Saturday, January 27, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
There are many things that I would love to comment on about the Presidents Speech. This speech was given during a continued low period of this presidency. The President's approval ratings are still in the mid 30's and he no longer has the support of congress. A reality that we must face about these speeches is that no matter how moving or articulate or convincing a President is it is mostly for show. No member of congress is going to have their minds opened or changed. How could this actually be achieved? I submit that in times of great peril whether to the country or to a presidency drastic things must happen.
Even though I know that this is political suicide I submit that the President should have on the pulpit scrapped the speech. He then could have spoken from his heart and with passion. Not only would this have a much better chance of persuading those in the House Gallery but more importantly the American public. For those who disagree with Bush's Iraq policy they have had their opinions molded by those who wish for a weakened Bush. The only way to mold public opinion is for them to empathize with the President and to wish for his success for the countries sake.
Though there are many other things that deserve commentary in the Presidents speech I will focus on what I view as the most important. Iraq is the defining issue of our time. In order for the people to support the best ideas we must expose where our leaders stand. I respect the fact that the democrats do not support Bush's war policy with the exception being Joe Lieberman. It's ok to dissent but it must be followed with a solution of your own. How many times have you heard from the Dems that they support the troops. I bet if you ask the troops if they want to win that the poll numbers would be in the high 90's for winning. With this in mind how can the democrats be honest dissenters. I say that they cannot. They as put by their leader in the house "The Iraq war is not a conflict to be won but a problem to be managed" This doesn't sound much like the speech given at half time when you have had a change of momentum. It sounds like a caucus resounded to honorable defeat. Defeat can be accepted honorably.
I don't expect the dems to want success or to support the Bush policy just for the sake of patriotism. I simply wish they would be honest with the American people about their intentions. I tend to believe that actions speak louder than words. The one point that I wish to stay in your mind is during the speech when Bush spoke about the Iraq conflict. I respect the dems decision to refrain from clapping or standing when Bush announced all of his policies. But I want to point out that when he said
"On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory"
The point I want to make is that 98% of the democrats refrained from clapping or standing during this pause. Their action spoke much louder than words. There was nothing partisan about that line. Their was no part of it which connected victory only with the Presidents proposals. There was no indication that to clap would mean Bush is right. It is simply rhetoric about us being victorious and coming together to achieve this goal and not giving up. With their silence the dems proved that they are reserved to defeat regardless of whats happening on the ground. They have staked their political futures on it. Not only is it a sad state of the opposition party when they put their own ambitions above the national interest but there is a higher lesson to learn. When Boise state was down by 8 points with one play to go on fourth down 50 yards from the end zone it would have made sense to bet against them. Wisdom and the experts would have supported it.
Remember when people are down they are not always out. When General Petraous surprises us and we achieve victory in Iraq the dems will have bet on the wrong horse and will have spent their political capital against US interests. No matter how much support you enjoy going into the game one thing is certain, if you win you always get majority support. America likes winners and if Prez. Bush can produce a win it will follow in the history books as a good decision. My prayer is that America will win and that freedom will spread to all of God's children as a result.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Posted today on the Weekly Standard was the article: How Arafat Got Away with Murder
The State Department covered up his responsibility for the 1973 slaughter of two American diplomats. by Scott W. Johnson
The publication of the 1973 CIA summary brings to an end 33 years of silence on Yasser Arafat's murder of two high-ranking State Department officers. Its sad what some politicians will sell in order to appear and diplomatic.
"There are limits to which foreign policy issues should require a man to lower himself. Shaking the hand of a murderer of a U.S. ambassador is such a case. Any peace based upon that hand is a delusion."
