Presidential debate I

President Bush has supposedly never lost a debate, and I don't think he'll start tonight. All he has to do is focus on the Kerry flip flop history no matter which issue is brought up. Of course, the MSM will declare Kerry the winner either way, but since nobody listens to them anyway, it won't amount to anything.

The bigger issue for me is why are there only 2 candidates participating in the debate? Who decided that Michael Peroutka shouldn't get a chance to speak? Michael Badnarik? Ralph Nader? The 2 party system is destroying America. Real changes and improvements will not happen in America until the Republicrats and Democans are forced to permit alternative viewpoints. The DNC and GOP are essentially the same. Both favor larger government, both favor federal handouts to faithful party donors/voters. Both ignore the Constitution with alarming regularity. Neither works for the voters, instead they work only for their own reelection and maintenance of political control. Hopefully the conservative revolution begun by Ronald Reagan will give us a viable 3rd party candidate by 2008. Hopefully that 3rd party will not deliver a Clinton to the White House as it did in 1992.

SCOTUS and eminent domain

Private property, and the right to defend it, is central to liberty and the America established by our wise founding fathers. Without the right to "own" something, people cannot be free. Whether it be the money a person earns from his work, the work itself, retirement savings, a house, or intellectual property, liberty means ownership.
Now, our founders did include a clause in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution providing for government to procure private property for "public use", however over recent decades, local towns have been abusing eminent domain power by taking property from one private individual and giving it to another private individual in the hopes of increasing tax revenues. Early next year, the Supreme Court of the United States will revisit this issue. With any luck at all, it will clarify its prior ruling that eminent domain is best left with local authorities. Hopefully, there will be clear and defined parameters as to when and why a government may use the eminent domain power. Hopefully...

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." - President John Adams

MTV's use of scare tactics

MTV and others have recently tried to publicize a notion that if reelected, George Bush will reimplement the national draft. Given the young audience of MTV, this message tells me that MTV wants John Kerry to win the election. Given the Janet Jackson debacle, Howard Stern's demise among other recent actions taken by the FCC, MTV likely fears that it may be next in line for FCC review. Unfortunately for MTV and John Kerry who has also been giving this rumor some play, it's simply untrue. (No surprise it's catching on with Democrat voters...) First of all, the draft is not implemented by executive order, but rather by Congressional vote. While the GOP does control the Congress, and has been repeatedly accused of giving in to Bush's agenda, the idea that President Bush can unilaterally implement a draft is categorically untrue. Second, the bill which is currently in committee status in both chambers of the Congress WAS WRITTEN AND COSPONSORED BY DEMOCRATS. That's right, Democrats are the ones who are pushing for a draft, as they play their usual class warfare card, saying "rich kids don't have to go serve". Go to this site, and search for S 89 and HR 163 (108th Congress). Then, when you've done that, go here and check out John Kerry's plan for mandatory service prior to high school graduation. Nah, the Democrats and MTV wouldn't LIE to us, would they?

Barber shops and schools

Let's say that in your town, there is a barber shop. Every adult in town pays $10/month to the barber for the right to receive a haircut once a week. Of course, some people in the town do not need haircuts, while others would prefer to visit an alternate barber or hair stylist. Some may even prefer to have their spouse/friend cut their hair at home. Some of these people request that they be exempted from paying the $10 fee, since they are not using the service that they are paying for. Some people are forced to go to the neighborhood barber because they don't have the money to pay both the $10 fee and the private costs for an alternate barber. Sound like the public school system?

The Democrat plan is to make everyone pay the local school taxes since it is society's responsibility to make sure that all children receive an education. Consumers of public schools have no real way to improve the school their kids attend except for moving to another district. On the other hand, the Republican idea is to refund the taxes paid to parents whose children attend another school. They figure, why should parents pay for two schools when the child only attends one? Seems logical, but of course the Democrat plan is to keep kids and parents enslaved to public education, which will produce generations of people unable to think critically and make good life choices, thereby becoming dependent on government, which is the real Democrat plan. (Of course, libertarian ideology says that only those people with children attending a school pay the bills of that school.)

