RickSpeak

Harry Reid, Protector of the American People, er, Democratic Party

2006-08-12T05:00:00.000-07:00

by
Richard L. Barrett

When it comes to national security, an issue the Democrats are hoping to make a case to the American people in this Fall's general elections that they, and not the Republicans, will be the responsible party in fighting terrorism if elected to the majority, have proven once more that they are more interested in attaining a majority Congress than being patriots in the War on Terror.

Upon the breaking news this past Thursday that a major Islamic terrorist plot to blow up passenger planes flying out of England to America had been foiled, Democrat senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada rushed out to release the following statement, "As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be...The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world." (http://reid.senate.gov/)

There are two problems with Mr. Reid's rushed statement, his obvious attempt to "get ahead" of the story to show the voters that the Democrats are the real vigilant anti-terror party. The first is that, well, the terror plot failed. So unless Mr. Reid is criticizing President Bush's lack of ESP in discovering terrorists even before they begin planning their vicious mayhem, I'm not sure what he is upset about.

Secondly, yesterday, it was revealed that American intelligence played a major role in intercepting the "terrorist chatter" among the Muslim plotters. The AP reported that, "a U.S. congressman briefed by intelligence officials, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said U.S. intelligence had intercepted terrorist chatter." Time magazine online also reports, "MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."

Contrary to Mr. Reid's attempt to disparage the commander-in-chief and his administration with his thoughtless and highly partisan statement, this President is keeping America as safe as it should be. There are many wrong-headed points Mr. Reid makes in his statement that reeks of partisanship over patriotism. One is that the war in Iraq has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. Hello, McFly! International terrorists have had their sights set on America well before our second incursion into Iraq. From the suicide bombing of our Marines based in Southern Lebanon in 1983 to the 9/11 attacks, Muslim terrorists have targeted Americans for over two decades.

Mr. Reid concludes his preposterous statement by tying the recent foiled bombing plot to Iraq! How this failed attempt to kill thousands of innocents over the Atlantic Ocean is related to changing the course in Iraq to "ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world" is purely and utterly nonsensical.

The party that wants to end the Patriot Act, the party that wants to kill the NSA surveillance tactics, and the party that wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, NOW, and who cries, "Uncle!" when the going gets tough, this is the party that will protect Americans here and the world over? Only the French have less fortitude than Democrats, but the French can be excused due to the extravagant and elegant nature of the their country. Who wants to fight wars when you can be dining on French cuisine, fine wines and cheese along the French Riviera?

In the end, Mr. Reid's shortsighted rush to criticize our Commander-in-Chief reveals, with unintended consequences, to the American people that the Democratic Party is not interested in protecting our country. They are, at best, ugly opportunists interested solely in regaining congressional power. At worst, they are undermining the War on Terror and causing a very real risk to the lives of the American people. One can only hope that Mr. Reid's position as the minority leader in the Senate will continue after the votes are tallied for the coming November elections.

Michael Berg Never Looked Into a Terrorists Eyes

2006-06-08T22:45:00.000-07:00

By Richard L. Barrett, III

In light of the recent death of murderous psychopath, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Allah be praised!) and Michael Berg’s statement upon hearing the news that the man who beheaded his son, Nicholas Berg, said, "I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, I think George Bush is.” I had to go back and review Mr. Berg, who is a Greenpeace candidate running for Congress in the coming fall election, and his open letter regarding the death of his son.
Below is his letter with my own running commentary about his accusations in bold black.

George Bush never looked into Nick's eyes
By Michael Berg

Even more than the murderers who took my son's life, I condemn those who make policies to end lives

Even more than the murderers who took your son’s life, I condemn those who are left-wing apologists for Islamofacisism.

My son, Nick, was my teacher and my hero. He was the kindest, gentlest man I know; no, the kindest, gentlest human being I have ever known. He quit the Boy Scouts of America because they wanted to teach him to fire a handgun. Nick, too, poured into me the strength I needed, and still need, to tell the world about him.

People ask me why I focus on putting the blame for my son's tragic and atrocious end on the Bush administration. They ask: "Don't you blame the five men who killed him?" I have answered that I blame them no more or less than the Bush administration, but I am wrong: I am sure, knowing my son, that somewhere during their association with him these men became aware of what an extraordinary man my son was. I take comfort that when they did the awful thing they did, they weren't quite as in to it as they might have been. I am sure that they came to admire him.

I am sure that the one who wielded the knife felt Nick's breath on his hand and knew that he had a real human being there. I am sure that the others looked into my son's eyes and got at least a glimmer of what the rest of the world sees. And I am sure that these murderers, for just a brief moment, did not like what they were doing.

Wrong assumption. The men who killed your son were psychopaths who are detached from human feeling and emotion. They kill innocent women and children and behead peacekeepers and foreign workers trying to make Iraq a civilized country where, under Saddam Hussein, they knew only brutality and fear. They looked into your son’s eyes and shouted “God is great! All glory to God!” They enjoyed killing your son, Mr. Berg.

George Bush never looked into my son's eyes. George Bush doesn't know my son, and he is the worse for it. George Bush, though a father himself, cannot feel my pain, or that of my family, or of the world that grieves for Nick, because he is a policymaker, and he doesn't have to bear the consequences of his acts. George Bush can see neither the heart of Nick nor that of the American people, let alone that of the Iraqi people his policies are killing daily.

Donald Rumsfeld said that he took responsibility for the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners. How could he take that responsibility when there was no consequence? Nick took the consequences.

Even more than those murderers who took my son's life, I can't stand those who sit and make policies to end lives and break the lives of the still living.

Once more the liberal disconnect. Mr. Berg conveniently forgets the reign of terror Saddam Hussein not only injected into his citizens, but also the entire region (Invaded Iraq and Kuwait, launched missiles at Israel and paid the families of Palestinian Homicide bombers.)

Nick was not in the military, but he had the discipline and dedication of a soldier. Nick Berg was in Iraq to help the people without any expectation of personal gain. He was only one man, but through his death he has become many. The truly unselfish spirit of giving your all to do what you know in your own heart is right even when you know it may be dangerous; this spirit has spread among the people who knew Nick, and that group has spread and is spreading all over the world.

So what were we to do when we in America were attacked on September 11, that infamous day? I say we should have done then what we never did before: stop speaking to the people we labeled our enemies and start listening to them. Stop giving preconditions to our peaceful coexistence on this small planet, and start honouring and respecting every human's need to live free and autonomously, to truly respect the sovereignty of every state. To stop making up rules by which others must live and then separate rules for ourselves.

