John Murtha: The currently anointed liberal Democrat attack dog from the house has made himself judge, jury, prosecuting attorney and jailer of several young marines on the basis of accusations from our enemies. These marines are now spending at least part of their time in shackles and chains at Camp Pendleton. I thought liberal Democrats always espoused treating the accused as “innocent until found guilty.” Ignoring even the word, “alleged,” Murtha speaks as if they have been proven guilty and, in effect, accuses the entire Marine Corps of being terrorists. Apparently anything immoral, extralegal or evil, is perfectly acceptable when it promotes the anti-American agenda of liberal Democrats. Of course, he proudly announces he was a Marine. Big deal! So was Lee Harvey Oswald.
The hate America crowd: Murtha has joined the cadre of liberal Democrats who will deliberately say and do anything that will cause damage to our country if there is the remotest possibility it can be used to discredit Republicans. Liberal Democrats and their leftist media lackeys are the best allies Al Queda has. The reason is quite obvious. Al Queda and liberal Democrats have the same agenda for America, destruction and defeat. If we succeed in Iraq it will sink the Democrats who have bet their whole political capital on our defeat there. Virtually everything they say or do works against our success and gives aid and comfort to one of the vilest enemies we have ever faced. The war in Iraq is their centerpiece and must be lost. They want another Viet Nam debacle and are doing everything they can to bring it about. Why else would they promote withdrawal with such vehemence.
Silence about the economy: They have finally, and for obvious reasons, grown mostly silent in their constant harangue about “the worst economy since 1930." There are numerous other truly needed and promising Republican efforts they are doing everything possible to block and scuttle. This includes proposals on taxes, health care, the military, immigration and border protection among many others. They denounce and work constantly to obstruct and destroy any of these proposals. They are so consumed with regaining power, they want no Republican proposals to pass that might benefit the nation and conceivably put the Republicans in a good light. They don’t give a damn about the nation or the people. Their singular and focused attention is on regaining power by any means possible, no matter how their efforts damage the American people. I can’t believe the American people will support the politicians of this party which has become the party of hate and animosity.
On the petroleum issue: The United States is the only oil producing nation in the world that has not increased its production of petroleum in recent years. Virtually every other nation on earth with petroleum reserves has increased production from 5% to 20%. On the other hand, our production of petroleum is steadily shrinking. Soon Cuba will be drilling for oil off our southern coast precisely where American oil companies are prohibited from drilling. I wonder why???
Monday, June 19, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Memorial Day - a Different Meaning
Monday our quartet, The Willows, sang at the Leesburg Memorial day services at the cemetery after the annual parade. It was something our quartet has done for many years. It was a very teary day for me for several reasons. Barbara sang with us the first few times we were in the service and May twenty-ninth this year was our thirteenth anniversary. One more emotional milestone. We sang “I’m Proud to be an American,” a very inspirational and patriotic song.
CAUTION! This paragraph is not politically correct! The parade, the memorial service and our song reminded me I am still very proud to be an American. This in spite of all the anti-American rhetoric from the main-stream media and the political left with their messages of hate created to attempt to divide us and degrade our image in the world. This effort is all because of their insatiable appetite for money and power. That small town parade and Memorial service is what America is to me. Fly over country is where the real Americans are who are willing to work for freedom for all people. The elitists of the left look down their upturned noses at these Americans and their “misguided attitudes" and "right-wing religious dogma.” With their “holy” dogma and corruption of our Constitution, they cannot understand the heart and soul of the increasing numbers of real Americans who are starting to take our nation back for real freedom and prosperity. They can’t stand it that our economy is doing so well and that we are fighting for real freedom. They are doing everything in their power to scuttle and destroy our economy and our efforts for freedom no matter how damaging those efforts are to the nation. They’ve lost on the economy so their only hope to regain power is for us to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should our efforts there result in successful democratic governments, they will lose a great deal of political capital and be out of power for a long time to come. For this reason they have become defacto supporters of our enemies, working and hoping for our defeat and humiliation in the middle east. I call that treason!
I’ve never figured it out - are those politicians from the liberal left pawns of the leftist main-stream media, or are the main stream media simply the voices of the liberal left? Maybe they are all merely the property of George Soros. Now, down from my soap box.
CAUTION! This paragraph is not politically correct! The parade, the memorial service and our song reminded me I am still very proud to be an American. This in spite of all the anti-American rhetoric from the main-stream media and the political left with their messages of hate created to attempt to divide us and degrade our image in the world. This effort is all because of their insatiable appetite for money and power. That small town parade and Memorial service is what America is to me. Fly over country is where the real Americans are who are willing to work for freedom for all people. The elitists of the left look down their upturned noses at these Americans and their “misguided attitudes" and "right-wing religious dogma.” With their “holy” dogma and corruption of our Constitution, they cannot understand the heart and soul of the increasing numbers of real Americans who are starting to take our nation back for real freedom and prosperity. They can’t stand it that our economy is doing so well and that we are fighting for real freedom. They are doing everything in their power to scuttle and destroy our economy and our efforts for freedom no matter how damaging those efforts are to the nation. They’ve lost on the economy so their only hope to regain power is for us to fail in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should our efforts there result in successful democratic governments, they will lose a great deal of political capital and be out of power for a long time to come. For this reason they have become defacto supporters of our enemies, working and hoping for our defeat and humiliation in the middle east. I call that treason!
I’ve never figured it out - are those politicians from the liberal left pawns of the leftist main-stream media, or are the main stream media simply the voices of the liberal left? Maybe they are all merely the property of George Soros. Now, down from my soap box.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
This letter sent to Senator Frist from a retired border patrol agent has more common sense than all the bull being spewed from the Senate, with the exception of a few sensible representatives. Anyway, this guy has it together and shows the rhetoric for what it is.
Dear Senator Frist:
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about "Illegal Aliens", particularly "Illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran Aliens".
1. "Illegal Aliens" generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want
benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What "Illegal Aliens" want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.
2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. "Illegal Aliens" are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. "Illegal Aliens" take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money
to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by "Illegal Aliens". These "Illegal aliens" knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed
the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.
4. "Illegal Aliens" are NOT critical to the economy. "Illegal Aliens"
constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.
5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants
(Legal Immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
6. The United States is welcoming to "Legal Immigrants. "Illegal Aliens"
are NOT immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic Vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic Vote" is a myth. Pandering to "Illegal Aliens" to get the Hispanic Vote is a dead end.
8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States.
a) During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S.
b) During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico.
c) During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely.
d) The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico.
e) Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks
written for their schoolchildren.
9. Although some "Illegal Aliens" enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
10. There is a labor shortage in this country: This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.
11. It is racist to want secure borders:
a) What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America?
b) What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents?
c) What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties.
A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There have already been riots in the streets by "Illegal Aliens" and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the "Illegal Aliens" who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country.
The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.
David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)
Hereford, Arizona
Dear Senator Frist:
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about "Illegal Aliens", particularly "Illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran Aliens".
1. "Illegal Aliens" generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want
benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What "Illegal Aliens" want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.
2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. "Illegal Aliens" are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. "Illegal Aliens" take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money
to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by "Illegal Aliens". These "Illegal aliens" knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed
the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.
4. "Illegal Aliens" are NOT critical to the economy. "Illegal Aliens"
constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.
5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants
(Legal Immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
6. The United States is welcoming to "Legal Immigrants. "Illegal Aliens"
are NOT immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic Vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic Vote" is a myth. Pandering to "Illegal Aliens" to get the Hispanic Vote is a dead end.
8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States.
a) During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S.
b) During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico.
c) During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely.
d) The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico.
e) Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks
written for their schoolchildren.
9. Although some "Illegal Aliens" enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
10. There is a labor shortage in this country: This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.
11. It is racist to want secure borders:
a) What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America?
b) What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents?
c) What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties.
A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There have already been riots in the streets by "Illegal Aliens" and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the "Illegal Aliens" who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country.
The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.
David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)
Hereford, Arizona
Monday, April 17, 2006
The Hypocracy of Outspoken Liberals
Liberals and leftists say one thing and do another–surprise!
Best selling author Peter Schweizer tells the real story of how big time liberals talk like liberals, but actually do so many of those hated conservative, capitalists things they so vitriolically decry. When it comes to their personal lives, these liberals are right in there with the worst of those they so condemn.
Just a few extensively documented examples:
John Kerry
Says: The "super-rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Does: Pays less than 15% of income in taxes. Although along with his wife he is worth in excess of $700 million.
Al Franken
Says: Conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action.
Does: Has hired less than 1 percent African-American employees over the last fifteen years.
Ralph Nader
Says: Unions are essential to protect worker rights.
Does: Fired his employees and changed the locks when they tried to form a union.
Barbra Streisand
Says: Americans need to cut back on their conspicuous consumption and protect the environment.
Does: Spends $22,000 a year to water her lawn; maintains a 12,000 square-foot air-conditioned barn.
Senator Hillary Clinton
Says: "Thirteen-year-old girls are capable of deciding to have abortions without parental [or paternal] cosent. "
Does: Prevented Chelsea, then 13, from getting her ears pierced because she "wasn’t ready for them."
To see more on the Clintons, Click Here!
George Soros
Says: The wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates.
Does: Holds the bulk of his billions in tax free overseas accounts in Curaco, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. For a flat tax system that would prevent all this special exemptions for the very wealthy Click here!
Nancy Pelosi
Says: I pride myself in being a liberal and fighting for labor unions.
Does: Owns upscale vinyards, restaurants and hotels that hire only non-union workers.
Noam Chomsky
Says: America is the modern NAZI Germany and the Pentagon is the most hideous institution on earth and constitutes a menace to human life.
Does: Signed on with the Research Laboratory of Electronics, funded entirely by the Pentagon and has cashed checks totaling millions from his work there.
Senator Ted Kennedy
Says: I demand that America take immediate action to reduce global warming by shifting to alternative energy sources
Does: In addition to huge personal profits from oil, he fiercely opposed erection of wind turbines off the coast of Massachusetts that would have replaced a polluting coal-fired power plant operating near Boston. His reason? Some of those turbines would be placed in areas where he liked to sail.
Michael Moore
Says: I’ve never owned a share of stock in my life and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Does: Examination of federal tax forms clearly show that Moore bought and sold shares in Halliburton and a number of other vicious, evil corporations. Click here to read the details.
For more examples in far greater depth, Click here to view Schweizer’s web page and order his book, "Do as I Say, Not as I Do!
Monday, April 10, 2006
Some folks get angry
I recently received an angry totally emotional response to this blog. I thought it quite immature - a purely schoolboy curse with no redemptive value. It so surprised me I reeled off a curt response. I have received responses of a similar nature before, but have never adopted a policy to deal with them. I now have such a policy.
I cannot prevent anyone from reading my blogs so you folks who don't like to read things that disagree with your "holy" opinions will just have to not read my blogs. As far as I can tell, freedom of speech has not yet been repealed in this country. What I can and will do is remove the email address of those who send me such emails from my address book and from my list of those from whom I accept emails. This will protect both of us from feeling angry, insulted or intimidated. I have already done this for those few individuals who call those who happen to have a view different from their own an "idiot" or "---hole." It will also prevent me from having the strong desire to respond in kind.
Please note! This applies only to purely angry, cursing, irrational responders. Strong even emotional disagreements are certainly welcomed. I ask only reasonable restraint in describing what should be done with certain parts of my anatomy. Ah civility--where has it gone? Replaced, perhaps, by the political correctness of the extreme left who seem to have sunk to pure name calling and expressions of hatred for any and all who disagree with their "sacred" opinions?
For those of you, who for any reason, would like to be removed from my email address books, Click here, send me an email with the word "remove" and it will be so.
