“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
Monday, April 30, 2007
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)
Friday, March 2, 2007
WMDs in Iraq
Since we just celebrated Independence Day number 230, I think it would be an appropriate, patriotic exercise to ask the question: To whom do we grant the benefit of the doubt, to the President, or to our enemies? A couple of weeks ago Sen. Santorum and Rep. Hoekstra held a press conference where they revealed the recently declassified Intelligence report claiming WMDs had indeed been found in Iraq. One would think this type of information would be welcomed as a unifying insight to help strengthen our resolve for the war, but Liberals, predictably, are instead making excuses for why we should remain skeptical and divided on this core issue that’s defining our time.
The report states that since 2003, Coalition Forces have recovered approximately 500 weapon munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Liberal critics, who showed no caution or qualification in calling President Bush a liar before, are now fervently equivocating for the benefit of our enemy by saying that such WMD discoveries are insignificant and irrelevant. How convenient for them!
Even if all of these particular projectiles of chemical weapons are pre-’91 and degraded, as some suggest, it doesn’t change the fact that it was illegal for Saddam Hussein to have them in the first place, and that it was he, and not Bush, who was the Liar. This proves that Saddam was explicitly in violation of some 14 separate UN Security Council Resolutions that prohibited him from having these agents. And, though they have degraded and weakened over time, nevertheless, experts maintain that these canisters remain a very deadly threat. Funny how the UN and Liberals can talk a big game, condemning Iraq for their WMDs before the war asClinton, Kerry and Kennedy did, only to shrink from the fight once tough action is required to do something about it. After Saddam kicked out the UN weapon inspectors in ’98, what else could have been done- wait and watch him nuke Jerusalem?
Besides this report, and the pre-war, historical record of various Intelligence agencies from around the world, there’s also three other credible sources to consider which have chronicled the discovery of WMDs in Iraq: Richard Miniter, Georges Sada and Israel. Miniter is an internationally-recognized expert on Terrorism. In his book, “Disinformation” he catalogs the recovery in Iraq of 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons, 1,000 radioactive materials and 17 chemical warheads with cyclosarin- an agent several times more deadly than sarin.
Geoges Sada, who was an Iraqi General and the number two official in Saddam Hussein’s Air Force, offers a compelling testimony from his unique, inside perspective. In his book, “Saddam’s Secrets” he talks about dozens of active WMD production facilities in operation during the 90’s. Sada, a Christian who now works for World Compassion, a humanitarian ministry headquartered in Tulsa, OK, also exposed Saddam’s plan to attack Israel with both chemical and nuclear weapons. Coincidently, Sada relates how it was on the very eve of our invasion that Saddam was actually in the process of launching a new chemical attack on Israel.
We should never forget that Saddam did attack Israel in the first Gulf War with SCUD missiles. He also used chemical weapons on his own people, in the horrendous 1988 genocidal attack where he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Is it so outrageous to think that he would have done so again?
Saddam, according to Sada, engineered a meticulous plan to hide his WMDs prior to the war by moving them to Syria. Syria had the misfortune of experiencing a catastrophic natural disaster in the summer of 2000 and Saddam used this tragedy as an opportunity to conceal his illegal weapons as emergency aid. Loaded upon commercial trucks, ambulances and reconfigured Boeing airliners, Saddam strategically relocated thousands of tons of chemical weapons into Syria. In December of 2002, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also confirmed that chemical and biological weapons from Iraq had been moved into Syria. In addition, Israel’s top General, Mosha Yaalon is also on record alleging this Syrian relocation of WMDs occurring during the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Is it conceivable to believe that all of these men are lying? Maybe if your name is Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon or Natalie Maines!
