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)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