Once again, we get liberal disconnect propaganda from Mr. Berg. Listen to our enemies, Mr. Berg? Listen to those who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993? Listen to those who brought them down in 2001? Listen to those who blew up the USS Cole, who bombed our soldiers in Beirut and in a German disco? Who blow themselves up in order to kill civilians in Israel, Madrid and London? Who regularly preach in their mosques the destruction of Israel, America and the West because we are all infidels? Who do you suggest we listen to, Mr. Berg? You cannot give respect to those who do not respect you! You, and your left-wing comrades, live in a fantasy world of Utopia.

George Bush's ineffective leadership is a weapon of mass destruction, and it has allowed a chain reaction of events that led to the unlawful detention of my son which immersed him in a world of escalated violence. Were it not for Nick's detention, I would have had him in my arms again. That detention held him in Iraq not only until the atrocities that led to the siege of Fallujah, but also the revelation of the atrocities committed in the jails in Iraq, in retaliation for which my son's wonderful life was put to an end.

Actually, Mr. Berg, your son would still be alive today if you had not taught him your false doctrines of left wing activism/utopianism. I am willing to bet that this is the real reason for your cause of grief, that it was actually your teachings that killed your son. Take responsibility for your actions, sir!

My son's work still goes on. Where there was one peacemaker before, I now see and have heard from thousands of peacemakers. Nick was a man who acted on his beliefs. We, the people of this world, now need to act on our beliefs. We need to let the evildoers on both sides of the Atlantic know that we are fed up with war. We are fed up with the killing and bombing and maiming of innocent people. We are fed up with the lies. Yes, we are fed up with the suicide bombers, and with the failure of the Israelis and Palestinians to find a way to stop killing each other. We are fed up with negotiations and peace conferences that are entered into on both sides with preset conditions that preclude the outcome of peace. We want world peace now.

Many have offered to pray for Nick and my family. I appreciate their thoughts, but I ask them to include in their prayers a prayer for peace. And I ask them to do more than pray. I ask them to demand peace now.

Amen!

http://newsblaze.com/story/20060608223806rich.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html

http://bergforcongress.us/index.php

On Taxes and Magic

2006-05-12T13:48:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times reported on May 10th, 2006 that because of unexpected windfall collections from stock market and business gains during the month of April, the state of California received $5 billion dollars in tax receipts.

This is nothing new to California. During former Governor Gray Davis’ five years in office, state revenues increased by 25%. The problem was that, in that same time period, state expenditures increased by 43%! This astounding fiscal mess was achieved with the witting help of the predominantly Democratic State Congress. When Governor Davis first came into office, California had a $9 billion surplus. Five years later it had turned into a $22 billion dollar deficit.

Governor Davis’ proposal to compensate for the deficit was a typical Democrat solution to all deficits: increase taxes. This promptly got him re-called by the voting citizenry who installed Republican action-hero, Arnold Schwarzenegger, into office. When the Governator took over in 2004, the whopping $22 billion dollar deficit was facing him like a terminator cyborg.

One year later, without raising taxes (much to the chagrin of the Democratic controlled legislation), Governor Schwarzenegger presented the State Congress with a balanced budget. How was this done? Certainly by paring back programs, forcing the bureaucrats who run them to spend within their financial constraints helped. Just as important, Schwarzenegger did not raise the state personal income tax, to the dismay of the Democrats, who complained bitterly like spoiled kids to whoever would listen to them.

They no longer had the money they wanted to continue to spend on whatever vanity programs they had embraced once the tech boom and stock market bubbles burst, thus the temper tantrums begun:

"The governor has declared war on the state of California," proclaimed Assemblywoman Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park. "He declared war on us, and I declare war on him." (Democracy for America in Orange County, CA 2005)

"No one could have predicted he'd declare nuclear war on teachers and firefighters all in the same year," said Democratic consultant Roger Salazar. (Democracy for America in Orange County, CA 2005)

Attorney General Bill Lockyer, reached for an entirely different weapon, criticizing Schwarzenegger for "the arrogance of power" that comes with "the odor of Austrian politics." (Democracy for America in Orange County, CA 2005)

So, according to the spoiled brat politicians, Governor Schwarzenegger has declared war on the state of California, he has declared nuclear war on teachers and is governing with “the arrogance of power…an odor of Austrian politics.” Lockyer’s analysis is particularly revolting in its insinuating accusation that Governor Schwarzenegger is a Nazi. Adolph Hitler was Austrian by birth.

Under the five years of Davis leadership, the “kids” on Capitol Hill were undisciplined until Super Nanny Governator made them take a time out and insisted that there were to be no more shenanigans about deficit spending and raising taxes on personal income.

What is the lesson to be learned? Not raising taxes on personal incomes actually increase government budgets! This is the second year in a row, under Republican Governor Schwarzenegger's fiscal policies, that California has received "unexpected" large tax collections from businesses and stock gains, according to the mystified Los Angeles Times who, apparently, still do not understand basic Economics. Or, worse, they want to keep the cronies on the liberal left in office who continue to use "Magical" economic plans that always include raising income taxes while using the poor and destitute as pawns in their slimy grab for political power.

There is no magic needed, though, because the economic answer is really quite simple: Low personal income tax fuels businesses, which in turn expands because they invest in ways to grow and maintain the business, including the hiring of more people. When more people have jobs and get to keep more of what they earn, they tend to spend or invest their incomes. With businesses and people prospering, tax receipt collections overflow the government's coffers that finance the public works and public needs of its citizenry. All of this is accomplished without raising personal income taxes. The state of California has proved this two years running.

(Citation of budget figures: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Budget/BudgetDocuments.asp)

Barry and the Babe

2006-05-10T23:14:00.000-07:00

As Barry Bonds attempts to tie the Babe's 714 home run total, there has been a lot of discussion leading up to this moment about the validity of Bonds' accomplishments, specifically the years he allegedly took steroids, from 1999-2004. Barry Bonds is a lightning rod figure in baseball, which no doubt encourages such discussion amongst fans, the media and the players about whether Bonds' home runs, and the single season record of 2001, during the alleged steroid years should be allowed.

I think it helps to look at baseball through the eyes of history to help guide it in the present. Barry Bonds and other steroid users are not the first players in baseball to cheat in order to gain an upper hand against their opponents. Ty Cobb filed down his cleats, turning them into little daggers. Woe to any infielder who got in his way. Gaylord Perry now resides in baseball's Hall of Fame because the grease ball, not his fastball, was his best pitch. Numerous players have used corked bats. Sammy Sosa not only was "juiced" but used corked bats as well!

Baseball's owners, and their overwhelmed puppet commissioner, former Milwaukee Brewer owner, Bud Selig, brought on this mess by looking the other way when reports of players began to surface that they were becoming juiced on steroids in the early 1990's. Three things occurred to finally garner the attention of Selig that steroid use in baseball was a serious matter and needed to be tended to. First, Barry Bonds hits 73 home runs in 2001 just three years after Mark McGwire (another alleged steroid user) broke Roger Maris' mark. Maris' mark lasted 37 years and Ruth's 60 held up for 34 years. One of baseball's most cherished records had been reduced to mockery.

