Democrats Play Politics With National Security

So much is being made of the National Security Agency’s listening in to overseas phone calls that you might be tempted to believe that something is wrong with that. There isn’t.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be vigilant about government actually overstepping its bounds with regard to the privacy of its citizens. But that is a completely different proposition than this.

President Bush ordered the NSA to listen in on phone calls to and from parties in other countries as a measure of thwarting potential terrorist activities. It is an age-old tool of U.S. Presidents, going back to Jimmy Carter, and has been used by every president—Republican and Democrat alike—ever since.

That should be the end of the story, but it isn’t, and the reason it isn’t the end of the story is that the President’s enemies are so desperate to find things to use against him that they put that before everything else. Literally nothing is more important than “getting George Bush,” not even combating international terrorism or preventing another September 11-style attack.

The President’s enemies are so painfully transparent in these “gottcha” activities that they ought to be embarrassed by them. It is so easy to determine that Mr. Bush’s ordering these calls to be monitored is legal that a child can do it. There are, therefore, only two possibilities for why Democrats haven’t reached this conclusion: 1) They are stupid, or 2) they think the rest of us are stupid. If you chose number 2, go to the head of the class.

According to the Chicago Tribune story on December 21, 2005, titled President had legal authority to OK taps:

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

It is my opinion that the Democrats are digging themselves deeper and deeper into a political hole they won’t be able to climb out of. I further believe that the American people are far smarter that the Democrats give them credit for being, and that the people will perceive this childish spectacle to be that while the United States government takes steps to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the Democrats chose to hamper those efforts by playing cheap and tawdry political games.

Technorati Tags:
Wire Tapping
Terrorism
Democrats
Politics
National Security
President Bush

Recent Chaos

Boy, it’s been a busy few days. Saturday, we drove 2+ hours to mother-in-law’s house for a get-together with my wife’s brothers and mom, and those attached to them. Hit the road at 9 a.m., arrived a little after 11, had lunch and enjoyed talking with folks, hit the road again at 2:30, and we were in the driveway just before 5. We went to the 5:30 Christmas Eve service at my wife’s church, which is the one I attend the several times I go each year. After that, it was a quiet eve with son #1, daughter #3 and wife #2 (although she’s #1, if you know what I mean!). We opened a present or two and then called it a day.

Christmas Day was nice: Quiet and uneventful. Visited some folks to deliver booty, then had a really good dinner at home.

Then came Monday. Took Corky—the pooch—to the kennel. My wife really likes it better if we can get a “sitter” for Corky. Honestly, so do I. But the normal sitter was away for the holidays, so we had to settle for the kennel. Corky had a forlorn look on her face when the attendant took her back to her spa. She’s never sure if we are going to come back. We hit the road at 10, headed for the D.C. area to visit daughters #1 and #2 and their families. Traffic on I-77 and I-81 was brutal. It’s a solid six hours. Spent the next two days catching up with everyone. It was nice, but too short. Not enough sleep, either.

This morning, back on the road around 11, which was a good bit later than I intended. Traffic was worse today. Got back to the area right at 5 p.m. and went straight to the kennel. Corky was VERY happy to see us. Got home, unloaded the car, ate dinner, then got the news that my son’s new monitor fritzed out. Off we went to the store to exchange it, but no luck.

Ever since summer my life has been really busy. I hope to get back into regular posting, now that the holidays are over and I have adapted to my new routine that took control of my life back in September.

Happy New Year to all.

Hypocrisy Abounds

The assertion that there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in the world of politics won’t surprise anyone. In the recent past conservatives/Republicans have been covered widely in the media for various indiscretions, straying from the straight and narrow path that conservatives and Republicans so unwaveringly promote.

Examples of conservative straying include Rush Limbaugh having developed an addiction for pain killers, Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s excursion into nude photography, and Bill Bennett’s gambling.