I cannot prevent anyone from reading my blogs so you folks who don't like to read things that disagree with your "holy" opinions will just have to not read my blogs. As far as I can tell, freedom of speech has not yet been repealed in this country. What I can and will do is remove the email address of those who send me such emails from my address book and from my list of those from whom I accept emails. This will protect both of us from feeling angry, insulted or intimidated. I have already done this for those few individuals who call those who happen to have a view different from their own an "idiot" or "---hole." It will also prevent me from having the strong desire to respond in kind.
Please note! This applies only to purely angry, cursing, irrational responders. Strong even emotional disagreements are certainly welcomed. I ask only reasonable restraint in describing what should be done with certain parts of my anatomy. Ah civility--where has it gone? Replaced, perhaps, by the political correctness of the extreme left who seem to have sunk to pure name calling and expressions of hatred for any and all who disagree with their "sacred" opinions?
For those of you, who for any reason, would like to be removed from my email address books, Click here, send me an email with the word "remove" and it will be so.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Into the Immigration fracus!
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M HEADED TO MEXICO
David M. Bresnahan April 1, 2006 NewsWithViews.com
Dear President Bush:
I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this.
I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All government forms need to be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws.
13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quail hunting with your V.P.
Thank you so much for your kind help.
Sincerely,
____________________________________________________
Mexican Standoff
I don’t know how everybody else feels about it, but to me I think Hispanic people in this country, legally or illegally, made a huge public relations mistake with their recent demonstrations.
I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.
I don’t need sensitivity lessons, in fact I don’t have anything against Mexicans, I just have something against criminals and anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal and if you don’t believe it try coming into America from a foreign country without a passport and see how far you get.
What disturbs me about the demonstrations is that it’s tantamount to saying, “I am going to come into your country even if it means breaking your laws and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
It’s an “in your face” action and speaking just for me I don’t like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of gonads in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn’t be happening.
Where are you, you bunch of lilly livered, pantywaist, forked tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution? Have you been drinking the water out of the Potomac again?
And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will probably be so pork laden and watered down that it won’t mean anything anyway. Besides, what good is another law going to do when you won’t enforce the ones on the books now?
And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.
This is no longer a problem, it is a dilemma and headed for being a tragedy. Do you honestly think that what happened in France with the Muslims can’t happen here when the businesses who hire these people finally run out of jobs and a few million disillusioned Hispanics take to the streets?
If you, Mr. President, Congressmen and Senators, knuckle under on this and refuse to do something meaningful it means that you care nothing for the kind of country your children and grandchildren will inherit.
But I guess that doesn’t matter as long as you get re-elected.
Shame on you.
Pray for our troops.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
American by birth! Montanan by the grace of God! Christian by choice!
Forced to live under a Godless government by far left courts.
David M. Bresnahan April 1, 2006 NewsWithViews.com
Dear President Bush:
I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this.
I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All government forms need to be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws.
13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quail hunting with your V.P.
Thank you so much for your kind help.
Sincerely,
____________________________________________________
Mexican Standoff
I don’t know how everybody else feels about it, but to me I think Hispanic people in this country, legally or illegally, made a huge public relations mistake with their recent demonstrations.
I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.
I don’t need sensitivity lessons, in fact I don’t have anything against Mexicans, I just have something against criminals and anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal and if you don’t believe it try coming into America from a foreign country without a passport and see how far you get.
What disturbs me about the demonstrations is that it’s tantamount to saying, “I am going to come into your country even if it means breaking your laws and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
It’s an “in your face” action and speaking just for me I don’t like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of gonads in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn’t be happening.
Where are you, you bunch of lilly livered, pantywaist, forked tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution? Have you been drinking the water out of the Potomac again?
And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will probably be so pork laden and watered down that it won’t mean anything anyway. Besides, what good is another law going to do when you won’t enforce the ones on the books now?
And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.
This is no longer a problem, it is a dilemma and headed for being a tragedy. Do you honestly think that what happened in France with the Muslims can’t happen here when the businesses who hire these people finally run out of jobs and a few million disillusioned Hispanics take to the streets?
If you, Mr. President, Congressmen and Senators, knuckle under on this and refuse to do something meaningful it means that you care nothing for the kind of country your children and grandchildren will inherit.
But I guess that doesn’t matter as long as you get re-elected.
Shame on you.
Pray for our troops.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
American by birth! Montanan by the grace of God! Christian by choice!
Forced to live under a Godless government by far left courts.
Friday, March 31, 2006
A University of Hawai’i political science professor explains why he thinks Iraq is the right war, at the right time.
Was Bush Right? By R. J. Rummel Ph.D.
I have been increasingly disappointed with the poll results on our war in Iraq. In December 2003, 63% of people in a CBS/New York Times poll thought the war was the right thing to do when asked, “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U. S. Have stayed out?” Only 31% thought we should have stayed out.
However, in December 2005, just before the Iraqi election, the split was down to 48 to 48. By then, Democrats were turning against continuing the occupation, with Democrat National Committee chairman Howard Dean saying thet the “idea that we’re going to win in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” Other notable Democrats called for either immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal. (See HJ Commentary 1)
The urge to end the war is powerful and understandable. People look at the cost of trying to nurture a democracy in Iraq and naturally ask, “What’s in it for us?” “What does this have to do with American security?” “Is it worth the deaths of more than 2,2000 American soldiers?”
By now some 10,000 military personnel fromHawai’i have served in Iraq. More than 1.000 are there right now. This August. About 7,000 more soldiers will deploy to Iraq. These very questions keep many of us in the islands up at night.
Why am I disappointed by the steady decline in support for the war? Because I believe President George W. Bush is right to stay the course in Iraq. My views come from a lifetime of studying totalitarian regimes–of which Hussein’s Iraq was certainly one–and the profound ways in which they threaten humanity. Success in Iraq would have equally profound and positive benefits for the world. This is omething I wish more people understood, and what I hope to explain here.
THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE
It has been three years since the United States invaded Iraq–with the support of 49 nations, with specific Congressional approval, and under UN Security Resolution 1441–to eliminate the threat posed by Hussein. No one has forgotten that the administration based its urgency for the invasion on the belief that Hussein possessed, or could easily assemble, weapons of mass destruction which could threaten the region. (See HJ Commentary 1)
Because these weapons have not been uncovered, manycritics of the war have come to see America’s attempt to foster democracy in Iraq as a post hoc justification for the war. This view disregards that liberating the Iraqi people was always a central component of Bush’s plan (just one more of many components), second only to thwarting Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction ambitions. In his speech on the eve of the March 20, 2003 invasion, Bush spoke repeatedly of “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country,” of “restoring control of that country to its own people.
Nor is Bush’s interest in democratization limited to Iraq. Speaking to reporters in 2004 about his insistence that the Palestinian authority also become democratic, Bush explained, “The reason why I’m so strong on democracy is democracies don’t go to war with each other ... I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace.”
In other words, he had faith in what is called by students of international relations the democratic peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made this connection explicit in her December 11, 2005, Washington Post article, “The promise of Democratic Peace.”
This is the goal worth pursuing, that one makes Iraq the right war, at the right time. The long-term benefits of a democratized Iraq are inherently beneficial, to the Iraqi people, to the region and to us. This is because the theory of democratic peace simply works.
_________________________________________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL WARS 1816-2005
BELLIGERANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WARS (AT LEAST 1,000 KILLED)
Democracies vs. Democracies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Democracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . . . 166
Nondemocracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . 205
Sources: Melvin Small and J. David Singer, SIPRI, PRIO, Monty Marshal, R. J. Rummel.
________________________________________________________________________
We know from research done over the last three decades that this is true. The table above shows that, since 1816–the end of the Napoleonic Wars–there have been no wars between two democracies, although there were 371 bilateral wars.
Since 1816, there have been only three cases of violence between democracies that ended in deaths. Two of these involved Peru and Ecuador. In 1981, Peru was only marginally democratic, as was Ecuador, but less so. This was also true of Peru and Ecuador in 1984. The only other case of violence over these nearly two centuries was marginally democratic Ecuador (initiator) vs. the United States, in 1954. Only three cases and none since 1984, despite there being122 electoral democracies today, 89 of them liberal democracies whose people have civil liberties and political rights.
There is much more to the democratic peace than avoiding war or international violence. Democracies have been involved in many wars, some they launched themselves (America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq being the most recent examples). However, by an order of magnitude or more, democracies fight the least severe wars, in terms of numbers killed, compared to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.
Moreover, on the average, democratic nations are the most internally peaceful–they have the least violence in numbers killed in rebellions, civil wars, civil unrest, anti-government riots, violent strikes and coups.
Perhaps most importantly, democracies seldom murder their own citizens. Democide (genocide and mass murder) is an evil of militarism (as in Burma), monarchism (Russia’s Peter the Great), theocratism (Iran), fascism (Hitler), and communism. (The last two are typical examples of socialist dictatorships) Over the whole 20th century, governments–almost all nondemocracies–murdered about 262 million people, eight times the number killed in combat in all the last century’s international and domestic wars.
In stark comparison to this horrible cost of dictatorships, no liberal democracy has systematically murdered its own people.
Saddam Hussein is up among the mega-murderers. He murdered close to a million Kurds, Sinnis and Shiites, and launched a war against Iran in which probably a million more died. Hussein and his form of government, regardless of its armament, were themselves threats to peace and security, and a proven disaster for the people of Iraq.
BUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE IN IRAQ
Of course, the democratic peace doesn’t just happen on its own. It takes hard work. Although baghdad fell to coalition forces within three weeks of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Hussein himself was captured in December of that year, the path to democracy and stability in the country has been a long complicated one.
As the Bush administration did in Afghanistan, in Iraq it helped Iraqis rebuild and develop their country economically, and create from scratch a new army and security force. The United States has also helped them democratize, as it successfully did with Germany and Japan after world war II. Here are the four major events in that peace process thus far.
1) On June 28, 2004 Bush transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government which prepared for a national election of a transition government whose onmly purpose was to write a constitution.
2) In January 2005, the Iraqis voted this government into temporary power and, with much conflict, bargaining and negotiation, it wrote a constitution.
3) In an October referendum, Iraqis approved this constitution.
4) In December, under the new constitution and for the first time ever, Iraqis voted in a national, competitive election for a democratic government.
About 70% of iraqis turned out to vote and, according to foreign election observers and the United Nations, it was a fair election meeting international standards.
When you and I vote, we drive to a local elementary school, then safely and easily mark our choices. No one assassinates election workers, or threatens to murder voters simply for showing up. This hasn’t been the case for ordinary Iraqis, who have taken great risks to hold and participate in elections. Throughout Iraq’s pursuit of the democratic peace, there has been bloody opposition by foreign terrorists, who saw the American occupation of iraq as an opportunity to defeat American power, and who especially understood that a Muslim democracy in the Middle East threatened their ambitions to spread a fundamentalist theocracy.
Even more powerful opposition ha scome from Sunni insurrectionists, those who had most benefitted from Hussein’s rule (he is a Sunni himself). Every one of their roadside bombs directed against American forces is specifically meant to make those of us at home second guess our presence in Iraq in support of democratization. Judging from the poll results I opened with, the attacks have indeed taken their toll on our will to see through the reconstruction of Iraq as a functional democracy.
Nonetheless, Bush has refused to withdraw. He is convinced of the rightness of what he calls the Forward Strategy of Freedom and this war as I am.
IRAQ IN THE BIG PICTURE
On November 6, 2003, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush proclaimed his Forward Strategy of Freedom. Although focused on the Middle East, it was general in tone. He stated that, “As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.” He emphasized that, “There are ... essential principals common to every successful society, in every culture.
“Successful societies limit the power of the stste and the power of the military–so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.
“Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.
“Successful societies grauntee religious liberty–the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.
“Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.
“And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.”
These principals provide the foundation for the president’s new foreign policy–new in the sense that he had not so clearly articulated it before. He committed the United States to promote and foster freedom, and he put dictators on notice that they will no longer be “excused and accommodated.”