The second occurrence was the 2004 State of the Union Address given by President George W. Bush who demanded that professional sports "get rid of steroids now." Thirdly, a year after President Bush called for an end to steroid use, Congress opened hearings investigating the illegal use of steroids in baseball.

"(Players) are not bigger than the game, and they are certainly not bigger than the law," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., a former major leaguer and the opening witness. "The same goes for the owners. For over a decade, they turned their heads when it came to steroids. They helped put the game at risk."

With the United States government breathing down their backs, owners and the players union decided they had better work together to create rules against the use of performance enhancement drugs and attaching stiff penalties to those who break the rules, including a lifetime ban for a third offense.

So where does this leave us in the Barry Bonds chase for Ruth's and Hank Aaron's home run totals? I think we should follow the lead of the Philadelphia Phillies fans. During last Sunday night's game which was broadcast on ESPN, the notoriously brutal Phillies fans, reviled by both visiting and Phillies players, let Bonds have it. They booed him at bat, they booed him in left field, and they booed him in the on-deck circle. They even booed him during batting practice!

Then, in the top of the sixth inning, Bonds hit home run number 713 off of Jon Lieber that reached a third deck sign in right field. The ego-bruising Phillies fans, who had shown nothing but contempt towards the Giant slugger all night, gave him a standing ovation.

The Revisionist History of Judas Iscariot

2006-04-07T01:50:00.000-07:00

The Gnostic gospel of Judas Iscariot has just been introduced to the waiting public. The explosive revelation revealed in the text is that Judas did not betray Jesus for a small bribe, but that he was doing the will of Jesus.

I think what is most interesting, and the least reported idea, is that the "lost" gospel of Judas might be nothing more than revisionist history by the Gnostics. Which, in turn, should foster more interest in exploring the idea of revisionism in the four gospels of the New Testament.

The most dangerous books in the world are the Bible, Torah and Koran if they are published and distributed without precise historical context. It is within the context of the historical times that explains the motivations of the authors behind these sacred texts, because all three texts were written decades to hundreds, even thousands, of years after the facts had already been played out.

Too many people who claim to be followers of a particular religion have no idea why they believe what they believe. They simply believe what they were told to believe since childhood. And that's how you grow terrorists and the pious, self-righteous Pat Robertson.

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

A Dodo of A Writer

2006-03-24T01:41:00.000-08:00

(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks24mar24,0,3338954.story?track=tothtml)

Once more, I have to take great exception to Times’ columnist Rosa Brooks (see above link). But first, I am stupefied as to why the Los Angeles Times, an established and highly respected newspaper, continues to have a narrow-minded writer whose analytical skills rival any average college freshman’s on their payroll. We get it, Ms. Brooks, you have no use for President Bush and his administration. It’s time, to use a phrase in your liberal lexicon, to “move on”.

It is one thing to opine about the differences of philosophy you may have with the current administration. It is quite another to combine said philosophy with comments that denigrate those who are in opposition to you, particularly when it comes to the leaders of our country. By writing sophomoric lines such as, “I used to believe in the theory of evolution, but these days I'm having my doubts” and “We're losing because the cavemen in the Bush administration don't understand the difference between strength and bellicosity” undermines the credibility of your opinion among people, conservatives and liberals alike, who read the Times editorials for engaging and intellectual enlightenment. Qualities that you, Ms. Brooks, seem to lack.

Democrats Still Bent on Destroying Country

2006-03-23T14:39:00.000-08:00

by Sher Zieve

The Democrats hatred of President Bush, for having had the audacity to be elected to the presidency twice, has reached a fever pitch. As “we the people” elected him, the Democrats would probably like to impeach us, too! Don’t forget that the Democrat Party’s “leaders” don’t believe the general American citizenry has the capacity or intellect to think for themselves. Therefore, they’ll do the “thinking” for us.

If ever a political Party has lost its collective mind, it is the one populated by those who call themselves Democrats. In time of war, they are working to destroy the US’ leader and in so doing, giving carte-blanche to terrorists’ activities. They are also giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”, by attempting to destroy the man who is aggressively working to protect the country—legally—from those who committed their Acts of War against the United States of America on 11 September 2001.

Are these Democrats really ones that any sane and rational human being would want running any aspect of the country? Absolutely not. Let’s just hope and pray their madness becomes widely known to the voting public before November 2006—and most certainly before 2008. And will someone please tell them that President Bush won’t be running for president again?

Bush Lied?

2006-03-23T13:35:00.000-08:00

I'm wondering how many Democrats, after reading the following researched facts, can end their demogouery and at least support our President, our Troops, and our Country during these trying times in engaged conflict. Because, since 9/11, our policies on the War on Terror is not about politics, or at least it shouldn't be, it is about the survival of the Western Civilization.

The passage of time normally brings historical events into perspective. For the cynic, hindsight is 20/20. For the historian, distance provides clarity.

From today's NY Times:

Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister from 2001 until the America-led invasion began in 2003, told French intelligence officers that Iraq had stockpiled chemical weapons and might use them against invading troops or Israel, according to (then CIA director) George Tenet.

From the New York Post

February 16, 2006 -- Top-secret tapes of Saddam Hussein capture him talking with his son-in-law in the 1990s about how well Iraq hid its weapons of mass destruction.

The tapes also reveal Saddam's top deputy telling him how easy it would be to create a biological weapon, "drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000."

The disclosures, aired by ABC News last night, come from 12 hours of tape recordings of Saddam and his top aides provided by a former member of a U.N. inspection team.

In one of the most dramatic tapes, Saddam talks with Hussein Kamel, whom he put in charge of Iraq's heavily guarded WMD effort after he married Saddam's daughter Raghad.

Kamel, who later defected and died in a shootout with Saddam's gunmen, is heard boasting how he misled U.N. weapons inspectors about the size of Iraq's biological-weapons program.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel said in the 1995 tape.
"Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use," Kamel added. "None of this was correct."
The tapes, apparently recorded in the mid-1990s in the Iraqi version of the Oval Office, have been authenticated by the House Intelligence Committee, ABC said.

Bill Tierney, a former member of the inspection team who was translating the tapes for the FBI, gave them to ABC and plans to make them public this weekend at a non-government "intelligence summit" that could revive speculation about an Iraqi WMD arsenal.

San Antonio Express-News
Jonathan Gurwitz:
In 2003, WMD threat was clear
03/22/2006
The media and the public are only now gaining access to a trove of official U.S. and Iraqi documents and tapes, much of it seized during the early days of the invasion. These sources make clear the reasons most major intelligence services came to the conclusion that Saddam continued to possess proscribed weapons of mass destruction and why U.N. weapons inspectors would never be able to locate them. They should finally put to rest the hysterical distortion that Bush lied to push the United States into war.