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
How exactly can you support someone in victory, if your doing everything to get them to withdrawl from battle, win or not? The answer is, that you can not. Why more columnists have not been aware of this common doublespeak, I don't know. The point is, that I now have proof of my assertion. A Fox News poll, released today shows that 49% of Democrats, either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed. I am willing to bet that most of them have said that, "they support the troops." How did I come to the conclusion.? Well, it is all in how you frame the question. In the fox news poll people were asked "Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Here are the results
Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know
Independent: 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
Only 51% of democrats want us to succeed. We have 150,000 troops in harms way and the democratic party and its supporters should be ashamed of themselves. This is blatantly playing politics with peoples lives. We may have all known this ugly reality in our heads, but now it's out in the open. Those who don't support the troops will have to face the public. The next time there is an attack on the country these people should all be drafted to fight, and then they can see what its like to fight for someones freedom while those at home disparage them. Shameless.
The other part of the poll that was interesting was this
Do you think most Democrats want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed and lead to a stable Iraq or do they want it to fail and for him to have to withdraw U.S. troops in defeat?
Overall 32% 48
Democrats 42% 38
Republicans 21% 67
Independents 30% 42
If U.S. troops were to withdraw from Iraq before the country was
stabilized, do you think Usama bin Laden would claim victory?
Overall 60% 26
Democrats 52% 33
Republicans 76% 15
Independents 54% 27 19
The majority think that, the democrats don't want us to win in Iraq and they also, are aware that it would be a victory to Bin Laden. If this war is lost, this time, rather than spitting on the returning soldiers, we should spit on those who don't root for their own country. You know who you are.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A recent New York Times article blared, "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse."
This must prove a new trend of independence. Never mind the recent insult to Condaleeza Rice by Barbara Boxer. Recently Katie Couric of CBS complained about her apparent minority status as a female anchor. NBC's today show seems to glorify the position of single motherhood. What is going on?
Besides the obvious social downsides of single motherhood and the rational reasons why women do not make up 50% of the network news, I wish to tackle yet another problem. Is it wrong to promote the feminist agenda to the point of deeming men irrelevant? Answer, yes. What's worse is to falsely convince the public that this has already happened and that its a mere fact of life that one must get used to. Russ Mitchell of the CBS early show said this
"So Harry, now there's statistical data for what we always knew: (Women) really don't need us, do they?"
In our culture of Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives, responsibility is not as important as fun.
The fact is that in their little article about 51% of women living without spouses they included quite the mix of women. Not only did it include, unfairly, women whose husbands are away in the military or other careers (2.4 million) it went even lower.
To get to the powerful 51% number the NY times used 15-20 yr old girls. According to the study 15 yr girls are women. How Convenient. If you want your 15 yr old daughter to be living with a spouse I would recommend social services to step in. In the meantime be proud to be a woman. But, please stop allowing the media to tell you what should make you happy.
In his Jan 5th article Christopher Caldwell makes the case for the violence in the world. He shows how out of 67 countries with 30% or more youth (15-29) 60 of them are stricken with war. He uses this to highlight a theory about the Palestinian violence. When there was no wall in Israel the Palestinians constantly attacked Israel. Now that there is a wall you find these youth attacking each other. The constant in this equation is the youth, causing violence. What is not constant is the cause. The press constantly harangues about how the Palestinian's fight for their cause because they are oppressed. When this so called cause is acheived will these pit bulls become as lambs? I think not.
Why, when they are walled off, do they still continue to fight? Perhaps it's because they are young, stupid, and full of rage. When you add those elements to the fact that they are taught to hate, you might as well have raised pit bulls. So, what is the solution to this fight mentality? Just as with a dog-fight it must be exposed for what it is. Those who fuel this kind of entertainment should be shunned. Further more, the heart of the fight must be addressed. No amount of coaxing will get a pit bull to stop. The one person who can calm the dog or at least control him is his trainer or master.
Who then, is the master of these youths. Since the majority of these violent youths happen to be Muslims there trainers are the imams and the other religious leaders in the mosques. We must put real pressure on these Imams to quell the violence, or else we will shut them down. While this may sound anti-islam I assure you that it is not. I have a respect for that religion, as with all legitamite religions. However, when a religion condones violence it no longer has my sympathy or respect. Religion has a special place in soceity because of its ability to uplift. When it aschews this purpose to further a political goal and to dominate others we need not feel sorry for its reform or demise.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
During this highly polarized month when President Bush has revealed his call for New Strategy in Iraq, the democrats have almost universally rejected the plan. I have many problems with the way the war has been handled. Another main problem I have had is the way the dissent has been handled. I do not feel that it has been responsible dissent. Responsible dissent takes into account America's interests, over party politics. Responsible dissent offers an alternative which is better. Responsible dissent is honest about the risks involved with the new ideas. Responsible dissent takes into account everything on the table and refuses to just focus on one narrow topic.