All of these examples enjoyed intense coverage in the media at the time they became public knowledge, and only the brain-dead could have failed to be aware of them. The hypocrisy of these individuals was trumpeted far and wide, and in black-and-white terms: Schlessinger was a porn queen; Limbaugh was a common drug addict; Bennett a common back alley dice thrower.

The traditions of our culture, which are promoted by all three of these personalities, oppose illicit sex and pornography, people ruining their lives because they like being drugged out, and people gambling away the family grocery and utility money. For the record, posing nude is posing nude, taking drugs you don’t need is wrong, and gambling is gambling. But as liberals are so fond of telling us, the world is not black and white; there are shades of grey. Some wrongs are worse than others.

While the media did a thorough job of getting the stories out, it did a less admirable job of telling the whole story.

Schlessinger, for example, posed nude for her boyfriend back in the 70s, when she was reportedly 28 years old, long before she realized that such things were wrong. Anybody here ever done something in their youth you regretted 20 years later?

Limbaugh started taking pain medication for a legitimate medical condition, not because he wanted a buzz, and he got hooked. Is it right to use pain pills for something other than the purpose for which they are intended? Of course not. Is Limbaugh a drug-addict who will take whatever will give him a buzz, and who can’t hold a job because of his addiction? Of course not.

Bennett had an affinity for high-stakes poker games that he indulged mostly in private, and which did not put his family’s financial stability at risk. He had the money and he liked to play poker, and that was common knowledge in D.C. while Bennett was in government. Anybody here like to play the ponies, the greyhounds, the tables or cards?

But hypocrisy is hypocrisy, right? And when someone in the public eye commits hypocrisy the media ought to tell us about it. Right?

Well, why have the media not told us about the liberal icons whose very lives personify hypocrisy? Why do we hear and see only about hypocrisy from the Right? Is it because hypocrisy is only important when conservatives do it?

Why haven’t they told us, for example, that Michael Moore, the self-proclaimed “average Joe” who wears scruffy clothes and a scraggly beard, claims to own no stocks, and condemns companies like Halliburton as being run by a bunch of thugs, actually has always lived a life of ease, and has had a substantial portfolio of stocks for many years that has included Halliburton stock. Or that the man who accused Hollywood of being racist hires proportionately fewer black people for the production staff of his own movies than does Hollywood?

I wonder why we haven’t been told of the scandalous behavior of Barbra Streisand, who publicly champions the working man against greedy, rich employers, but treats her own employees so badly that they are constantly in fear of losing their jobs, and who lets other employees go months without being paid? Why don’t they ask Babs why, if she is so concerned for the working people of the United States, she produces her movies in Canada, using cheaper Canadian labor? Why don’t we all know that this supposed environmentalist who chastises the rest of us for wasting precious natural resources spends $22,000 a year watering her lawn? Or that instead of investing in solar energy or energy cell technologies that would advance the environmentalist cause, prefers to invest in “evil” oil companies?

Noam Chomsky calls himself a socialist and professes to speak for the poor, the oppressed and the “victims of capitalism.” He has referred to himself as an “American dissident,” and considers the United States a “police state.” The Pentagon, he has said, is “the most hideous institution on this earth” and “constitutes a menace to human life.” This is the persona the media has helped him promote. Such a man must eschew the trappings of capitalism for the simple life of those whose cause he professes to champion. So he could be expected to avoid the Pentagon like a plague, could he not? But no, Chomsky has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Pentagon over a period of many years for writing books on linguistics for the military. Through profits from these and other books, his public speeches against the U.S., and his income from teaching positions, he has earned a spot in the upper 2 percent of Americans in net wealth, which he has carefully protected from Uncle Sam through an irrevocable trust. His primary residence and vacation home in Massachusetts are valued at more than $2 million.

Are you surprised by these factual accounts of hypocrisy on the part of liberal icons? Do you wonder why these hypocrisies have not been trumpeted as loudly as those of Limbaugh, Schlessinger and Bennett? Doesn’t this glaring omission call into question the motives of the media? And isn’t the media itself grossly hypocritical?