The U.S. military's Joint Forces Command engaged in a two-year project to analyze hundreds of thousands of documents and the transcripts of interviews with dozens of Iraq's political and military leaders. The USJFC partially declassified its study last month.

"Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside" makes abundantly clear why the Bush administration believed Saddam had WMD and could use them again — because Saddam's own regime believed it had WMD and could use them again.

Up high, the researchers draw the following conclusion:

"When it came to weapons of mass destruction, Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD."

Fearful of the consequences of delivering bad news to Saddam, Baathist leaders gave false assessments to their dictator and to one another about weapons programs. A footnote to "Saddam's Delusions" suggests that in the months following the fall of Baghdad, senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability.

While these dissonant messages confused Iraqi leaders, they confirmed to intelligence analysts the continuation of a decade of deception. In 2002, U.S. intelligence intercepted an order to remove the words "nerve agents" from "the wireless instructions." Another revealed instructions to "search the area surrounding the headquarters camp and for any chemical agents, make sure the area is free of chemical containers."

Three years ago, these orders were reasonably interpreted as evidence of Saddam's shell game with weapons inspectors. The consensus belief now is that they were intended to remove any residue left over from WMD programs abandoned years earlier.

Bush did not lie. American intelligence was mistaken, with good reason. And it's even more clear today than it was three years ago that the blame for the tragedy in Iraq falls on a single person: the homicidal dictator who used WMD in the past and wanted the world to believe that he could do so again.

Covering The Real Story

2006-03-04T02:07:00.000-08:00

I had a revelation of sorts reading about Merrilee Carlson's story
(http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ToddManzi/2006/03/02/188064.html). Like Cindy Sheehan, Carlson lost a son in Iraq. Unlike Sheehan, she is supportive of our actions in Iraq and has been trying to get her message heard but with little success.

That is when my revelation hit me: When an obvious news ploy by either the left or the right is heavily reported, such as Cindy Sheehan's continuous antics and the continuous news coverage she receives, then THE REAL story should be all the news agencies who give Ms. Sheehan her soapbox.

When CNN reports on the latest Sheehan activity, FOX News, an obvious example, would then pursue the CNN crew, as well as CNN's news directors and editors, to report and investigate why they think the actions of Sheehan are newsworthy.

Three points about this: 1) It might help in keeping news agencies with a bias in check, 2) it might bring attention to FOX News, or any other news agency, from other news agencies as to what the news agency is reporting on, which would likely win over more viewers, and 3) the news agency would be covering the actual news event rather than a propped up one like Cindy Sheehan’s.

Random Thoughts On The Grammys And Music

2006-02-16T03:48:00.000-08:00

I love conversing about music as much as anything in life so I will add my 2 cents about last week’s Grammy Awards show.

Stevie Wonder and Alicia Keys were a great pairing, almost a passing of the torch, one could surmise. I am a fan of Coldplay and they are a good band, but their latest offering, X & Y was partly very inspired and partly very insipid. They have reached a crossroads in their career.

John Legend is the real deal.

People are excited about Kelly Clarkson, and I am a rabid fan of American Idol since season 3, which means I missed Clarkson's rise to the top, but she is a manufactured pop star so I will be curious to see how long her career will last.

Paul McCartney's last three records are definitely worth checking out, despite what "mainstream" critics have written about "Driving Rain" and "Flaming Pie". Are they "Abbey Road"? Of course not, but they are relevant and reveal a portrait of an artist coming to terms with aging while fighting to remain viable in pop music culture, particularly with "Chaos and Creation..." And, in the end, all three records provide good pop songs that appeal to the ear, unless you are a jaded, aging music critic. Sir Paul McCartney still wants to fill the world with not so silly pop songs and what’s wrong with that?

Mariah Carey. Yes, there is quite a lot of "fluff" in her catalogue, but when she decides to perform, she is truly captivating, and I think her performance was the highlight of the evening.

Fantasia I think is better suited for Broadway rather than pop. Her performance of Gershwin’s "Summertime" on American Idol still gives me shivers. It was real and it was moving.

I Loved the whole Jay-Z, Linken Park and Paul McCartney thing. Just good rock'n'rap fun. Later Paul blows us away with a surprising and frenetic rendition of “Helter Skelter”!

I was not a big Bruce Springsteen fan for a long time, until I saw him perform at the L.A. Coliseum back in 1987 when I was still in college. He was one of two artists whose concerts I have attended that had total command of the audience, the other being Peter Gabriel.

Check out the following records by "The Boss": “Darkness on the Edge of Town”, which came out in 1978 when punk began to take hold. The record stands up to punk with its own dark and intense desperation with songs like "Adam Raised A Cain" and "Candy's Room" (another song that gives me shivers just thinking about it). This record is not for the faint of heart. It survived in its time because it had a punk rock attitude filtered through an angry palooka from New Jersey.

The other Springsteen record to investigate is Nebraska, in which he channels the spirits of Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan and makes a folk record that stands with the best of what Guthrie and Dylan were able to achieve.

Kanye (“George Bush doesn't care about black people.”) West has a chip on his shoulder that, I believe, is manufactured by the rapper. However, if it can continue to motivate, more power to him. I doubt that it can.

Rap is not a live medium. Since the recording studio is the most important instrument in Rap music, it rarely translates well live. The Cars had the same problem. Impeccably produced Roy Thomas Baker records that, for whatever reasons, did not translate well live.

Christina Aguilera. Unlike Mariah and Whitney, she seems to challenge herself artistically more than the other two. Imagine an entire record of Mariah Carey's that had the artistic merit of "Hero"! I guess that is why Madonna was so interesting for nearly two decades. She wanted to be both an entertainer and an artist and she succeeded to a certain extent (“Oh, Father” could have easily been a John Lennon song). I think now she is struggling to be a viable force in the world of pop music and I don't think she is winning.

Finally, musicians get better as they get older. Some five years or so ago, I and a buddy of mine had the opportunity to see John Lee Hooker and Ike Turner perform at the Carpenter Music Hall at Long Beach State (proud alumni - class of 1988 - Go Dirtbags!).

Although Mr. Hooker had to sit during his performance and it was obvious he was not in good health (I think he passed within a year of this show), but when he started keeping time with his foot and began strumming his guitar, the magic that keeps all musicians eternally young swept over him and damned if he did not wow the audience. What a privilege it was to see him live.

Ike Turner amazed me with both his guitar playing and his blues voice. I had only really known him for his R&B music with Tina Turner, but his blues performance was a pleasant surprise. The man still has the "It" factor. He also gave a command performance that evening.

One final thought, the Grammy big all-star jam that featured Sly Stone was odd as he walked off stage in the middle of the performance. They should just leave the poor man alone as it is obvious, or should be, that he does not want to be a performer any longer.