My main frustration with the dissent during the Iraq war is its blatant hypocrisy or self-interest. First there are those who advocated changes such as troop surges or letting the Iraqi's vote for their own leaders. These same dissenters constantly harangued when the President seemed to not be open to new ideas. Now that he has adopted some new ideas these same people are complaining that the very same ideas which they introduced are foolish. The political trend now is moving towards defeat. You can call it re-deployment, withdrawal, downsizing. The point is that if we leave before the enemy is contained and the majority have surrendered, then that is a defeat.
In war there are no scorecards. Its not like boxing. You cant have a bad last few rounds and count on the first rounds to hand you the win as long as your still standing. In war you must defeat the enemy and submit them into surrender. This is a little more difficult when you are not facing a conventional army but it can be done.
I have yet to see one of the re-deploy democrats answer one simple question. What happens when we leave Iraq? The dems seem to dodge this question like they dodge Christian conservatives. I have seen this question posed at least 20 times and have yet to see any detractor answer it. Not only do they not answer the question they change the subject. What does this tell me? It shows that those who are dissenting don't have a plan. Not only that, they are focusing on only one aspect of the war, casualties. Every war death is a tragedy but to let them die in vain is much more tragic. You can not simply run from a fight to avoid pain if you don't also take into account what problems may follow you.
One of the major problems that the democrats don't want to face is that if we leave Iraq, it will be the beginning of a regional war. If you even mention this, they quickly change the subject. Most dems don't want to acknowledge this reality because they do not want to be responsible for genocide and regional war. I think that America has reason for optimism. My thinking is unique but I promise that their is wisdom behind it.
If President Bushes strategy along with Gen Petrauous proves succesful then we will be closer to Iraq being the model fo rthe rest of the middle east to follow. One of the reasons that people in the middle east do not standt up to thier authoritarian regimes is because America has been big on flowery rhetoric about freedom and democracy but small when it comes to paying a price. I dont mean to say that America has a duty to spend lives to free others for freedoms sake, even though this is a honorable goal. If its in americas interests to throw madmen out of power and allow the people to have freedoms then we should spend lives in this pursuit. Invading Iraq is not enough of a sign for indigenous people to risk everything. They are watching to see if the american public has the stomach for what they too would be facing, ruthless killers. I dont blame them for their hesitation. I would wait until America is steaming mad and then side with us.
Lets say that the troop increase does nothing and things continue to get worse. What would be some of the positives of a US withdrawal? Democrats can claim that their idea of withdrawal is a good one if they tell us what positives are to come of it. So far the only one Ive heard is that US soldiers will be out of harms way. What they refuse to talk about is the regional war that will come if we leave. They view this as a downside. Funny thing is that I agree that it would happen and I think it would be a good thing. You only get credit for things you intend to do though.
If we leave Iraq most analysts agree that there would be a regional war. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait would enter to protect Iraq's Sunni population. Iran, Hizbollah, Syria, Oman would all enter to defend the shiites. There is also the conflict that would arise in Northern Iraq between the Kurds and Turks who do not want an indepependent Kurdistan. The question must be asked, What are the positives of regional war?Allow me to list them.
1) When people are busy defending their homes and lives it makes it difficult to plan attacks on the US. This is also a positive in Iraq. Al Qaeda may be planning attacks on our soldiers, but at least its not our civilians. I would rather see people in the middle east fighting one another than to fight us.
2) Its easy to complain that America is the source of all your ills, but when war breaks out and america stays un-invovled they have no one to blame but their own people and leaders. They can no longer use the AP to spread their deeitful propogand that the West is bombing civilians.