Liberals have shown very little tolerance for these facts. Ted Kennedy has said, “there’s no question (the Bush Administration) misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq.”Jimmy Carter has flatly called Bush “dishonest,” and Al Gore describes Bush’s “march to war” as an “abuse of the truth.” One has to wonder what side they’re truly on! In Connecticut, Democrat Sen. Joe Leiberman is now, unbelievably, being confronted with charges from his own party that he’s not a true Democrat because he favors the war! His Democrat-primary opponent Ned Lamont is claiming Leiberman is really more of a Republican than a Democrat simply because he refuses to adopt the “mainstream” Democrat position of an immediate pull-out out of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has abandoned Leiberman and Maxine Waters has just announced she’s on her way to Connecticut to help Lamont. Amazing how fast one can move from a party’s candidate
for Vice President to party outcast. The Liberal mindset on Iraq is definitely twisted and has poisoned their sense of rational debate. Instead of abiding by the time-honored tradition of showing bipartisan unity beyond “the water’s edge,” Liberals now seem to relish every opportunity to divide and discredit our nation’s foreign policy in spite of the aid and comfort it clearly gives to our enemies. It seems, as Reagan once said, that Liberals can only build themselves up by tearing America down. It’s the classic “blame America first” strategy. Yet, in the spirit of this month’s celebration of 230 years of Independence, I’d like to believe there’s hope that someday we might find some unity for our country’s foreign engagements. But, given the prevailing attitude found on the Left today…something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath.
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
The report states that since 2003, Coalition Forces have recovered approximately 500 weapon munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Liberal critics, who showed no caution or qualification in calling President Bush a liar before, are now fervently equivocating for the benefit of our enemy by saying that such WMD discoveries are insignificant and irrelevant. How convenient for them!
Even if all of these particular projectiles of chemical weapons are pre-’91 and degraded, as some suggest, it doesn’t change the fact that it was illegal for Saddam Hussein to have them in the first place, and that it was he, and not Bush, who was the Liar. This proves that Saddam was explicitly in violation of some 14 separate UN Security Council Resolutions that prohibited him from having these agents. And, though they have degraded and weakened over time, nevertheless, experts maintain that these canisters remain a very deadly threat. Funny how the UN and Liberals can talk a big game, condemning Iraq for their WMDs before the war asClinton, Kerry and Kennedy did, only to shrink from the fight once tough action is required to do something about it. After Saddam kicked out the UN weapon inspectors in ’98, what else could have been done- wait and watch him nuke Jerusalem?
Besides this report, and the pre-war, historical record of various Intelligence agencies from around the world, there’s also three other credible sources to consider which have chronicled the discovery of WMDs in Iraq: Richard Miniter, Georges Sada and Israel. Miniter is an internationally-recognized expert on Terrorism. In his book, “Disinformation” he catalogs the recovery in Iraq of 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons, 1,000 radioactive materials and 17 chemical warheads with cyclosarin- an agent several times more deadly than sarin.
Geoges Sada, who was an Iraqi General and the number two official in Saddam Hussein’s Air Force, offers a compelling testimony from his unique, inside perspective. In his book, “Saddam’s Secrets” he talks about dozens of active WMD production facilities in operation during the 90’s. Sada, a Christian who now works for World Compassion, a humanitarian ministry headquartered in Tulsa, OK, also exposed Saddam’s plan to attack Israel with both chemical and nuclear weapons. Coincidently, Sada relates how it was on the very eve of our invasion that Saddam was actually in the process of launching a new chemical attack on Israel.
We should never forget that Saddam did attack Israel in the first Gulf War with SCUD missiles. He also used chemical weapons on his own people, in the horrendous 1988 genocidal attack where he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Is it so outrageous to think that he would have done so again?
Saddam, according to Sada, engineered a meticulous plan to hide his WMDs prior to the war by moving them to Syria. Syria had the misfortune of experiencing a catastrophic natural disaster in the summer of 2000 and Saddam used this tragedy as an opportunity to conceal his illegal weapons as emergency aid. Loaded upon commercial trucks, ambulances and reconfigured Boeing airliners, Saddam strategically relocated thousands of tons of chemical weapons into Syria. In December of 2002, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also confirmed that chemical and biological weapons from Iraq had been moved into Syria. In addition, Israel’s top General, Mosha Yaalon is also on record alleging this Syrian relocation of WMDs occurring during the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Is it conceivable to believe that all of these men are lying? Maybe if your name is Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon or Natalie Maines!
