The Eyes of the World are on Tennessee. In the balance, could be the control of the U.S. Senate and the fate of the global war on Terror. France is currently revealing how foolish it is to entertain the idea of “cutting and running” as they are now fighting their own domestic “intefada.” Over 5,000 French police officers have been attacked by Islamic forces over the last few months emboldened by the French doctrine of appeasement- proving once again, the old adage that Evil left unopposed, is Evil encouraged. It also yields credence to the idea that we will either fight these terrorists there, in their backyard, or here, in our own!
The main question is which candidate will be most supportive of: the ongoing mission in Iraq, electronic surveillance of likely terrorist communications, interrogation of detainees which include tactics beyond “name, rank and serial number,” and continued use of the Patriot Act as well as the Department of Homeland Security. What shouldn’t go beyond notice is how the current policies in place have kept America safe from sub-sequent attacks following 9/11. It’s not because our enemies have magically reformed and no longer mean us harm, it is because they’ve been diverted by both- our offensive strategy in Iraq, and our defensive strategy here at home.
Congressman Harold Ford, age 36, is a professional politician from Memphis who has served the past ten years in Washington where he’s voted 88% in lockstep with his party despite his claims of being a a staunch “Independent.” Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy actually vote more in support of President Bush than Harold Ford! During his career he has voted “no” on making the Patriot Act permanent and “no” on the Death Penalty for convicted Terrorists. He also voted “no” on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and has opposed enhancing our Intelligence Gathering capability. Ford has received an 89% approval rating from the Left-wing, anti-Nuke, Peace group SANE. He has received an “F” rating from the NRA and an “A” rating from the Internationalist group: Citizens for Global Solutions. Ford voted “no” on a House Proclamation that declared Iraq part of the war on Terror, and has routinely favored the UN and a multilateralist approach over a more Independent U.S. Foreign Policy.
Ford has a lifetime, (National Journal), liberal rating of 67.3%, the highest of all Tennessee Representatives. He also ranks first in the highest amount of money received from lobbyists. His out-of-state contributions represent 63% of his total campaign finances. Barbra Streisand, Leonard Nimoy, David Geffen and Don Imus are among his contributors representing the liberal attitudes of Hollywood and New York over that of the values of common Tennesseeans. By contrast, 95% of Corker’s contributions come from within the State. Money buys influence in politics, and one must wonder how much influence these Outsiders will have if Harold Ford is elected.
Bob Corker bills himself as a practical, conservative businessman who has lived most of his life in Tennessee. He’s a graduate of UT, a former mayor of Chattanooga and and a successful entrepreneur who started his own construction business. He is endorsed by the National Right to Life group for his opposition to abortion and by the NRA for his strong support of Gun Rights.
He supports “finishing the job” in Iraq, lower taxes, strengthening our border and strict-constructionist judges who won’t “legislate from the bench.” He also opposes homosexual “marriage” and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Another huge distinction between he and Ford is Health Care. Corker favors: medical savings accounts, tax credits, small business pools and malpractice reform as methods of making Health Care more affordable and accessible. Ford, a self-described “lawyer”though he’s never passed the bar, supports the Trial Lawyers’ position of opposing caps in malpractice suits- five votes since 2001. Ford-contributor Fred Baron, former president of the Trial Lawyer Association, has vowed a “Jihad” against Tort Reform advocates and has boasted that “Trial Lawyers run the Democrat Senate.” He also voted “no” on banning physician-assisted suicide.
The National Taxpayers Union has given Ford a lifetime rating of 23%, labeling him a “Big Spender.” Given Ford’s many votes against tax relief over the course of his career, (it’s been reported he’s voted 78 times for tax increases), this defines him squarely as a typical “tax and spend” Liberal that will do very little for bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington. By contrast, Corker has a proven record of good fiscal management both as mayor of Chattanooga and as Tennessee Finance Commissioner.
