In the famous Robert Bolt play “A Man for all Seasons” there’s an interesting quote by Sir Thomas More. It is a reply to what may be described as William Roper’s “Dirty Harry” inclinations of “cutting down every law to get at the Devil.” More rebukes the idea with the rejoinder, “and when the last law is down and the Devil turns round on you where would you hide?”
The implication is clear: the Law exists to benefit us all, even as it may sometimes benefit those forces of evil among us. (think: waterboarding) It’s a tempting argument, but one that fails the practical test of a higher calling. The ordained authority of law and government exists to punish evil and to protect the innocent. Sometimes this power must be wielded outside the normal channels of our constitutions and laws in order to serve the higher ideals of our sense of justice. Serving the law at the expense of justice may seem honorable in the twisted logic of Liberals in their pursuit of legalistic perfectionism, but it’s not serviceable for the Rights of the helpless victims who become victimized twice by an unfeeling and uncaring judicial system that allows “the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
U.S. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a Republican candidate for president. Although his support remains a flat line of single digits in the polls, his followers are very committed and persistent in their devotion. His campaign, though unlikely to win the nomination, is making ideological waves in the national debate.
Paul has received incredible contributions amassing as much as $6 million in one day, and collecting $18 million in three months. He is a past candidate for president on the Libertarian ticket and generally holds to a firm non-interventionist policy for both domestic and foreign concerns.
Paul likes to talk about the Constitution and rightly describes our drift away from the principles of our Founding Fathers. He’s for abolishing the IRS, the Dept. of Education, the War on Drugs, foreign aid to Israel, the Federal Reserve and a host of other programs on the federal level. He’s opposed to the war in Iraq and would bring troops home immediately despite the conditions and consequences for that region. He’s also interested in disengaging ourselves from almost every trade deal, NAFTA, GATT, etc. and would bring troops home from bases all over the globe including Korea and Europe too.
I find a lot of philosophical agreement with Paul on a variety of these and other issues. He’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Sound Currency and pro-active on reforming Social Security and other Entitlement programs. But, there’s an important difference in academic purity and real-world pragmatism.
In the world of purists like Paul, we can have a federal government as small and limited as the pre-Civil War days. By the way, Paul is no Lincoln fan. He would rather have the Idealistic Purity of States Rights over Unionism in all of the chaos that would result, rather than the type of united government Lincoln left us with. Remember, Lincoln had to suspend parts of the Constitution (habeas corpus) in order to save it. Alas, Sir Thomas More would not be a fan of Lincoln either.
Paul is proud to have voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, but he fails to acknowledge the consequences of doing nothing in the face of Islamic Fascism and rogue states like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. If we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq we would have surrendered to defeat in terms of the first Gulf War and in terms of allowing Saddam to shoot down our planes in the No Fly Zone. History teaches us that appeasement doesn’t work, it only encourages evil from the likes of tyrants such as Saddam. And, as we now know, it was weakness- i.e. Clinton’s retreat from Mogadishu- that inspired Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11/2001. Has anyone noticed? There hasn’t been a similar attack on our shores in the six years since then. I think President Bush and his policies deserve at least some of the credit. Don’t you?
Paul reminds me of another presidential candidate- Michael Dukakis. In one of the 1988 debates Dukakis was asked if he would support Capital Punishment in the instance where someone raped and murdered his wife. Without flinching, and reflecting the dogmatic rigidity of Sir Thomas More, Dukakis coldly stated his unwavering opposition to the Death Penalty in all cases. Such idealistic convictions may win high praise in the court of liberal, academic Puritanism, but it’s brutally disastrous in the court of presidential politics!
Ron Paul is a great debater and a wonderful Constitutional scholar worthy of much serious consideration, but his devotion to the “letter of the law” in the face of real world threats like Islamo-fascism makes him unfit to be Commander-in-chief. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Totalitarian Impulse
Modern Liberalism is nothing more than Totalitarianism by another name.
Totalitarianism comes from the word “total” meaning a complete political control over a nation’s institutions and culture. Political Correctness is the method by which modern Liberals have been attempting to radically change America- transforming our country into a Godless, Socialist State.
Islamofascism is also a type of Totalitarianism. The goal for these jihadist radicals is to force the world into compliance regarding their particular brand of ‘controlling’ faith and religion.
So, should we be surprised then to find that Left-wing, Kool-Aid Drinking Liberals are constantly on the side of the Islamofacists in this War on Terror? No. They are in perfect agreement based upon their shared hatred of America. It remains their unifying “shared religion” espoused by all those who hate America: al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, etc. As has been noted before: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Liberals like to point out that it is the “Religious Right” that is wishing to impose some sort of Theocracy on America. This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Have you ever stopped to consider what their twisted idea of “separation of church and state” really means when you combine it with their goal of an ever-increasing state? Taken together, if the church, (i.e. those expressing a belief in God), is sequestered from any inclusion in the state, then, necessarily, as the state grows larger, then the church MUST grow smaller!
Don’t let Liberals fool you. They have a religion. Their belief system disavows any consideration for evil or original sin in the world. They prefer to propagate the fantasy that “evil” only comes in the form of “oppressive” Institutions like: Capitalism, Christianity and the Military. Their catechism is one of abolishing: Profits, Morality and the U.S. Defense Dept. By so doing, they sincerely believe they can usher in their version of a holy Millennium.
Likewise, the Jihadists believe that an “ultimate paradise” is something that’s within their grasp as well- if they could just obtain more control over society. That’s why they show such little concern over the carnage resulting from their methods. It’s a simple trade-off in the Marxist tradition of “the ends, justifying the means.” Karl Marx, by the way, believed he could create “Heaven on Earth” too!
Both Islamofascists and American Liberals hold to an essential doctrine that says the world will be a better place once America- in its traditional form- is no more! When Christianity, Capitalism and the Military is made impotent, then they will have achieved their Utopia dream for the human race!
Skeptical? Just listen to the Liberals ranting and raving about America’s religious traditions, military strength and private profits. They hate them all! It represents to them the impediments to the idealistic things they seek: secularism, world government and collectivist programs!
For the Totalitarians in our midst, nothing ever changes. They always say they need a little bit more power and just a little bit more control. Witness the debate over our health care industry. The absolute worst parts of our health care today come from Liberal malfeasance that is: Medicare fraud and frivolous malpractice suits. In the religion of the Totalitarians, evidence for “sin,” or failure, serves only to substantiate their claims for “more control.” They never admit to any previous “control” or “power” errors. To admit a mistake would be to encourage more scrutiny from the masses who- after all- shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity to peer too intently behind the Temple curtain!
Human Nature is the enemy of all Totalitarians. Human beings yearn to be free as much as they yearn to fulfill their lusts. What Totalitarians fail to understand is that you can’t attempt to eradicate one aspect, without equally, eradicating the other.
Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian Ethic as it exists in Western culture, offers the only reasonable solution. Freedom of the individual must be tempered by the encouragement of self-discipline. The State or the Mullah can’t absolve you of this personal responsibility. Each sovereign individual must accept this challenge for himself. The Holy Bible, more than any other thing the world has ever known, offers the best instruction for facing that challenge successfully. Unlike the Totalitarians, those who consider the full panoply of Scripture accept the revealed reality that we will never overcome our Fallen Nature within ourselves. It will remain a spiritual battle until Christ Himself returns to restore His Kingdom.
So, why do Totalitarians war against the Bible? The Bible gives the glory for self-improvement to God, not to the State, or not to the Mullah! It also denies the notion of mankind being able to evolve toward some sort of “perfected” social state on his own. The selfish tyrants who desire control and power through the auspices of false religion: whether it’s Islamofascism, Socialism, or some other manifestation, resent and resist the competition. They- like Hillary- want the glory for themselves!
In this, the Season of our Savior’s birth, we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider that there are- most definitely- some competing “saviors” out there- desirous of our souls. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Totalitarianism comes from the word “total” meaning a complete political control over a nation’s institutions and culture. Political Correctness is the method by which modern Liberals have been attempting to radically change America- transforming our country into a Godless, Socialist State.
Islamofascism is also a type of Totalitarianism. The goal for these jihadist radicals is to force the world into compliance regarding their particular brand of ‘controlling’ faith and religion.
So, should we be surprised then to find that Left-wing, Kool-Aid Drinking Liberals are constantly on the side of the Islamofacists in this War on Terror? No. They are in perfect agreement based upon their shared hatred of America. It remains their unifying “shared religion” espoused by all those who hate America: al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, etc. As has been noted before: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Liberals like to point out that it is the “Religious Right” that is wishing to impose some sort of Theocracy on America. This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Have you ever stopped to consider what their twisted idea of “separation of church and state” really means when you combine it with their goal of an ever-increasing state? Taken together, if the church, (i.e. those expressing a belief in God), is sequestered from any inclusion in the state, then, necessarily, as the state grows larger, then the church MUST grow smaller!
Don’t let Liberals fool you. They have a religion. Their belief system disavows any consideration for evil or original sin in the world. They prefer to propagate the fantasy that “evil” only comes in the form of “oppressive” Institutions like: Capitalism, Christianity and the Military. Their catechism is one of abolishing: Profits, Morality and the U.S. Defense Dept. By so doing, they sincerely believe they can usher in their version of a holy Millennium.
Likewise, the Jihadists believe that an “ultimate paradise” is something that’s within their grasp as well- if they could just obtain more control over society. That’s why they show such little concern over the carnage resulting from their methods. It’s a simple trade-off in the Marxist tradition of “the ends, justifying the means.” Karl Marx, by the way, believed he could create “Heaven on Earth” too!
Both Islamofascists and American Liberals hold to an essential doctrine that says the world will be a better place once America- in its traditional form- is no more! When Christianity, Capitalism and the Military is made impotent, then they will have achieved their Utopia dream for the human race!
Skeptical? Just listen to the Liberals ranting and raving about America’s religious traditions, military strength and private profits. They hate them all! It represents to them the impediments to the idealistic things they seek: secularism, world government and collectivist programs!
For the Totalitarians in our midst, nothing ever changes. They always say they need a little bit more power and just a little bit more control. Witness the debate over our health care industry. The absolute worst parts of our health care today come from Liberal malfeasance that is: Medicare fraud and frivolous malpractice suits. In the religion of the Totalitarians, evidence for “sin,” or failure, serves only to substantiate their claims for “more control.” They never admit to any previous “control” or “power” errors. To admit a mistake would be to encourage more scrutiny from the masses who- after all- shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity to peer too intently behind the Temple curtain!
Human Nature is the enemy of all Totalitarians. Human beings yearn to be free as much as they yearn to fulfill their lusts. What Totalitarians fail to understand is that you can’t attempt to eradicate one aspect, without equally, eradicating the other.
Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian Ethic as it exists in Western culture, offers the only reasonable solution. Freedom of the individual must be tempered by the encouragement of self-discipline. The State or the Mullah can’t absolve you of this personal responsibility. Each sovereign individual must accept this challenge for himself. The Holy Bible, more than any other thing the world has ever known, offers the best instruction for facing that challenge successfully. Unlike the Totalitarians, those who consider the full panoply of Scripture accept the revealed reality that we will never overcome our Fallen Nature within ourselves. It will remain a spiritual battle until Christ Himself returns to restore His Kingdom.
So, why do Totalitarians war against the Bible? The Bible gives the glory for self-improvement to God, not to the State, or not to the Mullah! It also denies the notion of mankind being able to evolve toward some sort of “perfected” social state on his own. The selfish tyrants who desire control and power through the auspices of false religion: whether it’s Islamofascism, Socialism, or some other manifestation, resent and resist the competition. They- like Hillary- want the glory for themselves!
In this, the Season of our Savior’s birth, we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider that there are- most definitely- some competing “saviors” out there- desirous of our souls. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Friday, November 30, 2007
MEXAMERICANADA
We just celebrated Thanksgiving- a uniquely American holiday. It’s a special time when we Americans acknowledge our thankfulness to God. We give thanks for our personal blessings, but we also give thanks for our national blessings too.
Lincoln made this day a national holiday for the purpose of establishing a more firm sense of unity among all Americans going through the chaos of civil war. In his proclamation of 1863 it was called a “national and fixed Union festival…an American custom and institution” to rally the citizens.
This is just one example of America’s cultural distinction, but it points to an important foundation from which so many other American institutions spring. It all adds up to our common heritage as a people and a nation. The sovereign unity of our people is always a delicate balance to maintain, but now- more than ever- there seems to be threats to that social equilibrium.
Besides the Liberals, who detest America in its current form and want to change it radically, there are also “Big Government Conservatives” who are equally radical in their desire to embrace change. Their cause is: the North American Union.
Beginning with NAFTA in 1993 and continuing in 2005, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have worked to bring about a disastrous assault upon our national sovereignty. What they want is a type of “European Union” for North America.
The proposal, if successful, will unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one integrated, governmental system! Quoting from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2005 report: “Creating a North American Community”-
“We propose the creation by 2010 of a community to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity for all North Americans. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and safe.”
On March 23, 2005, a joint statement was issued:
“We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. (Martin, Fox and Bush) announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges.”
Another CFR report from May of 2005, “The Building of a North American Community,” states:
“The three governments (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travels and trade within North America.”
This helps explain why there has been so much frustration and inaction when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Many of our political leaders- on both sides of the aisle- have simply bought-in to this North American Union nonsense and want “open borders” between our nations.
What they fail to realize is how the pursuit of this initiative means the erosion of our cherished, national sovereignty. A country without borders is no longer a country!
America- for those who know its history- is more than just some nondescript, trading bloc comparable to China, Europe or Latin America! Our existence as a nation thrives on the continuance of our own cultural distinctions, and to add to that mix, indiscriminately, without discerning the consequences, is the same thing as cooking a stew using a pantry full of poison! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Lincoln made this day a national holiday for the purpose of establishing a more firm sense of unity among all Americans going through the chaos of civil war. In his proclamation of 1863 it was called a “national and fixed Union festival…an American custom and institution” to rally the citizens.
This is just one example of America’s cultural distinction, but it points to an important foundation from which so many other American institutions spring. It all adds up to our common heritage as a people and a nation. The sovereign unity of our people is always a delicate balance to maintain, but now- more than ever- there seems to be threats to that social equilibrium.
Besides the Liberals, who detest America in its current form and want to change it radically, there are also “Big Government Conservatives” who are equally radical in their desire to embrace change. Their cause is: the North American Union.
Beginning with NAFTA in 1993 and continuing in 2005, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have worked to bring about a disastrous assault upon our national sovereignty. What they want is a type of “European Union” for North America.
The proposal, if successful, will unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one integrated, governmental system! Quoting from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2005 report: “Creating a North American Community”-
“We propose the creation by 2010 of a community to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity for all North Americans. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and safe.”
On March 23, 2005, a joint statement was issued:
“We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. (Martin, Fox and Bush) announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges.”
Another CFR report from May of 2005, “The Building of a North American Community,” states:
“The three governments (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travels and trade within North America.”
This helps explain why there has been so much frustration and inaction when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Many of our political leaders- on both sides of the aisle- have simply bought-in to this North American Union nonsense and want “open borders” between our nations.
What they fail to realize is how the pursuit of this initiative means the erosion of our cherished, national sovereignty. A country without borders is no longer a country!
America- for those who know its history- is more than just some nondescript, trading bloc comparable to China, Europe or Latin America! Our existence as a nation thrives on the continuance of our own cultural distinctions, and to add to that mix, indiscriminately, without discerning the consequences, is the same thing as cooking a stew using a pantry full of poison! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
How NOT to Save a Falling Dollar
The dollar has fallen, and can’t get up. Currencies around the world are making all-time gains on the dollar and people are beginning to get worried about the future of the U.S. economy.
Whether welcomed or not, we are increasingly operating in an interdependent, global marketplace where the activities of one nation directly impact the performance of another.
Capital is the name of the game, and those nations offering capital investors the greatest returns will prove to be the ultimate winners in this quest for a strong currency. The fact is, we are in a global competition for capital, and the high tax proposals by all of the leading Democrat candidates for president is, most definitely, not the way to go!
Many people point to the $600 billion trade deficit, (monetary surplus), as the main cause for our dollar’s decline, but this only tells part of the story. Legendary Economist Ludwig von Mises proved that trade imbalances themselves are not to be feared. Absent the socialist inclination for government intervention, the disparities of a nation’s trade balance will equalize over time with the natural, disciplinary forces of the free market.
When a nation’s imports exceed its exports, there is simply a momentary increase in goods with a simultaneous decrease in currency. Under normal circumstances- when governments don’t interfere- the currency sent abroad formulates a pool of available “capital” that ultimately flows back to the original country in the form of profit-seeking investments.
The key word there is PROFIT, aka “the profit motive” of incentivized capitalism.
With all of the countries now competing so desperately for global investment, it shouldn’t be assumed that those dollars will always find their way back here. It’s especially difficult to attract those dollars when we are currently pursuing two federal policies that are in direct conflict with investors’ demands: (1) low interest rates; and (2), high corporate taxation.
The detriment of the first condition is obvious. Investors are looking for the highest rates of return for their financial investments. This, however, is a catch 22 now for our policy makers in Washington, because there’s an overriding concern to keep rates low in order to help offset the weakness in the housing market. If we raise rates to where they “should be,” in relation to the realities of the market place, we will undoubtedly attract more foreign investment, but we’ll also severely jeopardize an already reeling mortgage industry decimated by the subprime foreclosures. That leaves only one option- the consideration of cutting our corporate tax rates.