Liberals have shown very little tolerance for these facts. Ted Kennedy has said, “there’s no question (the Bush Administration) misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq.”Jimmy Carter has flatly called Bush “dishonest,” and Al Gore describes Bush’s “march to war” as an “abuse of the truth.” One has to wonder what side they’re truly on! In Connecticut, Democrat Sen. Joe Leiberman is now, unbelievably, being confronted with charges from his own party that he’s not a true Democrat because he favors the war! His Democrat-primary opponent Ned Lamont is claiming Leiberman is really more of a Republican than a Democrat simply because he refuses to adopt the “mainstream” Democrat position of an immediate pull-out out of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has abandoned Leiberman and Maxine Waters has just announced she’s on her way to Connecticut to help Lamont. Amazing how fast one can move from a party’s candidate
for Vice President to party outcast. The Liberal mindset on Iraq is definitely twisted and has poisoned their sense of rational debate. Instead of abiding by the time-honored tradition of showing bipartisan unity beyond “the water’s edge,” Liberals now seem to relish every opportunity to divide and discredit our nation’s foreign policy in spite of the aid and comfort it clearly gives to our enemies. It seems, as Reagan once said, that Liberals can only build themselves up by tearing America down. It’s the classic “blame America first” strategy. Yet, in the spirit of this month’s celebration of 230 years of Independence, I’d like to believe there’s hope that someday we might find some unity for our country’s foreign engagements. But, given the prevailing attitude found on the Left today…something tells me I shouldn’t hold my breath.
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
The Conceit of Victimhood
Domestic Violence is a serious problem in our modern world. In the majority of cases the scenario is exactly the same: a tyrannical, over-bearing man seeks to dominate a weaker, more-vulnerable woman. But, as they say, “it takes two to Tango!” Most of the time these incidents escalate into tragic proportions because the woman fails to respond in a logical manner to the emerging threat. Instead of simply leaving the relationship, the woman, typically, internalizes her situation, imagining that part of the reason for her abuse must lie within her own failures and inadequacies as a woman. ie. “blaming the victim” This is the classic syndrome of victimization and co-dependency. At it’s perverted core, it is a selfish point of view which perpetuates the very conditions for continuing the abuse. It is the irrational idea that, somehow, the culprit is excused from taking full responsibility because he is involuntarily manipulated by the distinct choices and actions of the Victim!
Flash forward to our War on Terror, or as our President has most recently, and more- accurately, termed it: “the War on Islamic Fascism.” There are those who believe that our very existence in the Middle East is ‘the reason’ for the Terrorist attacks against us! They are seriously suggesting that it is our reactionary impulse to “fight back” which is motivating all the grotesque actions of the jihad! Funny, how the Terrorists of the 1985- 1996 period, (Achille Lauro, Pan Am 103, USS Cole, World Trade Center bombing #1, and the Khobar Towers), all had a premonition of the Iraqi invasion, and proceeded then to act upon it- ahead of time! My, these are a conscientious lot, aren’t they? It’s as if the Liberal critics are saying: “these poor, Terrorists can’t help themselves, they’re strapping bombs onto their bellies and blowing up innocent civilians because they’re probably just anticipating all the bad, over-cooked dinners we’ll be serving them in the future!” Ahh, I guess it really is all our fault then, huh? We should patronize them more, don’t you think? “Won’t Daddy Terrorist please tell me…what Daddy Terrorist wants for din din…so Daddy Terrorist won’t have to go out and incinerate another ol’ icky car bomb?” Can’t you just hear the refrain: “sure Mahmoud has his bad side, but I can change him, I know I can!”