Two days after the speech, as if to double underline it, the president issued a proclaimation naming November 9 World Freedom Day. He proclaimed: “Fourteen years ago, freedom-loving people tore down the Berlin Wall and began to set a nation free from Communist oppression. On World Freedom Day, the United States joins with other countries in commemorating that historic day. The United Dtates is committed to liberty, freedom and the universal struggle for human rights. We strive to advance peace and demoracy and to safeguard these ideals around the world.”
So, why are we fighting in Iraq and fostering democratic freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, democide and famine, and to minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.
Surely, creating a world in which there will never be a war or democide is in the American national interest, the vital interest of our children, and is worth fighting and dying for.
R. J. Rummel Ph.D. is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. He has published 32 books, received a number of awards for his contributions, and has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His Web site is at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills and he keeps a daily blog at http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com.
Closing comments by Howard Johnson:
This factual presentation (proveable facts) is in stark contrast to the constant emotionally charged stream of non-facts being presented to the American people by the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelozi and Ted Kennedy along with their dupes in the media who revel in their power to sway ignorant people to follow their agenda. I believe the real reason Democrats are so vocal against the war and blame every national problem (including natural disasters) on George Bush is twofold. First and foremost, American success in creating a democratic Iraq would so enhance Republican prestige and so damage Democrats and liberals in particular that a major shift to Republican political power would result. Democrats will do anything to prevent that from happening including scuttle America and aid totalitarianism in the world. Liberal Democrats are working diligently to destroy every valiant effort made by those who founded this country to promote freedom and democracy and protect us from our own government including our Constitution.
HJ commentary 1: This was a purely political effort aimed at discrediting America and the Bush administration in order to gain political advantage and power. Democrats seem to want to do as much damage to America and the cause of freedom and democracy in the world as is possible by blatant lies and deceptions. Aided by their biased, liberal, "drunk with power" fellow travelers in the media, liberal Democrats have mounted an unprecedented hate campaign of destruction against everything good America has stood for in the world including being the champion of democratic freedom and the "Guardian of Democracy." Apparently they believe they can regain power by working to destroy America and obliterate our influence in the world. They have done more to aid Al Queda, despotism and dictatorship in the world than those forces could possibly have done by themselves. This is to me a concentrated effort to destroy freedom and democracy and prevent peoples all over the world from enjoying peace and freedom. Hitler’s NAZIs and Stalin’s NKVD were far less effective if a bit more brutal.
The Bush message the media has forgotten or deliberately ignored are the numerous points (I believe there were seventeen) submitted to the United Nations in the original request for action against Saddam Hussein. The only one of those points ever mentioned in the media and the centerpiece of Democrat hate rhetoric is the WMDs mantra. Occasionally they mention one other point, his support and aid for Al Queda, but that one has pretty well been proven accurate by now. As to the lack of discovery of WMDs, why did the media ignore the discovery of MIG 25s buried in the desert sand? These advanced Soviet aircraft are clearly effective weapons of Mass destruction. All other WMD evidence discovered was either declared invalid, inconclusive or was completely ignored by our "objective" news media.
Some additional HJ commentary not directly related:
The intellectual elite who arm themselves against any thought that differs in direction or intent from their own tightly held beliefs are the blind driving force behind the "anti-war" crowd. These closed minds ignore the hundreds of millions slaughtered because of reluctance to engage in or even accept "constructive" or "preventive" wars against tyrants. They are like Neville Chamberlain who on September 30, 1938 reported on the Munich agreement saying, "My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." How wrong he was then and how wrong the anti-war forces are now in precisely the same vein regarding Iraq. Should we pull out of Iraq now without establishing a democracy will the Muslim hordes do to Europe and America what they repeatedly did in India and what they promise to do now in all their rhetoric? History will provide the answer.
Some loosely related quotes from Stephen Jay Gould:
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.
Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic world view - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.
These quotes of Eric Hoffer from many years ago still ring true and surely will always:
What the intellectual craves above all else is to be taken seriously, to be treated as a decisive force in shaping history. He is far more at home in a society that weighs his every word and keeps close watch on his attitudes than in a society that cares not what he says or does. He would rather be persecuted than ignored.
Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self.
The untalented are more at ease in a society that gives them valid alibis for not achieving than in one where opportunities are abundant. In an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self.
There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life. Moreover, when we have an alibi for not writing a book, painting a picture, and so on, we have an alibi for not writing the greatest book and not painting the greatest picture. Small wonder that the effort expended and the punishment endured in obtaining a good alibi often exceed the effort and grief requisite for the attainment of a most marked achievement.
Was Bush Right? By R. J. Rummel Ph.D.
I have been increasingly disappointed with the poll results on our war in Iraq. In December 2003, 63% of people in a CBS/New York Times poll thought the war was the right thing to do when asked, “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U. S. Have stayed out?” Only 31% thought we should have stayed out.
However, in December 2005, just before the Iraqi election, the split was down to 48 to 48. By then, Democrats were turning against continuing the occupation, with Democrat National Committee chairman Howard Dean saying thet the “idea that we’re going to win in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” Other notable Democrats called for either immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal. (See HJ Commentary 1)
The urge to end the war is powerful and understandable. People look at the cost of trying to nurture a democracy in Iraq and naturally ask, “What’s in it for us?” “What does this have to do with American security?” “Is it worth the deaths of more than 2,2000 American soldiers?”
By now some 10,000 military personnel fromHawai’i have served in Iraq. More than 1.000 are there right now. This August. About 7,000 more soldiers will deploy to Iraq. These very questions keep many of us in the islands up at night.
Why am I disappointed by the steady decline in support for the war? Because I believe President George W. Bush is right to stay the course in Iraq. My views come from a lifetime of studying totalitarian regimes–of which Hussein’s Iraq was certainly one–and the profound ways in which they threaten humanity. Success in Iraq would have equally profound and positive benefits for the world. This is omething I wish more people understood, and what I hope to explain here.
THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE
It has been three years since the United States invaded Iraq–with the support of 49 nations, with specific Congressional approval, and under UN Security Resolution 1441–to eliminate the threat posed by Hussein. No one has forgotten that the administration based its urgency for the invasion on the belief that Hussein possessed, or could easily assemble, weapons of mass destruction which could threaten the region. (See HJ Commentary 1)
Because these weapons have not been uncovered, manycritics of the war have come to see America’s attempt to foster democracy in Iraq as a post hoc justification for the war. This view disregards that liberating the Iraqi people was always a central component of Bush’s plan (just one more of many components), second only to thwarting Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction ambitions. In his speech on the eve of the March 20, 2003 invasion, Bush spoke repeatedly of “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country,” of “restoring control of that country to its own people.
Nor is Bush’s interest in democratization limited to Iraq. Speaking to reporters in 2004 about his insistence that the Palestinian authority also become democratic, Bush explained, “The reason why I’m so strong on democracy is democracies don’t go to war with each other ... I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace.”
In other words, he had faith in what is called by students of international relations the democratic peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made this connection explicit in her December 11, 2005, Washington Post article, “The promise of Democratic Peace.”
This is the goal worth pursuing, that one makes Iraq the right war, at the right time. The long-term benefits of a democratized Iraq are inherently beneficial, to the Iraqi people, to the region and to us. This is because the theory of democratic peace simply works.
_________________________________________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL WARS 1816-2005
BELLIGERANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WARS (AT LEAST 1,000 KILLED)
Democracies vs. Democracies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Democracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . . . 166
Nondemocracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . 205
Sources: Melvin Small and J. David Singer, SIPRI, PRIO, Monty Marshal, R. J. Rummel.
________________________________________________________________________
We know from research done over the last three decades that this is true. The table above shows that, since 1816–the end of the Napoleonic Wars–there have been no wars between two democracies, although there were 371 bilateral wars.
Since 1816, there have been only three cases of violence between democracies that ended in deaths. Two of these involved Peru and Ecuador. In 1981, Peru was only marginally democratic, as was Ecuador, but less so. This was also true of Peru and Ecuador in 1984. The only other case of violence over these nearly two centuries was marginally democratic Ecuador (initiator) vs. the United States, in 1954. Only three cases and none since 1984, despite there being122 electoral democracies today, 89 of them liberal democracies whose people have civil liberties and political rights.
There is much more to the democratic peace than avoiding war or international violence. Democracies have been involved in many wars, some they launched themselves (America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq being the most recent examples). However, by an order of magnitude or more, democracies fight the least severe wars, in terms of numbers killed, compared to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.
Moreover, on the average, democratic nations are the most internally peaceful–they have the least violence in numbers killed in rebellions, civil wars, civil unrest, anti-government riots, violent strikes and coups.
Perhaps most importantly, democracies seldom murder their own citizens. Democide (genocide and mass murder) is an evil of militarism (as in Burma), monarchism (Russia’s Peter the Great), theocratism (Iran), fascism (Hitler), and communism. (The last two are typical examples of socialist dictatorships) Over the whole 20th century, governments–almost all nondemocracies–murdered about 262 million people, eight times the number killed in combat in all the last century’s international and domestic wars.
In stark comparison to this horrible cost of dictatorships, no liberal democracy has systematically murdered its own people.
Saddam Hussein is up among the mega-murderers. He murdered close to a million Kurds, Sinnis and Shiites, and launched a war against Iran in which probably a million more died. Hussein and his form of government, regardless of its armament, were themselves threats to peace and security, and a proven disaster for the people of Iraq.
BUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE IN IRAQ
Of course, the democratic peace doesn’t just happen on its own. It takes hard work. Although baghdad fell to coalition forces within three weeks of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Hussein himself was captured in December of that year, the path to democracy and stability in the country has been a long complicated one.
As the Bush administration did in Afghanistan, in Iraq it helped Iraqis rebuild and develop their country economically, and create from scratch a new army and security force. The United States has also helped them democratize, as it successfully did with Germany and Japan after world war II. Here are the four major events in that peace process thus far.
1) On June 28, 2004 Bush transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government which prepared for a national election of a transition government whose onmly purpose was to write a constitution.
2) In January 2005, the Iraqis voted this government into temporary power and, with much conflict, bargaining and negotiation, it wrote a constitution.
3) In an October referendum, Iraqis approved this constitution.
4) In December, under the new constitution and for the first time ever, Iraqis voted in a national, competitive election for a democratic government.
About 70% of iraqis turned out to vote and, according to foreign election observers and the United Nations, it was a fair election meeting international standards.
When you and I vote, we drive to a local elementary school, then safely and easily mark our choices. No one assassinates election workers, or threatens to murder voters simply for showing up. This hasn’t been the case for ordinary Iraqis, who have taken great risks to hold and participate in elections. Throughout Iraq’s pursuit of the democratic peace, there has been bloody opposition by foreign terrorists, who saw the American occupation of iraq as an opportunity to defeat American power, and who especially understood that a Muslim democracy in the Middle East threatened their ambitions to spread a fundamentalist theocracy.
Even more powerful opposition ha scome from Sunni insurrectionists, those who had most benefitted from Hussein’s rule (he is a Sunni himself). Every one of their roadside bombs directed against American forces is specifically meant to make those of us at home second guess our presence in Iraq in support of democratization. Judging from the poll results I opened with, the attacks have indeed taken their toll on our will to see through the reconstruction of Iraq as a functional democracy.
Nonetheless, Bush has refused to withdraw. He is convinced of the rightness of what he calls the Forward Strategy of Freedom and this war as I am.
IRAQ IN THE BIG PICTURE
On November 6, 2003, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush proclaimed his Forward Strategy of Freedom. Although focused on the Middle East, it was general in tone. He stated that, “As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.” He emphasized that, “There are ... essential principals common to every successful society, in every culture.
“Successful societies limit the power of the stste and the power of the military–so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.
“Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.
“Successful societies grauntee religious liberty–the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.
“Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.
“And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.”
These principals provide the foundation for the president’s new foreign policy–new in the sense that he had not so clearly articulated it before. He committed the United States to promote and foster freedom, and he put dictators on notice that they will no longer be “excused and accommodated.”
Two days after the speech, as if to double underline it, the president issued a proclaimation naming November 9 World Freedom Day. He proclaimed: “Fourteen years ago, freedom-loving people tore down the Berlin Wall and began to set a nation free from Communist oppression. On World Freedom Day, the United States joins with other countries in commemorating that historic day. The United Dtates is committed to liberty, freedom and the universal struggle for human rights. We strive to advance peace and demoracy and to safeguard these ideals around the world.”
So, why are we fighting in Iraq and fostering democratic freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, democide and famine, and to minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.
Surely, creating a world in which there will never be a war or democide is in the American national interest, the vital interest of our children, and is worth fighting and dying for.
R. J. Rummel Ph.D. is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. He has published 32 books, received a number of awards for his contributions, and has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His Web site is at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills and he keeps a daily blog at http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com.
Closing comments by Howard Johnson:
This factual presentation (proveable facts) is in stark contrast to the constant emotionally charged stream of non-facts being presented to the American people by the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelozi and Ted Kennedy along with their dupes in the media who revel in their power to sway ignorant people to follow their agenda. I believe the real reason Democrats are so vocal against the war and blame every national problem (including natural disasters) on George Bush is twofold. First and foremost, American success in creating a democratic Iraq would so enhance Republican prestige and so damage Democrats and liberals in particular that a major shift to Republican political power would result. Democrats will do anything to prevent that from happening including scuttle America and aid totalitarianism in the world. Liberal Democrats are working diligently to destroy every valiant effort made by those who founded this country to promote freedom and democracy and protect us from our own government including our Constitution.
HJ commentary 1: This was a purely political effort aimed at discrediting America and the Bush administration in order to gain political advantage and power. Democrats seem to want to do as much damage to America and the cause of freedom and democracy in the world as is possible by blatant lies and deceptions. Aided by their biased, liberal, "drunk with power" fellow travelers in the media, liberal Democrats have mounted an unprecedented hate campaign of destruction against everything good America has stood for in the world including being the champion of democratic freedom and the "Guardian of Democracy." Apparently they believe they can regain power by working to destroy America and obliterate our influence in the world. They have done more to aid Al Queda, despotism and dictatorship in the world than those forces could possibly have done by themselves. This is to me a concentrated effort to destroy freedom and democracy and prevent peoples all over the world from enjoying peace and freedom. Hitler’s NAZIs and Stalin’s NKVD were far less effective if a bit more brutal.
The Bush message the media has forgotten or deliberately ignored are the numerous points (I believe there were seventeen) submitted to the United Nations in the original request for action against Saddam Hussein. The only one of those points ever mentioned in the media and the centerpiece of Democrat hate rhetoric is the WMDs mantra. Occasionally they mention one other point, his support and aid for Al Queda, but that one has pretty well been proven accurate by now. As to the lack of discovery of WMDs, why did the media ignore the discovery of MIG 25s buried in the desert sand? These advanced Soviet aircraft are clearly effective weapons of Mass destruction. All other WMD evidence discovered was either declared invalid, inconclusive or was completely ignored by our "objective" news media.
Some additional HJ commentary not directly related:
The intellectual elite who arm themselves against any thought that differs in direction or intent from their own tightly held beliefs are the blind driving force behind the "anti-war" crowd. These closed minds ignore the hundreds of millions slaughtered because of reluctance to engage in or even accept "constructive" or "preventive" wars against tyrants. They are like Neville Chamberlain who on September 30, 1938 reported on the Munich agreement saying, "My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." How wrong he was then and how wrong the anti-war forces are now in precisely the same vein regarding Iraq. Should we pull out of Iraq now without establishing a democracy will the Muslim hordes do to Europe and America what they repeatedly did in India and what they promise to do now in all their rhetoric? History will provide the answer.
Some loosely related quotes from Stephen Jay Gould:
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.
Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic world view - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.
These quotes of Eric Hoffer from many years ago still ring true and surely will always:
What the intellectual craves above all else is to be taken seriously, to be treated as a decisive force in shaping history. He is far more at home in a society that weighs his every word and keeps close watch on his attitudes than in a society that cares not what he says or does. He would rather be persecuted than ignored.
Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self.
The untalented are more at ease in a society that gives them valid alibis for not achieving than in one where opportunities are abundant. In an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self.
There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life. Moreover, when we have an alibi for not writing a book, painting a picture, and so on, we have an alibi for not writing the greatest book and not painting the greatest picture. Small wonder that the effort expended and the punishment endured in obtaining a good alibi often exceed the effort and grief requisite for the attainment of a most marked achievement.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The Secret Service Tells it like it is
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:15:58
Subject: Presidential Observations by the Secret Service - By Dave Kulow
We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane
Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.
The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft. Both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.
WHAT WAS: Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence.
Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail. Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole.
Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which
she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.
Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it
instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clinton's neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."
Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail.
Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN: Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton.They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail.
Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.
Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his
security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?"
Word of this insult by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.
WHAT IS: Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail.
Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation.
There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."
Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers.
They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.
Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.
Hal Johnson
Subject: Presidential Observations by the Secret Service - By Dave Kulow
We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane
Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.
The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft. Both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.
WHAT WAS: Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence.
Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail. Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole.
Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which
she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.
Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it
instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clinton's neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."
Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail.
Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN: Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton.They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail.
Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.
Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his
security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?"
Word of this insult by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.
WHAT IS: Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail.
Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation.
There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."
Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers.
They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.
Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.
Hal Johnson
Ben Stein Tells it like it is
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary, Sunday, 12/18/05.
Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart: I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife. Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.
Next confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Je w, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spa nk our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart: I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife. Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.
Next confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Je w, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spa nk our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
A Black Minister Tells it like it is
By Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
c 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:
What would you do? What would you do if you were black?
Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.
To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.
For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you.
This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.
No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.
Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.
Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform legally and practically fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."
One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?
Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.
About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.
President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.
All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America."
Monday, February 20, 2006
HUD ad full of racial bigotry
The following Letter was inspired by and in response to a series of radio ads now running here in California and probably the rest of the country. In the ad, three men call about an ad in the newspaper for an apartment and are told the apartment is no longer available by an ethnically neutral female voice. The three include an obvious Latino, an obvious Indian American, and an obvious African-American. When the fourth man calls and gives his name as Graham Wellington, in an obvious English-American voice, he is told the apartment is still available. This is one of the most conspicuously bigoted and highly discriminatory ad of any kind I have heard in a very long time. In response I sent the following letter. I couldn’t find an email address to use so it went out snail mail. I suppose all you bleeding hearts out there think this ad is perfectly OK.
San Francisco Regional Office of FHEO
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
600 Harrison Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, California 94107-1387
I am incensed at the recent series of radio ads about housing discrimination which are apparently coming from your organization. These ads are a blatantly obvious attempt to smear Caucasian, English-Americans and incite anger toward them by Latinos, Indian-Americans and African-Americans. These ads are highly discriminatory and would never be used in another venue with a reverse implication castigating equally any minority other than Caucasian, English-Americans. Graham Wellington indeed–your intent is blatantly obvious and it is most certainly not to promote fair housing. To be truly fair–a word I seriously doubt anyone in your organization really understands–you would run four ads with each of the ethnic groups used, winning in turn the apartment in preference to the other three. This would be “fair.”
The “Graham Wellingtons” of our country have become part of the most discriminated against group by virtually every government agency, media mouthpiece, news reporter, and politician in the country.
Unfortunately, should your bigoted ad actually be run with any of the other three groups being accepted by the apartment owner, the ACLU and dozens of other similar organizations would be filing law suits the first day the ad ran. How about leaving the ad as is but replacing, “Graham Wellington” with Harvey Goldberg, Sean McGinty, Antonio Sabartini, Franz Shultz, or Hillary Swank? You could even make more of an impact for your agenda by changing the African American’s voice to that of a homosexual and making the Indian American a woman.
You people are most certainly not against discrimination, but strongly support it when it is turned against groups of any kind other than those you favor. Pardon me, but your supposedly hidden agenda is showing clearly and it surely isn’t equal treatment for all. Replacing bigotry against one or more ethnic groups with bigotry against another is replacing one evil with another. This is clearly what your ad is doing. How about a change to real fairness?
Cordially,
Howard E. Johnson
San Francisco Regional Office of FHEO
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
600 Harrison Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, California 94107-1387
I am incensed at the recent series of radio ads about housing discrimination which are apparently coming from your organization. These ads are a blatantly obvious attempt to smear Caucasian, English-Americans and incite anger toward them by Latinos, Indian-Americans and African-Americans. These ads are highly discriminatory and would never be used in another venue with a reverse implication castigating equally any minority other than Caucasian, English-Americans. Graham Wellington indeed–your intent is blatantly obvious and it is most certainly not to promote fair housing. To be truly fair–a word I seriously doubt anyone in your organization really understands–you would run four ads with each of the ethnic groups used, winning in turn the apartment in preference to the other three. This would be “fair.”
The “Graham Wellingtons” of our country have become part of the most discriminated against group by virtually every government agency, media mouthpiece, news reporter, and politician in the country.
Unfortunately, should your bigoted ad actually be run with any of the other three groups being accepted by the apartment owner, the ACLU and dozens of other similar organizations would be filing law suits the first day the ad ran. How about leaving the ad as is but replacing, “Graham Wellington” with Harvey Goldberg, Sean McGinty, Antonio Sabartini, Franz Shultz, or Hillary Swank? You could even make more of an impact for your agenda by changing the African American’s voice to that of a homosexual and making the Indian American a woman.
You people are most certainly not against discrimination, but strongly support it when it is turned against groups of any kind other than those you favor. Pardon me, but your supposedly hidden agenda is showing clearly and it surely isn’t equal treatment for all. Replacing bigotry against one or more ethnic groups with bigotry against another is replacing one evil with another. This is clearly what your ad is doing. How about a change to real fairness?
Cordially,
Howard E. Johnson
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The reality of Liberalism
It is my very firm belief that power hungry, dictatorial, leaders of the liberals and of the liberal Democrats are doing everything they can to destroy the economy, integrity, freedom, military power, religion, and even the holy “civil rights” of our nation. The really sad thing is that good, decent, well intentioned Americans with liberal leanings are supporting these truly evil men who spout hatred for all who oppose them. These would be dictators are endorsed by a media that mostly says nothing good about America and current American policies, yet waxes eloquent in defense and support of all of our enemies. Unbelievably, they ally with all of our enemies in virtually every venue of communication and rhetoric. This has been going on for a long time.
The only possible conclusion that any reasonable, rational being could come to is that these self-serving individuals believe that they will be triumphant only if America were reduced to economic, political and physical rubble where they could rise from the ashes and “save” the country. The following is but one example of a great multitude that clearly illustrate the method and intent of these true enemies of America no matter how unknowingly they act.
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. “Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why are valid and important news stories such as this almost always kept from the public? Who is it that wields such power over our "independent" news sources that they can squelch these stories selectively? Who is it that controls the news media so completely that only stories that harm America’s image come out of Iraq, while positive and success stories that point out all the good we are doing, never see the light of day. Hmmmm?
Just who are those that would want to do this and why do they act as they do? To believe the mantra, “We must protect the civil rights of all. We must only act after the fact. We must provide all manner of legal (according to American law) protections to each individual terrorist or enemy combatant. If we do not, we have thwarted the intentions of our founding fathers.” These men are either complete fools or very much in bed with our enemies. There is no other viable conclusion. Their only possible purpose is to so destroy America that they will be able to come to power over the devastated corpse of formerly free America and the American people.