When Crass Is Not Called For

2006-02-10T01:54:00.000-08:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks10feb10,0,4523174.story?track=tothtml

In Ms. Brooks op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, "When Crass is called for" (see above link), she reiterates President Bush's words that "even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone." I'm wondering when it became okay to have such debates during a memorial service.

She also asks "How can it be inappropriate to allude to the terrible costs of the war in Iraq, the misinformation that led to that war, the neglect of this nation's poor or this administration's illegal secret surveillance?"

My simple answer would be that denigrating the President of the United States who came to pay his final respects to a great American humanitarian, Coretta Scott King, during her memorial service is inappropriate.

And how did the choice between a civil tone or civil rights enter into this picture? Surely Ms. Brooks would agree that the late Coretta Scott King would have appreciated a civil tone at her own funeral.

A final question must be asked regarding liberal leaders in America today, a question that is quite familiar to them as they tend to flout it whenever invoking charges of "McCarthy-ism", seemingly at the drop of a coin. It is the question asked by the Secretary of the Army, Robert T. Stevens, in 1953, to Senator Joe McCarthy: "You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

They Just Don't Get It

2006-02-01T01:18:00.000-08:00

The nominees for the Academy Awards were announced yesterday and Hollywood is unabashedly and enthusiastically coming out of a closet that the rest of the country had already surmised: "We are a counter-culture residing far left outside of mainstream America. Our nominations reveal how far we have progressed and lets us show the rest of America how uncouth you really are."

The nominees for Best Picture are: "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Crash," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich."

Let's see, two of the nominated movies are centered around homosexual characters, one is a rant against the so-called "McCarthyism" myth (See: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2003/06/26/160804.html), one is an apologist for Islamic terrorism, and another depicts, to the nth degree, race-baiting politicking.

While these are movies that tell their stories very well using characters that possess depth and real emotions (with the notable exception of "Crash"), are they really the best five movies made in 2005?

"Hollywood [has returned] to its role of cultural arbiter," said Vance Van Petten, executive director of the Producers Guild of America. "For every person in Missouri or Georgia who sees 'Brokeback' or 'Crash,' eyes will be opened." There you have it, Hollywood's purpose in film making is to be the cultural arbiter of America. If one wants to make a film to entertain audiences, that's fine, according to the cultural arbiters, just don't expect to be recognized by the Academy.

To make sure their assault on mainstream America was heard, Hollywood nominated "Crash", a convoluted, poorly acted (Everyone is so angry!), manipulative race baiting, overwrought movie. This nomination was a message to President Bush and the Red State electorate sent by Hollywood to put the redneck hicks in their place. A chance for the left-wing elitists to pointedly pronounce themselves as having the moral high ground.

Writer Jeffrey Caine sees the nominated films more as mirrors. "It reflects what has happened in the world since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the uneasiness America feels about its place in the world," said Caine, nominated for best-adapted screenplay for "The Constant Gardener," another highly political film. "People are drawn to movies that say something.” Yet, the five nominated movies had the lowest collective box office since the best picture nominees of 1986 at $186 million. (Los Angeles Times)

Thus, with that philosophy as their platform, Hollywood shunned more popular fare that reinforced mainstream American values such as "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" or "Cinderella Man," well-made movies that clearly pit good versus evil and ethics over corruption. Simple, virtuous themes that resonated with movie audiences. I would not have a problem with four of the five movies (Crash being the notable exception under any circumstance) that were nominated for Best Picture if I felt the Academy itself thought they were the best movies made in 2005. Alas, I fear they were nominated more for the statements they were making rather than the artistic merit of the films. Of the five, only Brokeback Mountain is a genuine artistic achievement, thus worthy of its nomination.

So I say: Great! Fantastic! And good for you, Hollywood! Yes, the self-indulgent nominated movies you have made may be good, thought provoking cinema and all are certainly high on the liberal elite checklist, but I, and many other potential mainstream American viewers, will most likely not tune into your little gala affair called The Oscars this year. However, I'm also quite sure you won't mind either, after all, it is about you - the Hollywood Liberal Elite - and you will all be patting each other on the back for jobs well done in elevating the awareness of your sophisticated values, oblivious to the crumbling walls of Elitism falling all around you.

"Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
In the room, the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo."

(from the The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot)

Dysfunctional Democrats

2005-11-04T02:44:00.000-08:00

Democrats as Patriots:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. . . . I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation . . ."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) 1998

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if (Sadaam Hussein) fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction?

"Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-- President Bill Clinton (D) 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D) 2002

"We know that he [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore (D) 2002

"I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
"The president has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) 2002

In October 2002, on the eve of the mid-term elections, Harry Reid—then Senate majority whip and one of the more influential members of his party—voted to grant Bush unprecedented powers to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats as Traitors:

"The administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) 2005

"They (the American people) understand we can't continue down this same failed course in Iraq."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) 2005

"The attitude of going to war against a relatively defenseless country in order to prevent violence in the world is a complete fallacy."
--Former President Jimmy Carter (D) 2005

Reality Check:

"Clearly, Democrats are not united. The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."
--Steve Elmendorf senior Democratic party strategist 2005

"How could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied."
-- Columnist Jonah Goldberg 2005

"Harry Reid and Co., in accusing Team Bush of manipulating intelligence, have managed to pioneer an even more egregious abuse of the American political system: the manipulation of ignorance."
-- Columnist Tony Snow 2005

Note: Valerie "Vanity Fair" Plame and Joseph "The Liar" Wilson were donors to Democratic causes, including the Al Gore campaign, the John Kerry campaign and George Soros's America Coming Together.

In the face of such empirical evidence showing twisted and dysfunctional logic, can someone please tell me the usefulness of the Democratic Party, except for being "useful idiots"?

Mr. Robinson's Narrow World View

2005-10-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

Eugene Robinson recent column for the Washinton Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401370.html?referrer=email, in which he was priviliged to join Condoleeza Rice to her travels to her hometown, speaks of a single-mindedness that plagues the mentality of Liberal African-Americans in this country. It speaks of a reverse racism that will never allow those who revel in it to participate fully in the opportunities America has to offer.

Secondly, he demeans her obviously loving and caring parents who, like most right-minded parents, wanted to protect their daughter from harm. Then they had the audacity, as he frames it, to expand her horizons, such as her piano lessons and show her a tiny part of the world outside of Birmingham, Alabama. Their crime, according to Mr. Robinson? They did not raise Ms. Rice "black" enough? What if Stevie Wonder never learned to play the piano? The idea would be worthy of a comedy sketch except that he is serious in his implications.

When left-of-center African-Americans can begin to look forward to their full participation in the American dream and stop looking in the rear-view mirror of America's ugly past maybe, just maybe, one day one might rise to the post of Secretary of State in the President's cabinet - or even one day be elected President.