An element of the Victimhood belief system is the conceited notion that one’s “appease- ment” will be so intoxicatingly beautiful and alluring that the offending party will have no choice but to immediately surrender all aggression and melt like butter in your forgiving arms! A senior Bush official put it this way in a recent statement following the thwarted London plot: “the idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren’t for U.S. policies, strikes me as not a valid idea. [Liberals] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces!”
Indeed, it is just as foolhearty to expect an Islamo-fascist to be magically transformed by an appeasing, geopolitical gesture as it is to expect an abusing spouse to spawn into a Prince simply because you have an obsession with kissing a frog! There’s a quote from my all-time, favorite movie, “First Knight” that sums it up best: “there is a peace that is only to be found on the other side of war.” That is the type of peace that is secured by whatever means is necessary for the cause of triumphing over evil. The type of “peace” that a battered wife endures by placating her boorish husband is no more preferable than the “peace” that the Liberals want for our country now as we face Islamic annihilation. Both strategies ignore the culpability of the aggressor and endeavor to “buy-off” the evil-doer with a short-term, self-limiting peace that comes at the expense of long-term freedom and justice. Winston Churchill characterized this bankrupt, appeasement process as the idea of “throwing others to the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.”
In domestic relationships, as in international affairs, “feeding the alligator,” ultimately proves to be a stupid strategy. It is cowardice, wrong-headed and selfish. It’s a course of action that only strengthens the beast, until that fateful day when it comes down to- you or him! (send comments to WFC831297@aol.com)
Flash forward to our War on Terror, or as our President has most recently, and more- accurately, termed it: “the War on Islamic Fascism.” There are those who believe that our very existence in the Middle East is ‘the reason’ for the Terrorist attacks against us! They are seriously suggesting that it is our reactionary impulse to “fight back” which is motivating all the grotesque actions of the jihad! Funny, how the Terrorists of the 1985- 1996 period, (Achille Lauro, Pan Am 103, USS Cole, World Trade Center bombing #1, and the Khobar Towers), all had a premonition of the Iraqi invasion, and proceeded then to act upon it- ahead of time! My, these are a conscientious lot, aren’t they? It’s as if the Liberal critics are saying: “these poor, Terrorists can’t help themselves, they’re strapping bombs onto their bellies and blowing up innocent civilians because they’re probably just anticipating all the bad, over-cooked dinners we’ll be serving them in the future!” Ahh, I guess it really is all our fault then, huh? We should patronize them more, don’t you think? “Won’t Daddy Terrorist please tell me…what Daddy Terrorist wants for din din…so Daddy Terrorist won’t have to go out and incinerate another ol’ icky car bomb?” Can’t you just hear the refrain: “sure Mahmoud has his bad side, but I can change him, I know I can!”
An element of the Victimhood belief system is the conceited notion that one’s “appease- ment” will be so intoxicatingly beautiful and alluring that the offending party will have no choice but to immediately surrender all aggression and melt like butter in your forgiving arms! A senior Bush official put it this way in a recent statement following the thwarted London plot: “the idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren’t for U.S. policies, strikes me as not a valid idea. [Liberals] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces!”
Indeed, it is just as foolhearty to expect an Islamo-fascist to be magically transformed by an appeasing, geopolitical gesture as it is to expect an abusing spouse to spawn into a Prince simply because you have an obsession with kissing a frog! There’s a quote from my all-time, favorite movie, “First Knight” that sums it up best: “there is a peace that is only to be found on the other side of war.” That is the type of peace that is secured by whatever means is necessary for the cause of triumphing over evil. The type of “peace” that a battered wife endures by placating her boorish husband is no more preferable than the “peace” that the Liberals want for our country now as we face Islamic annihilation. Both strategies ignore the culpability of the aggressor and endeavor to “buy-off” the evil-doer with a short-term, self-limiting peace that comes at the expense of long-term freedom and justice. Winston Churchill characterized this bankrupt, appeasement process as the idea of “throwing others to the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.”