Is this passion to destroy America and its successful capitalism and the unbelievable benefits of our free enterprise system a throwback to the battle with the robber barons of the late eighteen hundreds and early twentieth century? Wake up and look at reality, the capitalism of today is a very far cry from that of a hundred years ago. It has resulted in the highest standard of living for the most ordinary citizens in the entire world. Certainly, it is not perfect, just better by far than any other system. In the face of huge tax loads, terribly invasive and counterproductive government controls, constant streams of hatred, misinformation and outright lies from media who promote class and culture hatred against successful business people, business still survives. It also continues to pay virtually all the taxes to our government and is solely responsible for the vast majority of jobs for working Americans and continues to make profits. An evil word for liberals, profits would be abolished by liberals if they could. Should they succeed, where would the government satisfy its constantly growing appetite for cash? Hmmmmm!
With over-bloated and terribly inefficient governments taking in excess of forty percent of our GNP it amazes me that free enterprise capitalism has survived. That it has, is a testimonial to the marvelous and overpowering excellence of individual human enterprise for profit over any operations of governments. Knowledge and understanding of this fact is increasingly changing government policies and is bringing about a major economic revolution in a China long swamped with government bureaucracy. Will China soon replace the US as the nation most driven by individual freedom and free enterprise capitalism? Will liberals destroy the excellence that has been American free enterprise to third world status as they already have accomplished with American public education?
One of the characteristics of liberals that truly mystifies me is the complete absence of accepting or even listening to any words or thoughts that differ from the mantras handed to them from on high. Why is it that so many liberals didn’t even know anyone who voted Republican. From the halls of academia to the offices of media writers to the meeting places of feminist supporters to their own clubs and homes, these people almost never interact with anyone who doesn’t hate George bush, Republicans, business people, conservatives, corporate executives, talk radio, (especially Rush Limbaugh) etc. etc. They are so closed minded, so intellectually inbred, so completely controlled by the narrow, unyielding emotional confines of liberalism that there is no way they will permit even the exposure of their pure intellect to disturbing influences that question their veracity. Should anyone dare to communicate heretical (to liberals) thoughts or ideas they will be accused of being ignorant or stupid, but certainly far beneath the intellectual level of those lofty liberal concepts and holy beliefs. Their definition of truth seems to be anything liberal royalty says is truth and anything they disagree with is not true. Of course, by definition, anything a conservative or Republican says is a lie. The fact of this is so overpowering as to be laughable if it were not so very sad.
I pose a single example of the very different way liberals and conservatives react and believe, a real example.
The first amendment: Most Americans have no real knowledge and little understand of the first amendment. Because of so much media hype, most Americans believe the words, “separation of church and state” is part of the wording of this document. This is absolutely untrue. The ACLU and the out-of-control federal judges are dead wrong! Not only are they dead wrong, but they have grossly warped the meaning of the first amendment into precisely the opposite of what it clearly states and I can prove it. All anyone has to do is to read the exact words of the first amendment. That amendment states, “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.” That is the sum total of what it says - no more, no less. Between the ACLU, corrupt judges and wannabe Athiest dictators they have twisted those simple words to mean precisely the opposite of what they so clearly state. So, I ask you: Has the United States become an Atheocracy?
A•the•oc•ra•cy (ā’thi·ok’rà·si), n., pl. -ceis 1. government in which there is no God as the supreme being and ruler and where no law or morality is immutable. 2. government by atheists. 3. country or nation ruled by an atheocracy. [new word Gk. atheos without a god + kratos rule]
—atheocratic ( ā’thi·o·krat’ik), atheocratical, adj. —atheocratically, adv.
The removal and abolishment of anything remotely resembling religion or religious beliefs from all public places has become the current focus of the Atheist left. Plain and simply they are establishing “Atheism” or “Secular Humanism” as the state religion of the US in direct defiance of the First Amendment to our Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Any removal or prohibition of religious symbols - Christmas - Hanukkah - God - Christ - Islam - Buddha - from public places is also in defiance of the first amendment, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” Isn’t it about time we fought back against these clearly illegal actions? Let’s fight the ACLU and those corrupt judges and call them what they are. Without a higher power, they have no moral or even ethical basis for their words. They can say whatever they want with no consequence unless someone can legally prove they broke the law. They can lie, cheat, steal, even murder with complete confidence they will not be punished. Just ask Teddy Kennedy. I say, let’s prove who and what the ACLU really is. Let’s impeach every judge who ruled against religion and religious symbols and especially the ninth district court.
The First Amendment states clearly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” These words are the sum total of those referring to religion, no more, no less.
The first part clearly states the Federal Congress shall make no law which establishes a religion. That includes only the United States Senate and House of Representatives. No mention is made of any state, county or municipality. In other words, the first amendment says any federal law which establishes a religion as the official, federal religion is constitutionally illegal. States are therefore able to determine whether any such clause appears in their state constitution. For this reason, all prohibitions against any religious expression or symbol of any kind in any state, county or city government property including schools is excluded as they are not federal property.
Clearly, conservatives and liberals differ substantially in this matter. Factually, legally and possibly, there is no question that the liberal position is in direct opposition to the true and actual meanings of the first amendment as described. Their gross and erroneous expansion and near reversal of the most basic meaning of this amendment is but a microcosm of their entire philosophy of politics and of government. The following is a gross generalization, but hits at the heart of the differences. Liberals seem to love government and hate corporations. Conservatives seem to love corporations and hate government. I would far rather have a fortune 500 with so many independent, self sustaining, groups of free individuals controlling 500 different entities who must make a profit to survive than a single government entity with no profit incentive whose only inducement for excellence is to expand by base line budgeting. Our government is indeed a hydra, producing little of value and totally dependent on the private sector including the fortune 500 companies for its financial support. I repeat: There is absolutely nothing government does or could do that could not be or is not done better, with less cost, safer, more efficiently, and with superior environmental and social effect by private, independent, profit making organizations and corporations. Besides this, they would be paying completely for whatever part of government remains. No socialist nation can match the excellence and benefit to so many of its citizens. Why is it that so many people risk life and property just to get to the US. How many take the same risks to get to Cuba, Spain or even Sweden?
To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!
The only possible conclusion that any reasonable, rational being could come to is that these self-serving individuals believe that they will be triumphant only if America were reduced to economic, political and physical rubble where they could rise from the ashes and “save” the country. The following is but one example of a great multitude that clearly illustrate the method and intent of these true enemies of America no matter how unknowingly they act.
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. “Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why are valid and important news stories such as this almost always kept from the public? Who is it that wields such power over our "independent" news sources that they can squelch these stories selectively? Who is it that controls the news media so completely that only stories that harm America’s image come out of Iraq, while positive and success stories that point out all the good we are doing, never see the light of day. Hmmmm?
Just who are those that would want to do this and why do they act as they do? To believe the mantra, “We must protect the civil rights of all. We must only act after the fact. We must provide all manner of legal (according to American law) protections to each individual terrorist or enemy combatant. If we do not, we have thwarted the intentions of our founding fathers.” These men are either complete fools or very much in bed with our enemies. There is no other viable conclusion. Their only possible purpose is to so destroy America that they will be able to come to power over the devastated corpse of formerly free America and the American people.
Is this passion to destroy America and its successful capitalism and the unbelievable benefits of our free enterprise system a throwback to the battle with the robber barons of the late eighteen hundreds and early twentieth century? Wake up and look at reality, the capitalism of today is a very far cry from that of a hundred years ago. It has resulted in the highest standard of living for the most ordinary citizens in the entire world. Certainly, it is not perfect, just better by far than any other system. In the face of huge tax loads, terribly invasive and counterproductive government controls, constant streams of hatred, misinformation and outright lies from media who promote class and culture hatred against successful business people, business still survives. It also continues to pay virtually all the taxes to our government and is solely responsible for the vast majority of jobs for working Americans and continues to make profits. An evil word for liberals, profits would be abolished by liberals if they could. Should they succeed, where would the government satisfy its constantly growing appetite for cash? Hmmmmm!
With over-bloated and terribly inefficient governments taking in excess of forty percent of our GNP it amazes me that free enterprise capitalism has survived. That it has, is a testimonial to the marvelous and overpowering excellence of individual human enterprise for profit over any operations of governments. Knowledge and understanding of this fact is increasingly changing government policies and is bringing about a major economic revolution in a China long swamped with government bureaucracy. Will China soon replace the US as the nation most driven by individual freedom and free enterprise capitalism? Will liberals destroy the excellence that has been American free enterprise to third world status as they already have accomplished with American public education?
One of the characteristics of liberals that truly mystifies me is the complete absence of accepting or even listening to any words or thoughts that differ from the mantras handed to them from on high. Why is it that so many liberals didn’t even know anyone who voted Republican. From the halls of academia to the offices of media writers to the meeting places of feminist supporters to their own clubs and homes, these people almost never interact with anyone who doesn’t hate George bush, Republicans, business people, conservatives, corporate executives, talk radio, (especially Rush Limbaugh) etc. etc. They are so closed minded, so intellectually inbred, so completely controlled by the narrow, unyielding emotional confines of liberalism that there is no way they will permit even the exposure of their pure intellect to disturbing influences that question their veracity. Should anyone dare to communicate heretical (to liberals) thoughts or ideas they will be accused of being ignorant or stupid, but certainly far beneath the intellectual level of those lofty liberal concepts and holy beliefs. Their definition of truth seems to be anything liberal royalty says is truth and anything they disagree with is not true. Of course, by definition, anything a conservative or Republican says is a lie. The fact of this is so overpowering as to be laughable if it were not so very sad.
I pose a single example of the very different way liberals and conservatives react and believe, a real example.
The first amendment: Most Americans have no real knowledge and little understand of the first amendment. Because of so much media hype, most Americans believe the words, “separation of church and state” is part of the wording of this document. This is absolutely untrue. The ACLU and the out-of-control federal judges are dead wrong! Not only are they dead wrong, but they have grossly warped the meaning of the first amendment into precisely the opposite of what it clearly states and I can prove it. All anyone has to do is to read the exact words of the first amendment. That amendment states, “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.” That is the sum total of what it says - no more, no less. Between the ACLU, corrupt judges and wannabe Athiest dictators they have twisted those simple words to mean precisely the opposite of what they so clearly state. So, I ask you: Has the United States become an Atheocracy?
A•the•oc•ra•cy (ā’thi·ok’rà·si), n., pl. -ceis 1. government in which there is no God as the supreme being and ruler and where no law or morality is immutable. 2. government by atheists. 3. country or nation ruled by an atheocracy. [new word Gk. atheos without a god + kratos rule]
—atheocratic ( ā’thi·o·krat’ik), atheocratical, adj. —atheocratically, adv.
The removal and abolishment of anything remotely resembling religion or religious beliefs from all public places has become the current focus of the Atheist left. Plain and simply they are establishing “Atheism” or “Secular Humanism” as the state religion of the US in direct defiance of the First Amendment to our Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Any removal or prohibition of religious symbols - Christmas - Hanukkah - God - Christ - Islam - Buddha - from public places is also in defiance of the first amendment, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” Isn’t it about time we fought back against these clearly illegal actions? Let’s fight the ACLU and those corrupt judges and call them what they are. Without a higher power, they have no moral or even ethical basis for their words. They can say whatever they want with no consequence unless someone can legally prove they broke the law. They can lie, cheat, steal, even murder with complete confidence they will not be punished. Just ask Teddy Kennedy. I say, let’s prove who and what the ACLU really is. Let’s impeach every judge who ruled against religion and religious symbols and especially the ninth district court.
The First Amendment states clearly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” These words are the sum total of those referring to religion, no more, no less.
The first part clearly states the Federal Congress shall make no law which establishes a religion. That includes only the United States Senate and House of Representatives. No mention is made of any state, county or municipality. In other words, the first amendment says any federal law which establishes a religion as the official, federal religion is constitutionally illegal. States are therefore able to determine whether any such clause appears in their state constitution. For this reason, all prohibitions against any religious expression or symbol of any kind in any state, county or city government property including schools is excluded as they are not federal property.