Capital will flow to the highest rate of return. Interest rates are always a primary concern, but coming close behind is a favorable tax policy. Since 1993, European Union tax rates have fallen from an average of 38% to 25%. Finland has gone from a 43% corporate tax rate to 25%, Sweden has gone from 60% to 28%, and Ireland has dropped from 24% to 12.5%. In Estonia, the corporate income tax rate on earnings has been lowered off the charts. It’s zero! Most of these, traditionally, socialist governments have discovered, (the hard way), what John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher knew instinctively- that lower tax rates stimulate economic growth by attracting more entrepreneurship and greater capital investment.
There was a time when the U.S. led the world in pro-growth tax policies, but while we’ve been standing still, others have aggressively moved ahead.
Today, the United States is second among industrialized nations for the highest corporate tax rate: 39.4%, (combined Federal and State average). Only Japan is higher at 39.5%.
Of the 30 industrialized economies recognized by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), the U.S. tax rate is 35% higher than the average rate of 28.7%. Since 2000, the average OECD country has reduced their rates by 13%. With the UK’s recently announced plan to cut rates further to 28%, following Sarkozy’s initiatives in France, all of this points to one undeniable fact: we are in the midst of a worldwide, Supplyside Revolution! Available, venture capital is not stupid- it will flow logically to the place of greatest return, and increasingly, that place is not the U.S.
So, what do the Liberals want to do?
Raise Taxes! Hillary Clinton calls Bush’s 2001 tax cuts “irresponsible,” and like her fellow Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards, she would prefer to allow the tax cuts expire from their current 35% rate and return to the 39.6% rate of Bill’s administration. Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts would also bring back the “marriage penalty,” the “death tax” and higher capital gains/dividend rates. Add to that, the Rangel plan of a 4.6% surtax, plus the new Medicare tax, and the total “effective” Democrat tax rate becomes 48-50% for the top income producers. With other competing nations slashing their rates like a Ronco Veg-O-Matic, this is no time to be “turning back the clock” and embracing Keynes!
Hillary and Obama were among the U.S. Senators who recently voted for the largest tax increase in history, (CQ Vote #172). This initiative, if signed into law, would amount to a tax bill of $900 billion over the next five years, or $3.3 trillion over the next ten. It would mean $2,641 in new taxes for each household in America. This budget proposal also called for a 9% increase, ($18 billion), in new discretionary spending. It is $205 billion more, (not less), than the Bush budget. There’s an old, political phrase for this type of Liberal impulse: “Tax ‘n’ Spend.”
The dollar is not all we have to worry about. There’s another financial crisis looming over the horizon: the Entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, et al. These wealth transfers are fiscally unsustainable given our current demographic deficiencies. Simply stated, there aren’t enough workers in our economy to support all of the growing number of retirees. The first wave of baby boomers will be retiring this year and they will be putting enormous pressure on these financial commitments.
The Liberals have no answer for these developing issues, in fact, they want to add to the Entitlement problem by creating more ‘guaranteed’ programs like universal, socialized medicine! The only responsible thing to do, (for those who understand basic math), is to try to honor these past commitments while reforming the system for the future. We must find a way to eliminate these burdensome pyramid schemes from our economy forever. They produce only temporal benefit for vote-buying politicians, while being inherently unfair and immoral to everyone else.
In order to have the money necessary to meet these commitments already made, it’s absolutely essential that we maintain a growing and expanding economy! With the Bush tax cuts, we now have the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record, (50 months). Since May 2003, 4.6 million new jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is negligible at 4.9%, the growth rate is a healthy 4%, and tax receipts to the government, (despite lower tax rates), are at an all-time high.
Revenues to the government have increased 10%, on average, for each of the last two years, and our budget deficit is half of the 40-year average: 1.2% of GDP, or $163 billion out of a $14 trillion economy. This far surpasses Bush’s pledge to halve the deficit in his second term.
All of this economic success, amazingly, has happened during a time of war. The old adage about not having “guns” and “butter” at the same time doesn’t hold true in this case. You’d think people would know about this success, but as a recent Harvard Study has confirmed once again: the news media is overwhelmingly liberal, (90% of reporters vote Democrat). So, everything is slanted “bad,” even when it’s good, during Republican administrations.
The WRONG thing to do now is listen to the media and elect someone like Hillary who’s just dying to raise your taxes. She recently stated “I have a million ideas, but the Country can’t afford them all.” No kidding! As Justice John Marshall once said, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” If you won’t take action to stop Hillary for yourself, then do it for the dollar! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Whether welcomed or not, we are increasingly operating in an interdependent, global marketplace where the activities of one nation directly impact the performance of another.
Capital is the name of the game, and those nations offering capital investors the greatest returns will prove to be the ultimate winners in this quest for a strong currency. The fact is, we are in a global competition for capital, and the high tax proposals by all of the leading Democrat candidates for president is, most definitely, not the way to go!
Many people point to the $600 billion trade deficit, (monetary surplus), as the main cause for our dollar’s decline, but this only tells part of the story. Legendary Economist Ludwig von Mises proved that trade imbalances themselves are not to be feared. Absent the socialist inclination for government intervention, the disparities of a nation’s trade balance will equalize over time with the natural, disciplinary forces of the free market.
When a nation’s imports exceed its exports, there is simply a momentary increase in goods with a simultaneous decrease in currency. Under normal circumstances- when governments don’t interfere- the currency sent abroad formulates a pool of available “capital” that ultimately flows back to the original country in the form of profit-seeking investments.
The key word there is PROFIT, aka “the profit motive” of incentivized capitalism.
With all of the countries now competing so desperately for global investment, it shouldn’t be assumed that those dollars will always find their way back here. It’s especially difficult to attract those dollars when we are currently pursuing two federal policies that are in direct conflict with investors’ demands: (1) low interest rates; and (2), high corporate taxation.
The detriment of the first condition is obvious. Investors are looking for the highest rates of return for their financial investments. This, however, is a catch 22 now for our policy makers in Washington, because there’s an overriding concern to keep rates low in order to help offset the weakness in the housing market. If we raise rates to where they “should be,” in relation to the realities of the market place, we will undoubtedly attract more foreign investment, but we’ll also severely jeopardize an already reeling mortgage industry decimated by the subprime foreclosures. That leaves only one option- the consideration of cutting our corporate tax rates.
Capital will flow to the highest rate of return. Interest rates are always a primary concern, but coming close behind is a favorable tax policy. Since 1993, European Union tax rates have fallen from an average of 38% to 25%. Finland has gone from a 43% corporate tax rate to 25%, Sweden has gone from 60% to 28%, and Ireland has dropped from 24% to 12.5%. In Estonia, the corporate income tax rate on earnings has been lowered off the charts. It’s zero! Most of these, traditionally, socialist governments have discovered, (the hard way), what John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher knew instinctively- that lower tax rates stimulate economic growth by attracting more entrepreneurship and greater capital investment.
There was a time when the U.S. led the world in pro-growth tax policies, but while we’ve been standing still, others have aggressively moved ahead.
Today, the United States is second among industrialized nations for the highest corporate tax rate: 39.4%, (combined Federal and State average). Only Japan is higher at 39.5%.
Of the 30 industrialized economies recognized by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), the U.S. tax rate is 35% higher than the average rate of 28.7%. Since 2000, the average OECD country has reduced their rates by 13%. With the UK’s recently announced plan to cut rates further to 28%, following Sarkozy’s initiatives in France, all of this points to one undeniable fact: we are in the midst of a worldwide, Supplyside Revolution! Available, venture capital is not stupid- it will flow logically to the place of greatest return, and increasingly, that place is not the U.S.
So, what do the Liberals want to do?
Raise Taxes! Hillary Clinton calls Bush’s 2001 tax cuts “irresponsible,” and like her fellow Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards, she would prefer to allow the tax cuts expire from their current 35% rate and return to the 39.6% rate of Bill’s administration. Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts would also bring back the “marriage penalty,” the “death tax” and higher capital gains/dividend rates. Add to that, the Rangel plan of a 4.6% surtax, plus the new Medicare tax, and the total “effective” Democrat tax rate becomes 48-50% for the top income producers. With other competing nations slashing their rates like a Ronco Veg-O-Matic, this is no time to be “turning back the clock” and embracing Keynes!
Hillary and Obama were among the U.S. Senators who recently voted for the largest tax increase in history, (CQ Vote #172). This initiative, if signed into law, would amount to a tax bill of $900 billion over the next five years, or $3.3 trillion over the next ten. It would mean $2,641 in new taxes for each household in America. This budget proposal also called for a 9% increase, ($18 billion), in new discretionary spending. It is $205 billion more, (not less), than the Bush budget. There’s an old, political phrase for this type of Liberal impulse: “Tax ‘n’ Spend.”
The dollar is not all we have to worry about. There’s another financial crisis looming over the horizon: the Entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, et al. These wealth transfers are fiscally unsustainable given our current demographic deficiencies. Simply stated, there aren’t enough workers in our economy to support all of the growing number of retirees. The first wave of baby boomers will be retiring this year and they will be putting enormous pressure on these financial commitments.
The Liberals have no answer for these developing issues, in fact, they want to add to the Entitlement problem by creating more ‘guaranteed’ programs like universal, socialized medicine! The only responsible thing to do, (for those who understand basic math), is to try to honor these past commitments while reforming the system for the future. We must find a way to eliminate these burdensome pyramid schemes from our economy forever. They produce only temporal benefit for vote-buying politicians, while being inherently unfair and immoral to everyone else.
In order to have the money necessary to meet these commitments already made, it’s absolutely essential that we maintain a growing and expanding economy! With the Bush tax cuts, we now have the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record, (50 months). Since May 2003, 4.6 million new jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is negligible at 4.9%, the growth rate is a healthy 4%, and tax receipts to the government, (despite lower tax rates), are at an all-time high.
Revenues to the government have increased 10%, on average, for each of the last two years, and our budget deficit is half of the 40-year average: 1.2% of GDP, or $163 billion out of a $14 trillion economy. This far surpasses Bush’s pledge to halve the deficit in his second term.
All of this economic success, amazingly, has happened during a time of war. The old adage about not having “guns” and “butter” at the same time doesn’t hold true in this case. You’d think people would know about this success, but as a recent Harvard Study has confirmed once again: the news media is overwhelmingly liberal, (90% of reporters vote Democrat). So, everything is slanted “bad,” even when it’s good, during Republican administrations.
The WRONG thing to do now is listen to the media and elect someone like Hillary who’s just dying to raise your taxes. She recently stated “I have a million ideas, but the Country can’t afford them all.” No kidding! As Justice John Marshall once said, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” If you won’t take action to stop Hillary for yourself, then do it for the dollar! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
If the Hsu Fits
There’s an old adage in the world of politics: “Follow the Money.” In the recent case of Norman Hsu and his fraudulent fundraising for Hillary Clinton: “following the money” reveals quite an interesting story.
Currently, the Rasmussen Poll has Hillary Clinton with an amazing 23 point lead over her nearest Democrat rival Barack Obama. In the head to head poll against her likely GOP opponent, (either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson), the race is a statistical dead heat. So, with Hillary being this close to the oval office- we should consider what “influence”she might be selling, and who is buying.
Hsu first made news back in August when it was revealed in the Wall Street Journal that he was funneling $250,000 to Hillary’s campaign through suspicious donors like William Paw. Paw lives in a home previously purchased by Hsu in Daly City, CA. The Paw’s only source of income comes from a postal job which pays $49,000 a year. Yet, despite this meager income, in three years, the Paws have given nearly a quarter of a million dollars to Hillary! Something smells fishy.
As a result of this story, a warrant was issued for Hsu’s arrest stemming from a previous charge of grand theft. Hsu pled “no contest” in 1992 to a massive ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of more than $60 million. He jumped bail and had been on the lam for 15 years until caught in Colorado. Just prior to this incident, Hsu had suffered divorce, bankruptcy and ‘kidnapping’ by the San Francisco Triad society run by gang leader Raymond Chow. More on the Triads later.
Beginning in 2006, Hsu re-emerged instructing new investors to contribute to certain “designated” political campaigns. One hundred and fifty people were subsequently reported as Hillary donors, however, one-third of them couldn’t be found at their listed addresses. Each person, despite their modest incomes and questionable political interest, “gave” between $500 and $2,300 generating a grand total of $850,000 traced directly back to Hsu!
Hillary characterized the discovery of this fraud as a “rude awakening to us all” insisting- with a straight face- that “none of us caught this and we all ran searches!” That’s strange, because the Los Angeles Times reported that her campaign was indeed warned last June and that a Clinton aide had even dismissed the concerns. Samantha Wolf, Clinton’s former west coast, campaign finance director wrote, “I can tell you with a hundred percent certainty that Norman Hsu is not involved in a ponzi scheme. He is completely legit.”
Hillary didn’t share Wolf’s rock-solid endorsement. Upon the disclosure of Hsu’s activities, the Clinton campaign quickly went into CYA-mode divesting itself of all inappropriate funds by turning over $850,000 to charity. Unbelievably, the Tennessee Democrat Party and Harold Ford, who were among the “other Democrats” suggested for targeted donation, decided they’d rather keep the dirty Hsu money than forfeit the largesse.
As a further reminder and point of concern for the upcoming election- we shouldn’t forget all the terrible abuses from her spouse’s time in the White House. Remember the “selling of the Lincoln Bedroom” and all those Chinese connections from the 90s-Charlie Trie, John Huang and over a hundred indicted co-conspirators fleeing the country and pleading “the fifth” to avoid prosecution? This “fish” has a pedigree!
The Hsu investigation has led to the discovery of some troubling ties to the Fujian province in China and organized crime. Over $380,000 has been “raised” for Hillary in the poorest areas of New York City. This incredible amount rolling in from poverty-stricken immigrants holding dishwasher and waiter jobs in Chinatown’s restaurants is already 16 times greater than the total amount raised by Kerry in 2004. In most cases, these “donors” are not even registered to vote- if they can be found at all.
In 1993, the FBI indicted over twenty cases of illegal human trafficking involving the Fujian province of China. Due to an overpopulation of young males in China with limited job opportunities, (avg. income is $200/yr.), there’s a growing market for selling ‘slaves’ to Triad associates in America. The Triads operate like the mafia, engaging in extortion, robbery, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and murder. A source from the United Nations calls them “the greatest potential criminal threat the world has ever known!” They have control over the smuggling of illegal Chinese immigrants which is a $3+ billion-a-year business. Each illegal yields an average profit of $40,000.
Between 40,000 and 100,000 Chinese illegals enter the United States every year and these migrants come attached with permanent invisible strings that are controlled by the Triads and their higher authorities in the ChiComm government. Once in America, most of these illegals find themselves deeply in debt to the Triad organizations, and thus, easy targets for extortion and criminal manipulation.
Many of these individuals, now wildly supporting Hillary, come from the Fujian province where they’ve been thrown off their lands so that the government can build industrial complexes. Oun Wu, a $500 per week Chinatown laborer, gave $1,000 to Hillary because- according to him- he was “told to” and he wanted to “save face.”
The Communist clearances have created over 200 million landless Chinese peasants, mostly male. Due to China’s one child policy, many families over the years have aborted their daughters in favor of having a male child. Experts estimate that within the next fifteen years 30 million Chinese males will be unable to find wives! The resulting pressure upon human trafficking will only increase.
But the threat is more serious than an immigration issue. Going back to Bill Clinton’s Chinagate problems- there’s a logical end to this trail of dirty money that should have us all concerned.
Bill Clinton, in a recent Washington Post interview said, “China will likely replace the USA as world leader.” During his administration, he instructed counterintelligence officers to “stand down” on technological transfers to China. Hazel O’Leary, Sect. of D.O.E., was told to declassify eleven million pages of U.S. Nuclear intelligence documents for this purpose. In his globalist philosophy of “share the power,” (ie. Multipolarity), he created an open door to our nuclear and defense technologies that resulted in millions of dollars for his campaign while transferring untold advantages to the ChiComm military. Before Clinton, we had nothing to fear from the woeful Chinese missile technology or “suitcase nukes,” now we do! Remember, Clinton allowed the Panama Canal to go to China in 1997 and would have sold the Long Beach Naval yard to
China too, if angry protests hadn’t derailed the deal.
In the mid-90s, ChiComm General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chang “we like your president. We want to see him re-elected.” Clinton’s top donors in 1992 were Chinese Agents, involving the Lippo Group and others. In 1996, those topping the donor list were defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space and others. Commerce Sect. Ron Brown served as a liaison in many of these deals and was suddenly killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1996 just as the Chinagate stories were beginning to break. Follow the Money!
China’s Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, said in 2000, “war [with the U.S.] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war.”
If the polls are right and the trend continues, Hillary could be our next president. The American People should pause long and hard before deciding: is this our best choice for Commander-in-Chief, or just the best opportunity - for the other Hsu to drop?
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Currently, the Rasmussen Poll has Hillary Clinton with an amazing 23 point lead over her nearest Democrat rival Barack Obama. In the head to head poll against her likely GOP opponent, (either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson), the race is a statistical dead heat. So, with Hillary being this close to the oval office- we should consider what “influence”she might be selling, and who is buying.
Hsu first made news back in August when it was revealed in the Wall Street Journal that he was funneling $250,000 to Hillary’s campaign through suspicious donors like William Paw. Paw lives in a home previously purchased by Hsu in Daly City, CA. The Paw’s only source of income comes from a postal job which pays $49,000 a year. Yet, despite this meager income, in three years, the Paws have given nearly a quarter of a million dollars to Hillary! Something smells fishy.