3) The regimes in this area need to be overthrown, especially Iran, Syria.
4) Perhaps this will be the wake up call to all of the moderates in the area who claim that Islam is the "Religion of Peace" If they do not stand up to this war and radicals who foment it then their analysis of the peacefulness of Islam would appear foolish.
5) It will force the west to have its own energy dependence. First we will begin by starting to drill all over our country and off the coast. Second it will create an urgent need to develop alternative forms of energy. Back in the early 19oo's most car manufacturers built their cars to run on ethanol and other fuels. Oil was chosen in place of it because it was so cheap and their was what seemed to be an endless supply. Well the supply is not so endless and with regional conflict prices that are already high will begin to skyrocket. The beginnings of the economics impact of the switch will be large, but the overall effect of less greenhouse emissions and energy independece will outweigh it.
6) With the US no longer engaged in the middle east Bin Laden will have one less excuse for his Jihad on America, and also it will give professors one less excuse for being apologists for Islamic radicals. Remember, America is to lame for 9/11.
7) Did I mention energy independence? Not only will the emissions be less but hopefully the new technology can employ millions of american farmers and workers and stop sending so much money to the middle east. The money that we spend at the pump has often gone to prop up corrupt regimes, build weapons for them and to pay for terrorist attacks on our own soil.
8) How do you get a child's attention? Answer: Take away all of its toys...
If the middle east regimes no longer had their oil profits then how could they stay in power.
When the radicals take over in their tents the people will not be happy. They may not have
enjoyed free press or free speech or a fair judicial system, but take awy their TV and
cellphones and I guarantee a revolt. The moderates will soon learn what it is like to live
without the west
9) Without the west the Middle East will learn that it only has the capability to build bombs. It has no capabilities to build guns, planes, cars, computers, cell phones, TV's, motorcycles, internet, movies. Truly this culture would go back to the stone ages. Bin Laden may want this but the billions of Muslims do not.
10) Without the oil money or support from the west who will feed the people? What industry will they take up? The answer is nothing but further conflict. If you remember the West used to be know for its conquests and colonies. These weren't formed by bargaining, but by war. After people get comforts and peace they scarcely will advocate war unless its is one of protection.
I will post the negatives of this scenario soon and let you decide if Im right.
I know that this is a controversial position but it must be said. I say give Iran the nukes that they desire. In fact I know just who would be willing to deliver them, Isreal.
Maybe this isnt the types of nukes that Iran wants but they need to learn the consequences of their actions.
Monday, January 15, 2007
- "All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence. "
- "If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well. "
- "If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control. "
- "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think. "
- "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict. "
- "Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him. "
Can you Imagine John Kerry or Al Gore ever saying things such as this? Does this sound like the modern Democratic party, or more like something Ronald Reagan would say?
In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. all of these quotes were from him. Its amazing how though the Democratic party enjoys 90% of the black vote. The Congressional Black caucus and National Black leaders sound nothing like Dr. King. The difference is that he inspired all of us. May God bless us with another leader in the black community who loved more than he hated.
Remember my Part 1 and 2 articles on Romney for President in 08. I said that the country needs a president who can inspire and lead like Reagan.
Zogby Intl. has just released a poll that shows that Americans want that very thing, Leadership
Sunday, January 14, 2007
The first case of this was the constant criticism of the Republicans for not having a 5 day work week. Certainly the "Party of the People" would fix this problem. As quickly as they promised a 5 day work week, it was removed. What, you ask could be so important to break a campaign promise? A college football game. In fact the Democrats will not have a 5 day work week their entire first month. We will have to see if they return to their promises.
As far as the fishy smell we must turn back to the speaker herself whose district is known for its seafood. Remember how speaker Pelosi promised to fight for the little guy. Speaker Pelosi has promised the most ethical congress ever. Now comes the microscope Ms. Pelosi. Upon a closer look one will discover that America Samoa is exempt from the new increase in the minimum wage. Speaker Pelosi said in 2006
"Democrats are fighting for middle-income tax cuts - education, health care and retirement - and fiscal discipline to ensure strong economic growth. Democrats will repeal taxpayer subsidies that promote shipping jobs overseas and we will raise the minimum wage. Democrats will ensure that economic growth benefits all Americans, not just the privileged few."