Technorati Tags:
Republicans
Democrats
Conservatives
Liberals
Politics
Media
Rush Limbaugh
Dr. Laura
Bill Bennett
Noam Chomsky
Barbra Streisand
Michael Moore

U.S. Tortured Prisoners

I have very definite ideas about the use of torture against terrorists: I’m not opposed to it in principle, because people who customarily kill innocents deserve to experience as much pain and suffering as can be brought to bear.

However, having said that, we should not routinely use torture for two very good reasons, one legal and one practical.

The legal reason is that our laws prohibit torturing prisoners of war, and even though terrorists are not prisoners of war—according to the Geneva Conventions—we ought to avoid torture, even for the scum terrorists that we capture.

The practical reason is that torture mostly doesn’t work.

However, there are times when torture ought to be allowed, and to abolish its use totally is senseless and self-defeating. In the now-familiar “ticking bomb” scenario, when someone who has or may have explicit knowledge of an eminent terrorist action has been captured, I think that torturing that individual to gain information needed to intercede to save lives should be not just allowed, but encouraged, even to the extent of torturing that person to death. Taking the life of one scumbag terrorist to save hundreds or thousands of innocent people is a bargain I’d make at the drop of a hat.

I also don’t mind if our government does have secret prisons in friendly nations across the globe where captured terrorist suspects are taken.

However, while I condone the secret prisons, and while I condone the use of torture in the extreme circumstance of a “ticking bomb,” I do not condone the routine use of torture in secret prisons, and am appalled at evidence that the U.S. has done so.

As reported by NewsMax.com, “a human rights group is alleging the United States operated a secret prison near Afghanistan's capital as recently as last year.

“The group claims that music by Eminem and Dr. Dre were used as instruments of torture.”

Have these people no shame, no sense of fair play, no decency, and no humanity?

The report quoted an Ethiopian-born detainee as saying he was kept in a pitch-black prison and forced to listen to Eminem and Dr. Dre’s rap music for 20 days before the ghastly music was replaced by more pleasing " horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds."

I say, “Hang the offenders.”

Closing the Book

Life is precious. It is all too often fleeting. None of us knows for sure what happens when our life ends. Will there be an after-life, and if there is, based upon the life we have led will we go to heaven, or will we go to hell?

Many of us do not appreciate the value of life. We live recklessly. Dangerously. Carelessly. We take chances with our health and our safety; we hurt other people. We think we are invincible, especially when we are young. We often do things that are wrong, perhaps because we don’t realize they are wrong, perhaps because we don’t think about what we are doing, or maybe we believe we can undo it later on. But sometimes the things we do can’t be fixed.

We gamble, and sometimes we lose.

So it was with Stanley “Tookie” Williams. He chose a life of violence and brutality. He chose to kill, and to take the lives of people there was no reason to kill. And for what: For mere pennies.

Maybe he didn’t think about the consequences of his actions, or maybe he thought he wouldn’t be caught. But he screwed up: He committed horrible crimes, and he did get caught.

After he was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for his crimes, maybe he thought he could buy his way out. Maybe he thought a few books talking kids out of gang life would do the trick. If so, he was wrong.

He gambled, and lost.

Stanley Williams wasn’t insane, although what he did was crazy and brutal.

Stanley Williams wasn’t stupid, although what he did was mindless and cruel.

Stanley Williams was just mean and evil. During the 26 years he was on death row, he couldn’t prove his innocence; he couldn’t buy his way out of the mess he’d gotten himself into with a few children’s books that hardly any kids read.

He gambled, and lost.

Stanley Williams remained a vile, vicious creature until the day he died. He didn’t appreciate life, and that failure ultimately cost him his own life.

There was very little of value in Stanley Williams’ life. If there is any good to come from this despicable individual, it will be if some young punk knows about what he did and what it earned him, and decides to travel a different path.