As a result of this story, a warrant was issued for Hsu’s arrest stemming from a previous charge of grand theft. Hsu pled “no contest” in 1992 to a massive ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of more than $60 million. He jumped bail and had been on the lam for 15 years until caught in Colorado. Just prior to this incident, Hsu had suffered divorce, bankruptcy and ‘kidnapping’ by the San Francisco Triad society run by gang leader Raymond Chow. More on the Triads later.
Beginning in 2006, Hsu re-emerged instructing new investors to contribute to certain “designated” political campaigns. One hundred and fifty people were subsequently reported as Hillary donors, however, one-third of them couldn’t be found at their listed addresses. Each person, despite their modest incomes and questionable political interest, “gave” between $500 and $2,300 generating a grand total of $850,000 traced directly back to Hsu!
Hillary characterized the discovery of this fraud as a “rude awakening to us all” insisting- with a straight face- that “none of us caught this and we all ran searches!” That’s strange, because the Los Angeles Times reported that her campaign was indeed warned last June and that a Clinton aide had even dismissed the concerns. Samantha Wolf, Clinton’s former west coast, campaign finance director wrote, “I can tell you with a hundred percent certainty that Norman Hsu is not involved in a ponzi scheme. He is completely legit.”
Hillary didn’t share Wolf’s rock-solid endorsement. Upon the disclosure of Hsu’s activities, the Clinton campaign quickly went into CYA-mode divesting itself of all inappropriate funds by turning over $850,000 to charity. Unbelievably, the Tennessee Democrat Party and Harold Ford, who were among the “other Democrats” suggested for targeted donation, decided they’d rather keep the dirty Hsu money than forfeit the largesse.
As a further reminder and point of concern for the upcoming election- we shouldn’t forget all the terrible abuses from her spouse’s time in the White House. Remember the “selling of the Lincoln Bedroom” and all those Chinese connections from the 90s-Charlie Trie, John Huang and over a hundred indicted co-conspirators fleeing the country and pleading “the fifth” to avoid prosecution? This “fish” has a pedigree!
The Hsu investigation has led to the discovery of some troubling ties to the Fujian province in China and organized crime. Over $380,000 has been “raised” for Hillary in the poorest areas of New York City. This incredible amount rolling in from poverty-stricken immigrants holding dishwasher and waiter jobs in Chinatown’s restaurants is already 16 times greater than the total amount raised by Kerry in 2004. In most cases, these “donors” are not even registered to vote- if they can be found at all.
In 1993, the FBI indicted over twenty cases of illegal human trafficking involving the Fujian province of China. Due to an overpopulation of young males in China with limited job opportunities, (avg. income is $200/yr.), there’s a growing market for selling ‘slaves’ to Triad associates in America. The Triads operate like the mafia, engaging in extortion, robbery, prostitution, gambling, drugs, and murder. A source from the United Nations calls them “the greatest potential criminal threat the world has ever known!” They have control over the smuggling of illegal Chinese immigrants which is a $3+ billion-a-year business. Each illegal yields an average profit of $40,000.
Between 40,000 and 100,000 Chinese illegals enter the United States every year and these migrants come attached with permanent invisible strings that are controlled by the Triads and their higher authorities in the ChiComm government. Once in America, most of these illegals find themselves deeply in debt to the Triad organizations, and thus, easy targets for extortion and criminal manipulation.
Many of these individuals, now wildly supporting Hillary, come from the Fujian province where they’ve been thrown off their lands so that the government can build industrial complexes. Oun Wu, a $500 per week Chinatown laborer, gave $1,000 to Hillary because- according to him- he was “told to” and he wanted to “save face.”
The Communist clearances have created over 200 million landless Chinese peasants, mostly male. Due to China’s one child policy, many families over the years have aborted their daughters in favor of having a male child. Experts estimate that within the next fifteen years 30 million Chinese males will be unable to find wives! The resulting pressure upon human trafficking will only increase.
But the threat is more serious than an immigration issue. Going back to Bill Clinton’s Chinagate problems- there’s a logical end to this trail of dirty money that should have us all concerned.
Bill Clinton, in a recent Washington Post interview said, “China will likely replace the USA as world leader.” During his administration, he instructed counterintelligence officers to “stand down” on technological transfers to China. Hazel O’Leary, Sect. of D.O.E., was told to declassify eleven million pages of U.S. Nuclear intelligence documents for this purpose. In his globalist philosophy of “share the power,” (ie. Multipolarity), he created an open door to our nuclear and defense technologies that resulted in millions of dollars for his campaign while transferring untold advantages to the ChiComm military. Before Clinton, we had nothing to fear from the woeful Chinese missile technology or “suitcase nukes,” now we do! Remember, Clinton allowed the Panama Canal to go to China in 1997 and would have sold the Long Beach Naval yard to
China too, if angry protests hadn’t derailed the deal.
In the mid-90s, ChiComm General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chang “we like your president. We want to see him re-elected.” Clinton’s top donors in 1992 were Chinese Agents, involving the Lippo Group and others. In 1996, those topping the donor list were defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space and others. Commerce Sect. Ron Brown served as a liaison in many of these deals and was suddenly killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1996 just as the Chinagate stories were beginning to break. Follow the Money!
China’s Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, said in 2000, “war [with the U.S.] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war.”
If the polls are right and the trend continues, Hillary could be our next president. The American People should pause long and hard before deciding: is this our best choice for Commander-in-Chief, or just the best opportunity - for the other Hsu to drop?
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Friday, October 26, 2007
To Catch a Christian Predator
To Catch a Christian Predator
President George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1796, said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.
John Adams, echoed Washington with this comment, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Radical Homosexual Agenda is working now to subvert these ‘patriotic pillars of religion and morality’ by seeking to muzzle the Bible and shut down all criticism of sexual perversion. “Sodomy” gets its very name from the place God judged for these sins- “Sodom and Gomorrah!” Yet, if the current Hate Crimes bill passes into law, such references will be criminalized throughout the nation as illegal thoughts and expressions subject to fines and imprisonment! This Big Brother grab for power by the Gay Gestapo is nothing more than an outright attack on the Christian Religion. The “Gay Pride Parades,” “Heather Has Two Mommies” school curriculum and public campaigns against such leaders as Gen. Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said “homosexual acts…are immoral,” is part of the overall Liberal strategy to radically change America by undermining ‘the foundation’ Washington wanted us to preserve.
Last Sunday, San Francisco hosted their annual Folsom Street Fair which they describe as the“Largest Leather Event in the World.” It’s nothing more than a taxpayer-supported celebration of sadomasochism and anti-Christian licentiousness. There are sex acts performed openly in the streets, debauchery of all kinds and the overt mocking of God and Christians. Obscenity laws are ignored as even the Police Chief and Mayor often take part in the revelry. Amazingly, children are permitted to attend and see all of this sick behavior.
A local resident called it “a combination freak show and simple excuse for people to come together and enjoy their fetishes.” Matt Barber, a California conservative activist, remarked that the “base of the homosexual community is vehemently anti-Christian.” Peter LaBarbera, another observer, says “San Francisco is shaking its fist at God. Their intent is to mock God, to mock Christianity. It is blasphemy at its worst.”
Perhaps topping the list of anti-Christian exhibitionism is a group of transvestite “nuns,” who call themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” They insult and mock Christ as part of their annual routine, dressing in religious garb and making jokes out of Christian hymns. One participant was seen strolling down the street tearing pages out of a Bible. For all of this bad conduct in the past, many are saying that this year- with their 2007 promotional poster- they’ve gone too far!
The official poster of this year’s Folsom Street Fair was a blasphemous depiction of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. The Apostles were replaced with half-naked men in leather, and the communion table was filled with sex toys! It was so repulsive that Miller Brewing Company, a sponsor of the event, asked to have its name removed from the poster. The promoters denied the request, saying it was too late to change it.
It’s interesting to note that while all of this perversion is allowed to go on: the Marines are prohibited from filming a recruiting commercial in the streets of San Francisco; the ROTC are thrown off school grounds; and, the WWII battleship (USS Iowa) is rejected from their ports!
This San Francisco attitude fits in nicely with the frequent Homosexual chant of: “racist, sexist, anti-gay, born again bigots go away!” As 75 year old grandmother Arlene Elshinnawy might say, “truth is hate to those who hate the truth!”
Arlene Elshinnawy, along with ten other Christians, were arrested Oct. 10, 2004 in Philadelphia at the “Outfest” Gay Parade for the ‘crime’ of attempting to share their faith in public. The three felonies and five misdemeanors they were charged with carry a potential sentence of 47 years in jail. It was the first time in America that preaching the Bible became evidentiary basis for a hate crime. They were handcuffed and taken away even though it was the “Pink Angels,” a homosexual group with whistles and cardboard angels, who were threatening the peace and intimidating the Christians.
There are several more instances of this type of “upside down” justice. A child in a south California school is being told to “leave his faith” at home, an Idaho man has been fined for displaying Bible verses at work, a mother in Colorado has been ordered by a judge to not teach her daughter anything “homophobic.” In Pennsylvania, a pastor is facing a prison sentence for reading from the Bible, and in a West Virginia school students are trained to roam the halls in search of verbal offenses to report to Law Enforcement. Is this the America we want to live in? It sounds like Big Brother to me.
Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” wrote:
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase, and the dictator…will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
The UN has been working for years on a global scale to legitimize homosexuality as a human right while eliminating all other religious viewpoints. There are examples from Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, New Zealand and other nations where the preaching of ‘Homosexuality as a Sin’ is criminalized in the name of fighting Hate Crimes. In Canada, William Whatcott was fined $17,500 for simply explaining the dangers of this lifestyle. Sodomites, according to Whatcott, are “430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children.”
Last Thursday the US Senate passed S. 1105 with 81% of Republicans voting NO and 100% of the Democrats voting YES. Joe Solmonese, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign said “today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing protections ensured for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community. Congress has taken a historic step forward…the US Senate has sent a clear message to every corner of our country.”
President Bush has promised to Veto it.
There remains one more hurdle before final passage. The Democrats have irresponsibly attached this dangerous piece of legislation to a military spending bill. Dem. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who sponsored the bill, explained it this way: “a hate crimes amendment SHOULD BE attached to the Defense Authorization bill because members of the US military commit a significant number of hate crimes.”
But what about the constitutional validity of this law? Former Reagan Attorney General said:
Congress only has express constitutional jurisdiction over three crimes: treason, counterfeiting and piracy on the high seas. Because the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, Congress must find authorization in other constitutional clauses to federalize particular crimes or such acts would violate federalist principles, the Tenth Amendment, or other structural limits in the constitution.”
A concerned watchdog group characterized it this way:
Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional. This action undermines the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.'
In a recent New Hampshire case, because a thief uttered an anti-Homosexual remark during the commission of a crime he now faces ten times the punishment under that state’s current, Hate Crimes law.
San Francisco has given us a lot over the years: the Haight Ashbury Hippie movement, Berkeley’s Counterculture, Anton Lavey’s Church of Satan, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer and the organization of the UN. The Homosexual Mafia may be the worst of them all. In 1993, the so-called “Year of the Queer,” Nancy Pelosi, House Representative from San Francisco, gave Bill Clinton’s Presidential Address to the 300,000 attendees of the Homosexual Rights March in D.C. Not far away was the Washington Monument signifying the Father of Our Country and his legacy. It makes one wonder: will Hate Crimes Legislation mark the final blow to our political prosperity as a nation? No doubt Washington and Adams would allow for that possibility. One thing is for sure: God will not be mocked forever!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
President George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1796, said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.
John Adams, echoed Washington with this comment, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Radical Homosexual Agenda is working now to subvert these ‘patriotic pillars of religion and morality’ by seeking to muzzle the Bible and shut down all criticism of sexual perversion. “Sodomy” gets its very name from the place God judged for these sins- “Sodom and Gomorrah!” Yet, if the current Hate Crimes bill passes into law, such references will be criminalized throughout the nation as illegal thoughts and expressions subject to fines and imprisonment! This Big Brother grab for power by the Gay Gestapo is nothing more than an outright attack on the Christian Religion. The “Gay Pride Parades,” “Heather Has Two Mommies” school curriculum and public campaigns against such leaders as Gen. Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said “homosexual acts…are immoral,” is part of the overall Liberal strategy to radically change America by undermining ‘the foundation’ Washington wanted us to preserve.
Last Sunday, San Francisco hosted their annual Folsom Street Fair which they describe as the“Largest Leather Event in the World.” It’s nothing more than a taxpayer-supported celebration of sadomasochism and anti-Christian licentiousness. There are sex acts performed openly in the streets, debauchery of all kinds and the overt mocking of God and Christians. Obscenity laws are ignored as even the Police Chief and Mayor often take part in the revelry. Amazingly, children are permitted to attend and see all of this sick behavior.
A local resident called it “a combination freak show and simple excuse for people to come together and enjoy their fetishes.” Matt Barber, a California conservative activist, remarked that the “base of the homosexual community is vehemently anti-Christian.” Peter LaBarbera, another observer, says “San Francisco is shaking its fist at God. Their intent is to mock God, to mock Christianity. It is blasphemy at its worst.”
Perhaps topping the list of anti-Christian exhibitionism is a group of transvestite “nuns,” who call themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” They insult and mock Christ as part of their annual routine, dressing in religious garb and making jokes out of Christian hymns. One participant was seen strolling down the street tearing pages out of a Bible. For all of this bad conduct in the past, many are saying that this year- with their 2007 promotional poster- they’ve gone too far!
The official poster of this year’s Folsom Street Fair was a blasphemous depiction of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. The Apostles were replaced with half-naked men in leather, and the communion table was filled with sex toys! It was so repulsive that Miller Brewing Company, a sponsor of the event, asked to have its name removed from the poster. The promoters denied the request, saying it was too late to change it.
It’s interesting to note that while all of this perversion is allowed to go on: the Marines are prohibited from filming a recruiting commercial in the streets of San Francisco; the ROTC are thrown off school grounds; and, the WWII battleship (USS Iowa) is rejected from their ports!
This San Francisco attitude fits in nicely with the frequent Homosexual chant of: “racist, sexist, anti-gay, born again bigots go away!” As 75 year old grandmother Arlene Elshinnawy might say, “truth is hate to those who hate the truth!”
Arlene Elshinnawy, along with ten other Christians, were arrested Oct. 10, 2004 in Philadelphia at the “Outfest” Gay Parade for the ‘crime’ of attempting to share their faith in public. The three felonies and five misdemeanors they were charged with carry a potential sentence of 47 years in jail. It was the first time in America that preaching the Bible became evidentiary basis for a hate crime. They were handcuffed and taken away even though it was the “Pink Angels,” a homosexual group with whistles and cardboard angels, who were threatening the peace and intimidating the Christians.
There are several more instances of this type of “upside down” justice. A child in a south California school is being told to “leave his faith” at home, an Idaho man has been fined for displaying Bible verses at work, a mother in Colorado has been ordered by a judge to not teach her daughter anything “homophobic.” In Pennsylvania, a pastor is facing a prison sentence for reading from the Bible, and in a West Virginia school students are trained to roam the halls in search of verbal offenses to report to Law Enforcement. Is this the America we want to live in? It sounds like Big Brother to me.
Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” wrote:
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase, and the dictator…will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
The UN has been working for years on a global scale to legitimize homosexuality as a human right while eliminating all other religious viewpoints. There are examples from Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, New Zealand and other nations where the preaching of ‘Homosexuality as a Sin’ is criminalized in the name of fighting Hate Crimes. In Canada, William Whatcott was fined $17,500 for simply explaining the dangers of this lifestyle. Sodomites, according to Whatcott, are “430 times more likely to acquire AIDS and three times more likely to sexually abuse children.”
Last Thursday the US Senate passed S. 1105 with 81% of Republicans voting NO and 100% of the Democrats voting YES. Joe Solmonese, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign said “today we are the closest we have ever been to seeing protections ensured for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community. Congress has taken a historic step forward…the US Senate has sent a clear message to every corner of our country.”
President Bush has promised to Veto it.
There remains one more hurdle before final passage. The Democrats have irresponsibly attached this dangerous piece of legislation to a military spending bill. Dem. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who sponsored the bill, explained it this way: “a hate crimes amendment SHOULD BE attached to the Defense Authorization bill because members of the US military commit a significant number of hate crimes.”
But what about the constitutional validity of this law? Former Reagan Attorney General said:
Congress only has express constitutional jurisdiction over three crimes: treason, counterfeiting and piracy on the high seas. Because the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, Congress must find authorization in other constitutional clauses to federalize particular crimes or such acts would violate federalist principles, the Tenth Amendment, or other structural limits in the constitution.”
A concerned watchdog group characterized it this way:
Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional. This action undermines the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.'
In a recent New Hampshire case, because a thief uttered an anti-Homosexual remark during the commission of a crime he now faces ten times the punishment under that state’s current, Hate Crimes law.
San Francisco has given us a lot over the years: the Haight Ashbury Hippie movement, Berkeley’s Counterculture, Anton Lavey’s Church of Satan, Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer and the organization of the UN. The Homosexual Mafia may be the worst of them all. In 1993, the so-called “Year of the Queer,” Nancy Pelosi, House Representative from San Francisco, gave Bill Clinton’s Presidential Address to the 300,000 attendees of the Homosexual Rights March in D.C. Not far away was the Washington Monument signifying the Father of Our Country and his legacy. It makes one wonder: will Hate Crimes Legislation mark the final blow to our political prosperity as a nation? No doubt Washington and Adams would allow for that possibility. One thing is for sure: God will not be mocked forever!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
On Aug. 9, 2007, Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt was exonerated from all charges in the Haditha incident of 2005 where Iraqi citizens were killed in a firefight with insurgents.. It’s been over two months now, and no apology seems to be forthcoming from Democrat Congressman Jack Murtha who relished the occasion back in 2006 to criticize our troops. I guess he only calls press conferences when there’s bad news to report about the military!