Today marks the end of Early Voting. If you haven’t voted yet, you can still vote from 9am to 4pm today at the Election Commission office in Jacksboro, from 9am to 2pm at the Jellico Municipal Building, or wait until Tuesday, November 7. Many have sacrificed their lives so you can vote- please don’t let them down. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Connecting the Electoral Dots in Iraq
“What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?” “The war in Iraq is a disaster, we should pull out immediately.” These are two, frequently heard comments in the debate over our foreign policy regarding the Islamic Terrorists. These oft-repeated remarks reflect valid, concerns, but do they reflect the whole truth?
With our elections just two weeks away, we need to think long and hard about this issue before voting. The Democrat-leadership, overwhelmingly liberal, has made it clear what their plans will be if they capture the House or Senate: immediate withdrawal from Iraq, constitutional “rights” afforded to suspected, terrorist enemies currently being detained, and the end to wire-tapping surveillance which has been successful in intercepting terrorist communications that have consequently thwarted several planned attacks.
Since 9/11, under the leadership of President Bush, America has employed a new, comprehensive strategy for engaging our sworn enemies. The untold story is this- with initiatives such as the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the military engagement of outlaw states around the world, we have been enormously effective in putting our enemy squarely on the defensive- just where they ought to be! Have there been high costs to pay for this Bush doctrine? Yes, most definitely, all wars incur great expense in both lives and treasure, but as 9/11 NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani reminds us, “by going on the offense these past five years we have most assuredly prevented further attacks in our own country.”
The Brooklyn Bridge, the New York PATH Train and the Golden Gate Bridge are just a few of the al Qaeda targets over the last few years that have been saved from sure destruction by our new Security System- wire-tapping included. Al Qaeda-member Assem Hammond is currently being held under arrest in Lebanon for helping to organize some of these plots. The Brooklyn Bridge target was an operation being planned by al Zarqawi, who thankfully, was killed last June by our military forces in Iraq! That might appear odd to some, since the Bush-haters would have us all believe that al Qaeda has nothing at all to do with Iraq?
For further enlightenment on the Iraq/al Qaeda linkage one needs only to take a close look at the Madrid bombings of March 3, 2004. Jamal Zougam was one of the first people arrested after the Spanish train bombings which killed 191 and injured 1700. In one of the bags that failed to explode authorities found a cell phone that was traced back to Zougam’s address. Zougam was part of an al Qaeda cell led by Yarkas and Azizi who, in turn, were proven agents in the planning of 9/11. In the Tarragona region of Spain these terrorists coordinated meetings between a Hamburg cell and Mohammed Atta, pilot of the first plane that hit the World Trade Towers. I would say that’s a pretty close connection!
Norwegian Defense authorities discovered that Jihadists had targeted Spain in 2004 because they were perceived to be the weak link in Europe for supporting the war in Iraq. Abu Dujan Al Afgani, military spokesman for al Qaeda in Europe, said, “this is a response to Spain’s collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies…to the crimes that you caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more if God wills it.” After Tony Blair, Spain’s prime minister Aznar was Bush’s strongest European ally in the War on Terror. That is, until the election!
Four days after the Madrid bombing, Zapatero, the candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, replaced Aznar after winning a dramatic electoral victory supported by those intimidated by the attack and waving placards that read, “No to War, Yes to Peace.”The voting results followed the al Qaeda plan perfectly, and troops were subsequently withdrawn from Iraq. Liberals are faced with the disturbing thought that: if Iraq has nothing at all to do with al Qaeda, then why would al Qaeda care so much about removing Spanish troops from there? Spain had been third, behind Great Britain and Italy, for their troop level commitment. Lee Feinstein, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations remarked, “the most troubling thing about this is the way the incoming Spanish government is sending a message to terrorists that this may be a
potential model for them to affect policy and elections.” Presumably they want to affect such elections for their favored purposes, don’t they? It was generally agreed at the time, that Spain had indeed capitulated in the face of terrorist pressure. Time correspondent Andrew Sullivan said, “in [the] election victory for the socialists al Qaeda got even more than it could have dreamed of. It has removed a government intent on fighting terrorism and installed another intent on appeasing it.” Sen. Joe Lieberman noted, “any withdrawal by Spain would amount to appeasement. Anyone who thinks that if…a nation’s troops stay out of a particular military conflict that they’ll be somehow protected from the fanatical Islamic terrorists, is just wrong! That’s the same logic that Neville Chamberlain [used] in Munich to try to pacify Hitler in the late 1930s, and obviously that didn’t work.”