So, speaker Pelosi, which of these is the case?
(1) American Samoan are not Americans.
(2) American Samoans are "the privileged few" despite 75% of its workers making less than $3.75 an hour having a 29% unemployment rate.
(3) Mr. Pelosi's $17,000,000.00 investment1 in the majority corporate owner of Starkist Tuna is more important to her than the lives of American Samoans.
(4) It is socially acceptable for Democrats to discriminate against the American Samoan minority.
As we ratchet the microscope even closer we learn that Del Monte which is based in the speakers home district employs most of the workers affected by this bill in American Samoa. Sounds like pork barrel politics or earmarks as there now called, at its worst. Now that certainly has a fishy smell. I don't even have to explain this hypocrisy to you. If you have reasoning skills you can connect the dots yourself. If you still find yourself unable to see whats wrong with this picture then you probably suffer from a delusion called, "I voted for the party in power, so I approve of every move they make."
The sad part about this delusion is that it affects the supporters of both parties. Welcome, Democrats, to the reality that Lord Acton put so well, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". Enjoy your next 2 years.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Here is an excerpt from a provocative article by Jim Rutz of WND. ( Article )
"I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female horomones If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
I am proud to say that I am not and never will be a card carrying member of the ACLU. This organization has been more responsible than any other when it comes to limiting religious freedoms. By constantly claiming that there has been an undue harm upon atheists who, "actually" have to endure religion in the public square, the ACLU has successfully removed religion almost entirely from the public. Freedom of expression is not only a right in a private church, but also in the public realm. One of the reasons that the ACLU has been so successful in its lawsuits, has been because of a loophole to which they have benefited. That hole is about to close. Susan Jones wrote a good article titled: Supreme Court Urged to End 'Special Privileges' for Atheist Activists
Another problem in the legal system that would cut down on these frivolous lawsuits is that there is no cost to the complaining party. When you file a frivolous lawsuit there is no requirement that you must pay all of the court costs if you lose. If this simple rule was instituted then we would save billions in our economy and legal system by eliminating numerous petty lawsuits.
The Dems unfortunately have taken Jefferson out of context yet another time. While they are usually saying that Jefferson supported an absolute separation of church and state, nothing could be further from the truth. Now they are trying to once again portray Jefferson as someone who respected the beliefs of all, even Muslims. The irony here is found in the original use of that book.
The following history was found at The US Veteran Dispatch
At the time Jefferson owned the book, he yearned to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to go to war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
In the lead up to war in 2002 Brent Scowcroft warned that,
"Invading Iraq could turn the whole region into a cauldron and destroy the War on Terror,”
Michael Ledeen of the National Review retorted,
“One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.”
I couldn't agree more. I will write a column on this topic shortly. One of the supposed reasons to leave Iraq is that we are going to foment a regional civil war. I view it as a plus not a negative.
you must read this brief report.
Sandy Burglar- Clinton National Security Advisor
I assure you if this was Condaleeza Rice it would be on the front page of the NY times for months.
Its surprisingly getting zero coverage. Figures. No Liberal bias in the news. Please...
I want everyone to be aware of the good work of a journalist named Bill Crawford.
He writes a column for the National Review , a conservative magazine and online news site. He has been outlining good news from Iraq. You MUST read his most recent column
titled, "Reviewing the Situation." Upon reading it and also his other previous columns your eyes will be opened to a reality. The reality is that perhaps bombs and explosions sell newspapers but they are actually occurring on both sides. The problem is that the news makers want to paint a certain editorial picture. Many don't realize that deciding which stories run are just as much an editorial decision as the editorial page.