Homeschoolers are terrorists

Let's see here, Rod Paige calls the NEA a terrorist organization and the public outcry is deafening. The Ted Kennedy, liberals, and those beholden to the union racketeers demand apologies, firings, and so on. (Is there any liberal cause that moveon.org is NOT involved with?) The President of the NEA weighed in on Secretary Paige's comments TWICE.

Now, on the other hand, in Muskegon County, MI, a terror preparedness drill is staged in which the perpetrators are a "fictional" group called "Wackos for homeschooling". Apparently, some concerned parents and citizens were unhappy, and within 2 days of running the drill the county officials have done a 180 that would even make John Kerry's head spin. Following in the footsteps of Sandy Berger and Dan Rather, Dan Stout seems to think that the story will just go away if he says "oops, sorry, we didn't mean to, it was an accident/oversight/error".

Will the NEA call for the firing of Dan Stout from his post in Muskegon County, MI? If not, does that prove that the NEA is looking out more for its union members than its customers?

The word "terrorist"

Why does the word scare some media editors? Reuters apparently claims that by using the word "terrorist", its reporters wouldn't be safe in the locations from where they are reporting. Doesn't that prove exactly the point? If Reuters reported the news fairly, terrorists would carry out attacks against those trying to tell the truth about the acts of islamo-terror. This is a perfect example of the appeasement crowd doing what it does best. Elite alphabet media in America often use the words "militant" or "insurgent", and have recently begun adding the adjective "Iraqi", as if the throat cutters we are facing in Falljuah and Najaf are just unruly Iraqi citizens who would prefer we left their country alone. Until we wake up to the difficult and unthinkable realities of the dangers we are facing, radical islam and its terrorist murderers will continue to wreak murder and destruction on people all around the globe, as they seek to create a global islamic state under which all humans are governed by Sharia. Europe is 20 years or more into the islamic takeover, and America is next on the list.

"Sensitive" border security

I'm on a roll today with analogies, so here goes another one. Currently, we are being told that America is engaged in a global "War on Terror". It's true that islamo-fascists have been attacking Americans since the 1972 Olympics in Munich. On the other hand, our homeland security is sorely lacking due to George Bush unwillingness to enforce current laws, and liberals in the ACLU who think that illegal immigrants deserve the same rights as do legal immigrants or US citizens. We simply WILL NOT patrol the borders, or deport illegal immigrants (or "undocumented workers" as the MSM calls them) Excuses are given such as: illegals are doing work that Americans won't do, the job is too large, borders are unnecessary anyway, or as Asa Huchinson said Americans "don't have the will" to uproot the illegals.

In my mind, this is akin to me protecting my home, family, and property by patrolling the inside of my home with a gun, but failing to lock the front door or build a fence around my yard. Sure, I'll have some success for a while, but sooner or later, I'll be overrun by thieves looking for shelter and food from my refrigerator (which I continue to stock like the US gov't stocks the bank accounts of public education, social security, and the hospitals that illegals use every day.)

"I wish moveon.org, Michael Moore, and the rest of the America-hating liberals would sink in quicksand instead of shooting US troops in the back." - me

Where are the WMD?

Once upon a time, President Bush told us that Saddam possessed the capability and determination to create and use or sell WMD. While we took diplomatic action at the UN, they were likely destroyed, hidden, or moved to other countries. (Syria, Lybia,...?) Colin Powell is likely to blame for the delay, but there is no doubt in my mind that there were at one time WMD in Iraq. Unfortunately, they are not there now. While we continue to commit our focus and most of our military to the "liberation" and "democratization" of Iraq, the WMD are still out there. Iraqis have lived under a dictator for 30 years, is one or two more going to hurt that bad? Are we going to finally get them a "working democracy", only to have it defeated by a WMD attack on Baghdad because we lost focus on the real dangers?

Learning to ride

Most children seem to enjoy riding bikes. When a parent undertakes the task of teaching a child to ride, first there are training wheels. The child rides the bike, learning how it works,but the training wheels prevent the child from falling over. Sooner or later, the child must learn to ride without training wheels. The parent will typically hold the back of the seat while the child rides. Then, unbeknownst to the child, the parent will let go, knowing full well that the child will fall down and get hurt. Of course, the parent will console the child when he falls and get him back on the bike to try again, and again until he can ride without help.