Before voting this election, remember which party supports Sen. Lieberman’s view, and which party just kicked him out for the sole reason of his support for an aggressive, offensive strategy in the war on Terror. As you prepare to do your solemn duty in the voting booth consider which candidate al Qaeda might be for…then vote the oppositeway!
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
With our elections just two weeks away, we need to think long and hard about this issue before voting. The Democrat-leadership, overwhelmingly liberal, has made it clear what their plans will be if they capture the House or Senate: immediate withdrawal from Iraq, constitutional “rights” afforded to suspected, terrorist enemies currently being detained, and the end to wire-tapping surveillance which has been successful in intercepting terrorist communications that have consequently thwarted several planned attacks.
Since 9/11, under the leadership of President Bush, America has employed a new, comprehensive strategy for engaging our sworn enemies. The untold story is this- with initiatives such as the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the military engagement of outlaw states around the world, we have been enormously effective in putting our enemy squarely on the defensive- just where they ought to be! Have there been high costs to pay for this Bush doctrine? Yes, most definitely, all wars incur great expense in both lives and treasure, but as 9/11 NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani reminds us, “by going on the offense these past five years we have most assuredly prevented further attacks in our own country.”
The Brooklyn Bridge, the New York PATH Train and the Golden Gate Bridge are just a few of the al Qaeda targets over the last few years that have been saved from sure destruction by our new Security System- wire-tapping included. Al Qaeda-member Assem Hammond is currently being held under arrest in Lebanon for helping to organize some of these plots. The Brooklyn Bridge target was an operation being planned by al Zarqawi, who thankfully, was killed last June by our military forces in Iraq! That might appear odd to some, since the Bush-haters would have us all believe that al Qaeda has nothing at all to do with Iraq?
For further enlightenment on the Iraq/al Qaeda linkage one needs only to take a close look at the Madrid bombings of March 3, 2004. Jamal Zougam was one of the first people arrested after the Spanish train bombings which killed 191 and injured 1700. In one of the bags that failed to explode authorities found a cell phone that was traced back to Zougam’s address. Zougam was part of an al Qaeda cell led by Yarkas and Azizi who, in turn, were proven agents in the planning of 9/11. In the Tarragona region of Spain these terrorists coordinated meetings between a Hamburg cell and Mohammed Atta, pilot of the first plane that hit the World Trade Towers. I would say that’s a pretty close connection!
Norwegian Defense authorities discovered that Jihadists had targeted Spain in 2004 because they were perceived to be the weak link in Europe for supporting the war in Iraq. Abu Dujan Al Afgani, military spokesman for al Qaeda in Europe, said, “this is a response to Spain’s collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies…to the crimes that you caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more if God wills it.” After Tony Blair, Spain’s prime minister Aznar was Bush’s strongest European ally in the War on Terror. That is, until the election!