In domestic relationships, as in international affairs, “feeding the alligator,” ultimately proves to be a stupid strategy. It is cowardice, wrong-headed and selfish. It’s a course of action that only strengthens the beast, until that fateful day when it comes down to- you or him! (send comments to WFC831297@aol.com)
Immigration: An American Ideal
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
These are the words on our Statue of Liberty, but what do they mean?
Lady Liberty is a symbol for America’s “golden door” to freedom. It’s a proud legacy stretching back to before our nation’s founding. From the very beginning, refugees from countless shores have risked all to find a new life in the New World of America.
Today’s dilemma involving the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico is challenging this notion like never before. So, what questions should we be asking?
Should there be any limits to immigration? What is the motivation spurring this influx of new arrivals? Currently, there are many proposals in the offing for resolving this mess, but which one is right?
I don’t believe, as the Left does, that borders are irrelevant and that all restrictions on immigration are motivated by racism. Sure, there are those who might prefer a different ethnicity for our new citizens, but the question remains: in this dangerous era of Terrorism and social anarchy what makes any of us, a citizen of this country?
I think the idea of citizenship involves the responsibility that comes with freedom. There are laws in place that determine the qualifications for citizenship, and these laws must be obeyed. We exist as a nation because we have certain responsibilities that go along with our civil liberties. Qualifications must be in place to guarantee an assimilation within this framework. We are nothing without our common culture and the stability that it provides. It remains our solemn commitment to one another.
Most of the immigrants now marching in our streets for their so-called “rights” are outlaws, sponsored by Marxist-organizations, showing no respect for this honorable commitment. How can they legitimately call for our nation’s protection when they are simultaneously flouting our nation’s laws? It seems a bit hypocritical to me. Plus, it’s not fair to all those other immigrants who are “playing by the rules” and waiting in line year after year for the chance to come to our country legally.
One of the circumstances that’s different now, than at other times in our history, is the vast social, safety-net we currently have in place. Welfare programs represent a pledge by our government to help those qualified citizens who warrant such considerations. In years past, immigrants came to our country, not for a handout, but for a fair chance to pursue “the American Dream.” I’m not saying that all immigrants are the type who would abuse this privilege, but many are, and frankly, we just can’t afford it.
The President seems to have offered a fair program to sort-out these differences- being sure to assist those who are willing to fulfill their obligations toward citizenship while appropriately challenging those, (including their employers), who do not.
Freedom is a two-way street. One cannot reserve a freedom to himself that he would not equally extend to another. It’s interesting that Mexico has very tough immigration laws that severely limit the rights of those who would attempt to go there, yet they expect us to unilaterally surrender all restrictions that we might impose.
The poor Mexicans who are trying to better their lives in America, are seeking a laudable goal. However, shouldn’t they also have an interest in maintaining the culture that is already here that has afforded them this very opportunity?
We should be careful to make sure that the last one closing the door behind them coming across the border isn’t ultimately, a deceived traveler who finds no American Dream left upon his first day pursuing happiness in the good ol’ USA! At the end of that scenario- we all lose! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
These are the words on our Statue of Liberty, but what do they mean?
Lady Liberty is a symbol for America’s “golden door” to freedom. It’s a proud legacy stretching back to before our nation’s founding. From the very beginning, refugees from countless shores have risked all to find a new life in the New World of America.
Today’s dilemma involving the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico is challenging this notion like never before. So, what questions should we be asking?
Should there be any limits to immigration? What is the motivation spurring this influx of new arrivals? Currently, there are many proposals in the offing for resolving this mess, but which one is right?
I don’t believe, as the Left does, that borders are irrelevant and that all restrictions on immigration are motivated by racism. Sure, there are those who might prefer a different ethnicity for our new citizens, but the question remains: in this dangerous era of Terrorism and social anarchy what makes any of us, a citizen of this country?
