupid (who was the last smart Republican president according to the press?), all conservatives are mean, and of course all conservatives love to send others off to die for the same of treasures in foreign lands.

At my former place of employment (I do not work there due to relocating a few states away) there was a poster with the slogan, 'Celebrate our shared and unshared differences'. This was proudly hung in the lunchroom for all to see, cherish, and contemplate. It is also idiotic and impossible and I wish more people did actually contemplate the 'meaning'. How do you share a difference? It is better to share a difference, or to have it unshared? Completely idiotic, but HR needs something to do.

So now we see diversity in action, we're told it is good, we have seen posters telling us it is good, but yet for so many of us we still come away as if there is something missing at a quite basic level.

Fear not, for you are not insane. Let us, like good little conservatives, look not only for facts but for context and relationships and see why we are at ill ease.

The dictionary defines diversity generally as "The fact or quality of being diverse; difference." (1a)

Not bad. We can agree to this. With diversity comes one nasty problem that is hard to get around: Relativism.

On the surface this isn't too bad, it doesn't matter if someone is black, white, a Latino or an Eskimo. Everyone is basically the same. Everyone is the same relative to skin color or racial background. At this time in the United States it is safe to say that almost all people feel this way, so why keep saying it?

Perhaps it is because there is another agenda. Before all the music and the looks of 'ooh and ahh' come over you, this isn't some McCarthy-type of situation, but there is an agenda none the less.

This relativism is used as an excuse to break down communities and traditional values. This is how it works:

The best part is what we have for the primary definition of community in the dictionary: (1a) "A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. "

This is not the original definition of the word for it has more to do with fellowship than with just happening to be in the same location or under the same government. The root of the word is common. You now need to go down to the 3rd definition to find it, "Similarity or identity (a), Sharing, participation, and fellowship (b)."

Why has the definition changed? Because it serves diversity better if community does not mean common. After all, it is not what we all have in common that is important - whether it be family values, how to raise our children, morality, a sense of accomplishment, work ethic, or anything else. To the diversity crowd, how children are raised is relative. Morality is relative. and since the family is usually not there, family values must be relative as well.

It all comes from the fact that no one can tell you that a brick is not a brick because it is there in real life. Put together with many bricks it will build a house, if you drop it on your foot it will probably hurt, etc, etc, etc. A brick is not relative to anything else. It is a brick.

This where dictionaries - especially old ones - come in handy. Miriam Webster has the first definition of community as, "a unified body of individuals", listing the much more familiar "the people with common interests living in a particular area" BEFORE, "broadly : the area itself ".

In this case we can see that two different sources have two different primary meanings for the same word. Check out some other terms that have come under fire like marriage. Then, if you have an older dictionary look at the definitions there as well.

This is the agenda. If community means a group of people living in the same area, then diversity is fine and dandy and things will start to look like all those areas where diversity is maintained and no one has a sense of community.

If community means what most people still think it means, then diversity only goes so far before someone says 'misfit'. This is not referring to race, this is referring to diversity of the ideological kind.

Diversity should be permitted, but to be forced to accept it, and even celebrate it or be called intolerant? It doesn't work. Because this approach does not work an effort is made to make everyone confused about what means what so that there can be no steadfast argument against them.

Another example, a bit older, is the term Fascist. Without looking... What is a fascist? Where did the term originate? How has that definition changed? When did it change? Who changed it? George Orwell explains it far better than I can.

In the end, diversity and community, as well as terms like morality, ethics, and so many others have been tagged for alteration whether or not anyone even know it for certain. Languages change with the times - which is why we use Latin for legal terms since it is a dead language no one comes up with new or misleading definitions for words. Is this nothing more than a simple evolution in our language or is this something else, something different?

Small Government Always

2004-09-17T10:57:00.000-04:00

Simply put, the Constitution of the united States spells out the obligations of the Federal Government while reserving everything else to the States or the People respectively.

The most important part of this consideration might be 'why' some things are assigned to the Federal Government (FG). Why is always a dangerous question because you can quote people to justify your rationale no matter who they might be and no matter how much validity they had. Because of that, in this case I will try to limit it my personal observations and let the chips fall where they may.

The FG, in order to function at all, needed a solid method of checks and balances in order to try to avoid all those things we learned about in school -- namely the usurpation of power from the States and the People, respectively.