A Little Levity

Well, it's been a busy time lately, and I haven't had time to write anything substantive, and won't for the next few days. I have to respond to my buddy Buffalo's challenge in a comment to a previous post, and that will take most of the little time that I would otherwise be able to devote to something on Observations, so in order to be able to post something that someone might appreciate, I will borrow an idea called A Little Levity from a Web site I manage, and post a couple of things that might give you a chuckle.

Herewith:

Letter to Dr. Ruth


Hell Freezes Over

The following is an actual question given on a chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so profound that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it, as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being, which explains why last night Teresa kept shouting, "Oh, my God."

Reportedly, this student received the only “A.”

Collage

Messages

To those who think the Iraq war is “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”: It is you that are wrong. All of the rationalizations you can muster do not negate the real threat of terrorism, nor can you effectively denounce the dethroning of a brutal, murderous dictator. Left alone, Saddam Hussein would not have become a benevolent leader of his people, he would not have given up his hatred for America, but he would have continued to develop WMD (including nuclear weapons), he would have supported Islamic terrorist initiatives at a stepped-up pace, and he would have become a threat to America and the free world. Taking him out was a good idea, turning Iraq into a democratic country is a good idea, focusing Islamic fundamentalist terror activities in Iraq is a good idea, and finishing the job is essential.



To Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of the immoderate Democrats who spout inane and damaging rhetoric about the war: Please, don’t stop. Every time you open your mouth, Americans get a clearer idea of what the Democratic Party stands for, and they are increasingly displeased by what they see.



To those who think “Christmas” is an attempt to “Christianize” America, or that it makes sense to change the word “Christmas” to “holiday” in many/all applications, or to do away with Christmas celebrations in schools, etc.: Christmas is both a holy day and a holiday. It is celebrated in more than 30 countries around the world. The celebration of Christmas involves the observance of the birth of Christ for Christians, but also involves lots of things that are not in the least bit religious in nature, such as decorations that include, holly, mistletoe, poinsettias, trees with colored lights and other decorations, food, music, sending cards and giving presents. Celebrating Christmas as both a holy day and a holiday is a tradition in America going back well over 100 years. The idea of changing a tradition of such long standing, and which is so widely popular, for no better reason than that a tiny fraction of the populace complains about it is unworthy of consideration. You can find a tiny fraction of Americans who will support any conceivable idea, no matter how absurd or stupid.



Technorati Tags:
Iraq War
Democrats
Culture War
Society
Politics

Tookie Williams’ Just Desserts

Stanley “Tookie” Williams is two things:

First, he is the brutal murderer of four people.

His first victim was a convenience store clerk killed in cold blood in a robbery, shot twice in the back at close range with a sawed-off shotgun. Williams and his accomplices got about $120 from the cash register. Of that killing Williams said, “You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him.” Williams then made gurgling or growling noises and laughed about Owens’ death.

His next three victims were an elderly husband and wife from Taiwan who owned and operated a motel, and one of the couple’s children who had come from Taiwan to live with her parents. Williams entered the lobby of the motel, broke down the door to the office and systematically shot the three family members, all with a sawed-off shotgun at close range, and two of the three with two shots each. This episode in senseless brutality netted Williams $100.

He was convicted of all four murders and sentenced to die for his crimes.

Second, Williams is a successful author.

While in prison after his conviction, Williams wrote children's books advocating non-violence and alternatives to gangs. Incredibly, he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize each year since 2000. The Nobel committee has not seen fit to award him the Prize; anyone can nominate anyone else for it, so being nominated is a relatively unimportant event.

Williams has earned something for each of these accomplishments.

For his accomplishment as an author, Williams deserves a prize for authors, perhaps the Pulitzer.

He has earned the writing prize, and he should get it.

For the brutal, senseless, murder of four people in cold blood, for nothing more than because they were in a location where he wanted to steal a grand total of $220 dollars, he has earned being put to death as determined by the judicial system.