Clearly, conservatives and liberals differ substantially in this matter. Factually, legally and possibly, there is no question that the liberal position is in direct opposition to the true and actual meanings of the first amendment as described. Their gross and erroneous expansion and near reversal of the most basic meaning of this amendment is but a microcosm of their entire philosophy of politics and of government. The following is a gross generalization, but hits at the heart of the differences. Liberals seem to love government and hate corporations. Conservatives seem to love corporations and hate government. I would far rather have a fortune 500 with so many independent, self sustaining, groups of free individuals controlling 500 different entities who must make a profit to survive than a single government entity with no profit incentive whose only inducement for excellence is to expand by base line budgeting. Our government is indeed a hydra, producing little of value and totally dependent on the private sector including the fortune 500 companies for its financial support. I repeat: There is absolutely nothing government does or could do that could not be or is not done better, with less cost, safer, more efficiently, and with superior environmental and social effect by private, independent, profit making organizations and corporations. Besides this, they would be paying completely for whatever part of government remains. No socialist nation can match the excellence and benefit to so many of its citizens. Why is it that so many people risk life and property just to get to the US. How many take the same risks to get to Cuba, Spain or even Sweden?
To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!
Monday, January 23, 2006
Musings on the new Medicare Rx benefit?
Forward from Nancy Grimm 1-23-2006
Just in case you all were wondering about the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, here it is from the horse’s mouth.
You might want to share this with your folks. It will help to clear up the confusion around the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan.
Subject: Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill
Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill -- Verbatim Quote
Submitted on 2005-12-13 16:35:14
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is it the new plan going to fix the problem?'
Verbatim response (PRESIDENT BUSH):
'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'
Forward this to others -- so they, too, can understand.
Ho’s reply:
Which end of the horse did you say this came from? This so called plan is no more than a blatant vote-buying instrument, completely idiotic, that probably creates more problems for more people than it solves and will cost infinitely more than the actual net amount of any real benefits. Like so much of the self-serving legislation that has come out of Washington for at least the past sixty years, its main beneficiaries are Washington bureaucrats, with Congress and the drug industry following far behind in decreasing order of value. I’ll give you an actual example from my own experience that could probably be echoed by millions of seniors all over the country.
Most of the major drug companies have had wonderful and very efficient programs to provide free drugs to seniors on low incomes like Social Security. During Barbara’s last year we benefitted with an average of $1300.00 per month of her drugs provided absolutely free by drug company programs. (All but one of the drug companies announced they would discontinue their free drug plans once the new law took effect, and I can’t really blame them.) The drugs and over-the-counters for her we had to pay for out-of-pocket amounted to nearly $1000.00 per month. My benefit was much less at about $120.00 per month. I calculated the lowest costs to us under the new plan. Because her costs were so high, she qualified for the maximum out-of-pocket expense so our total costs, including premiums for part D would have been over $4,000.00. annually, a savings of $8,000.00 on paper. The problem was that because many of her drugs as well as both of mine are not yet available in generic form, they are only partially covered by the plan and would add between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00 to our annual costs. It’s very difficult to calculate accurately the actual difference.
Under the new law, the total cost for my drugs added to the premium cost for the insurance I must buy, will be in excess of $155.00 per month. If I buy the same drugs under the discount program of the privately insured supplement program I already have and pay for, my cost will be only $80.00 per month. (Provided I don’t need additional new drugs) That is still $80.00 a month more than I was paying under the old system. Actually, since one of the drugs I take is from Pfizer my cost per month will only be $40.00. Amazingly, Pfizer alone among the major drug companies is continuing their free drug program for low income seniors, at least for the present.
This is terribly expensive legislation, even if measured by implementation, education, administration and policing costs alone. There is no question in my mind about who benefits the most from this program. Number one, the ravenous federal bureaucracy that must grow to administer and police the plan. Number two, Members of Congress.(supposedly pays for votes) Number three, the drug companies who are able to cancel their free drug programs. You’ll notice I didn’t mention seniors on medicare because they will gain the least if anything.
This is your government in action–Democrat, Republican, Independent–makes no difference. They’re all made mostly of the same cloth. If I sound PO'd, I am! Oh yes, all you younger people please remember who is going to pay for this fiasco as well as all that other pork....you are!
Ho
Reply from Nancy:
Availability of reasonably priced prescription medication is a real issue, Uncle Mike, I know. Sorry that I touched a nerve. The attempt at levity was to point to our president’s complete inability to get across a single point. Or maybe, more sinisterly, it’s real obfuscation. I think the fundamental issue is that we should talk care of people when they are hurting or in need. That is consistent with our basic values and if we hold to those values, then we enact laws concerning health care and drug benefits that target those in need of health care, not those in need (supposed) of even greater profit.
Unfortunately, these are NOT the values of the people in power at the moment, which is why we continue to find ourselves in situations where we wonder, WHAT HAS HAPPENED? How is it that the republicans have succeeded in convincing us that we need tax “relief” as if paying for programs that help those in need is some sort of disease or afflication? How is it that ever greater numbers of our citizens cannot afford even basic health care? How can it be that we still have a significant poverty problem in this richest of all nations? I am afraid it is because all of us have bought into the notion that the cons have been selling for decades – that if everyone worked as hard as the conservatives purport to do (notwithstanding that much of their wealth is NOT earned), everyone would be able to take care of themselves; that if we reward the rich for their “hard work” somehow the poor will magically be pulled up….
OK I am rambling. Anyway, Uncle Mike I am sorry if what I thought was a sadly funny commentary on our leadership made you upset.
Love to all, nbg
Ho's reply:
Au contraire! Your words were but a trigger. I've been upset about the idiocy in Washington for many many years. I thought your commentary to be on the mark. I don't always agree with you, but I certainly do listen to what you say and value your opinion. You may even be surprised at how much of what ideas come from the liberal side of humanity I agree with. I see either side of the aisle as having a paucity of really creative ideas to deal with the multitudinous threats-- no-- menaces we now face with certainty. Mostly they deftly avoid even acknowledging these true menaces exist. In most things we may disagree on the method, and even on the reality of the situation, but are certainly close to congruent on the desired end results.
Ho goes on:
I reread your email and it triggered a more thoughtful response with some disagreement. I see little actual difference between the intentions or values of those now in power and their opposition. I have little respect for all but a very few members of our government including our elected representatives, aspiring or sitting executives, judges, et al regardless of their party affiliation. I have little real respect for many famous members of the entertainment industry including media, sports, TV, movie and music stars either. So many are active narcissists who are paid far too much money, get far too much attention, and have far too much influence over many Americans, particularly with respect to their true human value. I suppose, but don’t specifically know, there are probably many in the world of business who would fall under the same category. Unfortunately, they don’t usually get as much press as the others, Ken Lay and friends excepted.
Some months back I started writing a book, “Monkey Kings, Monkey People” to describe the interactions between those who control our society and those who are the subjects (or victims) of that control. Why, like pack animals, we have this social/political structural “worship” of heros, royalty, the famous, the beautiful, even the wealthy (“kings”) never ceases to befuddle me. Is it so prevalent among we humans that it must be genetically controlled? Is the political struggle for power between the left and right a human aping (how about that little dual meaning) of the well know troop conflict structures of many primates including monkeys, baboons and apes? Once I got into it I became so infuriated with what I discovered that I shelved the project for later.
Republican versus Democrat, Liberal versus Conservative, black versus white, religious versus atheist, you name it, all dichotomies of this type are never about or for the vast majority of the people, but are about who of the elevated, the leaders, the “kings” have the most power over those ignorant peasants. Each caters to their own political power. Historically, Democrats and liberals cater to the powerful in labor, government, entertainment and education. Republicans and conservatives cater to the powerful in business, religion and the military. Democrats purportedly love the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the failures in life while Republicans treat the successful, wealthy and powerful with equal ardor.
The truth is that with very few exceptions, neither party gives a whit about the little guy on either side of the political fence. Their only concern (of most, not all) is money and power. The money to get and stay in office and the power to control the government. Literally all the conflicts are between the very powerful to see who can tell enough lies well enough and promise enough pork to get elected.
The thing that disappointed me so much was that the stupid Republicans, once they got in power, seemingly decided to do to the nation what the Democrats had been doing for the previous forty years. That is, write increasingly complex and intrusive laws to extract money from the general populace for their own very special interests. To me, the Democrats became masters of deception and duplicity by vastly expanding their power base, the government bureaucracy, at the expense of the real people of the country. They were buying their way into power using taxpayer dollars.
When the Republicans came into power I thought things would change, but they didn’t. These idiots seemed to think it was their turn to do the same thing the Democrats had been doing for so long. That damnable Rx Drug law is a classic example. The only difference between that and a Democrat version for the same purpose would be which group of power brokers got the money and the power.
Liberals, Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, by and large they’re all the same hateful, power hungry, self-serving, pseudo criminals wearing different colors and speaking different languages. This is such an abomination as to bewilder the mind of any logical, reasonable, pragmatic individual. Most certainly realize that the vast majority of political speech in this country is completely void of the real truth and couched, like a lawyer’s argument, strictly to make the desired point. I have found that there are real, practical, workable, creative systems out there, available from many intelligent, well-intentioned sources that could solve so many of our problems in ways so ingenious as to dazzle the mind. I have seen some and have written about others myself. Following is a small sample of what I am referring to.
______________________________________________
EXAMPLES:
For an in-depth overview of "The Tribrid Vehicle"- formerly titled, "The SUPER Hydrogen Economy" Click here!
”The Johnson Tax Code” - a revolutionary proposal that most politicians would be against since it is simple, would cost much less to administer and would help keep their hands out of the till. - Click here! for more information
”A New Solution to the Drug Problem” - an effective method for completely removing the financial incentive for illegal drug sales and the industry that flourishes in spite of “The War on Drugs.” - Click here! for more information
”A Solution to the Identity/Security Problem We can Live With” - one way to solve all kinds of identity problems that would satisfy Constitutional constraints and not force people to comply. - Click here! for more information
”Job Growth Indiana” How Indiana (Or any other state) can attract many new businesses, greatly increase job growth, and vastly increase state revenue without new taxes. - Click here! for more information
”The Antiquated Minimum Wage” - a proposal to correct the problems that costs jobs, drives industries out of the country, creates labor voids in some areas and doesn’t do what it is supposed to do in most of the country. - CLICK here to read HJ’s commentary about the negatives in the minimum wage law.
_________________________________________________
Case in point, taxes. It is a firmly established and proven fact that judiciously lowering taxes, far from reducing government revenue, actually increases revenue because of increased economic activity. Yet the left steadfastly curses Republicans for lowering taxes. On the other side and in spite of increasing damage to our environment, Republicans refuse to promote proven environmental issues even when the economics favor them. Both are merely playing the political music their bases want to hear. Neither seem to recognize or care about the facts or the nation for that matter, but only for their own political bank roll. Or, can it be they are too ignorant to understand the situation?
Instead of real concern, we now have a liberal Democrat party willing to do anything including the destruction of our nation to regain the power they have lost. There is no longer any doubt in my mind but that given the same situation, Republicans would be just as evilly stupid. This hunger for power totally destroys or prevents any use of real reform to make things better.
There is one thing I know that bears on this problem. It is a fact proven over and over again to reasonable people. That is: no matter what the project or problem, private, individual and group effort will provide a solution better, faster, cheaper, cleaner, and more effective overall than any government. If you doubt that, look at China today. After languishing in the throes of depression for decades because of endless and futile government collective farms, their farm economy took off when the government noted that the people were producing more needed agricultural output than the huge collective farms on tiny, individual plots worked and harvested by individuals and small groups for their own profit. By changing to farm ownership and encouraging individual entrepreneurship, China began an economic growth spurt that is just now reaching momentous proportions. To some extent the Chinese government realized that relaxing control and encouraging individual enterprise had exactly the opposite effect predicted by the Maoists.