Disheartening Pick

2005-10-07T22:03:00.000-07:00

I am sorry, but I cannot support the nomination of Harriet Miers' nomination. The Supreme Court DEMANDS excellent judicial scholarship of the highest level, none of which pertains to Ms. Miers.

As a life long Republican who came of voting age during Ronald Reagan's first term in office, I am completley disheartened by President Bush's recent actions that appear to be appeasing both the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. The nomination of Ms. Miers is the final ignominy bestowed on party faithful like myself. As Bob Dylan once sang, we, including Ms. Miers, are "only a pawn in their game".

For our party to remain strong, everyday constituents must speak for up themselves and question actions by our party leaders if it does not forward the conservative cause, even if that means questioning the President. I am afraid Ms. Miers, regardless of what her views on abortion may be, falls far too short in judicial intellect that should, to be a sitting judge on the Supreme Court, be a bar that is of the highest of standards, otherwise the Court will be reduced to hackneyed politiking that will endanger the Constitution.

George Will wrote this week that this nomination seems to have been not made seriously and I agree with his assessment. Serious jurists of impeccable intellect need only apply if they want to sit on the most prestigious and, yes, the most elite court in the world.

The False Economic Hyperbole

2005-10-01T01:12:00.000-07:00

Regarding our nation's economy and all the hyperbole that is said about it, here are some KEY facts that never seem to get mentioned regarding America's economy...

America produces a YEARLY economy of approximately $13 trillion
Total U.S. debt held in public hands will rise, in the next fiscal year, to $4 trillion
Total family net wealth -- which includes the value of our nation’s businesses, bonds, stocks, and real estate -- just hit an all-time high of $50 trillion.
The budget deficit will rise from roughly 2.5 percent of GDP to something over 4 percent.
Treasury issues (Bond Market) continue to trade around 4.25 percent.
The stock markets just registered their best third quarter in seven years.
Federal-debt-to-national-wealth ratio is at 8 percent
Global financing markets will underwrite new U.S. spending
(source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/budget-fy2005/)

America can and will sustain its economy despite the recent hurricane devastation and higher global demand for oil. The reason for America's continued prosperity? LOWER TAXES!!! It is really a simple concept: The less a person is taxed on their income, the more they will spend on the economy which, in turn, spur business to create more jobs which create more payroll and retail taxes that can be sent to the government. This model has ALWAYS outperformed the higher tax model. Why? Because tax hikes are short term solutions that cannot sustain itself unless taxes are continually raised. Lower taxes sustain economic growth because it is self-generating and thus it is able to replenish the economy in the long term. It is not a "quick fix" which is why politicians who are short-sighted are always the first ones to call for higher taxes as if money magically appeared in the government's coffers.

The last three recessions were the direct result of raising taxes under President Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton's second term. The economy righted itself after Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton's first term, and George W. Bush's first term tax cuts.

California is the best example for lowering taxes. Under Gray Davis and the Democratic state legislature, it was insisted that the best way to balance the state budget was to raise taxes. California has been in fiscal chaos ever since.

Michael Moore's letter to the President...And a Rebuttal

2005-09-05T00:01:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore's open letter to President Bush:

Dear Mr. Bush:

Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?

Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!

I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike?And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!

On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing.

Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!

You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.

Yours,Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
www.MichaelMoore.com

P.S. That annoying mother, Cindy Sheehan, is no longer at your ranch. She and dozens of other relatives of the Iraqi War dead are now driving across the country, stopping in many cities along the way. Maybe you can catch up with them before they get to DC on September 21st.Back to top

Dear Mr. Moore,

I appreciate you taking the time to write me regarding the situation in the Gulf Coast. I would like to correct a few facts that you, and your liberal friends, tend to obscure or even alter so that you may gain political advantage.

First of all, if you took the time to read the newspapers on the morning of Tuesday of August 30, you would have read headlines that said "New Orleans spared" or "New Orleans survives Katrina" It was later that day, when the levees gave way, that reulted in America's worst natural disaster. Within twenty-four hours I was in the Gulf Coast to observe the damage and within twenty-four hours of that, the troops were sent in as well as supplies and medicine. It can be tough driving through the only Interstate when it is completely submerged.

You also negelcted the fact, Mr. Moore, that I authorized state of emergencies in all the Gulf states days before Katrina hit. By doing this, the affected states would have easier and quicker access to emergency federal funding. It also mobilized the National Guard which were put on alert. I am sorry that the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana did not familiarize themselves with the protocol of an emergency state, if so, they would have received federal help much more quickly. But, to be fair, they are both Democrats, and therefore are generally incompetant when it comes to national emergencies. I mean, could you imagine a President Al Gole during 9/11? I shudder when I think how close that reality almost was.

As for the levees, Mr. Moore, and the report you are referring to about it's risk and need to be upgraded, well, sir, if you check the dates, it was issued in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. The levees are a state responsibility, not a Federal one, so you might want to talk to he Democratic governors since that report was issued as to why they neglected to deal with upgrading their levees.

One of the things I noticed while surveying the damage done to New Orleans is that all the buses used for public transit were sitting in their depots flooded out. I am troubled that the mayor of New Orleans didn't requisition the buses to evacuate his own citizens (although he did manage to evacuate preferred guests and tourists - ahead of his own citizens - from the Superdome). I'm assuming the mayor of New Orleans is not ignorant, but I can't understand why he did not take the poorest of the poor and desitute and put them on the now flooded buses and evacuate his people, his citizens.

In the end, Mr. Moore, what happened in the Gulf was a catastrophe of biblical proportions. That you would find the time to write me such a sobering, sarcastic letter shows me where your heart truly lies and it is not with the suffering people of the Gulf states. No, it seems that your heart lies in the ugly state of opportunitism of the worst kind: To push your agenda at the expense of those who are hurting. But, since the 1970's, that has been the Democratic Party's M.O.

Sincerely,
W

PS Do you realize that the rate of number of hurricanes per year has decreased while I've been in office? Do you really want to insist on continuing your silly and contrived environmental arguments?

Do you also realize that no new oil refineries have been built since 1973? Do you know that it is because of legislation by leftist enviros to prohibit constructing new refineries that has made the price at the pump so high? Of course you knew that!!! It has been your plan all along - to make gasoline so expensive that the best alternative is to stop producing it, regardless that your "enviro" war most affects the people like those we have seen on television this past week.

Your "compassion" does not impress me.

What Took You So Long?

2005-09-03T19:22:00.000-07:00

As to why it took the federal government so long to help out New Orleans, one, the levee broke after Katrina hit, exasperating and multiplying the catastrophe. Secondly, because America is a nation of rights - a beuruacratic chain must be followed in order to protect individual state's rights.