It's time we take the training wheels off the Iraqi people and force them to learn how to ride the bike. They will fall down a few times, but we'll be right there to dust them off and get them back on the seat.

"Moderate" muslims

George Bush's advisors told him that Iraqis would greet us with open arms and welcome us as liberators. Though his father could have taken out Saddam in Gulf War I, he chose to allow Saddam to remain in power, fearing the instability of Iraq more than the threat Saddam would pose in the future. Iraqis were urged to rise up against the dictator, and they were slaughtered. Saddam stayed in power, and the Iraqi people lost faith in the United States.

Now, when we need them most, they are not there for us. The target has been taken off their backs and put squarely on the backs of US soldiers and Marines. Perhaps at some time in the future, Iraqis will get around to assuming responsibility for their own freedom and defense, but for now they seem content with being out of the firing line. So long as US forces remain, we shall be the target of the islamic terrorists. When we leave, the throat cutting islamo-fascists will turn their violence towards the Iraqi populus, who will then face the choice. Shall they choose to fight the terrorists or shall they choose to capitulate to them, while allowing another Saddam-style dictator to rise to power? One thing is clear, they are satisfied with letting us fight the battle for now.

Today's Democrats

The Dems currently in Congress who are military vets (the list you'd get off www.awolbush.com) are "old school" Democrats who are really more like Zell Miller than they'd like to admit. Now, I admire their service, however, the current crop of Democrats seem to have either forgotten or deliberately abandoned their principles which drove them to serve.

Unfortunately, they've chosen partisan politics over the nationalism which originally drove them to serve in the US military. Clearly, many current Democrat leaders served, and I both respect and thank them for their service. There is no doubt that many leaders in today's America served honorably, yet I believe that those Democrats who are military veterans who choose to support HANOI Kerry over George Bush are doing so for partisan, politcal ends. Those Democrats who truly believe in America's greatness and responsibility, such as Zell Miller and Joseph Lieberman, do so for national responsiblity first, and partisan politics second.

Current situation in Iraq

Terrorists in Iraq (though the American left seems to think the Iraq war has nothing to do with the WOT) believe that by blowing up car bombs and cutting off the heads of civilian contractors, they can force us to take certain political actions. The American left wants to capitulate. While I'm not willing to say that the liberals are "on the side" of the terrorists, if they were, they'd be doing the exact same thing they are doing now and have been doing since we readied for war almost 2 years ago.

George Bush's policy is that we will confront the terrorist thugs before they have an opportunity to attack us. Sounds good, but he has failed to live up to that promise. For us to be successful in the aftermath of the invasion and overthrow of Baghdad, things would have had to go near perfectly, and they did not. While US soldiers and Marines continue to perform wonderfully, the Iraqi people seem too willing to allow the violence in their country to continue. Instead of Saddam killing them, we are killing terrorists, and vice versa. The average Iraqi seems content to stay in the shadows and keep quiet.

The terrorists are no match for us militarily, however our morals and our military discipline are being used against us there just as are our courts and voting booths here at home. President Bush thought that we could/would band together once the fighting began so that the job could be done and completed as easily and bloodlessly as it could. I don't think he counted on the Democrats and the media dragging their heels and undermining our efforts at every turn.

The left in this country is stuck in the 70's, and for a variety of reasons, it seems to want the US to fail. They predicted a quagmire before the war, declared it as such almost immediately, and have since painted the war in the worst possible light at every opportunity. They have proven too much to overcome, in my opinion. Sadly, and at great cost to Iraqi people, we are stuck in a no-win situation. If we continue at the status quo, we make no gains while troops are picked off and civilians are beheaded one by one. The Bush administration had a chance to make a stand when the 4 civilians were burned and strung up in Fallujah several months ago. However, we were knee deep in the Abu Ghraib "abuses", and Bush was petrified. The terrorists got the message that we were indecisive and unwilling to win at all costs. They have not since looked back.

Is John Kerry bipolar?