China is moving toward less control on individuals while our people are facing staggering increases in controls, reporting requirements, and disincentives for success. Indeed, we now seem bent on challenging and even despising excellence and success in many areas of our social/political structure, especially in our education system. There is no such anti-excellence attitude in China. Is it any wonder we seem headed for third-world mediocrity?
Yes, China is still burdened with a huge, corrupt bureaucracy, but at least they are moving slowly away from it while we seem doomed to move rapidly into it. Has our huge, overgrown bureaucracy reached the point where neither political party can afford to rein it in? Is government of the people by the government and for the government our future fate? Or are we already there?
To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!
Just in case you all were wondering about the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, here it is from the horse’s mouth.
You might want to share this with your folks. It will help to clear up the confusion around the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan.
Subject: Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill
Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill -- Verbatim Quote
Submitted on 2005-12-13 16:35:14
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is it the new plan going to fix the problem?'
Verbatim response (PRESIDENT BUSH):
'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'
Forward this to others -- so they, too, can understand.
Ho’s reply:
Which end of the horse did you say this came from? This so called plan is no more than a blatant vote-buying instrument, completely idiotic, that probably creates more problems for more people than it solves and will cost infinitely more than the actual net amount of any real benefits. Like so much of the self-serving legislation that has come out of Washington for at least the past sixty years, its main beneficiaries are Washington bureaucrats, with Congress and the drug industry following far behind in decreasing order of value. I’ll give you an actual example from my own experience that could probably be echoed by millions of seniors all over the country.
Most of the major drug companies have had wonderful and very efficient programs to provide free drugs to seniors on low incomes like Social Security. During Barbara’s last year we benefitted with an average of $1300.00 per month of her drugs provided absolutely free by drug company programs. (All but one of the drug companies announced they would discontinue their free drug plans once the new law took effect, and I can’t really blame them.) The drugs and over-the-counters for her we had to pay for out-of-pocket amounted to nearly $1000.00 per month. My benefit was much less at about $120.00 per month. I calculated the lowest costs to us under the new plan. Because her costs were so high, she qualified for the maximum out-of-pocket expense so our total costs, including premiums for part D would have been over $4,000.00. annually, a savings of $8,000.00 on paper. The problem was that because many of her drugs as well as both of mine are not yet available in generic form, they are only partially covered by the plan and would add between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00 to our annual costs. It’s very difficult to calculate accurately the actual difference.
Under the new law, the total cost for my drugs added to the premium cost for the insurance I must buy, will be in excess of $155.00 per month. If I buy the same drugs under the discount program of the privately insured supplement program I already have and pay for, my cost will be only $80.00 per month. (Provided I don’t need additional new drugs) That is still $80.00 a month more than I was paying under the old system. Actually, since one of the drugs I take is from Pfizer my cost per month will only be $40.00. Amazingly, Pfizer alone among the major drug companies is continuing their free drug program for low income seniors, at least for the present.
This is terribly expensive legislation, even if measured by implementation, education, administration and policing costs alone. There is no question in my mind about who benefits the most from this program. Number one, the ravenous federal bureaucracy that must grow to administer and police the plan. Number two, Members of Congress.(supposedly pays for votes) Number three, the drug companies who are able to cancel their free drug programs. You’ll notice I didn’t mention seniors on medicare because they will gain the least if anything.
This is your government in action–Democrat, Republican, Independent–makes no difference. They’re all made mostly of the same cloth. If I sound PO'd, I am! Oh yes, all you younger people please remember who is going to pay for this fiasco as well as all that other pork....you are!
Ho
Reply from Nancy:
Availability of reasonably priced prescription medication is a real issue, Uncle Mike, I know. Sorry that I touched a nerve. The attempt at levity was to point to our president’s complete inability to get across a single point. Or maybe, more sinisterly, it’s real obfuscation. I think the fundamental issue is that we should talk care of people when they are hurting or in need. That is consistent with our basic values and if we hold to those values, then we enact laws concerning health care and drug benefits that target those in need of health care, not those in need (supposed) of even greater profit.
Unfortunately, these are NOT the values of the people in power at the moment, which is why we continue to find ourselves in situations where we wonder, WHAT HAS HAPPENED? How is it that the republicans have succeeded in convincing us that we need tax “relief” as if paying for programs that help those in need is some sort of disease or afflication? How is it that ever greater numbers of our citizens cannot afford even basic health care? How can it be that we still have a significant poverty problem in this richest of all nations? I am afraid it is because all of us have bought into the notion that the cons have been selling for decades – that if everyone worked as hard as the conservatives purport to do (notwithstanding that much of their wealth is NOT earned), everyone would be able to take care of themselves; that if we reward the rich for their “hard work” somehow the poor will magically be pulled up….
OK I am rambling. Anyway, Uncle Mike I am sorry if what I thought was a sadly funny commentary on our leadership made you upset.
Love to all, nbg
Ho's reply:
Au contraire! Your words were but a trigger. I've been upset about the idiocy in Washington for many many years. I thought your commentary to be on the mark. I don't always agree with you, but I certainly do listen to what you say and value your opinion. You may even be surprised at how much of what ideas come from the liberal side of humanity I agree with. I see either side of the aisle as having a paucity of really creative ideas to deal with the multitudinous threats-- no-- menaces we now face with certainty. Mostly they deftly avoid even acknowledging these true menaces exist. In most things we may disagree on the method, and even on the reality of the situation, but are certainly close to congruent on the desired end results.
Ho goes on:
I reread your email and it triggered a more thoughtful response with some disagreement. I see little actual difference between the intentions or values of those now in power and their opposition. I have little respect for all but a very few members of our government including our elected representatives, aspiring or sitting executives, judges, et al regardless of their party affiliation. I have little real respect for many famous members of the entertainment industry including media, sports, TV, movie and music stars either. So many are active narcissists who are paid far too much money, get far too much attention, and have far too much influence over many Americans, particularly with respect to their true human value. I suppose, but don’t specifically know, there are probably many in the world of business who would fall under the same category. Unfortunately, they don’t usually get as much press as the others, Ken Lay and friends excepted.
Some months back I started writing a book, “Monkey Kings, Monkey People” to describe the interactions between those who control our society and those who are the subjects (or victims) of that control. Why, like pack animals, we have this social/political structural “worship” of heros, royalty, the famous, the beautiful, even the wealthy (“kings”) never ceases to befuddle me. Is it so prevalent among we humans that it must be genetically controlled? Is the political struggle for power between the left and right a human aping (how about that little dual meaning) of the well know troop conflict structures of many primates including monkeys, baboons and apes? Once I got into it I became so infuriated with what I discovered that I shelved the project for later.
Republican versus Democrat, Liberal versus Conservative, black versus white, religious versus atheist, you name it, all dichotomies of this type are never about or for the vast majority of the people, but are about who of the elevated, the leaders, the “kings” have the most power over those ignorant peasants. Each caters to their own political power. Historically, Democrats and liberals cater to the powerful in labor, government, entertainment and education. Republicans and conservatives cater to the powerful in business, religion and the military. Democrats purportedly love the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the failures in life while Republicans treat the successful, wealthy and powerful with equal ardor.
The truth is that with very few exceptions, neither party gives a whit about the little guy on either side of the political fence. Their only concern (of most, not all) is money and power. The money to get and stay in office and the power to control the government. Literally all the conflicts are between the very powerful to see who can tell enough lies well enough and promise enough pork to get elected.
The thing that disappointed me so much was that the stupid Republicans, once they got in power, seemingly decided to do to the nation what the Democrats had been doing for the previous forty years. That is, write increasingly complex and intrusive laws to extract money from the general populace for their own very special interests. To me, the Democrats became masters of deception and duplicity by vastly expanding their power base, the government bureaucracy, at the expense of the real people of the country. They were buying their way into power using taxpayer dollars.
When the Republicans came into power I thought things would change, but they didn’t. These idiots seemed to think it was their turn to do the same thing the Democrats had been doing for so long. That damnable Rx Drug law is a classic example. The only difference between that and a Democrat version for the same purpose would be which group of power brokers got the money and the power.
Liberals, Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, by and large they’re all the same hateful, power hungry, self-serving, pseudo criminals wearing different colors and speaking different languages. This is such an abomination as to bewilder the mind of any logical, reasonable, pragmatic individual. Most certainly realize that the vast majority of political speech in this country is completely void of the real truth and couched, like a lawyer’s argument, strictly to make the desired point. I have found that there are real, practical, workable, creative systems out there, available from many intelligent, well-intentioned sources that could solve so many of our problems in ways so ingenious as to dazzle the mind. I have seen some and have written about others myself. Following is a small sample of what I am referring to.
______________________________________________
EXAMPLES:
For an in-depth overview of "The Tribrid Vehicle"- formerly titled, "The SUPER Hydrogen Economy" Click here!
”The Johnson Tax Code” - a revolutionary proposal that most politicians would be against since it is simple, would cost much less to administer and would help keep their hands out of the till. - Click here! for more information
”A New Solution to the Drug Problem” - an effective method for completely removing the financial incentive for illegal drug sales and the industry that flourishes in spite of “The War on Drugs.” - Click here! for more information
”A Solution to the Identity/Security Problem We can Live With” - one way to solve all kinds of identity problems that would satisfy Constitutional constraints and not force people to comply. - Click here! for more information
”Job Growth Indiana” How Indiana (Or any other state) can attract many new businesses, greatly increase job growth, and vastly increase state revenue without new taxes. - Click here! for more information
”The Antiquated Minimum Wage” - a proposal to correct the problems that costs jobs, drives industries out of the country, creates labor voids in some areas and doesn’t do what it is supposed to do in most of the country. - CLICK here to read HJ’s commentary about the negatives in the minimum wage law.
_________________________________________________
Case in point, taxes. It is a firmly established and proven fact that judiciously lowering taxes, far from reducing government revenue, actually increases revenue because of increased economic activity. Yet the left steadfastly curses Republicans for lowering taxes. On the other side and in spite of increasing damage to our environment, Republicans refuse to promote proven environmental issues even when the economics favor them. Both are merely playing the political music their bases want to hear. Neither seem to recognize or care about the facts or the nation for that matter, but only for their own political bank roll. Or, can it be they are too ignorant to understand the situation?
Instead of real concern, we now have a liberal Democrat party willing to do anything including the destruction of our nation to regain the power they have lost. There is no longer any doubt in my mind but that given the same situation, Republicans would be just as evilly stupid. This hunger for power totally destroys or prevents any use of real reform to make things better.
There is one thing I know that bears on this problem. It is a fact proven over and over again to reasonable people. That is: no matter what the project or problem, private, individual and group effort will provide a solution better, faster, cheaper, cleaner, and more effective overall than any government. If you doubt that, look at China today. After languishing in the throes of depression for decades because of endless and futile government collective farms, their farm economy took off when the government noted that the people were producing more needed agricultural output than the huge collective farms on tiny, individual plots worked and harvested by individuals and small groups for their own profit. By changing to farm ownership and encouraging individual entrepreneurship, China began an economic growth spurt that is just now reaching momentous proportions. To some extent the Chinese government realized that relaxing control and encouraging individual enterprise had exactly the opposite effect predicted by the Maoists.
China is moving toward less control on individuals while our people are facing staggering increases in controls, reporting requirements, and disincentives for success. Indeed, we now seem bent on challenging and even despising excellence and success in many areas of our social/political structure, especially in our education system. There is no such anti-excellence attitude in China. Is it any wonder we seem headed for third-world mediocrity?
Yes, China is still burdened with a huge, corrupt bureaucracy, but at least they are moving slowly away from it while we seem doomed to move rapidly into it. Has our huge, overgrown bureaucracy reached the point where neither political party can afford to rein it in? Is government of the people by the government and for the government our future fate? Or are we already there?