Lt. Col. Paul Ware, court martial officer, declared Sharratt’s actions were “in accordance with the rules of engagement and use of force.” He further stated that such unwarranted accusations set a “dangerous precedent that may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq.”
It was in May 2006, that Murtha publicly and emphatically called Sharratt and others “murderers” who “killed innocent Iraqi citizens in cold blood.” Apparently, Murtha, (once a Marine himself, now downgraded to “EX-Marine”), in his over-eagerness to take political advantage of some bad war news, failed to see the wisdom in affording these brave soldiers the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence before condemning them!
Should we be surprised?
Liberals are quick to go the extra mile in the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to sexual predators, terrorists, drug dealers and rapists, but when our soldiers are the ones under suspicion, (however unwarranted), they’re the first ones in line shouting “throw the switch!” Their duplicitous behavior reminds me of an anti-war protest banner I saw recently that read, “We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers.”
In the slippery, slimy world of Liberalism- one finds many interesting things hiding under the rocks of “convenient” propaganda opportunities. This Haditha story is a case in point.
It all started when Time Magazine-reporter Tim McGirk obtained a video from a “human rights organization” known to be sympathetic to the Sunni-insurgents. That alone should have been a tip-off to the credibility of the source, but not for liberal reporters anxious to fan the flames of anti-war dissent back home!
The video was shot in a planned raid where the insurgents positioned innocent Iraqis as human shields, anticipating the return fire from American soldiers under assault. The plan was to then use the carnage captured on tape for the on-going propaganda war waged through their willing accomplises in the media and other “useful idiots.” Time Magazine and Murtha stepped-in like real “champs” for the enemies of our soldiers!
In March of 2006 the PHONY story came out regarding the Haditha firefight and in a matter of weeks Murtha was pounding the podium in Washington demanding a withdrawal from Iraq, and defeat for America. The Liberals seized upon the news in a feeding frenzy sensing the “My Lai” they’d long been waiting for!
What a difference a few months make! As a consequence of Gen. Petraeus’ successful Surge Strategy, now the U.S. military is claiming we have made “devastating” and “irreversible” blows to al-Qaeda Iraq. Many officials are actually advocating for some kind of “Declaration of Victory!” There’s even talk of soon turning over operations to the Army and moving all Marines out of Iraq and into Afghanistan! How is this possible when Democrat “experts” like Murtha and Reid have long proclaimed that it’s “over” and we “lost?”
Now, Ex-Marine Murtha may have more to worry about than NOT losing the war in Iraq.
A Federal Judge is calling on him to testify in court. Marine Sgt. Frank Wuterich- one of the “Haditha Eight”- has filed a libel suit against the Congressman for defamation and invasion of privacy. Judge Rosemary Collyer characterized the situation this way:
“You [Congressman Murtha] are writing a very wide road for members of congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without liability. Are you sure you want to do that? How far can a congressman go and still be protected?”
We shall see.
Both, the concerns of Lt. Col Ware and Judge Collyer, are valid. There’s another recent
example where Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beachamp falsely accused soldiers of gross and barbaric behavior in Iraq, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. And, of course, there’s the now infamous case of Jesse MacBeth- subject of a recent Rush Limbaugh show- where he claimed to be an Army Ranger who “routinely” committed war crimes in Iraq. As it turned out, he got kicked out of basic training and then joined a group who welcomed him with open arms- the anti-War Left, where lying is a virtue!
It’s hard to say whether these “fifth column” propaganda stunts will ultimately succeed in thwarting our military objectives in Iraq? One thing’s for sure- they certainly don’t help,
and they’re not very encouraging to our troops!
Perhaps the worst thing going on now with the Democrat Congress is their plan- led by Tom Lantos- to issue a resolution, (HR 106), formally denouncing Turkey for the “genocide” of one and a half million Armenians 90 years ago. Why is this so crucial?
Turkey is an indispensable ally for us in the Iraq war and they are threatening to withdraw their support if this “insulting” resolution passes. Turkey has NATO’s second largest army and they’re also NATO’s only Muslim member. More importantly, within their borders we have perhaps our most strategic military base in the region: Incirlik. Seventy percent of our flights, one third of our fuel and much of our water supplies for the Iraqi theater goes through Incirlik! Maintaining Turkish support is vital for winning the war in Iraq. However, because of this Resolution, Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit is saying “military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again!”
When asked about the possibility of canceling or postponing this vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objected saying, “the measure’s timing is important because many of the [Armenian] survivors are very old.” As Republican Representative Jim Boehner rightly said, “what happened 90 years ago is a subject for historians, not politicians in Washington!” How crazy and inept can these Democrats be? It seems we’re back to “Jimmy Carter-style” diplomacy! Everyone check your brain at the door!
Actually, when you consider how invested the Democrats are in defeat, it makes perfect sense! In the case of Murtha, Lantos, Pelosi et al, “bearing false witness” may just be saving them from having to admit to a greater sin- ie. conspiring against our military in a time of war for the purpose of obtaining greater political advantage for themselves and their Party! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Lt. Col. Paul Ware, court martial officer, declared Sharratt’s actions were “in accordance with the rules of engagement and use of force.” He further stated that such unwarranted accusations set a “dangerous precedent that may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq.”
It was in May 2006, that Murtha publicly and emphatically called Sharratt and others “murderers” who “killed innocent Iraqi citizens in cold blood.” Apparently, Murtha, (once a Marine himself, now downgraded to “EX-Marine”), in his over-eagerness to take political advantage of some bad war news, failed to see the wisdom in affording these brave soldiers the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence before condemning them!
Should we be surprised?
Liberals are quick to go the extra mile in the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to sexual predators, terrorists, drug dealers and rapists, but when our soldiers are the ones under suspicion, (however unwarranted), they’re the first ones in line shouting “throw the switch!” Their duplicitous behavior reminds me of an anti-war protest banner I saw recently that read, “We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers.”
In the slippery, slimy world of Liberalism- one finds many interesting things hiding under the rocks of “convenient” propaganda opportunities. This Haditha story is a case in point.
It all started when Time Magazine-reporter Tim McGirk obtained a video from a “human rights organization” known to be sympathetic to the Sunni-insurgents. That alone should have been a tip-off to the credibility of the source, but not for liberal reporters anxious to fan the flames of anti-war dissent back home!
The video was shot in a planned raid where the insurgents positioned innocent Iraqis as human shields, anticipating the return fire from American soldiers under assault. The plan was to then use the carnage captured on tape for the on-going propaganda war waged through their willing accomplises in the media and other “useful idiots.” Time Magazine and Murtha stepped-in like real “champs” for the enemies of our soldiers!
In March of 2006 the PHONY story came out regarding the Haditha firefight and in a matter of weeks Murtha was pounding the podium in Washington demanding a withdrawal from Iraq, and defeat for America. The Liberals seized upon the news in a feeding frenzy sensing the “My Lai” they’d long been waiting for!
What a difference a few months make! As a consequence of Gen. Petraeus’ successful Surge Strategy, now the U.S. military is claiming we have made “devastating” and “irreversible” blows to al-Qaeda Iraq. Many officials are actually advocating for some kind of “Declaration of Victory!” There’s even talk of soon turning over operations to the Army and moving all Marines out of Iraq and into Afghanistan! How is this possible when Democrat “experts” like Murtha and Reid have long proclaimed that it’s “over” and we “lost?”
Now, Ex-Marine Murtha may have more to worry about than NOT losing the war in Iraq.
A Federal Judge is calling on him to testify in court. Marine Sgt. Frank Wuterich- one of the “Haditha Eight”- has filed a libel suit against the Congressman for defamation and invasion of privacy. Judge Rosemary Collyer characterized the situation this way:
“You [Congressman Murtha] are writing a very wide road for members of congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without liability. Are you sure you want to do that? How far can a congressman go and still be protected?”
We shall see.
Both, the concerns of Lt. Col Ware and Judge Collyer, are valid. There’s another recent
example where Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beachamp falsely accused soldiers of gross and barbaric behavior in Iraq, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. And, of course, there’s the now infamous case of Jesse MacBeth- subject of a recent Rush Limbaugh show- where he claimed to be an Army Ranger who “routinely” committed war crimes in Iraq. As it turned out, he got kicked out of basic training and then joined a group who welcomed him with open arms- the anti-War Left, where lying is a virtue!
It’s hard to say whether these “fifth column” propaganda stunts will ultimately succeed in thwarting our military objectives in Iraq? One thing’s for sure- they certainly don’t help,
and they’re not very encouraging to our troops!
Perhaps the worst thing going on now with the Democrat Congress is their plan- led by Tom Lantos- to issue a resolution, (HR 106), formally denouncing Turkey for the “genocide” of one and a half million Armenians 90 years ago. Why is this so crucial?
Turkey is an indispensable ally for us in the Iraq war and they are threatening to withdraw their support if this “insulting” resolution passes. Turkey has NATO’s second largest army and they’re also NATO’s only Muslim member. More importantly, within their borders we have perhaps our most strategic military base in the region: Incirlik. Seventy percent of our flights, one third of our fuel and much of our water supplies for the Iraqi theater goes through Incirlik! Maintaining Turkish support is vital for winning the war in Iraq. However, because of this Resolution, Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit is saying “military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again!”
When asked about the possibility of canceling or postponing this vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objected saying, “the measure’s timing is important because many of the [Armenian] survivors are very old.” As Republican Representative Jim Boehner rightly said, “what happened 90 years ago is a subject for historians, not politicians in Washington!” How crazy and inept can these Democrats be? It seems we’re back to “Jimmy Carter-style” diplomacy! Everyone check your brain at the door!
Actually, when you consider how invested the Democrats are in defeat, it makes perfect sense! In the case of Murtha, Lantos, Pelosi et al, “bearing false witness” may just be saving them from having to admit to a greater sin- ie. conspiring against our military in a time of war for the purpose of obtaining greater political advantage for themselves and their Party! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Twisted Path to 9/11
This week marks the sixth anniversary of the most deadly attack in American history.
What should be known is how this event came to be, and how this attack should continue to inform and motivate our national foreign policy and political alignment.
Last Aug. 16 a federal jury in Miami found former enemy combatant Jose Padilla guilty of
giving material support to terrorists. A 2002 FBI report noted that Padilla had met with
al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and was scouting sites in the US as targets for a “dirty bomb.”
Padilla is a convert to Islam and has spent time in Eqypt studying to become an imam. The
CIA found his al Qaeda application papers in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. It is
believed that Padilla was a protégé of a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden. He had ties to an Islamic Jihad cell in Florida known to be part of Osama bin Laden’s network.
Besides proving to Liberals that these “detainees” can actually be found guilty of terrorist crimes and that wire-taps can assist in their convictions, the case of Jose Padilla shines light on the previous “most deadly attack” in American history- Oklahoma City!
Remember John Doe number two? We heard all about him in the first few hours after the
bombing which killed 168 innocent people, but then, all references to this suspect mysteriously
vanished. There was a sketch made of John Doe number two at the time, and it looks almost
identical to Padilla.
According to terrorist expert Neil Livingstone, “there is a remarkable similarity between the methods used by Islamic terrorists and the Oklahoma City bombing. The truckload of explosives is almost a calling card and is their weapon of choice.” Linvingstone further contends that “very typically, these terrorists have found homegrown radicals to use as dupes in the actual bombings.”
Oliver Revell, former FBI assistant director of Investigation and Counterterrorism, said of Oklahoma, “I think its most likely a Middle East terrorist…the M.O. is similar and it could be in
retaliation for the prosecution of the first World Trade Center bombers,” Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef. An FBI agent on the day of the bombing reportedly said, “we are currently inclined to suspect the Islamic Jihad as the likely group.”
Ramzi Yousef was convicted in 1998 of masterminding the first WTC bombing and is currently
serving a life sentence. He was previously found guilty for co-planning the Bojinka Plot in 1994 in the Philippines that was designed to blow up several American jumbo jets in one day, kill Pope
John Paul II and crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley. A document from Yousef’s computer specifically cited the charter service of a commuter type aircraft loaded with powerful bombs to be dive-crashed into the target. Sound familiar?
A co-conspirator in the Bojinka Plot was Abdul Hakim Murad and he told the FBI on April 19, 1995 that a Muslim group, the Liberation Army of the Philippines, was responsible for the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
A 1997 poll determined that 70% of Oklahomans no longer believe the U.S Justice Department’s
claim that no other people were involved in the bombing besides Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh. A later report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General lists the Oklahoma bombing case as “one of the worst examples of de facto evidence tampering by the crime labs.”
Hussain Al-Hussaini was yet another John Doe terrorist suspect connected to Oklahoma City. He was a former member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Dennis Mahon, leader of the neo-nazi group that McVeigh belonged to at Elohim City- the so-called “nerve-center” of the bombing conspiracy- met periodically with Iraqi contacts and received regular cash payments.
This arrangement was initiated after the neo-nazi group began protesting the first Gulf War. The Iraqi Ambassador is reported to have met with three members from this Oklahoma group.
Timothy McVeigh is on record ‘sympathizing’ with Saddam Hussein by downplaying the Kurdish Holocaust- claiming that it was no worse than what the Americans did in WWII when they bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima!
Both McVeigh and Nichols made trips to the Philippines where they reportedly learned the techniques of bomb making. McVeigh married a mail order bride from the Philippines which
suggested further terrorist connections. Court documents reveal that there’s a relationship
between neo-nazi groups in the US and terrorist groups in both the Philippines and Iraq that use “mail order bride businesses” as a front.
Evidence shows that Nichols conspired with Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines and that McVeigh
had received direct aid in the construction and delivery of the Oklahoma bomb materials from
Iraqi agent Hussain Al-Hussaini.
A very reliable and credible Saudi Arabian Intelligence source reported on April 19, 1995, that
Saddam Hussein had hired seven Pakistani mercenaries to bomb targets in the US, one of
which was the Alfred P. Murrah Building. The mission was sponsored by the Iraqi Special Services who directed the former Afghani freedom fighters from Pakistan to do the job.
So, why has this history been so hidden from the American People? Who knows for sure, but it’s interesting to note that it was Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Jamie Gorelick- the director of the Oklahoma City Task Force- who gave the orders to “kill it” referring to the investigation into the Islamic terrorist connection. This effectively called off all further search for other co-conspirators. The official report dismissed all other accounts of more participants as simply “a mistake.”
FBI Assistant Director Robert Bryant, who was involved with the botched Vince Foster case, was the lead criminal investigator for the Bureau in Oklahoma, and as such, is also culpable in this dereliction of duty.
The Clinton-Reno Justice Department was very insistent that this Oklahoma event be viewed purely as a domestic terrorist attack. If you recall, Bill Clinton blamed Conservative Talk Radio
as the “purveyors of hate and division” that spawned this violent slaughter! Clinton’s poll
numbers had been in the low 40s after the Republican take over in ’94, but after the spin of demonizing opponents like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich his poll numbers shot-up past 50. Following the ’96 election, Clinton confided to the media that his road back to the White House began in Oklahoma City!
“The Path to 9/11” became a movie and was due to air last year to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Bill Clinton warned ABC through his lawyers to pull the drama! Other Democrat Leaders quickly followed suit. Harry “we’ve lost in Iraq” Reid, Dick “our troops are
Nazis” Durbin and Chuck “the Surge isn’t working” Schumer wrote a letter to Robert Iger,
President and CEO of Disney, threatening retaliation. After some editing and much debate,
the film was permitted to go on the air. Remember, this is the same bunch who want to enact
PC Hate Crime legislation and bring back the censorship of the Fairness Doctrine!
Why all the fuss over a movie? The film documents several instances where Bill Clinton had
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and failed. Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Peterson, who carried the “nuclear football” for Clinton, recounted one of the missed opportunities where Clinton didn’t want to be disturbed while he was watching a golf game. After repeated efforts to elicit some decision from him failed, the military “window” closed and bin Laden got away. It makes one wonder if a “President Bob Dole” would have been as careless given the same opportunity?
Recently the production company for the 9/11 movie tried to market the release of a DVD version. An ABC studio executive told Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter of the film, that the reason “The Path to 9/11” has not been released is because of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. They fear her reprisals. Should we just accept that as normal? I guess after Sandy Burglar anything’s excusable.
The Twisted Path to 9/11 involves a type of terrorism that’s united in its common hatred of Jews and America. It’s interesting to recall that the foreign guest that made the most visits to the Clinton White House was PLO-leader Yasser Arafat. Also, it’s fairly well-noted that Hillary has a long history of flirting with anti-Semitic attitudes.
Yasser Arafat and Gen. Tufah Khariallah, Saddam Husseins’ Uncle, were both mentored by
Haj Amin al-Husseini—the Mufti of Jerusalem in the early 20th century who was called “the Fuhrer of the Arab World” by Adolf Hitler himself. His anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist movement modeled after Nazism. Thus, both the Swastika and the Crescent Moon have a part to play in the Path to 9/11. What’s unclear is whether the Democrat Donkey is on Our Side or Theirs! If you think that’s extreme—then why does Osama bin Laden sound like he’s giving Democrat talking points while Dem. Leader James Clyburn sounds troubled over our recent military success in Iraq? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114,
Jacksboro, TN 37757)
What should be known is how this event came to be, and how this attack should continue to inform and motivate our national foreign policy and political alignment.