The next time you hear one of these so called "unbiased" reporters talk about how they have "neutrality" and "only report news, never put their opinions on it" know that they are simply lying by omission. Investors seem to think differently. Omission can be just as damning to a cause, as forcefully talking against it. Our perceptions are based on the information we take in. Sometimes that information is from uncle Danny at the family Reunion who has theories about everything. His theories might range from the govt plotting 9/11 to Elvis still being alive. The majority of Americans are intelligent enough to nod and smile while forgetting every word uncle Danny tells them, because they smell the BS. This method works when it comes to our crazy crackpot uncle, because Danny just happens to be a plumber by trade and most people figure that if a plumber has insider info that we don't know about, then the country must be headed over a cliff. Because Americans are by nature optimistic we look elsewhere.
I'm not saying that it is wrong to look to professionals when seeking out the news and especially news analysis. In fact, this is the core of America. However, when the culture of that source is so monolithic then it must have weaknesses. How many journalism schools have been accused of Conservative bias. How many of the major networks have been accused of this. I submit that none of them have. Why, because they don't have a conservative bone in their bodies. Now does that cause them to lie? No, it doesn't. But when you see a world only thru one prism you only report what you see.
How does this relate to the war in Iraq. According to all the experts bombs sell. The only time American bombs seem to sell though is when one of them has demolished some school killing hundreds of innocent children. The only times Terrorist bombs are shown is, "always." If you read the article by Bill Crawford you will come away with this question. Why have I never heard of these things? The media cannot hide behind the adage that bombs sell because many of the instances include explosions and weapons they just happen to be under the evil auspice of, "progress." Why would the media elite omit progress? Are they anti-American? Do they think it would not sell newspapers?
Here is the big secret. I don't mean secret in the sense that uncle Danny let me in on something but rather the hidden truth. The media view war as evil. When you view something as evil you will avoid it at all costs. The media seeks to discourage war and to hasten the end of it for many reasons. I will lay out the reasons for this.
1) The media feels guilty because they believe that America has made mistakes in foreign policy for decades and that by being attacked we are getting our due. To fight back is merely to continue these mistakes.
2) They view War as a tool for imperialists to gain control and thus shun it at all costs. When we retaliate against attacks we are at war. When they attack us they are "freedom fighters" Funny how we have become the Brits and terrorists are the new colonialist looking for freedom.
3) They don't want to promote a conservative agenda which runs counter to their world views so when Republicans are in the white house they scrutinize every war decision and when democrats are in power they remain eerily silent.
4) Once they have taken the story in one direction if they were to reverse course they would be admitting their own ineptitude.
5) The sad truth of modern warfare is that in democracies the public has a large part in waging in. Public support is vital to any war effort. While tactically we may be winning in Iraq we might lose due to quitting before the enemy does. Is that not the purpose of war? To submit the enemy into quitting.
With these five points you can find out the true position of those on the left who claim to support the war on terror. If you ask them not in the context of war or Iraq they will be much more candid. I suggest that you ask the questions like this. Most people will say the politically correct thing to say when faced with a difficult question such as, "Do you support the troops" If you ask them non-confrontational questions you can then understand their passions and core ideas. From that info you can then see where there heart lies. This is the best way to see what one really supports. After you are done with this exercise ask them a direct question. Do you want the USA to win in Iraq? If the answer is not an immediate Yes then you have your answer. Even if one believes that we are not going to win or that it was a mistake one cannot believe in the interest of their own country unless they want them to win the wars to which they enter. No amount of bloviating convinces me that wishing for our defeat is going to make America safer.
1) Do you believe that America's foreign policy has created enemies? Do you think if we changed our policy with others countries that would be the best way to protect America?
2) Do you believe that America has made war over the years for self-interest reasons and not solely for the expansion of liberty? When Arabs fight us is it because we have oppressed them?
3) Why is it that Democrats seem to run a more just war policy and also prevent large casualties like republicans typically have? Do republicans love war?
4) If Bush was right all along and history vindicates him would the media be seen as wrong on the war, and therefore lose credibility?
5) What was the power behind stopping the Vietnam war? Were journalists able to open the public eyes and sway opinion away from this un-winnable war? Did your reporting save American lives?