I think the idea of citizenship involves the responsibility that comes with freedom. There are laws in place that determine the qualifications for citizenship, and these laws must be obeyed. We exist as a nation because we have certain responsibilities that go along with our civil liberties. Qualifications must be in place to guarantee an assimilation within this framework. We are nothing without our common culture and the stability that it provides. It remains our solemn commitment to one another.
Most of the immigrants now marching in our streets for their so-called “rights” are outlaws, sponsored by Marxist-organizations, showing no respect for this honorable commitment. How can they legitimately call for our nation’s protection when they are simultaneously flouting our nation’s laws? It seems a bit hypocritical to me. Plus, it’s not fair to all those other immigrants who are “playing by the rules” and waiting in line year after year for the chance to come to our country legally.
One of the circumstances that’s different now, than at other times in our history, is the vast social, safety-net we currently have in place. Welfare programs represent a pledge by our government to help those qualified citizens who warrant such considerations. In years past, immigrants came to our country, not for a handout, but for a fair chance to pursue “the American Dream.” I’m not saying that all immigrants are the type who would abuse this privilege, but many are, and frankly, we just can’t afford it.
The President seems to have offered a fair program to sort-out these differences- being sure to assist those who are willing to fulfill their obligations toward citizenship while appropriately challenging those, (including their employers), who do not.
Freedom is a two-way street. One cannot reserve a freedom to himself that he would not equally extend to another. It’s interesting that Mexico has very tough immigration laws that severely limit the rights of those who would attempt to go there, yet they expect us to unilaterally surrender all restrictions that we might impose.
The poor Mexicans who are trying to better their lives in America, are seeking a laudable goal. However, shouldn’t they also have an interest in maintaining the culture that is already here that has afforded them this very opportunity?
We should be careful to make sure that the last one closing the door behind them coming across the border isn’t ultimately, a deceived traveler who finds no American Dream left upon his first day pursuing happiness in the good ol’ USA! At the end of that scenario- we all lose! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Is It Hot Enough For Ya?
Look, up in the sky, it’s a bird…it’s a plane, no it’s Booga Booga! “Dr.” Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is at it again, hawking his latest anti-Global Warming elixir. Actually he’s morelike a witch doctor. All that’s missing is a bone through the nose, a little paint on the face and a couple of ominous rattles in his hands. His new film, ”An Inconvenient Truth” is making the rounds like a bad recurring dream. This is your life…Booga Booga. The movie, which is turning out nice numbers at the box office, (albeit on a proportional basis that factors in much fewer screens), plays more like a sad, syrupy, sentimental attempt to revitalize one man’s failing political career than an authentic news story based upon fact. At various points you wonder when Ralph Edwards is going to appear saying, “do you recognize this voice, from your 4th grade biology class?” One could write this off as one big hilarious joke, in a long line of hilarious Al Gore-jokes, if not for the very serious threat we face from the Al Gore-brand of radical, leftist environmentalism. Their “junk science” may be silly and easily dismissed, but their efforts to expand the powers of government are not!
Before detailing with some of the deceptions in this latest Global Warming Hoax, it should be remembered that Al Gore’s family has a considerable interest in the Occidental Petroleum Corporation. This company has been cited for creating many environmental hazards over the years. It would seem appropriate and logical to me that one should clean-up one’s own backyard first before pointing fingers at others.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Lab in Australia, has this to say about the film, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that his film is commanding public attention.” Carter maintains that most of Gore’s scientists are not even in the climate field. Carter’s assessment is that they can provide no conclusive proof that human emissions of CO2 are having any significant impact upon the global climate. Carleton University paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson agrees, “there is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geological] time frame.”
Nevertheless, Gore keeps chanting away demanding we stop analyzing his data and accept the “consensus truth.” To make him happy we simply must come forth with an acceptable sacrifice to appease the angry gods of Global Warming. Booga booga. We’re not suppose to listen to folks like Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg Climatologist, who says, “these models (mathematical computer models that predict Gore’s apocalyptic visions), have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios.”
Professor Patterson contends that it is completely unsubstantiated to believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming, “in fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years!”