Four days after the Madrid bombing, Zapatero, the candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, replaced Aznar after winning a dramatic electoral victory supported by those intimidated by the attack and waving placards that read, “No to War, Yes to Peace.”The voting results followed the al Qaeda plan perfectly, and troops were subsequently withdrawn from Iraq. Liberals are faced with the disturbing thought that: if Iraq has nothing at all to do with al Qaeda, then why would al Qaeda care so much about removing Spanish troops from there? Spain had been third, behind Great Britain and Italy, for their troop level commitment. Lee Feinstein, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations remarked, “the most troubling thing about this is the way the incoming Spanish government is sending a message to terrorists that this may be a
potential model for them to affect policy and elections.” Presumably they want to affect such elections for their favored purposes, don’t they? It was generally agreed at the time, that Spain had indeed capitulated in the face of terrorist pressure. Time correspondent Andrew Sullivan said, “in [the] election victory for the socialists al Qaeda got even more than it could have dreamed of. It has removed a government intent on fighting terrorism and installed another intent on appeasing it.” Sen. Joe Lieberman noted, “any withdrawal by Spain would amount to appeasement. Anyone who thinks that if…a nation’s troops stay out of a particular military conflict that they’ll be somehow protected from the fanatical Islamic terrorists, is just wrong! That’s the same logic that Neville Chamberlain [used] in Munich to try to pacify Hitler in the late 1930s, and obviously that didn’t work.”
Before voting this election, remember which party supports Sen. Lieberman’s view, and which party just kicked him out for the sole reason of his support for an aggressive, offensive strategy in the war on Terror. As you prepare to do your solemn duty in the voting booth consider which candidate al Qaeda might be for…then vote the oppositeway!
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, October 2, 2006
Finding some Political Morals
Politics is the struggle for power to effect change in government policy for the purpose of two principle motivations: (1) The Factional, subjective benefits of the Spoils System, (party patronage), and (2) general, public morality, (party ideology).
Many view politics today as solely benefiting the cause of the first consideration- the rewards of “patronage.” They have become terminally cynical towards the idea that either party, or candidate, has anything whatsoever to do with the general welfare of all! Truth is: both major parties in the US are equally guilty of this corrupting influence of patronage. The only way it could ever be reduced is if the size and scope of government itself was reduced. In other words, a smaller government would offer fewer opportunities to exercise influence. Thus, those who favor bigger government should necessarily be viewed as concomitantly favoring the prospects for increasing political patronage!
But, as Ronald Reagan once said, “America is about more than Who gets What!” –
The second motivation that drives politics, and its struggle, is the idea of public morality. Morality is not something we should avoid in our political discussion. It is the very thing that makes our politics distinguishable as a true opportunity for pursuing an altruistic endeavor, apart from patronage, that equally benefits us all. Conversely, that government which operates without morality, is nothing more than a syndicate organized to legally plunder one faction from another. At the heart of this moral concern is the idea of competing values.
George Soros, the founder of MoveOn.org and the financier of several other political entities now vying for control of the Democrat party, has had this to say about Christian-values in politics, “the separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.” He also proclaimed, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”
Hillary Clinton, a fan of Soros and his war against capitalism, Christianity & a strong, independent America, proudly remarked, “I have known George Soros for a long time, we need people like [him], who [are] fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.”
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, revealed his religious bigotry at a Florida primary meeting in 2004: “we’re going to take back this country from the Christian Fundamentalists.” Christian Fundamentalism, by the way, is simply a belief in: the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the atonement, the inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Coming of Christ. Apparently, he believes such individuals should be relegated to the back of the bus! But, if morality and social values don’t come from our Judeo-Christian, Western-Civilization heritage, then where do they come from?
The main opposing value system to our Western Tradition over the decades has been Secular Humanism and Socialism. Hugo Chavez, the Leftist-dictator of Venezuela, has recently revealed just how radical this belief system can be! He is considered a hero to the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Danny Glover. But, what should be more alarming, however, is how moderate-to conservative, ‘rank and file’ Democrats have had their party high-jacked into supporting this type of Marxist-thought by the power-brokers of their own party, who, incredibly, find sympathy with these radical ideologies.
The result of this Leftist takeover has been the realignment of southern politics. 70% of Southern Senators in 1990 were Democrats, today, 70% are Republicans. Emory University Political Scientist Merle Black observes: “More than 80% of white conservatives in the South now belong to the Republican party, and only 10% are Democrats.” According to Black, the rationale seems to involve the machinations of the Democrat hierarchy: “For Democrat committee leadership, the rewards tend to go more often to liberals. It’s about impossible to have a leadership position in the House Democrat party if one behaves as a conservative.”