In 1991, John Kerry opposed the military action taken by President George HW Bush using much the same rhetoric as he used when he returned home from Vietnam, and as he is using today. Suggesting we should use dipl0macy or economic sanctions to dissuade Saddam Hussein from his quest at Middle East domination, he voted against the war resolution. Saddam was turned back from Kuwait, but left in power in large part so that Iran was not able to take over Iraq and expand its control in the region.
Since then, Bill Clinton has made Iraqi regime change the official policy of the United States in 1998, following a vote by the US Congress. Since 11 September 2001, John Kerry has taken nearly every conceivable position on the issue of what we should do about Iraq. From 1998 through 2003, Kerry repeatedly stated with no uncertainty that Saddam was a threat to his people, the region, and the world because of his stated intent to produce weapons of mass murder. Kerry voted to give President Bush the authority to use force against Saddam. Then when the President did so, Kerry voted against the "$87 billion" that Bush requested for supplies. Over the past 18 months that we've been engaged in Iraq, Kerry has gone from one extreme to the other and every point in between. Finally yesterday, he completed his trek, stating that he would prefer that Saddam were still in control of Iraq. In the midst of World War 4, this is hardly the leadership needed by the United States and by the world in our struggle between good and evil.

Liberals unraveling

As hard as I try to avoid enjoying the misfortune of others, I can't help but grin when I consider the current state of affairs among liberals and Democrats in America. Michael Moore, having spent the DNC in a booth with President Carter, is now declaring John Kerry to be a "lousy candidate". (When did MM learn how to be honest?) Teresa Kerry's most thought-provoking comments lately have been: suggesting that a reporter should "shove it", stating that anyone who opposes federally funded socialized medicine is "an idiot", and most recently she has called her detractors "scumbags". Additionally, some links between her and terrorist groups have been implied, if not proven. While I understand the anti-war, anti-America, communist crowd's collective hatred towards George Bush, I simply find it beyond belief that so many otherwise clear thinking Americans are going to vote to put this woman in the White House. Sadly, as Zel Miller told us recently, the Democrat party has left him and many other old time Democrats. A party which once fought for noble causes, today's Democrat party has morphed itself into a collection of competing special interests, most of which are fronts for global communist organizations. If you thought Hillary Clinton was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...fortunately I believe that when America goes to vote in a few weeks, they will remember what they believe and they will understand that hatred for Bush cannot overrun their own desires for security. Sadly, John Kerry is still the same man who came home from Vietnam undermining America's safety and security, and Americans will not forget that.

Eugene Armstrong

May God Almighty bless your soul and may he look after your friends and family during this time of sadness and mourning over your meaningless and senseless death at the hands of religous fanatics. Americans mourn your loss and your murder shall be avenged. Terrorists around the world believe that their God has commanded them to murder all who disagree with their wildly radical religous beliefs, but they shall be defeated. Once again, America has chosen to lead the world in the struggle between good and evil, and it is a fight for our very survival. It is a fight that we cannot afford to lose.

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day that my child may have peace. -- Thomas Paine

Rather-gate

Well, Dan Rather has come out with a statement today, talking about "an error being made", as if it came as a complete surprise to him. Dan Rather has admitted using LSD, pot and heroin, he himself could be called a Korean War draft dodger or at the very least an unwilling participant, and he's been involved with Democrat fundraising in the past. Through all of this, he sits there telling us that he considers himself "fiercely independent". Not to mention his 1988 ambush of George HW Bush on national television, where the only topic Rather found interesting enough to discuss was Iran-Contra, though Bush says he came prepared to discuss several other issues.

Muslim ‘Protest’ Turns Deadly in Nigeria

Muslims kill Christians, how abnormal.

• On Tuesday, May 11, thousands of Muslims in the northern city of Kano took to the streets in protest against recent attacks on fellow Muslims in the town of Yelwa in nearby Plateau state. (See “Fresh Violence Erupts in Nigeria,” May 7.)

  Sources on the scene say the confrontation turned violent. Police officials place the death toll as high as 30 and say another 300 have suffered injuries. Thousands are believed to have fled their homes.

  Properties belonging to Christians were either looted or destroyed by the Muslim protesters, according to officials.

  Kano state police commissioner Alhaji Ganiyu Alli Daudu told journalists yesterday that Muslim mobs were trapping Christians in their homes and setting the houses on fire, attempting to kill those inside. He said police were under a “shoot-on-sight order” issued to save innocent lives.