I could go on with countless other quotations from scientists who are experts in the field of climate research, but for those with a superstitious point of view, what difference does it make? The crucial point is: how would Al Gore’s agitprop affect us, if it actually succeeded in gaining political acceptance? By the film’s end it’s no secret what the true agenda is. The key to the witch doctor’s sacrifice is America’s endorsement of the global environmental treaty known affectionately as the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of this accord is in getting top industrialized nations to cut their industrial emissions by 5.2 percent from their 1990 levels. Canada, an early signer to the treaty, has since renounced it as an unrealistic and over-burdensome policy. MIT professor, (and Democrat), Richard Lindzen calls Kyoto “baseless” and “bad” for its potential impact on government policies and the economy. He adds, “there’s no current Western leader who’s as well informed on the [climate] issue as Bush. European politicians are just using Kyoto for cheap virtue.” President Bush has always been against Kyoto. Gas prices would be in the $3.50 range, electric bills would nearly double, coal prices would rise by a factor of 153%, the GDP would be cut in half and the cost to the economy would tally in the hundreds of billions- if we listen to the witch doctor!
Al Gore seems to pride himself on being more of a prophet than a witch doctor, but I wonder if he’s contemplated what the good book says about what should be done with False Prophets? Maybe we’ll get a voodoo dance out of it yet. Anything would be better than the Macarena Megalomania we’re seeing now! (send comments to wfc83197@aol.com)
Before detailing with some of the deceptions in this latest Global Warming Hoax, it should be remembered that Al Gore’s family has a considerable interest in the Occidental Petroleum Corporation. This company has been cited for creating many environmental hazards over the years. It would seem appropriate and logical to me that one should clean-up one’s own backyard first before pointing fingers at others.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Lab in Australia, has this to say about the film, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that his film is commanding public attention.” Carter maintains that most of Gore’s scientists are not even in the climate field. Carter’s assessment is that they can provide no conclusive proof that human emissions of CO2 are having any significant impact upon the global climate. Carleton University paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson agrees, “there is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geological] time frame.”
Nevertheless, Gore keeps chanting away demanding we stop analyzing his data and accept the “consensus truth.” To make him happy we simply must come forth with an acceptable sacrifice to appease the angry gods of Global Warming. Booga booga. We’re not suppose to listen to folks like Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg Climatologist, who says, “these models (mathematical computer models that predict Gore’s apocalyptic visions), have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios.”
Professor Patterson contends that it is completely unsubstantiated to believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming, “in fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years!”
I could go on with countless other quotations from scientists who are experts in the field of climate research, but for those with a superstitious point of view, what difference does it make? The crucial point is: how would Al Gore’s agitprop affect us, if it actually succeeded in gaining political acceptance? By the film’s end it’s no secret what the true agenda is. The key to the witch doctor’s sacrifice is America’s endorsement of the global environmental treaty known affectionately as the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of this accord is in getting top industrialized nations to cut their industrial emissions by 5.2 percent from their 1990 levels. Canada, an early signer to the treaty, has since renounced it as an unrealistic and over-burdensome policy. MIT professor, (and Democrat), Richard Lindzen calls Kyoto “baseless” and “bad” for its potential impact on government policies and the economy. He adds, “there’s no current Western leader who’s as well informed on the [climate] issue as Bush. European politicians are just using Kyoto for cheap virtue.” President Bush has always been against Kyoto. Gas prices would be in the $3.50 range, electric bills would nearly double, coal prices would rise by a factor of 153%, the GDP would be cut in half and the cost to the economy would tally in the hundreds of billions- if we listen to the witch doctor!
Al Gore seems to pride himself on being more of a prophet than a witch doctor, but I wonder if he’s contemplated what the good book says about what should be done with False Prophets? Maybe we’ll get a voodoo dance out of it yet. Anything would be better than the Macarena Megalomania we’re seeing now! (send comments to wfc83197@aol.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