He has earned being put to death, and he should get that, too. Too bad he can’t be executed by two shots at close range from a sawed-off shotgun.

Technorati Tags:
Death Penalty
Justice
Crime
Politics and Commentary
Murder

"What Middle America Thinks" No More

My blog buddie Brad Barfield has moved his blog to a new address and has changed his moniker. Formerly posting as Mr. Middle America, Brad now is known as MirrorPlebe. Based upon some of his opinions, I had joked that Brad might have to change his moniker, since his opinions were sometimes sharply at odds with what “middle America” thinks. I had no idea that would be a prophecy.

The site name “Mr. Middle America” is being purchased from Brad by a mysterious person he describes as a “pundit recognizable from the (right side of the) main stream media,” but he hasn’t said any more.

We need to watch the MMA site to see what develops there, and I encourage you to visit MirrorPlebe and keep up with Brad’s musings.

U.S. Economy Is Strong

Despite gasoline prices that remain a good bit higher than a year ago, and the continuing efforts of Democrats to cast every aspect of life as miserable so long as George Bush is President, the U.S. economy remains strong.

The U.S. Unemployment Rate, which is the standard by which many people judge the condition of the economy, stands at 5.0 percent as of the end of November. This is a good rate, just under the average Unemployment Rate from 1990 – 2004 of 5.57 percent.

A common misconception is that full employment means that everyone who wants to work or is willing to work has a job, and the Unemployment Rate at full employment would be zero. Suffering under this erroneous concept, 5 percent unemployment seems not just high, but very high. However, historically the country has never enjoyed full employment. The lowest unemployment Rate since 1948 occurred in May and June of 1953, when it stood at 2.5 percent. At full employment, the Unemployment Rate is somewhere between 2% and 7%, depending upon various circumstances, and economists Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker put it at no higher than 4 percent. So, currently the Unemployment Rate is one percentage point higher than the Full Employment Unemployment Rate identified by Bernstein and Baker, but is lower than the 15-year average rate since 1990. It’s a tough sell to use that statistic to beat up on George Bush.

Other economic factors also point to a strong economy. Some 876,000 jobs have been created since June, average hourly earnings have risen 25 cents since June to $16.32, and Productivity rose in June by 2.1% for the 2nd Quarter and by 4.1% in September for the 3rd Quarter. Increased revenues attributed to Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced the budget deficit by $94 billion this past fiscal year.

Technorati Tags:
Economy
Bush Administration
Taxes
Unemployment
Politics and Commentary

Please Shut Up!

Rep. John P. Murtha is still at it. What is wrong with this man? Is he the idiot he appears to be? Or is he so consumed with petty political opportunism that he just doesn’t see the harm he is doing to the war effort and the military?

Rep. Murtha continued his criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, claiming that the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." "You cannot win this thing militarily," he said. "Most of [U.S. troops] will be out of there in a year if I have my way."

Mr. Murtha is the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and has been one of his party's most severe war critics. However, like so many Democrats he has flip-flopped. After voting to authorize force to remove Saddam Hussein, now armed with 20-20 hindsight and consumed by a tawdry lust for political haymaking, he says that vote was a mistake and now calls for quick withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

Cooler and smarter heads will prevail, however. "The Army is not broken," the Pentagon’s Col. Joseph Curtin said. "Every day, our soldiers are making tremendous contributions in Iraq, in Afghanistan and more than 120 countries around the world. Retention rates are at an incredibly all-time high, particularly in the active [military] component."

Senate Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, said: "I do take a quite different opinion with regard to his assessment of the Army. ... The morale is so high over there, and they are all puzzled by much of the criticism on this side of the ocean."

Disagreeing with the administration policy, or the war, is everyone’s right. But people in the public spotlight and in high office, like Mr. Murtha, have a responsibility much greater than their selfish drive to beat their breasts and behave like 1960s college students.