To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Something you won't hear about on main stream TV
This is an email forward I want to share.
I sat in my seat of the Boeing 767 waiting for everyone to hurry and stow their carry-ons and grab a seat so we could start what I was sure to be a long, uneventful flight home.
With the huge capacity and slow moving people taking their time to stuff luggage far too big for the overhead and never paying much attention to holding up the growing line behind them, I simply shook my head knowing that this flight was not starting out very well. I was anxious to get home to see my loved ones so I was focused on my issues and just felt like standing up and yelling for some of these clowns to get their act together.
I knew I couldn't say a word so I just thumbed thru the "Sky Mall" magazine from the seat pocket in front of me. You know it's really getting rough when you resort to the over priced, useless sky mall crap to break the monotony. With everyone finally seated, we just sat there with the cabin door open and no one in any hurry to get us going although we were well past the scheduled take off time. No wonder the airline industry is in trouble I told myself.
Just then, the attendant came on the intercom to inform us all that we were being delayed. The entire plane let out a collective groan. She resumed speaking to say "We are holding the aircraft for some very special people who are on their way to the plane and the delay shouldn't be more than 5 minutes.
The word came after waiting six times as long as we were promised that I was finally going to be on my way home. Why the hoopla over "these" folks?
I was expecting some celebrity or sport figure to be the reason for the hold up. Just get their butts in a seat and let's hit the gas I thought.
The attendant came back on the speaker to announce in a loud and excited voice that we were being joined by several U.S. Marines returning home from Iraq !!!
Just as they walked on board, the entire plane erupted into applause. The men were a bit taken by surprise by the 340 people cheering for them as they searched for their seats. They were having their hands shook and touched by almost everyone who was within an arm's distance of them as they passed down the aisle. One elderly woman kissed the hand of one of the Marines as he passed by her. The applause, whistles and cheering didn't stop for a long time.
When we were finally airborne, I was not the only civilian checking his conscience as to the delays in "me" getting home, finding my easy chair, a cold beverage and the remote in my hand. These men had done for all of us and I had been complaining silently about "me" and "my" issues I took for granted the everyday freedoms I enjoy and the conveniences of the American way of life. I took for granted that others had paid the price for my ability to moan and complain about a few minutes delay to "me" while those Heroes were going home to their loved ones.
I attempted to get my selfish outlook back in order and minutes before we landed, I suggested to the attendant that she announce over the speaker a request for everyone to remain in their seats until our heroes were allowed to gather their things and be first off the plane. The cheers and applause continued until the last Marine stepped off and we all rose to go about our too often taken for granted everyday freedoms. I felt proud of them.
I felt it an honor and a privilege to be among the first to welcome them home and say "Thank You for a job well done." I vowed that I will never forget that flight nor the lesson learned. I can't say it enough, THANK YOU to those Veterans and active servicemen and women who may read this and a prayer for those who cannot because they are no longer with us.
GOD BLESS AMERICA! WELCOME HOME! AND THANKS FOR A JOB WELL DONE!!!!!
A HoJo comment:
I was reminded of the contrast to a scene I witnessed on TV some years back when a group of soldiers were marching through a crowd of jeering, cursing, screaming young people in shabby garb holding hate filled signs and raising fists and middle fingers at our soldiers. I wondered, was it the difference in the wars, the difference in the public opinion, the difference in the soldiers, the difference in the locale or the difference in the particular audience? My guess is that the difference was between an organized, politically motivated group of demonstrators playing to the main stream media who strongly favor the group’s hate-filled agenda and a spontaneous, grateful, thankful group of successful Americans reacting to their deep, genuine appreciation and playing to no one but themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind that a great many of the casualties on both sides and in both wars would be alive and in good health and the world would be far closer to general peace if those who work so diligently and emotionally against both wars by providing comfort, encouragement, emotional support and thus direct aid to our enemies, would instead, spend the same energy helping in the physical and political rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest beneficiaries of the efforts of these so-called, “anti-war”activists include terrorists who visit wholesale murder on their own people even more than on our troops. That their objective, far from solving the problems of despotism and the totalitarian oppression of people, is instead quite obviously the degradation and defeat of America strictly for political gain of their own, selfish, self-serving agenda.
These politically motivated groups care little for the lives or suffering of those we would rescue from tyranny or for our own people. No price in misery is too high for others to pay to aid them in their striving for political power. Power and control are their real goals. Government control over everyone with them in control of that government is their desired end.
Freedom–political, economic, religious, literary, you name it–individual freedom of virtually any kind is their sworn enemy. If you doubt this, just try to speak against any of their pet agendas at any place where they control a group of their “protesters.” Example: conservative speakers at virtually any college campus in the country. Why is it so important for liberal cause groups to silence any opposing voices? Could it be their arguments are so weak as to be unable to withstand criticism. This happens so often as to be considered the normal course of things. Why is there never any comparable oppression of liberal voices by conservatives?
The answer is that conservatives generally encourage open well mannered discussions while liberals usually encourage only discussions that agree with their agenda and will often shout down any dissenting opinion. Relatively speaking, conservatives have open minds while liberals have minds closed to opinions that disagree with their mantras.
Liberal Democrats, lead by Howard Dean, who heads up the DNC, are almost apoplectic in their loud, angry expressions of hatred for Republicans. Hate has become the mantra of the Democrat party. Led by Dean and aped by Democrats, Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, McKinney and a host of others, liberal democrats mouth a constant stream of epithets of hate at Republicans, indeed, at any who do not agree with them. It seems to be a genetic condition of liberals. Totally bereft of even a hint of positive programs to solve any of the country’s problems, all they can do is scream insults like frustrated schoolboys unable to get their way. They are so against practically everything, how can we expect them to spend any effort at practical solutions to anything? All we hear are epithets, slogans and mantras, all seemingly dutifully repeated after being disseminated from someone, somewhere–maybe Michael Moore, or moveon.org? What is the real motive of these people who scream with so much hatred for America?
Real Americans would like to know.
To return to the links to all of Howard Johnson’s sites Click here
To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!
I sat in my seat of the Boeing 767 waiting for everyone to hurry and stow their carry-ons and grab a seat so we could start what I was sure to be a long, uneventful flight home.
With the huge capacity and slow moving people taking their time to stuff luggage far too big for the overhead and never paying much attention to holding up the growing line behind them, I simply shook my head knowing that this flight was not starting out very well. I was anxious to get home to see my loved ones so I was focused on my issues and just felt like standing up and yelling for some of these clowns to get their act together.
I knew I couldn't say a word so I just thumbed thru the "Sky Mall" magazine from the seat pocket in front of me. You know it's really getting rough when you resort to the over priced, useless sky mall crap to break the monotony. With everyone finally seated, we just sat there with the cabin door open and no one in any hurry to get us going although we were well past the scheduled take off time. No wonder the airline industry is in trouble I told myself.
Just then, the attendant came on the intercom to inform us all that we were being delayed. The entire plane let out a collective groan. She resumed speaking to say "We are holding the aircraft for some very special people who are on their way to the plane and the delay shouldn't be more than 5 minutes.
The word came after waiting six times as long as we were promised that I was finally going to be on my way home. Why the hoopla over "these" folks?
I was expecting some celebrity or sport figure to be the reason for the hold up. Just get their butts in a seat and let's hit the gas I thought.
The attendant came back on the speaker to announce in a loud and excited voice that we were being joined by several U.S. Marines returning home from Iraq !!!
Just as they walked on board, the entire plane erupted into applause. The men were a bit taken by surprise by the 340 people cheering for them as they searched for their seats. They were having their hands shook and touched by almost everyone who was within an arm's distance of them as they passed down the aisle. One elderly woman kissed the hand of one of the Marines as he passed by her. The applause, whistles and cheering didn't stop for a long time.
When we were finally airborne, I was not the only civilian checking his conscience as to the delays in "me" getting home, finding my easy chair, a cold beverage and the remote in my hand. These men had done for all of us and I had been complaining silently about "me" and "my" issues I took for granted the everyday freedoms I enjoy and the conveniences of the American way of life. I took for granted that others had paid the price for my ability to moan and complain about a few minutes delay to "me" while those Heroes were going home to their loved ones.
I attempted to get my selfish outlook back in order and minutes before we landed, I suggested to the attendant that she announce over the speaker a request for everyone to remain in their seats until our heroes were allowed to gather their things and be first off the plane. The cheers and applause continued until the last Marine stepped off and we all rose to go about our too often taken for granted everyday freedoms. I felt proud of them.
I felt it an honor and a privilege to be among the first to welcome them home and say "Thank You for a job well done." I vowed that I will never forget that flight nor the lesson learned. I can't say it enough, THANK YOU to those Veterans and active servicemen and women who may read this and a prayer for those who cannot because they are no longer with us.
GOD BLESS AMERICA! WELCOME HOME! AND THANKS FOR A JOB WELL DONE!!!!!
A HoJo comment:
I was reminded of the contrast to a scene I witnessed on TV some years back when a group of soldiers were marching through a crowd of jeering, cursing, screaming young people in shabby garb holding hate filled signs and raising fists and middle fingers at our soldiers. I wondered, was it the difference in the wars, the difference in the public opinion, the difference in the soldiers, the difference in the locale or the difference in the particular audience? My guess is that the difference was between an organized, politically motivated group of demonstrators playing to the main stream media who strongly favor the group’s hate-filled agenda and a spontaneous, grateful, thankful group of successful Americans reacting to their deep, genuine appreciation and playing to no one but themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind that a great many of the casualties on both sides and in both wars would be alive and in good health and the world would be far closer to general peace if those who work so diligently and emotionally against both wars by providing comfort, encouragement, emotional support and thus direct aid to our enemies, would instead, spend the same energy helping in the physical and political rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest beneficiaries of the efforts of these so-called, “anti-war”activists include terrorists who visit wholesale murder on their own people even more than on our troops. That their objective, far from solving the problems of despotism and the totalitarian oppression of people, is instead quite obviously the degradation and defeat of America strictly for political gain of their own, selfish, self-serving agenda.
These politically motivated groups care little for the lives or suffering of those we would rescue from tyranny or for our own people. No price in misery is too high for others to pay to aid them in their striving for political power. Power and control are their real goals. Government control over everyone with them in control of that government is their desired end.
Freedom–political, economic, religious, literary, you name it–individual freedom of virtually any kind is their sworn enemy. If you doubt this, just try to speak against any of their pet agendas at any place where they control a group of their “protesters.” Example: conservative speakers at virtually any college campus in the country. Why is it so important for liberal cause groups to silence any opposing voices? Could it be their arguments are so weak as to be unable to withstand criticism. This happens so often as to be considered the normal course of things. Why is there never any comparable oppression of liberal voices by conservatives?
The answer is that conservatives generally encourage open well mannered discussions while liberals usually encourage only discussions that agree with their agenda and will often shout down any dissenting opinion. Relatively speaking, conservatives have open minds while liberals have minds closed to opinions that disagree with their mantras.
Liberal Democrats, lead by Howard Dean, who heads up the DNC, are almost apoplectic in their loud, angry expressions of hatred for Republicans. Hate has become the mantra of the Democrat party. Led by Dean and aped by Democrats, Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, McKinney and a host of others, liberal democrats mouth a constant stream of epithets of hate at Republicans, indeed, at any who do not agree with them. It seems to be a genetic condition of liberals. Totally bereft of even a hint of positive programs to solve any of the country’s problems, all they can do is scream insults like frustrated schoolboys unable to get their way. They are so against practically everything, how can we expect them to spend any effort at practical solutions to anything? All we hear are epithets, slogans and mantras, all seemingly dutifully repeated after being disseminated from someone, somewhere–maybe Michael Moore, or moveon.org? What is the real motive of these people who scream with so much hatred for America?
Real Americans would like to know.
To return to the links to all of Howard Johnson’s sites Click here
To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)