Last Aug. 16 a federal jury in Miami found former enemy combatant Jose Padilla guilty of
giving material support to terrorists. A 2002 FBI report noted that Padilla had met with
al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and was scouting sites in the US as targets for a “dirty bomb.”
Padilla is a convert to Islam and has spent time in Eqypt studying to become an imam. The
CIA found his al Qaeda application papers in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. It is
believed that Padilla was a protégé of a top lieutenant of Osama bin Laden. He had ties to an Islamic Jihad cell in Florida known to be part of Osama bin Laden’s network.
Besides proving to Liberals that these “detainees” can actually be found guilty of terrorist crimes and that wire-taps can assist in their convictions, the case of Jose Padilla shines light on the previous “most deadly attack” in American history- Oklahoma City!
Remember John Doe number two? We heard all about him in the first few hours after the
bombing which killed 168 innocent people, but then, all references to this suspect mysteriously
vanished. There was a sketch made of John Doe number two at the time, and it looks almost
identical to Padilla.
According to terrorist expert Neil Livingstone, “there is a remarkable similarity between the methods used by Islamic terrorists and the Oklahoma City bombing. The truckload of explosives is almost a calling card and is their weapon of choice.” Linvingstone further contends that “very typically, these terrorists have found homegrown radicals to use as dupes in the actual bombings.”
Oliver Revell, former FBI assistant director of Investigation and Counterterrorism, said of Oklahoma, “I think its most likely a Middle East terrorist…the M.O. is similar and it could be in
retaliation for the prosecution of the first World Trade Center bombers,” Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef. An FBI agent on the day of the bombing reportedly said, “we are currently inclined to suspect the Islamic Jihad as the likely group.”
Ramzi Yousef was convicted in 1998 of masterminding the first WTC bombing and is currently
serving a life sentence. He was previously found guilty for co-planning the Bojinka Plot in 1994 in the Philippines that was designed to blow up several American jumbo jets in one day, kill Pope
John Paul II and crash a plane into the CIA headquarters in Langley. A document from Yousef’s computer specifically cited the charter service of a commuter type aircraft loaded with powerful bombs to be dive-crashed into the target. Sound familiar?
A co-conspirator in the Bojinka Plot was Abdul Hakim Murad and he told the FBI on April 19, 1995 that a Muslim group, the Liberation Army of the Philippines, was responsible for the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
A 1997 poll determined that 70% of Oklahomans no longer believe the U.S Justice Department’s
claim that no other people were involved in the bombing besides Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh. A later report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General lists the Oklahoma bombing case as “one of the worst examples of de facto evidence tampering by the crime labs.”
Hussain Al-Hussaini was yet another John Doe terrorist suspect connected to Oklahoma City. He was a former member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Dennis Mahon, leader of the neo-nazi group that McVeigh belonged to at Elohim City- the so-called “nerve-center” of the bombing conspiracy- met periodically with Iraqi contacts and received regular cash payments.
This arrangement was initiated after the neo-nazi group began protesting the first Gulf War. The Iraqi Ambassador is reported to have met with three members from this Oklahoma group.
Timothy McVeigh is on record ‘sympathizing’ with Saddam Hussein by downplaying the Kurdish Holocaust- claiming that it was no worse than what the Americans did in WWII when they bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima!
Both McVeigh and Nichols made trips to the Philippines where they reportedly learned the techniques of bomb making. McVeigh married a mail order bride from the Philippines which
suggested further terrorist connections. Court documents reveal that there’s a relationship
between neo-nazi groups in the US and terrorist groups in both the Philippines and Iraq that use “mail order bride businesses” as a front.
Evidence shows that Nichols conspired with Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines and that McVeigh
had received direct aid in the construction and delivery of the Oklahoma bomb materials from
Iraqi agent Hussain Al-Hussaini.
A very reliable and credible Saudi Arabian Intelligence source reported on April 19, 1995, that
Saddam Hussein had hired seven Pakistani mercenaries to bomb targets in the US, one of
which was the Alfred P. Murrah Building. The mission was sponsored by the Iraqi Special Services who directed the former Afghani freedom fighters from Pakistan to do the job.
So, why has this history been so hidden from the American People? Who knows for sure, but it’s interesting to note that it was Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Jamie Gorelick- the director of the Oklahoma City Task Force- who gave the orders to “kill it” referring to the investigation into the Islamic terrorist connection. This effectively called off all further search for other co-conspirators. The official report dismissed all other accounts of more participants as simply “a mistake.”
FBI Assistant Director Robert Bryant, who was involved with the botched Vince Foster case, was the lead criminal investigator for the Bureau in Oklahoma, and as such, is also culpable in this dereliction of duty.
The Clinton-Reno Justice Department was very insistent that this Oklahoma event be viewed purely as a domestic terrorist attack. If you recall, Bill Clinton blamed Conservative Talk Radio
as the “purveyors of hate and division” that spawned this violent slaughter! Clinton’s poll
numbers had been in the low 40s after the Republican take over in ’94, but after the spin of demonizing opponents like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich his poll numbers shot-up past 50. Following the ’96 election, Clinton confided to the media that his road back to the White House began in Oklahoma City!
“The Path to 9/11” became a movie and was due to air last year to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Bill Clinton warned ABC through his lawyers to pull the drama! Other Democrat Leaders quickly followed suit. Harry “we’ve lost in Iraq” Reid, Dick “our troops are
Nazis” Durbin and Chuck “the Surge isn’t working” Schumer wrote a letter to Robert Iger,
President and CEO of Disney, threatening retaliation. After some editing and much debate,
the film was permitted to go on the air. Remember, this is the same bunch who want to enact
PC Hate Crime legislation and bring back the censorship of the Fairness Doctrine!
Why all the fuss over a movie? The film documents several instances where Bill Clinton had
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and failed. Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Peterson, who carried the “nuclear football” for Clinton, recounted one of the missed opportunities where Clinton didn’t want to be disturbed while he was watching a golf game. After repeated efforts to elicit some decision from him failed, the military “window” closed and bin Laden got away. It makes one wonder if a “President Bob Dole” would have been as careless given the same opportunity?
Recently the production company for the 9/11 movie tried to market the release of a DVD version. An ABC studio executive told Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter of the film, that the reason “The Path to 9/11” has not been released is because of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. They fear her reprisals. Should we just accept that as normal? I guess after Sandy Burglar anything’s excusable.
The Twisted Path to 9/11 involves a type of terrorism that’s united in its common hatred of Jews and America. It’s interesting to recall that the foreign guest that made the most visits to the Clinton White House was PLO-leader Yasser Arafat. Also, it’s fairly well-noted that Hillary has a long history of flirting with anti-Semitic attitudes.
Yasser Arafat and Gen. Tufah Khariallah, Saddam Husseins’ Uncle, were both mentored by
Haj Amin al-Husseini—the Mufti of Jerusalem in the early 20th century who was called “the Fuhrer of the Arab World” by Adolf Hitler himself. His anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist movement modeled after Nazism. Thus, both the Swastika and the Crescent Moon have a part to play in the Path to 9/11. What’s unclear is whether the Democrat Donkey is on Our Side or Theirs! If you think that’s extreme—then why does Osama bin Laden sound like he’s giving Democrat talking points while Dem. Leader James Clyburn sounds troubled over our recent military success in Iraq? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114,
Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Monday, August 20, 2007
Political Test: Do You Vote the Way You Believe?
Take the following test to determine your political philosophy. Mark down your “yes” and “no” responses on a separate sheet of paper.
-Do you believe there should be restrictions on Abortion?
-Do you believe cutting taxes can result in higher revenues to the government?
-Do you believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, (the Second Amendment)?
-Do you believe Illegal Immigrants should be treated as law-breakers?
-Do you believe people have more Rights than animals?
-Do you believe it’s wrong to grant children the Right to sue their parents?
-Do you believe Sex Education is the parent’s job, not the schools’?
-Do you believe Hate Crime legislation is a form of Big Brother, Thought Police?
-Do you believe Global Warming is unproven science used to sell a political agenda?
-Do you believe the Death Penalty is a legitimate form of punishment?
-Do you believe Western Civilization is the best social system in history?
-Do you believe we should be drilling for more oil within our borders, (ANWR, etc.)?
-Do you believe most homeless people are homeless by choice?
-Do you believe the Soviet Union was an “Evil Empire” like Reagan said?
-Do you believe Capitalism is an economic force for good?
-Do you believe reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is a good thing?
-Do you believe issuing vouchers for parental “school choice” is the right policy?
-Do you believe Government-run, Universal Health Care is a bad idea?
-Do you believe Creation Science, like all ‘theories,’ should be taught in schools?
-Do you believe winning the War on Terror is crucial for preserving our Way of Life?
-Do you believe Individualism is a better philosophy than Group or Class identification?
-Do you believe it’s better to have inequities under freedom than equities under tyranny?
-Do you believe the Rich are already paying more than their fair share of taxes?
-Do you believe America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles?
-Do you believe our government taxes and spends too much?
-Do you believe the U.S. should never submit to any form of Global Government?
-Do you believe Family Values are important for maintaining our societal foundation?
-Do you believe America is basically good and shouldn’t be radically changed?
-Do you believe Marriage is only between a Man and a Woman?
-Do you believe we should always provide for a strong National Defense?
For scoring, count the number of times you answered “yes.” 26-30 = ultra conservative;
21-25 = conservative; 16-20 = moderate-conservative; 11-15 = moderate-liberal; 6-10 = liberal; and, 1-5 = ultra liberal.
Politics consists of two main components: (1) Patronage or Cronyism; and (2) Ideology. The first category has equal application on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of its abuses. Therefore, it’s inadequate in serving as a definable criterion to tip the scale for one party over another. The second category, however, offers a much more clear distinction for those not obtaining any special “favors” which may bias their vote. Generally speaking, the Republican party, at its base, is controlled by the ideology of Conservatism while the Democrat party, at its base, is controlled by the ideology of Liberalism. If you don’t have a political pay-off in the offing- the reasonable choice would seem to be that candidate who not only exemplifies your Ideas…or Ideology, but also, that candidate who will have the best opportunity to advance those ideas through his or her respective Party Leadership.
How did you score? I believe, if your vote is not “for sale,” and that, you can’t be swayed by the various promises of political spoils, then you should always vote your conscience and cast your ballot for the candidate who shares your beliefs…whatever they may be! After all, America is about more than Who gets What! Isn’t it?
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
-Do you believe there should be restrictions on Abortion?
-Do you believe cutting taxes can result in higher revenues to the government?
-Do you believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, (the Second Amendment)?
-Do you believe Illegal Immigrants should be treated as law-breakers?
-Do you believe people have more Rights than animals?
-Do you believe it’s wrong to grant children the Right to sue their parents?
-Do you believe Sex Education is the parent’s job, not the schools’?
-Do you believe Hate Crime legislation is a form of Big Brother, Thought Police?
-Do you believe Global Warming is unproven science used to sell a political agenda?
-Do you believe the Death Penalty is a legitimate form of punishment?
-Do you believe Western Civilization is the best social system in history?
-Do you believe we should be drilling for more oil within our borders, (ANWR, etc.)?
-Do you believe most homeless people are homeless by choice?
-Do you believe the Soviet Union was an “Evil Empire” like Reagan said?
-Do you believe Capitalism is an economic force for good?
-Do you believe reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is a good thing?
-Do you believe issuing vouchers for parental “school choice” is the right policy?
-Do you believe Government-run, Universal Health Care is a bad idea?
-Do you believe Creation Science, like all ‘theories,’ should be taught in schools?
-Do you believe winning the War on Terror is crucial for preserving our Way of Life?
-Do you believe Individualism is a better philosophy than Group or Class identification?
-Do you believe it’s better to have inequities under freedom than equities under tyranny?
-Do you believe the Rich are already paying more than their fair share of taxes?
-Do you believe America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles?
-Do you believe our government taxes and spends too much?
-Do you believe the U.S. should never submit to any form of Global Government?
-Do you believe Family Values are important for maintaining our societal foundation?
-Do you believe America is basically good and shouldn’t be radically changed?
-Do you believe Marriage is only between a Man and a Woman?
-Do you believe we should always provide for a strong National Defense?
For scoring, count the number of times you answered “yes.” 26-30 = ultra conservative;
21-25 = conservative; 16-20 = moderate-conservative; 11-15 = moderate-liberal; 6-10 = liberal; and, 1-5 = ultra liberal.
Politics consists of two main components: (1) Patronage or Cronyism; and (2) Ideology. The first category has equal application on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of its abuses. Therefore, it’s inadequate in serving as a definable criterion to tip the scale for one party over another. The second category, however, offers a much more clear distinction for those not obtaining any special “favors” which may bias their vote. Generally speaking, the Republican party, at its base, is controlled by the ideology of Conservatism while the Democrat party, at its base, is controlled by the ideology of Liberalism. If you don’t have a political pay-off in the offing- the reasonable choice would seem to be that candidate who not only exemplifies your Ideas…or Ideology, but also, that candidate who will have the best opportunity to advance those ideas through his or her respective Party Leadership.
How did you score? I believe, if your vote is not “for sale,” and that, you can’t be swayed by the various promises of political spoils, then you should always vote your conscience and cast your ballot for the candidate who shares your beliefs…whatever they may be! After all, America is about more than Who gets What! Isn’t it?
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Monday, July 23, 2007
Congress Should Support The Surge
A recent poll reveals the lowest approval rating ever for Congress- 14%. That means that 86% of the people are unhappy with the “leadership” of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So, where exactly is this great success story we were all promised by the Media and Democrats following the 2006 elections? Could it be that the new, reigning Liberal Establishment in Washington D.C. is NOT what the American people had in mind?
You betcha!
This last election, basically, was not so much an endorsement of some new Liberal direction for the country as much as a rejection of the failed policies of compromising Republicans who had forgotten their conservative principles. The Illegal Immigration issue alone should prove this point.
The current majority is now collapsing around the horns of a dilemma: how to simultaneously please the extreme Left-wing base of their party- for which they are indebted- while not antagonizing the moderate masses they need to win elections and hold their mandate. That’s why you have folks like Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and for the current Surge Strategy, now trying to distance herself from Iraq. The Code Pink/Move On.org constituency on the Looney Left is withholding their vital campaign contributions until they get some satisfaction and performance on their primary issue of “Surrender in Iraq.” Or, maybe you didn’t notice Cindy Sheehan’s recent announcement regarding her intentions of running against Pelosi in California- on the War Issue? The Left simply can’t afford a split in their ranks if they hope to win the White House and hold onto Congress in ’08.
That’s why they had that little pajama party last week in Washington. The Liberals knew they didn’t have the votes to get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but they also knew they needed to earn some ‘brownie points’ from the Michael Moores and Rosie O’Donnells in their party. God help them. So, they staged this phony, all-night, cloture debate in an effort to prove their devotion to the anti-War Cause.
And what about the Cause? Is this the time to pull out of Iraq? Not if you believe the man in charge: Gen. David Petraeus. While the Liberal Democrats were toying with political games, Gen. Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, was giving an assessment on how the initial stage of the Surge is going- only one month into full-strength deployment.
Shouldn’t we give just a little credence to the commander on the ground? Here’s what Petraeus had to say in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on July 18, the same day as the pajama party:
“We have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains [have been made] against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaeda Iraq, and also against another near-time threat and also potentially long-term threat: Shia militia extremists. There has been considerable progress against al Qaeda.”
“The insurgents are losing many, many hundreds of their different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the Surge.”
“Our best operators in the world are here in the largest numbers of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. [It’s] very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes and very effective…[consisting of] nightly operations, far more significant than we [have] conducted for decades. [One] took down the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda Iraq.” It is also progressing with the weight of our conventional forces who cleaned Western Baquba- which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. The conventional forces killed 80 or 90 confirmed, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well.”
Adding to the list of recent successes Petraeus continued, “we have detained some four different emirs- the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives. Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development…it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by Iraqis. I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country. In fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses we suffer.”
Regarding the threat of civil war, Petraeus noted, “sectarian violence in June was about the lowest in a year.”
When asked why this is important Petraeus explained, “we have an enormous responsibility, because we did liberate this country. Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world [and] sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines. A precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq [and] in the region.”
Even traditional bastions of Liberal Thought like the International Crisis Group, ICG, and the UN agree with Petraeus, (but then again, they’re not politically invested in defeat like the Democrats are). “I hated the Iraq War,” says ICG director Joost Hillerman, “[but] a hasty withdrawal would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for U.S. interests.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal may lead to further deterioration.”
And while brave leaders like Petraeus, Odierno and Lynch do the tough but necessary work of responsibly pursuing victory on the battlefield in Iraq, Liberal Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold continue their defeatist antics by proposing useless, diversionary,
political games like the censure resolution of President Bush. It’s enough to make one
wonder whose side they’re really on! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
You betcha!
This last election, basically, was not so much an endorsement of some new Liberal direction for the country as much as a rejection of the failed policies of compromising Republicans who had forgotten their conservative principles. The Illegal Immigration issue alone should prove this point.
The current majority is now collapsing around the horns of a dilemma: how to simultaneously please the extreme Left-wing base of their party- for which they are indebted- while not antagonizing the moderate masses they need to win elections and hold their mandate. That’s why you have folks like Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and for the current Surge Strategy, now trying to distance herself from Iraq. The Code Pink/Move On.org constituency on the Looney Left is withholding their vital campaign contributions until they get some satisfaction and performance on their primary issue of “Surrender in Iraq.” Or, maybe you didn’t notice Cindy Sheehan’s recent announcement regarding her intentions of running against Pelosi in California- on the War Issue? The Left simply can’t afford a split in their ranks if they hope to win the White House and hold onto Congress in ’08.