It was up to first, the mayor of New Orleans to request help from the state, and then for the state, if need be, to request help from the federal gov't. In both instances, protocol was not followed due to the magnitude of the flooding, simply not being prepared for a worst-case scenario and incompetance by the mayor and governor.

One last reason is that the broadcast networks of ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX did not deem the tragedy significant enough to warrant round-the-clock coverage, thus telling Americans that what was happening in the Gulf was not important. I am still finding it odd to sit through silly commercials that are yelling at us to buy this or that, while displaced Americans are still suffering.

I guess all those liberal elites who run the broadcast media are less liberal, when it comes to the almighty dollar, then they thought they were...9/11 did not get the short shrift when it came to covering that debacle, but, then again, 9/11 is where the media elite are headquartered.
I can just imagine network execs in their meeting/strategy rooms telling each other, "Well, it's too bad about those 'po' black folk' down there in the Gulf, but it's not like they were attacked - like we were!!! What time do we have Tommy Lee on tonight?"

America, We Have A Problem

2005-09-03T03:03:00.000-07:00

“There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

“When a poor man becomes destitute, it is a moral evil, teeming with consequences and injurious to society and morality."

– Lord Acton

America, we have a problem. During NBC’s "A Concert for Hurricane Relief" last night, a telecast where the purpose was to encourage citizen donations to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina as well as bring the country together in a time of severe crisis, Rap star and producer, Kanye West, decided to take this time to express his opinion about the situation in the Gulf Coast by stating on-air, next to an extremely uncomfortable Mike Myers, that "George Bush doesn't care about black people" and said America is set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible."

This statement was Mr. West’s attempt, in hip-hop parlance, to “keep it real.” I am inclined to give Mr. West, to a small degree, some slack. He is a young, black man who was acting on his emotions during a trying time, much like the other young black men who turned into looters, rapists and killers in the aftermath of Katrina. I am sure Mr. West’s comments are not uncommon feelings in most black urban communities.

How could such animosity ever take hold in a “Free” society like ours? Because America is not totally free. It has become a “nanny” state in which some citizens rely on the government for their basic needs. In other words, socialism has taken hold in America. Programs sponsored by the government always mean well because because America has a big heart - witness the current level of donations coming into various relief organizations - who value its citizens and immigrants.

Written on the base of The Statue of Liberty are the following words written by Emma Lazarus:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

These words remind us who we are and what we stand for as Americans. These are also words fading fast from the memory of the American psyche. Thrust into a socialist throe by well-meaning legislation and turned into an ongoing business by the likes of black national leaders Je$$e Jack$on, Al $harpeton, and the Democratic leaders who crave power, even if in the end, like Richard III, their “kingdom” will be reduced to the value of a horse. America is slowly and most assuredly churning towards implosion from within. It is being preyed upon by opportunists who strike with both subtlety and bluntness. Once the subtlety is gone, the revolution will have begun. We are close to the end of subtlety.

Throughout world history, societies are built, destroyed and rebuilt again. America has, itself, undergone such extreme cycles three times in its short history. The first was the Revolution, the second was the Civil War, and the third was the social/cultural revolution of the 1960’s. The horrible reports and video of crime run rampant in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina is a preview, dear reader, of a fourth revolution to come.

If these words sound extreme or even daft, you need to re-read Mr. West’s statement above once more. He is speaking for an entire group of people who have been lied to by their leaders and who will willingly, not to mention blindly, follow them into anarchy.

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end...liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition...The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

Cashing In - Can You Guess Who?

2005-08-31T01:26:00.000-07:00

Can you guess who uttered these words on November 25, 2003?

"I have a new respect for him (President Bush) because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us. I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss, and I know he's a man of faith."

Why, it was none other than Cindy Sheehan, last seen cashing in on her "grief" with public speaking engagements at universities and colleges (of course) near you!!!

Are You A "Useful Idiot"?

2005-08-31T01:17:00.000-07:00

My favorite political subject!!!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/printma20050830.shtml

The Funny Thing Is, I'm Agnostic - I Think...

2005-08-31T00:58:00.000-07:00

Personal observation: The only famous "Christians" I can think of since post WWII and the beginning of the age of television, just off the top of my head, are (And no, not all on my list are "Christians", but the life they lead, well, you get my meaning - I hope!):

Mother Theresa
Ghandi
The Dali Lama
Anwar Sadat
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Harry S. Truman
Vin Scully
Lou Gehrig
Roberto Clemente
Willie Stargell
Gale Sayers
Vince Lombardi
Tom Landry
Roger Staubach
Dan Marino
George Harrison
Bob Dylan
Bob Geldof

I've left off plenty of others, I just can't think of them at this time. On to the article...

Political preachers deliver misleading messageCal Thomas
August 30, 2005
PORTSTEWART, Northern Ireland - Word of Pat Robertson's outrageous remarks recommending the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has reached this small seacoast town. A local man asked me what I thought of his comments. "Not much," I replied with some embarrassment. I'm sure the non Christian world is having a fine time ridiculing this latest example of un-Christ-like behavior.
Robertson has made other remarks over the years about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the gospel in which he says he believes. He is not alone. On the right and on the left, ordained and self-proclaimed "reverends" and honorary "doctors" appear to spend more time trying to reform a fallen and decaying world through politics and earthly power than they do promoting and proclaiming the ultimate answer to that fallenness.
While these apostles of political parties and personal agendas have every right to make fools of themselves, they are enabled in their foolishness by millions of people who blindly send them money. These money-senders are looking in the wrong place for their deliverance. While paying lip service to eternity, they seem to prefer immediate political gratification.
Few would pay attention to political preachers if these ministers did not have access to television and radio. And they would not have TV programs if people did not send them money which, in addition to buying TV time, is used to set most of them up in lifestyles that resemble the "rich young ruler." Jesus told the ruler to "sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Luke 18:22), but many TV preachers seem to expect you to sell what you have and give to them.
Much of what is proclaimed as God's will on TV and in fundraising appeals is false religion. People who respond with checks are either ignorant or willfully disobedient to what their spiritual commander-in-chief and the early apostles taught and practiced.
One of the great pronouncements on a Christian's relationship to the world is contained in 1 John 2:15-17: "Do not love the world or anything in the world. . For everything in the world - the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does - comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away."
Too many Christians think if they shout loud enough and gain political strength the world will be improved. That is a false doctrine. I have never seen anyone "converted" to a Christian's point of view (and those views are not uniform) through political power. I have frequently seen someone's views changed after they have experienced true conversion and then live by different standards and live for goals beyond which political party controls the government.
Repeatedly in the Scriptures, which TV ministers regularly and selectively quote, are teachings, admonitions and commands that are antithetical to the high-octane rhetoric spanning the ideological and theological spectrum - from Pat Robertson to Jesse Jackson. Here is a partial list:

God's strength is made perfect in human weakness;
humble yourself and God will exalt you;
he who would be a leader among you must first be your servant;
love your enemies;
pray for those who persecute you;
pray in secret, not publicly;
give to the poor;
God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
the last place at the table;
the widow's mite (the message is that she gave all she had, not great wealth);
the mustard seed (about the smallest amount of genuine faith);
the washing of feet (as demonstrated by Jesus).