So one group made laws, another enforced, and a third made sure both were paying attention to everything that needed attention paid. Very nice, but the model can be transferred to the state level, so that still does not answer why something are done at the federal level.

The United States Constitution (USC) describes what the FG should do because certain things were determined to be in the interest of all the states, but experience (Articles of Confederation) showed that these aspects might be addressed correctly, promptly, or with proper funds.

Things like roads (namely to move troops), a postal service (because there was no private, reputable firm to do this), handling of foreign affairs in a nice uniform way, and of course providing a military are all things that, if left to one state or another might not happen.

How many other things MUST the FG do for the entire citizenry of the United States? This can be left to debate, but the Constitution dies say, in Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

It would seem obvious that most everything that might become law should be left to the States -- or not made into law at all.

Over the course of time technologies and philosophies have come into play that have lead to the need of more laws here and there, though not to the extent we now see.

The largest problem with the whole FG is how can I trust someone on Washington D.C. to think about what might be best for me, my town, my interests? Let's take this to the next level, how can you really think that the people in your state's capital are thinking at all about you as opposed to anything else?

At least on the most local level you have office holders who live in your town (or area at least), you could walk up to their door, talk to them personally and actually get a feel for who they are and what they represent. You do not need to depend on their PR, website, and the media. Even if you do not see eye-to-eye on all, or even most issues, you can at least trust that they won't sell your town, house, job, schools, nor family down the river for the sake of a deal.

This isn't always the case, but where do you think the ideal is realized the easiest?

We now stand at about 630000 people per representative in the House, according to the Population Reference Bureau, and that hardly seems to be close to the ideal. The idea that almost two-thirds of a million people are 'represented' by one person is a farce. And it is because of this farce that we should, as a nation, want more localized control of so many issues and laws.

Taking this one more step: If you don't think those people in D.C. care for you, how about the people at The Hague? The more distance between you and potential leadership the worse the results.

Perhaps Kerry should stick to Vietnam

2004-09-17T01:04:00.000-04:00

Deroy Murdock brings up a very troubling pattern of behavior with John Kerry. IT would seem that he has nothing positive to say to any of the nations helping us in Iraq, and indeed likes to pretend that they are not there.

This is not an isolated thing, nor is it some sort of one-time exaggeration to make a point, he seriously down-plays the role of our allies in order to cast Bush in a negative light. He cares not about those allies, he cares not about how his words appear tot he enemy, he cares only to attempt to become President of the United States at, what seems to be, any cost.

When a candidate of a major party says, "This President's pride has brought us a coalition of the few, barely willing to do anything at all: 160 Mongolians, 43 Estonians, and 83 Filipinos isn't a coalition; it's a cover-up."

"The fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren't there in the beginning when we went in, and they're not carrying the cost of this war."

And of course his now famous, "Coalition of the Coerced and the Bribed."

If this man becomes President, how could he possibly meet with leaders who have actually lost people in Iraq? He could tell them, "Oh you have to understand I was just smearing Bush - it was nothing personal towards you, really"

According to Murdock the United States makes up just under 83% of all the forces on the ground in Iraq. Over 17% are foreign, and it is definitely more than window dressing.

124 foreigners have died because their nations answered the call when the United States asked. This figure represents 11% of all deaths in Iraq. While it may be true that they are dying less than their total numbers proportionately, this is still are large number and proof of the willingness of nations to do what needs to be done.

Kerry seems to side only with those nations (at least the populations) who have a seething hatred of the United States. He seems to think that if you do not have Germany, France, and Russia then you have nothing. Kerry is heavily supported by these nations as well, and Zell Miller was correct when he mentioned that Kerry would outsource our power to Paris.

Kerry wants to be all things to all people and this weak trait has been seen throughout his life. It is because of this weakness that he flip-flops; it leads to his outbursts; and it leads to his lack of ability to stay the course and be committed to what needs to be done -- to heck with the polls.

Kerry needs to know that it won't be France, it won't be Germany, nor will it be Russia who votes in our election - it will be Americans. It would serve him well to think about America and those who feel like America does (our allies in Iraq) rather than once again kissing up to those who dislike us. I'm curious who the Jane Fonda is for Kerry today.