That’s why they had that little pajama party last week in Washington. The Liberals knew they didn’t have the votes to get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but they also knew they needed to earn some ‘brownie points’ from the Michael Moores and Rosie O’Donnells in their party. God help them. So, they staged this phony, all-night, cloture debate in an effort to prove their devotion to the anti-War Cause.
And what about the Cause? Is this the time to pull out of Iraq? Not if you believe the man in charge: Gen. David Petraeus. While the Liberal Democrats were toying with political games, Gen. Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, was giving an assessment on how the initial stage of the Surge is going- only one month into full-strength deployment.
Shouldn’t we give just a little credence to the commander on the ground? Here’s what Petraeus had to say in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on July 18, the same day as the pajama party:
“We have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains [have been made] against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaeda Iraq, and also against another near-time threat and also potentially long-term threat: Shia militia extremists. There has been considerable progress against al Qaeda.”
“The insurgents are losing many, many hundreds of their different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the Surge.”
“Our best operators in the world are here in the largest numbers of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. [It’s] very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes and very effective…[consisting of] nightly operations, far more significant than we [have] conducted for decades. [One] took down the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda Iraq.” It is also progressing with the weight of our conventional forces who cleaned Western Baquba- which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. The conventional forces killed 80 or 90 confirmed, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well.”
Adding to the list of recent successes Petraeus continued, “we have detained some four different emirs- the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives. Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development…it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by Iraqis. I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country. In fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses we suffer.”
Regarding the threat of civil war, Petraeus noted, “sectarian violence in June was about the lowest in a year.”
When asked why this is important Petraeus explained, “we have an enormous responsibility, because we did liberate this country. Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world [and] sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines. A precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq [and] in the region.”
Even traditional bastions of Liberal Thought like the International Crisis Group, ICG, and the UN agree with Petraeus, (but then again, they’re not politically invested in defeat like the Democrats are). “I hated the Iraq War,” says ICG director Joost Hillerman, “[but] a hasty withdrawal would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for U.S. interests.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal may lead to further deterioration.”
And while brave leaders like Petraeus, Odierno and Lynch do the tough but necessary work of responsibly pursuing victory on the battlefield in Iraq, Liberal Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold continue their defeatist antics by proposing useless, diversionary,
political games like the censure resolution of President Bush. It’s enough to make one
wonder whose side they’re really on! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, July 9, 2007
The Hypnotized Never Lie
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” so sings Roger Daltrey of the Who in the classic rock song “We Won’t Get Fooled Again.” He could have just as easily been singing about one of today’s worst psychological abuses- the Global Warming hysteria propagated by radical environmentalists like Al Gore.
Last Saturday, Gore presented the musical event “Live Earth” to raise awareness about Global Warming. Over 100 artists performed on stages on seven continents during a 24 hour period designed to help “save the planet!” Among the suggestions for keeping Mother Earth alive were: unplugging unused appliances and changing to low-energy light bulbs.
When Daltrey was asked what he thought of the project, he replied, “Bollucks, the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.” But he wasn’t the only one suggesting “the emperor has no clothes!”
Matt Helders of Artic Monkeys said, “it’s a bit patronizing for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world. It’s like, who cares what we think about what’s happening, especially when were using enough power for 10 houses just for [stage] lighting. It’s a bit hypocritical.”
Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys explained, “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t- it looks arrogant.”
Bob Geldof, musician and concert organizer for previous relief projects: “Live Aid” and “Live 8,” was skeptical of the motives behind the event. “Why is Gore actually organizing them?”
Such criticisms weren’t reserved to those opting out of the event. Live Earth-participant Chris Rock sarcastically commented, “I pray this event ends Global Warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”
Still, artists like Madonna and Carlo Santone shouted to the crowds, “start a revolution,
it’s a revolution, do it, do it!”
Madonna- it’s interesting to note- with nine houses, a fleet of cars and a private jet, has a “carbon footprint” a hundred times larger than the average person. She also owns stock
in several companies considered to be among the world’s worst polluters: Alcoa, Ford Motor Co. and Weyerhaeuser. But, hypocrisy can’t be too bad of a thing when the organizer himself is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all.
Al and Tipper Gore own three houses, and although alternative energy is available to them, they don’t use it. Their 10,000 sq. ft. home in Nashville has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms; and, according to the Nashville Electric Service, (NES), they use more electricity in a month than the average household does in a year! And furthermore, incredibly, Gore’s zinc mine in Carthage, TN has been cited by the State for polluting the Caney Fork River. The symbolic “S.O.S.” signal Live Earth participants were sending out with their various drumming and handclapping in London, Tokyo and New Jersey should have been directed toward Al Gore’s own backyard!
The truth is- the earth may be warming some. Estimates suggest the temperature rise has been approximately one degree Fahrenheit over the last hundred years, but this is a far cry from “the catastrophic nightmare” that some would have us believe. The earth has periodically warmed and cooled in the past without disastrous consequences. Six thousand years ago it was 5 degrees warmer. Ten thousand years ago the temperature rose 10 degrees in one decade as we came out of a cold spell.
Professor Reed Bryson of the University of Wisconsin is known as “the father of scientific climatology.” He says Gore’s apocalyptic vision is “not science” and “not true.” Bryson knows a little about the topic since he was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison. He says we’ve “been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years,” but “there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide.”
The warming of the globe has actually leveled off since the 90s. Greenland and the polar ice caps are not in the process of melting away. According to professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, drilling has revealed that 120,000 years ago, when the earth was 9 degrees warmer, Greenland was still covered with ice.
So why does this nonsense continue? Simply put, it’s a power play for more, centralized
government control over the world.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic recently surmised, “as someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
As if to illustrate this point, Dem. Gov. of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, just signed into law the first U.S. state mandate to reduce greenhouse emissions. The NJ Business and Industrial Association oppose it and the Utility managers say it will bring higher prices.
In the U.S. Congress, Dem. John Dingle, House Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has just announced his plans to introduce a new carbon tax.
Both of these measures are similar to European Union (EU) laws governing energy. It’s curious how these programs are now being criticized in Europe for failing to actually reduce carbon emissions and for breeding corruption in allowing companies to “game the rules” for their benefit!
Oh well, the Pussycat Dolls did announce after their performance that they will be cutting back on their hairspray volume. I guess I’ll just pick-up my guitar and play…just like yesterday. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro,TN 37757)
Last Saturday, Gore presented the musical event “Live Earth” to raise awareness about Global Warming. Over 100 artists performed on stages on seven continents during a 24 hour period designed to help “save the planet!” Among the suggestions for keeping Mother Earth alive were: unplugging unused appliances and changing to low-energy light bulbs.
When Daltrey was asked what he thought of the project, he replied, “Bollucks, the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.” But he wasn’t the only one suggesting “the emperor has no clothes!”
Matt Helders of Artic Monkeys said, “it’s a bit patronizing for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world. It’s like, who cares what we think about what’s happening, especially when were using enough power for 10 houses just for [stage] lighting. It’s a bit hypocritical.”
Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys explained, “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t- it looks arrogant.”
Bob Geldof, musician and concert organizer for previous relief projects: “Live Aid” and “Live 8,” was skeptical of the motives behind the event. “Why is Gore actually organizing them?”
Such criticisms weren’t reserved to those opting out of the event. Live Earth-participant Chris Rock sarcastically commented, “I pray this event ends Global Warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”
Still, artists like Madonna and Carlo Santone shouted to the crowds, “start a revolution,
it’s a revolution, do it, do it!”
Madonna- it’s interesting to note- with nine houses, a fleet of cars and a private jet, has a “carbon footprint” a hundred times larger than the average person. She also owns stock
in several companies considered to be among the world’s worst polluters: Alcoa, Ford Motor Co. and Weyerhaeuser. But, hypocrisy can’t be too bad of a thing when the organizer himself is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all.
Al and Tipper Gore own three houses, and although alternative energy is available to them, they don’t use it. Their 10,000 sq. ft. home in Nashville has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms; and, according to the Nashville Electric Service, (NES), they use more electricity in a month than the average household does in a year! And furthermore, incredibly, Gore’s zinc mine in Carthage, TN has been cited by the State for polluting the Caney Fork River. The symbolic “S.O.S.” signal Live Earth participants were sending out with their various drumming and handclapping in London, Tokyo and New Jersey should have been directed toward Al Gore’s own backyard!
The truth is- the earth may be warming some. Estimates suggest the temperature rise has been approximately one degree Fahrenheit over the last hundred years, but this is a far cry from “the catastrophic nightmare” that some would have us believe. The earth has periodically warmed and cooled in the past without disastrous consequences. Six thousand years ago it was 5 degrees warmer. Ten thousand years ago the temperature rose 10 degrees in one decade as we came out of a cold spell.
Professor Reed Bryson of the University of Wisconsin is known as “the father of scientific climatology.” He says Gore’s apocalyptic vision is “not science” and “not true.” Bryson knows a little about the topic since he was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison. He says we’ve “been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years,” but “there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide.”
The warming of the globe has actually leveled off since the 90s. Greenland and the polar ice caps are not in the process of melting away. According to professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, drilling has revealed that 120,000 years ago, when the earth was 9 degrees warmer, Greenland was still covered with ice.
So why does this nonsense continue? Simply put, it’s a power play for more, centralized
government control over the world.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic recently surmised, “as someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
As if to illustrate this point, Dem. Gov. of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, just signed into law the first U.S. state mandate to reduce greenhouse emissions. The NJ Business and Industrial Association oppose it and the Utility managers say it will bring higher prices.
In the U.S. Congress, Dem. John Dingle, House Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has just announced his plans to introduce a new carbon tax.
Both of these measures are similar to European Union (EU) laws governing energy. It’s curious how these programs are now being criticized in Europe for failing to actually reduce carbon emissions and for breeding corruption in allowing companies to “game the rules” for their benefit!
Oh well, the Pussycat Dolls did announce after their performance that they will be cutting back on their hairspray volume. I guess I’ll just pick-up my guitar and play…just like yesterday. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro,TN 37757)
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Prosperity Depends Upon Competition
Fred Thompson, the soon to be announced candidate for President, once said, “you can’t tax your way to prosperity.” That’s generally a true statement, but there are some folks who prosper pretty well as a result of taxes. Naturally, politicians, bureaucrats and government-directed beneficiaries love taxes, but did you know that Big Business also prospers from high taxes?
The Tennessee State Legislature recently passed a new tax on tobacco. The bill raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes 220%, from 20 cents to 62 cents. It’s still below the national average of 80 cents, but why in the world would our representatives in Nashville be raising any taxes at all when we’re experiencing a $300 million state surplus? The answer could be: there are prosperous advantages to be obtained by both Big Government and Big Tobacco.
In a new book written by Timothy Carney, “The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money,” the deceptively clever stratagem is revealed.
The name of the game is Monopoly. Centralizing power and control enables the “Royal Elites” in both our economy and our government to prosper. By eliminating the competition through government-created obstacles like taxes and regulations, Big Business- who can withstand such obstacles- obtains a greater market share for itself.
But, what do government officials receive for going to the trouble of instituting such state-sponsored franchises, or “syndicates?”
It’s been said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Politicians are always in need of more cash. The 2008 presidential race will likely be the first billion dollar campaign in history. Top candidates are facing the proposition of raising a quarter of a million dollars a day! Even local races are getting expensive. A small district seat in the Tennessee Legislature will run you about six figures today. This system of campaign finance and lobbying is nothing new, but increasingly, our government seems to be “for sale” to the highest bidder. But, how is it that those bidding the highest amounts are curiously the very ones who would SEEM to suffer the most from the political results they are buying?
One of the biggest lies ever produced is the populist idealism underlying Socialism. Socialism began as a Big Business ruse in the 19th century and continues to this day as a monumental ploy to enrich those already rich while creating the impression that its purposes are all for the benefit of the poor and “the working class.”
“Old Money” Industrialists discovered a way in the late 1800s to begin engineering government regulations that were ultimately favorable to their monopolistic concerns. The preferential allowances these “Malefactors of Great Wealth” wanted to create presupposed the existence of certain established restrictions. Therefore, they arrived at a simple solution- first erect government restrictions, then bribe the authorities for granted allowances that could be exploited for competitive advantage. So, these allowances permitted by the power of law, helped “rig the game” with exclusive privileges that resulted in protecting the profits of Big Business. It’s a massive con game of loopholes, backroom deals and special exemptions all aimed at destroying fair competition.
So, why do they consider competition so bad? Competition means never slowing down and never resting from having to earn the customer’s business. John D. Rockefeller famously remarked, “competition is a sin.” He, like other power-brokers, resented the constant and humble service that’s required to maintain market share in an open and free environment.
Naturally, Big Business couldn’t overtly dictate their desires within the traditional, capitalist framework- so they got government to do it for them via the ingenious construct of Socialism. Big Business and Big Government were presented to the people as mortal enemies, but the Robber Barons and Politicians remained very cozy behind the scenes- carving up the economic pie like Mafia Godfathers.
As Carney points out in his book, Philip Morris lobbies for more regulation over tobacco because they know the resulting policies will hurt their small competitors the most! Raising the price of cigarettes can benefit Big Tobacco in a number of ways. It enhances the underground, smuggler’s market that they control with certain government acquiescence around the world. In addition, the higher price makes the “cheap” cigarette brands “cheap” only in content, and thus, less preferred. The lucrative duty-free market, is another instance, where it becomes more profitable for the name brands when taxes go up. Also, the tax increase creates a convenient “pay off” opportunity to the politicians who get their hands on more money to buy votes and fund campaign war chests. A well-paid politician then becomes a more faithful and pliable commodity for future purposes of fine-tuning “the game.”
The so-called “war on tobacco” is another example of this “now you see it, now you don’t” skullduggery. What this charade amounts to is a sophisticated racket for the prosperity of trial lawyers and Philip Morris.
The losers in this game are: taxpayers, consumers, less established businesses and small entrepreneurial competitors who create the most new wealth and jobs in our economy. The majority of the people- who operate without these inside connections- wind-up paying more and receiving less as a natural result of the inherent inefficiencies of a more centralized and monopolized economy. Once someone is free from competition and no longer has to “earn” the customer’s dollar fairly - the quality necessarily goes down.
Carney points out other examples: Big Oil actually profits from Environmental Laws; Enron- who is still receiving tax subsidies by the way- worked to keep laissez-faire officials off the commission that regulates the energy industry; Liberal Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer receives more contributions from Wall Street than any other senator; Warren Buffett is an advocate for higher Estate Taxes; and finally, KYOTO- the international environmental treaty restricting industry- is favored by most multi-national corporations.
Prosperity, ultimately, should be defined by what’s best for the people. Working a scam of higher taxes and more regulation that enable the wealthiest members of our society to escape the discipline of the market place- is NOT a prosperous philosophy with populist benefits. On the contrary, it’s a deception that will lead to greater bondage. We must one day free our minds of this mirage, or else, we will never be able to free our pocket books- and find true prosperity for all.
Finally, in the words of Howard Armstrong who so often quoted the motto of Hawaii: “Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono, the prosperity of the land is established upon Righteousness.”
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
The Tennessee State Legislature recently passed a new tax on tobacco. The bill raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes 220%, from 20 cents to 62 cents. It’s still below the national average of 80 cents, but why in the world would our representatives in Nashville be raising any taxes at all when we’re experiencing a $300 million state surplus? The answer could be: there are prosperous advantages to be obtained by both Big Government and Big Tobacco.
In a new book written by Timothy Carney, “The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money,” the deceptively clever stratagem is revealed.
The name of the game is Monopoly. Centralizing power and control enables the “Royal Elites” in both our economy and our government to prosper. By eliminating the competition through government-created obstacles like taxes and regulations, Big Business- who can withstand such obstacles- obtains a greater market share for itself.
But, what do government officials receive for going to the trouble of instituting such state-sponsored franchises, or “syndicates?”
It’s been said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Politicians are always in need of more cash. The 2008 presidential race will likely be the first billion dollar campaign in history. Top candidates are facing the proposition of raising a quarter of a million dollars a day! Even local races are getting expensive. A small district seat in the Tennessee Legislature will run you about six figures today. This system of campaign finance and lobbying is nothing new, but increasingly, our government seems to be “for sale” to the highest bidder. But, how is it that those bidding the highest amounts are curiously the very ones who would SEEM to suffer the most from the political results they are buying?
One of the biggest lies ever produced is the populist idealism underlying Socialism. Socialism began as a Big Business ruse in the 19th century and continues to this day as a monumental ploy to enrich those already rich while creating the impression that its purposes are all for the benefit of the poor and “the working class.”
“Old Money” Industrialists discovered a way in the late 1800s to begin engineering government regulations that were ultimately favorable to their monopolistic concerns. The preferential allowances these “Malefactors of Great Wealth” wanted to create presupposed the existence of certain established restrictions. Therefore, they arrived at a simple solution- first erect government restrictions, then bribe the authorities for granted allowances that could be exploited for competitive advantage. So, these allowances permitted by the power of law, helped “rig the game” with exclusive privileges that resulted in protecting the profits of Big Business. It’s a massive con game of loopholes, backroom deals and special exemptions all aimed at destroying fair competition.
So, why do they consider competition so bad? Competition means never slowing down and never resting from having to earn the customer’s business. John D. Rockefeller famously remarked, “competition is a sin.” He, like other power-brokers, resented the constant and humble service that’s required to maintain market share in an open and free environment.