While Bill Crawford can detail how we tactically are winning this war we must focus on the war of hearts and minds. Not of the Iraqi's but of Americans. President Bush must pull his presidency back together by inspiring us to support the mission. What the defeatists don't want to discuss is the consequences of failing in our mission. It is a tragedy when we lose brave members of our military. Our full support should always go behind them. We will once again support the mission when more innocent Americans have died. Wisdom will come when the public learns that to protect yourself you must deter the enemy from attacking you ever. Retreating because of violence is certainly not going to send that message. Regardless of where you stand on the war, as an American your goal should be to encourage the enemy to give up the fight against our civilization.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Why is this such a rare occurrence in our society? I would like to submit a few reasons and the solutions.
Imagine if we taught drivers ed like this,
''OK kids, let me begin this semester by telling you what we will be covering this semester. For starters, its a fact that most of you will give into the temptation to speed. Some of your parents think that by not addressing this issue that we will protect you but, studies show that we can teach you certain things to cushion your fall. For the first 2 weeks we will cover How to practice safe driving at 125 mph.'' How long do you think this teacher would last, after the first traffic death caused by teenage reckless driving. Can you imagine this becoming the teaching emphasis amongst the land?
It seems impossible, but I must warn that this is the trend in our culture. We have begun to surrender to our own vices. I say surrender because it takes effort and struggle to stand for correct principles. Children have a way of, ''sizing up the enemy.'' Parents don't be offended but "you" are the enemy. We must as parents fight against destructive ideas and someday our children will become our allies. Don't believe me. You probably dropped your child off to school today in a car made by Imperial Japan. Oh, wait, we fought against fascism and totalitarianism and now Japan is a thriving part of the democratic world. Change is possible.
In war an opponent likes to test your defenses in order to know what there up against. How do our children test the waters you ask? Think of the last time you were asked about a sleepover. From my own childhood, I know that I would try to influence or persuade either parent. Whoever was closer to my side would then become an advocate for my freedom. When the other evil parent would prohibit my fun I would watch the lenient parent give the other one a guilt trip for not giving me freedom. I'm sure households across the country face this same maneuver.
How does that relate to Sex education you ask? Allow me to explain. Built inside of all of us is the desire for affection both mentally and physically. As we reach puberty the need for physical affection amplifies to an almost deafening level. Another thing can develop. I call it the lead foot syndrome. As hard as I may try to pull my foot off the gas it just seems to always want to go a little faster. Both of these behaviours are natural but also must be controlled. Parents have a responsibility to teach their children how to manage these urges and when the proper time to engage in them.
This leads me to the title of my column. Stand on principle. Studies have shown that when you take an inexperienced driver and increase the speed it is a recipe for disaster and sometimes death. Studies also show the many social problems that arise from teenage sex and especially pre-marital sex. Single parent families, abortion, low self esteem, drug use, high school drop outs, STD's are only a few of the problems that can stem from this destructive behavior.
Not having grown up in the 50's I must rely on what others have told me about it, but it seems that there was a certain stigma placed upon those who engaged in pre-marital sex. Now that is not to say that pre-marital sex didn't occur, because we know that it most definitely did occur, but the rate was much lower. This is why we must return to the model of, "Standing on principle" even when it might upset those who yearn for more youthful freedoms.
The reason there is an increase in all of the negatives related to pubescent pre-marital sex is that, it is not universally frowned upon. I can understand parents who worry about STD's infecting their kids and a desire to show children ways to protect against this. A much better way to prevent something from affecting you is not to wear protective gear but to not be around it if possible. The best method of persuasion is example. One can not tell a kid to do one thing and then, in the next breath, tell them how to clean up a mess if they decide to not take your counsel.
We must decide to once again stand firm. There is no studies anywhere that can show that teenage sex or pre-marital sex have any positive outcomes. All the studies show is that condoms prevent some STD's and also prevent babies in some instances. However it isn't addressing so many other problems. Not only that but, why not fight the problem at its root rather than pull dandelions off to see them spring right back up. We need not tolerate it any longer.