Thank goodness that Mr. Murtha’s opinion is irrelevant to the course the U.S. will follow, and thank God that we have a decisive leader in the White House instead of John P. Murtha or John Kerry.

For his ill-advised, dangerous and damaging behavior, Rep. Murtha wins the “Please Shut Up” award.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq War
Congress
Democrats
Protests
Bush Haters
Politics

THE plan

Here's an email I received today:

Okay, here's the plan:

Back off and let men marry men, women marry women, and totally legalize abortion.

In three generations, there will be no Democrats!!!

Man! I love it when a plan comes together!

Perverting Religion for Political Purposes

An interesting commentary appeared recently in the Tampa Tribune regarding a Catholic school in Queens, N.Y. that fired an unmarried pre-kindergarten teacher who admitted that she is pregnant.

In its conclusion to the short piece the newspaper, which has a history of trouble with accuracy, said this:

“Religious freedom should allow the school to enforce its standards without government interference. But it's hard to imagine that Jesus would want this woman fired. After all, his own mother once found herself pregnant and unmarried.”

On the one hand, the paper graciously allows that the school, a private religious institution, was within its rights to establish and maintain standards that are commensurate with its religious beliefs, and that the school had the right to fire the teacher for her transgression. No problem. But on the other hand, the Tribune makes a clearly outlandish and inaccurate statement in order to rebuke the school for its choice, to wit: that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was unmarried and pregnant, implying that Mary, just like the teacher, had indulged in pre-marital sex and had become pregnant as a result.

Surely the professionals at the Tribune are at least vaguely familiar with the story of Jesus. The Bible is “the Bible” on Jesus, from conception to ascension. It is customary for journalists to back up their stories with sources, and they could easily have consulted a Bible before launching into what appears to be wholly unfamiliar territory for them.

Whether one believes in God, Jesus or the Bible is not the issue here. The issue is the Tribune’s obviously careless attitude towards facts. The Bible tells us that Mary was a virgin (for those of you at the Tribune, that means that she had never had sexual intercourse), and therefore is unambiguously not in the same boat as the pregnant, unmarried pre-kindergarten teacher.

So we have to ask the question, “ did the Tribune really make an error, or did it just twist things around to suit its purposes?” I suspect the latter, although I don’t doubt that there is also ignorance of the details of Jesus’ conception.

It is disheartening, but increasingly not surprising, that a liberal newspaper—like the liberal wife of a former President of the United States who declared that Jesus was a homeless child—would pervert a major component of any religion for political purposes. Yet that is what has happened. Again.

There seems to be no limit to the lengths the Left is willing to go to advance its agenda.

Technorati Tags:
Journalism
Religion
Democrats
Politics

Rewriting History

The Windjammer

I'll make one comment, then shut my flytrap.

The Liberals aren't angry about the first election (GWB) because they actually believe he stole it--they are furious because all their own attempts to steal it fell a few votes short.

They are still harping on the second election (GWB), when they tried to steal the election in Ohio, but their own golden boy said it wasn't true. But those who ignore history (or try to rewrite it to suit their personal opinions) are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The problem today is magnified because they have duped so many people by their twisting of history.

They still claim that the Third George lied in his message about WMD. He didn't. Neither did the President lie when he said in the same speech that the threat was NOT imminent, but that we could not wait until it became imminent. Neither did Jay Rockefeller when he said the threat was imminent. Those who claim lying in either case ignore the facts.

Clinton had it right when he said on Sept 17, 1998 that Ol' Maddas had already used WMD. It was only a matter of time at that time before Saddam would start using the WMD on others in his neighborhood and beyond.

An analogy and a bit of too-late prognostication: If we had exercised our common sense and buried one Adolf Hitler and most of his cadre in a beer hall in Munich ca 1930, just think how many more Frenchmen there would be today. If the UN had allowed GHWB to go after Saddam in the first setto, think how many more Kurds, Shiia's, Sunni's and Americans there might be today.