Naturally, Big Business couldn’t overtly dictate their desires within the traditional, capitalist framework- so they got government to do it for them via the ingenious construct of Socialism. Big Business and Big Government were presented to the people as mortal enemies, but the Robber Barons and Politicians remained very cozy behind the scenes- carving up the economic pie like Mafia Godfathers.
As Carney points out in his book, Philip Morris lobbies for more regulation over tobacco because they know the resulting policies will hurt their small competitors the most! Raising the price of cigarettes can benefit Big Tobacco in a number of ways. It enhances the underground, smuggler’s market that they control with certain government acquiescence around the world. In addition, the higher price makes the “cheap” cigarette brands “cheap” only in content, and thus, less preferred. The lucrative duty-free market, is another instance, where it becomes more profitable for the name brands when taxes go up. Also, the tax increase creates a convenient “pay off” opportunity to the politicians who get their hands on more money to buy votes and fund campaign war chests. A well-paid politician then becomes a more faithful and pliable commodity for future purposes of fine-tuning “the game.”
The so-called “war on tobacco” is another example of this “now you see it, now you don’t” skullduggery. What this charade amounts to is a sophisticated racket for the prosperity of trial lawyers and Philip Morris.
The losers in this game are: taxpayers, consumers, less established businesses and small entrepreneurial competitors who create the most new wealth and jobs in our economy. The majority of the people- who operate without these inside connections- wind-up paying more and receiving less as a natural result of the inherent inefficiencies of a more centralized and monopolized economy. Once someone is free from competition and no longer has to “earn” the customer’s dollar fairly - the quality necessarily goes down.
Carney points out other examples: Big Oil actually profits from Environmental Laws; Enron- who is still receiving tax subsidies by the way- worked to keep laissez-faire officials off the commission that regulates the energy industry; Liberal Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer receives more contributions from Wall Street than any other senator; Warren Buffett is an advocate for higher Estate Taxes; and finally, KYOTO- the international environmental treaty restricting industry- is favored by most multi-national corporations.
Prosperity, ultimately, should be defined by what’s best for the people. Working a scam of higher taxes and more regulation that enable the wealthiest members of our society to escape the discipline of the market place- is NOT a prosperous philosophy with populist benefits. On the contrary, it’s a deception that will lead to greater bondage. We must one day free our minds of this mirage, or else, we will never be able to free our pocket books- and find true prosperity for all.
Finally, in the words of Howard Armstrong who so often quoted the motto of Hawaii: “Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono, the prosperity of the land is established upon Righteousness.”
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Real War in Iraq
Are you weary of the War? Are you tired of hearing all the “bad news” coming out of Iraq? Perhaps, that’s by design, huh? Well, how about some good news for a change?
Al Qaeda’s on the run! Coalition forces, buttressed by the recent surge in troops, is producing some very positive results. On May 1, five terrorists were killed and 20 were detained including some senior Iraqi, al Qaeda leaders. According to Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, “these operations will affect al Qaeda’s ability to operate effectively against the people of Iraq and provide us with more information to disrupt their activities.”
Gen. Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, refers to al Qaeda as “public enemy number one” for the fact that they are contributing the most support toward the sectarian violence there which is designed to establish a “safe haven for al Qaeda within the country.” Petraeus has said that “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.”
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Maples agrees, “al Qaeda in Iraq is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups.” Osama bin Laden himself has proclaimed, “Baghdad is the capital of the Caliphate.” The Caliphate is the Islamic idea of a new, Muslim World Empire that would eliminate the “Infidel Cross-Worshippers” and the “Jewish Pigs,” (aka the “Crusader-Zionist Coalition”), thereby subjugating everyone to the fascist dictates of Sharia-law as practiced most faithfully by the totalitarian Taliban regime. Under this type of tyranny- women would be imprisoned within their own homes, men would be beaten for missing prayer services and girls would never be allowed to go to school.
Two weeks ago three terrorists were killed in Baghdad, one believed to be an al Qaeda cell leader. Just prior to that Iraqi Special Operation forces- trained by the U.S.- captured three other suspected terrorists and an alleged leader of the Jaysh al-Madhi militia. This particular group has been responsible for orchestrating several death squads and car bombings.
Also in recent weeks, top Sadr militia commander, Osama Abu Qader, was killed in Basra by a joint British and Iraqi military operation. Sheikh Azhar al-Duleimi, a Shiite extremist who was linked to the deaths of five American soldiers, was killed by U.S. forces. And, we can’t forget, almost one year ago al Zarqawi, the second in command of al Qaeda behind Osama bin Laden, was killed by a fortuitous U.S. air strike.
These are evil people who have vowed to destroy America. Their threats are not idle ones. 9/11, what Osama bin Laden called a “magnificent feat of valor,” unequaled in human history, will forever stand as an undeniable testament to the twisted hatred and violent intentions of these Islamo-fascists. So, whether you agree or disagree about certain aspects of this war’s conduct, you must however admit that there have been significant military achievements and long-term benefits from engaging and defeating our enemy over there, (on the offensive), so we don’t have to face them over here, (on the defensive)!
Just last week we got news of a thwarted terrorist attack at Fort Dix. Six radical Islamists were attempting to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.” This is all part of the official al Qaeda plan for victory. There will be no concessions, no compromises and no diplomatic peace initiatives forthcoming. Their strategy, as stated by their own documents is:
(1) to divide the American people from their government;
(2) to cause them to grow weary of the war; and
(3) to bleed America financially until they are bankrupt.
Iraq IS the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle for freedom will be decided. Iraq IS the war on terror. What we have to find is the intestinal fortitude and ultimate resolve to finish them, before they finish us! According to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, after expelling America from Iraq, the next three steps are clear: establish the Caliphate, conquer the secular countries bordering Iraq by replacing moderate governments with radical ones, and then-- attack Israel!
The Liberals in Congress can’t even be counted on to stand firm when surrendering! Last week they caved-in on Bush’s threat of a veto regarding a new spending bill for the war. The Leftists wanted a time-line for withdrawal, but the President refused to sign it out of concern for the ongoing strategy being conducted by Gen. Petraeus. Now, al Qaeda has just opened a new battle front in Lebanon. They are attacking the modern, democratic government of Lebanon with the financial support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. I guess Assad wasn’t too impressed by his recent visitor: Nancy Pelosi. Or, maybe he was…
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Al Qaeda’s on the run! Coalition forces, buttressed by the recent surge in troops, is producing some very positive results. On May 1, five terrorists were killed and 20 were detained including some senior Iraqi, al Qaeda leaders. According to Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, “these operations will affect al Qaeda’s ability to operate effectively against the people of Iraq and provide us with more information to disrupt their activities.”
Gen. Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, refers to al Qaeda as “public enemy number one” for the fact that they are contributing the most support toward the sectarian violence there which is designed to establish a “safe haven for al Qaeda within the country.” Petraeus has said that “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.”
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Maples agrees, “al Qaeda in Iraq is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups.” Osama bin Laden himself has proclaimed, “Baghdad is the capital of the Caliphate.” The Caliphate is the Islamic idea of a new, Muslim World Empire that would eliminate the “Infidel Cross-Worshippers” and the “Jewish Pigs,” (aka the “Crusader-Zionist Coalition”), thereby subjugating everyone to the fascist dictates of Sharia-law as practiced most faithfully by the totalitarian Taliban regime. Under this type of tyranny- women would be imprisoned within their own homes, men would be beaten for missing prayer services and girls would never be allowed to go to school.
Two weeks ago three terrorists were killed in Baghdad, one believed to be an al Qaeda cell leader. Just prior to that Iraqi Special Operation forces- trained by the U.S.- captured three other suspected terrorists and an alleged leader of the Jaysh al-Madhi militia. This particular group has been responsible for orchestrating several death squads and car bombings.
Also in recent weeks, top Sadr militia commander, Osama Abu Qader, was killed in Basra by a joint British and Iraqi military operation. Sheikh Azhar al-Duleimi, a Shiite extremist who was linked to the deaths of five American soldiers, was killed by U.S. forces. And, we can’t forget, almost one year ago al Zarqawi, the second in command of al Qaeda behind Osama bin Laden, was killed by a fortuitous U.S. air strike.
These are evil people who have vowed to destroy America. Their threats are not idle ones. 9/11, what Osama bin Laden called a “magnificent feat of valor,” unequaled in human history, will forever stand as an undeniable testament to the twisted hatred and violent intentions of these Islamo-fascists. So, whether you agree or disagree about certain aspects of this war’s conduct, you must however admit that there have been significant military achievements and long-term benefits from engaging and defeating our enemy over there, (on the offensive), so we don’t have to face them over here, (on the defensive)!
Just last week we got news of a thwarted terrorist attack at Fort Dix. Six radical Islamists were attempting to “kill as many American soldiers as possible.” This is all part of the official al Qaeda plan for victory. There will be no concessions, no compromises and no diplomatic peace initiatives forthcoming. Their strategy, as stated by their own documents is:
(1) to divide the American people from their government;
(2) to cause them to grow weary of the war; and
(3) to bleed America financially until they are bankrupt.
Iraq IS the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle for freedom will be decided. Iraq IS the war on terror. What we have to find is the intestinal fortitude and ultimate resolve to finish them, before they finish us! According to al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, after expelling America from Iraq, the next three steps are clear: establish the Caliphate, conquer the secular countries bordering Iraq by replacing moderate governments with radical ones, and then-- attack Israel!
The Liberals in Congress can’t even be counted on to stand firm when surrendering! Last week they caved-in on Bush’s threat of a veto regarding a new spending bill for the war. The Leftists wanted a time-line for withdrawal, but the President refused to sign it out of concern for the ongoing strategy being conducted by Gen. Petraeus. Now, al Qaeda has just opened a new battle front in Lebanon. They are attacking the modern, democratic government of Lebanon with the financial support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. I guess Assad wasn’t too impressed by his recent visitor: Nancy Pelosi. Or, maybe he was…
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, May 14, 2007
Sarko Has France Tilting Right
France has just turned Red, but not in the communist sense. Yesterday, May 16, could go down in history as a “May Day” for right-wing celebration. Conservative leader Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP became the 23rd president of the French Republic promising great reforms that mirror the “red-meat” idealism of Red State America. Sarkozy came to power by defeating socialist candidate Segolene Royal 53 to 47 percent in a run-off election that was held May 6. Producing a turnout of 85%, it was the most heavily-participated election since 1965.
All of the left-wing candidates who didn’t qualify for the run-off united behind Royal in firm opposition to Sarkozy and his so-called “radical,” “fascist,” and “authoritarian” agenda. The trend, however, for all left-leaning parties in France since 2002, has been a
loss of public support.
Sarkozy, or “Sarko” as he is known, received considerable help from the National Front party in a coalition of the Right. Their platform consists of: Traditional Values, including opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage and support for religion; National Independence from the EU and similar international organizations; reinstitution of the Death Penalty; Stricter Sentencing for criminals; Opposition to Muslim Immigration; maintaining a Strong Military; Lower Taxes; Less Spending; Privatization; Smaller Government; Limits on Labor Strikes for public servants; and, an overall more favorable foreign policy toward the U.S.
By contrast, the socialist Royal promoted an agenda for: reinstitution of free medical care for illegal aliens; voting privileges for illegal aliens; free contraception for women under 25; taxation of private TV companies to fund public media; guarantees of government-provided housing; protection of all welfare-state benefits; the creation of over 500,000 subsidized jobs; the raising of the minimum wage by 20%; and, reducing the highly successful nuclear energy program.
Liberals in America may not like the socialist label, but in almost every important aspect they resemble their socialist counterparts in all other countries around the world. The voter breakdown also follows a familiar “red/blue” pattern.
Those typically voting for the French conservative Sarkozy were: men, farmers, the middle and upper classes, the religious and the non-Boomer generations. Those favoring the socialist ticket were: women, urban-residents, the unemployed, public servants, students and the hippy generation.
Sarkozy is regarded as a very charismatic leader with great oratory skills and a high “likeability” factor. He’s advocating an economic model in the style of American and British capitalism. He seems to be a political revolutionary in the mold of Reagan and Thatcher who wants to overhaul the tax system to make it more fair and simple. He believes in “workfare” and reducing budget deficits. But, perhaps his greatest revolutionary influence will be in the area of Immigration.
France, like most of Europe, is culturally disappearing as the result of a negative birth rate and a huge influx of legal and illegal immigration coming primarily from Muslim countries. As Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy has more than doubled the number of deportations since 2002. He has been criticized for saying immigrants who don’t like France “should leave it.” His police raids against illegal aliens have been strongly opposed by the Left.
Sarkozy must wait for a June Parliament election to determine how far he will be able to go with his reforms. With so many party factions splintering the vote it may be difficult for him to obtain a working majority for his mandate of change. Nevertheless, Sarkozy remains optimistic and confident that the election will yield successful results.
Unemployment has been running in double digits for many years during the Chirac-era, and the youth unrest of 2005 underscores a continuing disturbance that must be addressed by the new administration. During the famous Paris riots and fires of 2005 Sarkozy disturbed many on the Left by calling the agitated participants “riff raff,” “delinquents,” and “thugs.” He’s also drawn condemnation from the Liberals of France for questioning a judge who freed a man on parole who later committed murder. Chirac even took Sarkozy to task for showing public disdain for anti-American sentiments being expressed by the French government. In Sarkozy’s victory speech, he pledged, “friendship with the world’s greatest democracy,” adding that, “France will always be there when they [the United States] need us.”
Maybe what irritates the French Leftists most is Sarkozy’s recent book “The Republic, Religion and Hope,” in which he suggests to the French youth that they should consider investigating Religion for some of the answers to their problems. It may not quite be the equivalent of the “Religious Right” in America, but Sarkozy does profess that his chief role model is Pope John Paul II. Considering that great Cold War, conservative alliance of Pope John Paul, Reagan and Thatcher- maybe France really does have its own modern conservative hero who will finally revolutionize their country with a rebirth of freedom, patriotism and a resurgence of national confidence. Liberals worldwide…should takenote. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
All of the left-wing candidates who didn’t qualify for the run-off united behind Royal in firm opposition to Sarkozy and his so-called “radical,” “fascist,” and “authoritarian” agenda. The trend, however, for all left-leaning parties in France since 2002, has been a
loss of public support.
Sarkozy, or “Sarko” as he is known, received considerable help from the National Front party in a coalition of the Right. Their platform consists of: Traditional Values, including opposition to abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage and support for religion; National Independence from the EU and similar international organizations; reinstitution of the Death Penalty; Stricter Sentencing for criminals; Opposition to Muslim Immigration; maintaining a Strong Military; Lower Taxes; Less Spending; Privatization; Smaller Government; Limits on Labor Strikes for public servants; and, an overall more favorable foreign policy toward the U.S.
By contrast, the socialist Royal promoted an agenda for: reinstitution of free medical care for illegal aliens; voting privileges for illegal aliens; free contraception for women under 25; taxation of private TV companies to fund public media; guarantees of government-provided housing; protection of all welfare-state benefits; the creation of over 500,000 subsidized jobs; the raising of the minimum wage by 20%; and, reducing the highly successful nuclear energy program.
Liberals in America may not like the socialist label, but in almost every important aspect they resemble their socialist counterparts in all other countries around the world. The voter breakdown also follows a familiar “red/blue” pattern.
Those typically voting for the French conservative Sarkozy were: men, farmers, the middle and upper classes, the religious and the non-Boomer generations. Those favoring the socialist ticket were: women, urban-residents, the unemployed, public servants, students and the hippy generation.
Sarkozy is regarded as a very charismatic leader with great oratory skills and a high “likeability” factor. He’s advocating an economic model in the style of American and British capitalism. He seems to be a political revolutionary in the mold of Reagan and Thatcher who wants to overhaul the tax system to make it more fair and simple. He believes in “workfare” and reducing budget deficits. But, perhaps his greatest revolutionary influence will be in the area of Immigration.
France, like most of Europe, is culturally disappearing as the result of a negative birth rate and a huge influx of legal and illegal immigration coming primarily from Muslim countries. As Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy has more than doubled the number of deportations since 2002. He has been criticized for saying immigrants who don’t like France “should leave it.” His police raids against illegal aliens have been strongly opposed by the Left.
Sarkozy must wait for a June Parliament election to determine how far he will be able to go with his reforms. With so many party factions splintering the vote it may be difficult for him to obtain a working majority for his mandate of change. Nevertheless, Sarkozy remains optimistic and confident that the election will yield successful results.
Unemployment has been running in double digits for many years during the Chirac-era, and the youth unrest of 2005 underscores a continuing disturbance that must be addressed by the new administration. During the famous Paris riots and fires of 2005 Sarkozy disturbed many on the Left by calling the agitated participants “riff raff,” “delinquents,” and “thugs.” He’s also drawn condemnation from the Liberals of France for questioning a judge who freed a man on parole who later committed murder. Chirac even took Sarkozy to task for showing public disdain for anti-American sentiments being expressed by the French government. In Sarkozy’s victory speech, he pledged, “friendship with the world’s greatest democracy,” adding that, “France will always be there when they [the United States] need us.”
Maybe what irritates the French Leftists most is Sarkozy’s recent book “The Republic, Religion and Hope,” in which he suggests to the French youth that they should consider investigating Religion for some of the answers to their problems. It may not quite be the equivalent of the “Religious Right” in America, but Sarkozy does profess that his chief role model is Pope John Paul II. Considering that great Cold War, conservative alliance of Pope John Paul, Reagan and Thatcher- maybe France really does have its own modern conservative hero who will finally revolutionize their country with a rebirth of freedom, patriotism and a resurgence of national confidence. Liberals worldwide…should takenote. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Value of Life
“Civilization,” or The Law and Government, exists to protect the innocent and the weak from the predatory evils of the powerful, who otherwise would operate with impunity under the dictates of a lawless, Darwinian Jungle where only the strong survive.