Schools should be ashamed of themselves for sending our kids a double message. When the U.S. Government was trying to defeat the Viet-Cong, it weakened our position when people such as John Kerry spoke against his own country. The old adage, "a house divided cannot stand" has truth in this case. Remember, children are very keen when it comes to principles. If you don't believe me, lie to your kids, get caught and then try to teach them honesty again.
It may pain us to stand on principle, even if it means smashing our children's dreams of the month. However, the next time you think about teaching your kids how to have safe sex before marriage, just picture them driving 125 mph in your minivan. If that doesn't do the trick, heaven help us.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
To begin this post I would like to lay out some of Romney's achievements as Governor. These same facts can be obtained on his exploratory website, Mitt Romney.
As Governor of one of the nation's most liberal states, Governor Romney based his agenda on proven conservative principles: smaller government, lower taxes, defending the traditional family, and keeping our citizens safe and secure:
Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney closed a $3 billion budget deficit his first year in office with a heavily Democrat legislature. Each year, Governor Romney
filed a balanced budget without raising taxes. By eliminating waste, streamlining government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to help spur growth, Governor Romney helped the state achieve a surplus totaling nearly $1 billion in 2005.
In the bluest of blue states, Governor Romney kept taxes down. Under his leadership, the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay
additional taxes and fees. Unemployment Lowered. When Governor Romney took office,
A Commitment To Traditional Marriage And Family.
Governor Romney believes marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. He has fought activist judges who imposed same-sex marriage on
addressed life issues he has sided on life. These have been his positions in
Under Governor Romney's leadership,
than 14,000 top-scoring high school seniors have been awarded these scholarships.
More Affordable Health care.
Bringing the best minds together, including experts at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to
address health care costs, Governor Romney signed into law a plan affording every citizen health insurance without raising taxes or creating a massive government-controlled system.
All of this was done after his time in the business sector. Romney enjoyed a successful career helping businesses grow and improve their operations. From 1978 to 1984, Mr. Romney was a Vice President at Bain & Company, Inc., a leading management consulting firm. Following a period of decline after Romney's departure, he returned as CEO several years later and engineered a complete recovery. Today, Bain & Company employs more than 2,000 people in 25 offices worldwide. In 1984, Romney founded Bain Capital, one of the nation's most successful venture capital and investment companies. Bain Capital helped launch hundreds of companies on a successful course, including Staples, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Domino's Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority.
Then is 2002 Romney gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Governor Romney has said he felt compelled to assume the seemingly impossible task of rescuing the Games by both the urgings of his wife, Ann, and by the memory of his father, George Romney, who had been a successful businessman, three-term Governor of Michigan, and a tireless advocate of volunteerism in America. In his three years at the helm in
Finally I would like you to know of his impressive educational career. Governor Romney received his B.A., with Highest Honors, from
Not Bad. He exemplifies three things that I feel our next leader must have if conservative principles are to move forward.
1)Charisma and Leadership Experience- http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?catid=32988&showid=32996
2) Articulation- http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?catid=32988&showid=33138
3) Smaller Government- http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?catid=32988&showid=32994
Bush while he may have a great heart and many good ideas, a strong will, faith has been inept at selling his ideas on the market of public opinion. Public opinion is not always relative to whats best for our country as Bush rightly points out but, in order to defy the public wishes leadership must inspire change. Gen. George Washington wasn't a great leader because he won many battles, he was great because he inspired. I hope for Bush to turn his presidency around, but Romney will either build on his ideas or like the 2002 Olympics clean them up in order to achieve success.
As much as I wish that the Real World creators actually read my blog I am aware that they do not. Not only that but, the show is taped months in advance. It must take months to filter thru all of drunken charades to find the most riveting scenes. On Jan 1st I wrote concerning these misfits in which I complained about a great many things. The sum of those problems is where the great irony arises. I mentioned that the cast members couldn't stop drinking, having sex or insulting each other and then offering fake apologies. The next episode that I am anxiously awaiting is as they all start their new jobs as high adventurer counselors.