As a further demonstration of this trend, consider who the likely Committee Leaders will be if the Democrats win control this November: Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, John Conyers and avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders. Many of these individuals are, in fact, members of the Socialist-leaning, Progessive Caucus!
Putting all patronage aside, one should consider the roots of the competing ideologies vying for control of our nation before casting a vote this November. Remember what John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I’m just glad Howard Dean, George Soros and Hillary Clinton weren’t around back in 1776 to file a class-action, ACLU, restraining order against our Founding Fathers! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Many view politics today as solely benefiting the cause of the first consideration- the rewards of “patronage.” They have become terminally cynical towards the idea that either party, or candidate, has anything whatsoever to do with the general welfare of all! Truth is: both major parties in the US are equally guilty of this corrupting influence of patronage. The only way it could ever be reduced is if the size and scope of government itself was reduced. In other words, a smaller government would offer fewer opportunities to exercise influence. Thus, those who favor bigger government should necessarily be viewed as concomitantly favoring the prospects for increasing political patronage!
But, as Ronald Reagan once said, “America is about more than Who gets What!” –
The second motivation that drives politics, and its struggle, is the idea of public morality. Morality is not something we should avoid in our political discussion. It is the very thing that makes our politics distinguishable as a true opportunity for pursuing an altruistic endeavor, apart from patronage, that equally benefits us all. Conversely, that government which operates without morality, is nothing more than a syndicate organized to legally plunder one faction from another. At the heart of this moral concern is the idea of competing values.
George Soros, the founder of MoveOn.org and the financier of several other political entities now vying for control of the Democrat party, has had this to say about Christian-values in politics, “the separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.” He also proclaimed, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”
Hillary Clinton, a fan of Soros and his war against capitalism, Christianity & a strong, independent America, proudly remarked, “I have known George Soros for a long time, we need people like [him], who [are] fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.”
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, revealed his religious bigotry at a Florida primary meeting in 2004: “we’re going to take back this country from the Christian Fundamentalists.” Christian Fundamentalism, by the way, is simply a belief in: the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the atonement, the inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Coming of Christ. Apparently, he believes such individuals should be relegated to the back of the bus! But, if morality and social values don’t come from our Judeo-Christian, Western-Civilization heritage, then where do they come from?
The main opposing value system to our Western Tradition over the decades has been Secular Humanism and Socialism. Hugo Chavez, the Leftist-dictator of Venezuela, has recently revealed just how radical this belief system can be! He is considered a hero to the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Danny Glover. But, what should be more alarming, however, is how moderate-to conservative, ‘rank and file’ Democrats have had their party high-jacked into supporting this type of Marxist-thought by the power-brokers of their own party, who, incredibly, find sympathy with these radical ideologies.
The result of this Leftist takeover has been the realignment of southern politics. 70% of Southern Senators in 1990 were Democrats, today, 70% are Republicans. Emory University Political Scientist Merle Black observes: “More than 80% of white conservatives in the South now belong to the Republican party, and only 10% are Democrats.” According to Black, the rationale seems to involve the machinations of the Democrat hierarchy: “For Democrat committee leadership, the rewards tend to go more often to liberals. It’s about impossible to have a leadership position in the House Democrat party if one behaves as a conservative.”
As a further demonstration of this trend, consider who the likely Committee Leaders will be if the Democrats win control this November: Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, John Conyers and avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders. Many of these individuals are, in fact, members of the Socialist-leaning, Progessive Caucus!
Putting all patronage aside, one should consider the roots of the competing ideologies vying for control of our nation before casting a vote this November. Remember what John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I’m just glad Howard Dean, George Soros and Hillary Clinton weren’t around back in 1776 to file a class-action, ACLU, restraining order against our Founding Fathers! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