Hold that thought in mind as I relate to you the description of a “medical” procedure, called partial birth abortion, recently sustained as an outlawed practice by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007.
As told by a nurse who witnessed the operation, here are the actions found to be “morally, medically and ethically inhumane.” --
“The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. The doctor cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
Court statements regarding other examples told by abortionists, who were fighting this ruling, related how the head of the baby is often crushed to collapse the skull, or even pulled from the body, before removing the remains. One “doctor” confessed that he crushes the skull to ensure the fetus is dead before removing it. How gruesome is that?
President Bush- who signed the 2003 Federal Law that banned partial birth abortion- had this to say about the landmark ruling, “the supreme court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made in the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”
It was Bush’s Attorney General Gonzales who challenged the lower courts adverse ruling, and it was sustained, in part, by two of Bush’s appointees: Justices Alito and Roberts. Rounding out the majority was Bush Sr.’s appointee Thomas, and Reagan’s appointees: Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
Dissenting were Justices: Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was a Ford appointee and Souter, a moderate Bush Sr. appointee. Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion calling the ruling “alarming.” Apparently, for this old ACLU lawyer, the horrors of infanticide is NOT as alarming as a sensible restriction on abortion.
As science moves the viability of fetuses further back during the pregnancy term, the rationale for abortion becomes less convincing. Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the most abhorrent decisions in the history of our country. Just as the Supreme Court in 1854 ruled that all blacks were incapable of being regarded as American citizens with God-given rights, so the 1973 Roe v. Wade case made all unborn babies similarly “unprotected.” Don’t these helpless children have a choice? In the balance of rights, doesn’t the child’s right to life override the limited loss, (9 months), of the mother’s right to liberty? One is permanent, the other, only temporary.
Politics matters. Having presidents who will appoint justices who will honor the sacred purposes of law, government and civilization can save countless lives from the destructive butchery of an abortionist’s unflinching hand. President Bush said it best, when signing the ban into law, “today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com
Hold that thought in mind as I relate to you the description of a “medical” procedure, called partial birth abortion, recently sustained as an outlawed practice by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007.
As told by a nurse who witnessed the operation, here are the actions found to be “morally, medically and ethically inhumane.” --
“The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. The doctor cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”
Court statements regarding other examples told by abortionists, who were fighting this ruling, related how the head of the baby is often crushed to collapse the skull, or even pulled from the body, before removing the remains. One “doctor” confessed that he crushes the skull to ensure the fetus is dead before removing it. How gruesome is that?
President Bush- who signed the 2003 Federal Law that banned partial birth abortion- had this to say about the landmark ruling, “the supreme court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made in the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”
It was Bush’s Attorney General Gonzales who challenged the lower courts adverse ruling, and it was sustained, in part, by two of Bush’s appointees: Justices Alito and Roberts. Rounding out the majority was Bush Sr.’s appointee Thomas, and Reagan’s appointees: Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
Dissenting were Justices: Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was a Ford appointee and Souter, a moderate Bush Sr. appointee. Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion calling the ruling “alarming.” Apparently, for this old ACLU lawyer, the horrors of infanticide is NOT as alarming as a sensible restriction on abortion.
As science moves the viability of fetuses further back during the pregnancy term, the rationale for abortion becomes less convincing. Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the most abhorrent decisions in the history of our country. Just as the Supreme Court in 1854 ruled that all blacks were incapable of being regarded as American citizens with God-given rights, so the 1973 Roe v. Wade case made all unborn babies similarly “unprotected.” Don’t these helpless children have a choice? In the balance of rights, doesn’t the child’s right to life override the limited loss, (9 months), of the mother’s right to liberty? One is permanent, the other, only temporary.
Politics matters. Having presidents who will appoint justices who will honor the sacred purposes of law, government and civilization can save countless lives from the destructive butchery of an abortionist’s unflinching hand. President Bush said it best, when signing the ban into law, “today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com
Sunday, April 1, 2007
It’s Foreign Policy, not Foreign Pelosi
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States.”–U.S. Constitution
Under our Constitution, the President’s Executive Power includes the primary responsibility for maintaining the relations of the United States with foreign nations. With the Secretary of State, the President manages all official contacts with foreign governments. The President is also granted the power to negotiate treaties and make executive agreements with other nations and foreign powers.
What are the corresponding Constitutional Powers of the Speaker of the House? Generally, they are the presiding duties over the House of Representatives, the influence over a legislative agenda and a limited control over certain committee appointments.
So what is Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing? She has recently helped to pass a bill that would cut the number of troops in Iraq below a level that U.S. military leaders say they need. The bill, additionally, would require that combat operations cease before September 2008- setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal. In effect, the bill is tying-up war appropriations with “cut and run” demands that undermine our progress in the war. Fifteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are stabilized and Baghdad-since the Surge- is enjoying the most peace its had since the beginning of the war.
According to Vice President Cheney, “if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi is suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy of throwing in the towel and coming home. Then they win because we quit.”
Now Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East getting ready to meet with Syria against President Bush’s wishes. Syria is recognized as an “Axis” state that has helped to sponsor terrorist attacks against us. They are trying to disrupt the Saniora government of Lebanon and are allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq. The Administration believes that a visit by Speaker Pelosi sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Syria is, after all, a sworn enemy of the new Iraqi government. Why would Pelosi think she has a role to play in America’s Foreign Policy?
Imagine if the tables were turned and someone like President Roosevelt was getting this sort of treatment from his Speaker of the House in the late 1930s. What do you think would be the response?
Well, we don’t have to wonder. It did happen. In 1938, Speaker William Bankhead, under pressure from the appeasers of his day, was considering a proposed resolution that would call for a public referendum vote as a preresquisite for a declaration of war. Here is Roosevelt’s response: “I must frankly state that I conclude that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government. Our government is conducted by the people through representatives of their choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people. Such an amendment to the Constitution would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe they could violate American rights with impunity.”
What is past, is indeed, prologue. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States.”–U.S. Constitution
Under our Constitution, the President’s Executive Power includes the primary responsibility for maintaining the relations of the United States with foreign nations. With the Secretary of State, the President manages all official contacts with foreign governments. The President is also granted the power to negotiate treaties and make executive agreements with other nations and foreign powers.
What are the corresponding Constitutional Powers of the Speaker of the House? Generally, they are the presiding duties over the House of Representatives, the influence over a legislative agenda and a limited control over certain committee appointments.
So what is Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing? She has recently helped to pass a bill that would cut the number of troops in Iraq below a level that U.S. military leaders say they need. The bill, additionally, would require that combat operations cease before September 2008- setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal. In effect, the bill is tying-up war appropriations with “cut and run” demands that undermine our progress in the war. Fifteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are stabilized and Baghdad-since the Surge- is enjoying the most peace its had since the beginning of the war.
According to Vice President Cheney, “if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi is suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy of throwing in the towel and coming home. Then they win because we quit.”
Now Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East getting ready to meet with Syria against President Bush’s wishes. Syria is recognized as an “Axis” state that has helped to sponsor terrorist attacks against us. They are trying to disrupt the Saniora government of Lebanon and are allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq. The Administration believes that a visit by Speaker Pelosi sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Syria is, after all, a sworn enemy of the new Iraqi government. Why would Pelosi think she has a role to play in America’s Foreign Policy?
Imagine if the tables were turned and someone like President Roosevelt was getting this sort of treatment from his Speaker of the House in the late 1930s. What do you think would be the response?
Well, we don’t have to wonder. It did happen. In 1938, Speaker William Bankhead, under pressure from the appeasers of his day, was considering a proposed resolution that would call for a public referendum vote as a preresquisite for a declaration of war. Here is Roosevelt’s response: “I must frankly state that I conclude that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government. Our government is conducted by the people through representatives of their choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people. Such an amendment to the Constitution would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe they could violate American rights with impunity.”
What is past, is indeed, prologue. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Monday, March 5, 2007
Walking On Water
The people of the Democratic Underground website welcomed him to hell, Michael Strong said, “he was probably responsible for more human happiness and well-being than any other individual in the 20th century-- advancing the cause of Liberty more than any other person.” Who are they talking about? - Economist Milton Friedman.
The Economist magazine called him, “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, possibly of all of it.” Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, had this to say, “he was one of a very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization.”
Milton Friedman passed away November 16th of last year at the age of 94. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently declared January 29, 2007: “Milton Friedman Day.” Airing on that same night was a PBS special dedicated to Friedman entitled, “The Power of Choice.”
Friedman, ironically, began his career as a Keynesian “New Dealer,” but later converted to the Classical Liberal point of view of Laissez-faire Capitalism. This is not to be confused with today’s “liberal” politics of the Left- in fact, it’s just the opposite. One of the reasons for his conversion involved a key analysis he developed which showed how the Great Depression was, in actuality, more the effect of a damaging over-use of government power- in the area of unwise monetary policy- than it was the effect of some mysterious under-use of government power. His resulting monetarist conclusions put him on the path to rewriting many of the major economic theories of his generation.
In 1992, an interesting situation emerged that would forever secure the legacy of Milton Friedman’s theories. Mart Laar, at age 32, was elected prime minister of Estonia. He had read one book on economics, “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman. Facing a terrible fiscal crisis and having nothing to lose, Laar initiated Friedman’s policies of: Free Trade, Low Flat Taxes and Privatization. Now, his country is known as “The Baltic Tiger,” and is among the top 10 most free economies of the World. It is the most successful of all the post-communist Soviet economies enjoying an amazing annual growth rate of 7%. His political retractors claimed it couldn’t be done, that it was impossible, like “walking on water.” Laar, who was awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty by the Cato Institute in 2006, said it was based simply on a fundamental belief in the People of Estonia. The creative energies of individual initiative were unleashed and the Estonians became incredibly empowered through the freedoms of LESS government intrusion upon their lives. Does this sound familiar? It should, because these policies of minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom informed the administrations of two other prominent governments in recent years: Reagan and Thatcher.
Mart Laar, like Reagan and Thatcher before him, followed an idea of placing faith in the people and in their natural abilities to satisfy their own needs through free enterprise. He believed that you shouldn’t punish Achievers in your society through “progressive” taxation- a major thesis of communism- but rather, encourage Achievers to create something more for themselves with optimism, hope and a renewed motivation to dream big dreams. For Laar, this is what Freedom is all about, and it’s something that the old Soviet system could never produce.
Prime Minister Laar said he knew Friedman’s policies had a chance to work because the
communists hated him so much, calling him “dangerous!” He reasoned that Friedman must be a “good” man if he could elicit so much fear from the Soviets! Quoting Reagan at the Cato award ceremony, Larr said, “the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists is that the Marxists read Karl Marx’s books and the anti-Marxists UNDERSTAND them!” He added, “my experience with communism taught me how wrong it is. They hate the words ‘free’ and ‘choose.’” Besides Milton Friedman, Laar expressed a great fondness for Reagan saying, “he was the first politician in my lifetime who was not afraid to speak the truth and call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.”
Ironically, the advice that most often came from Western economists during this time of Laar’s administration involved the advocacy of Big Government solutions. It’s a long way from Reagan’s 80s, when he built a movement on the words, “government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” This relapse involves the modern love-affair with Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, among other Marxists. It reveals a disturbing trend according to Laar. He believes not enough has been done over the years to educate the deceived masses regarding the evils of all forms of Marxist governments. The task, as Laar sees it, is to one day regard the Communists as just as evil as the Nazis.
Upon the passing of Milton Friedman, Mart Larr had this to say,
Milton Friedman’s legacy in the modern world is the best proof that ideas really do matter. In the Soviet Union there was no place for ideas such as freedom, free choice, human initiatives or dignity. Human beings did not have any value there. Friedman’s ideas of liberty and free markets are the most powerful weapons in the fight against different kinds of dictatorships- in helping to break away from state control. Supporting free initiative and the people’s choice will
allow countries to build up prosperous societies and develop human happiness. His economic policies- flourishing as they are in my country- provide living proof that the ideas of Milton Friedman really work. Now that his ideas have been tested, it is easy to say that Friedman is right and Marx is wrong. Too many countries in the world are trying to ignore the ideas of liberty. They know that the teachings of Marx allow them more easily to control and rule their
people. The ideas of Milton Friedman make people free—that is the reason why they are not liked in countries with big government or real dictatorship. The best help we can give the modern world is to keep the heritage of Milton Friedman really alive. No, even more, to develop the cause of freedom everywhere, in the West and in the East because all of us deserve to be free! Without liberty our life is empty and meaningless. Liberty is what raises our spirit. Thank You Mr. Friedman. When we can all move in the direction you have shown us- we can make this world a better place.
“If Estonia is not a vindication of everything we believe in- from free trade to privatization to sound money to balanced budgets- I am at a loss as to how else one could validate our ideas.” Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.
There is no collective means to individual success.
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
The Economist magazine called him, “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, possibly of all of it.” Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, had this to say, “he was one of a very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization.”
Milton Friedman passed away November 16th of last year at the age of 94. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently declared January 29, 2007: “Milton Friedman Day.” Airing on that same night was a PBS special dedicated to Friedman entitled, “The Power of Choice.”
Friedman, ironically, began his career as a Keynesian “New Dealer,” but later converted to the Classical Liberal point of view of Laissez-faire Capitalism. This is not to be confused with today’s “liberal” politics of the Left- in fact, it’s just the opposite. One of the reasons for his conversion involved a key analysis he developed which showed how the Great Depression was, in actuality, more the effect of a damaging over-use of government power- in the area of unwise monetary policy- than it was the effect of some mysterious under-use of government power. His resulting monetarist conclusions put him on the path to rewriting many of the major economic theories of his generation.
In 1992, an interesting situation emerged that would forever secure the legacy of Milton Friedman’s theories. Mart Laar, at age 32, was elected prime minister of Estonia. He had read one book on economics, “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman. Facing a terrible fiscal crisis and having nothing to lose, Laar initiated Friedman’s policies of: Free Trade, Low Flat Taxes and Privatization. Now, his country is known as “The Baltic Tiger,” and is among the top 10 most free economies of the World. It is the most successful of all the post-communist Soviet economies enjoying an amazing annual growth rate of 7%. His political retractors claimed it couldn’t be done, that it was impossible, like “walking on water.” Laar, who was awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty by the Cato Institute in 2006, said it was based simply on a fundamental belief in the People of Estonia. The creative energies of individual initiative were unleashed and the Estonians became incredibly empowered through the freedoms of LESS government intrusion upon their lives. Does this sound familiar? It should, because these policies of minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom informed the administrations of two other prominent governments in recent years: Reagan and Thatcher.
Mart Laar, like Reagan and Thatcher before him, followed an idea of placing faith in the people and in their natural abilities to satisfy their own needs through free enterprise. He believed that you shouldn’t punish Achievers in your society through “progressive” taxation- a major thesis of communism- but rather, encourage Achievers to create something more for themselves with optimism, hope and a renewed motivation to dream big dreams. For Laar, this is what Freedom is all about, and it’s something that the old Soviet system could never produce.
Prime Minister Laar said he knew Friedman’s policies had a chance to work because the
communists hated him so much, calling him “dangerous!” He reasoned that Friedman must be a “good” man if he could elicit so much fear from the Soviets! Quoting Reagan at the Cato award ceremony, Larr said, “the difference between Marxists and anti-Marxists is that the Marxists read Karl Marx’s books and the anti-Marxists UNDERSTAND them!” He added, “my experience with communism taught me how wrong it is. They hate the words ‘free’ and ‘choose.’” Besides Milton Friedman, Laar expressed a great fondness for Reagan saying, “he was the first politician in my lifetime who was not afraid to speak the truth and call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire.”
Ironically, the advice that most often came from Western economists during this time of Laar’s administration involved the advocacy of Big Government solutions. It’s a long way from Reagan’s 80s, when he built a movement on the words, “government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” This relapse involves the modern love-affair with Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez, among other Marxists. It reveals a disturbing trend according to Laar. He believes not enough has been done over the years to educate the deceived masses regarding the evils of all forms of Marxist governments. The task, as Laar sees it, is to one day regard the Communists as just as evil as the Nazis.
Upon the passing of Milton Friedman, Mart Larr had this to say,
Milton Friedman’s legacy in the modern world is the best proof that ideas really do matter. In the Soviet Union there was no place for ideas such as freedom, free choice, human initiatives or dignity. Human beings did not have any value there. Friedman’s ideas of liberty and free markets are the most powerful weapons in the fight against different kinds of dictatorships- in helping to break away from state control. Supporting free initiative and the people’s choice will
allow countries to build up prosperous societies and develop human happiness. His economic policies- flourishing as they are in my country- provide living proof that the ideas of Milton Friedman really work. Now that his ideas have been tested, it is easy to say that Friedman is right and Marx is wrong. Too many countries in the world are trying to ignore the ideas of liberty. They know that the teachings of Marx allow them more easily to control and rule their
people. The ideas of Milton Friedman make people free—that is the reason why they are not liked in countries with big government or real dictatorship. The best help we can give the modern world is to keep the heritage of Milton Friedman really alive. No, even more, to develop the cause of freedom everywhere, in the West and in the East because all of us deserve to be free! Without liberty our life is empty and meaningless. Liberty is what raises our spirit. Thank You Mr. Friedman. When we can all move in the direction you have shown us- we can make this world a better place.
“If Estonia is not a vindication of everything we believe in- from free trade to privatization to sound money to balanced budgets- I am at a loss as to how else one could validate our ideas.” Former GOP House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.
There is no collective means to individual success.
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