These virtues are virtually absent among the "resounding gongs and clanging cymbals" one sees on TV.
If people who bear the label "Christian" want to reduce these embarrassments, which interfere with the proclamation and the hearing of "true religion," they should refrain from sending money to TV preachers and contribute more to their local church.
Local giving not only would allow the giver to better monitor how the money is spent, but also, if the pastor occasionally says something he should not have said, the embarrassment will remain within the walls and not be a rhetorical shot heard around the world.
Pat Robertson eventually apologized for his remarks about assassinating Hugo Chavez. His penance should be to retire and to take his bombastic conservative and liberal colleagues with him.
©2005 Tribune Media Services

Grieving Mother or Media Manipulator?

2005-08-18T02:51:00.000-07:00

When asked, in a recent interview for buzzflash.com, who was to blame for her son’s death in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan blamed President Bush, answering “I think he (President Bush) rushed into this war -–this invasion –- without having proper intelligence. And the reasons he went are so clearly wrong…Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “I don’t think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror, except now terrorists are crossing the borders to go and kill innocent Iraqis and our troops. So he went almost unilaterally, with very little international support, to invade a country. They didn’t have a plan for the peace or for the occupation of Iraq. “My son was killed by Shiite insurgents. I believe George Bush created the insurgency by his failed policies and that’s why my son was killed.”

As most know by now, Casey Sheehan, a Humvee mechanic with the 1st Calvary, was killed in Sadr City on April 4th of this year. He was only 24 years old. He is and forever will remain an American hero. (buzzflash.com) Now his grieving mother is holding a vigil outside of the western White House in Crawford, Texas, where the President is maintaining the business of running the country while Congress is in summer recess.

Regrettably, Mrs. Sheehan has allowed her grief to become a national spectacle resulting in, 1) her grief looks more like posturing, 2) diminishing her son’s sacrifice, and every other son’s and daughter’s ultimate sacrifice, to a grateful nation and 3) the worst and ugliest part of this national media circus is that Mrs. Sheehan’s “vigil” has been hijacked by extremist left wing groups and figures like moveon.org and Michael Moore who care more about humiliating a Republican president than the grief of Mrs. Sheehan.

In order to help Mrs. Sheehan in her grief and suffering, I will answer some of the questions she has raised. First, she accuses the President of rushing into war without proper intelligence and acting on false claims of WMD in Iraq. President Bush went to the United Nations asking that then Iraqi dictator, Sadaam Hussein, comply with U.N. resolutions (18 in all) regarding the ability of U.N. WMD inspectors to be able to have unlimited access to sites thought to be considered places where WMD’s were being either created or stored.

In response, Hussein kicked out all UN inspectors. President Bush went back to the U.N. a second time, this time asking the council to pass and impose resolution 1441:

Resolution 1441 was the result of seven weeks of intense diplomacy. Initially, the United States insisted that any new resolution include an automatic trigger for military action; that is, although it insisted it already had the legal authority to use force against Iraq (under the doctrine of self-defense and on the basis of previous Security Council resolutions), it wanted the resolution to explicitly authorize U.N. member states to use "all necessary means" if Iraq refused to comply with the resolution's demands. But France, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, insisted that any response to Iraqi noncompliance be determined in a second round of council debates and spelled out in a second resolution.

Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions."

It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Resolution 1441 then mandates the creation of an enhanced inspection regime and lays out the process to be implemented if Iraq fails to comply. Paragraph 4 of the resolution makes clear that false statements, omissions, and failures to cooperate with the requirements of the resolution will be considered a material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12.

Paragraph 11 directs Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) to report any Iraqi noncompliance to the Security Council. Paragraph 12 directs the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report under either Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 11 to determine how to respond. The resolution makes clear that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply with the resolution's demands. (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/)

Mrs. Sheehan, these are not the actions of a president “rushing” to war. These are responsible actions trying to contain a dangerous and severely unbalanced person, Hussein, who invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait) and boasted of his WMD programs, flouting the U.N. sanctions in its face since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

Now, Mrs. Sheehan, here is where it gets very ugly. It seems that the sanctions imposed on Iraq, particularly the infamous “Oil–for–Food” program, intended to force Iraq into compliance by only allowing the sale of Iraqi oil to buy food for its citizens, became a corrupt machine that lined the pockets of Hussein, government officials of France, Germany and Russia who were tied to the program and U.N. officials themselves, most notably the son of the President of the U.N., Kofi Anan!

What does this mean to you, me and the rest of America? It meant that some of our strongest allies, due to corruption, would not back the U.N. resolutions they voted for to contain Hussein. No wonder the U.N. wanted John Kerry to defeat Bush - he spoke their language ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.''). This lack of union in the U.N., in turn, gave inspiration to jihad terrorists, mostly from Hussein loyalists in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. Because of a twisted fanatical Muslim belief and corrupt beuruacrats and government leaders, your son, Casey, died.

Mrs. Sheehan, you also said that President Bush acted on false intelligence. It is the same intelligence that Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry and former First Lady, Hilary Rodham Clinton, acted on and voted for in the senate. This is the part of your interview that makes you sound like an advertisement for Mr. Moore’s grossly manipulated and highly inaccurate “documentary”, “Farenheit 9/11”, rather than a grieving mother.

You also accuse the President of acting “alone” in the invasion of Iraq. Here, Mrs. Sheehan, is a list of countries among the willing, accurate as of March 28, 2003:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain [1], Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica [2], Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, United Kingdom, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait [3], Latvia, Lithuania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau [4], the Philippines, Poland, Portugal (but parliament may censure the PM), Qatar [5], Romania [6], Rwanda, Slovakia, South Korea (but Parliament won't vote on whether to send troops), Spain, Republic of China (on Taiwan), Turkey, Uganda, the United States, Uzbekistan. Total: 37 confirmed; 10 not confirmed.

(http://www.infosearchpoint.com/display/U.S._allies_against_Iraq)

Mrs. Sheehan, in your “grief” or manipulation by the left wing extremist groups, you have just offended most of the Free World.

Finally, Mrs. Sheehan, you claim, “My son was killed by Shiite insurgents. I believe George Bush created the insurgency by his failed policies and that’s why my son was killed.” Alas, your son was not killed by insurgents, he was killed by terrorists. He was killed by terrorists who have no respect for life, for liberty or for democracy. Your son, Mrs. Sheehan, died because he believed in respect for life, for liberty and democracy. It is why he re-enlisted into the army knowing he was being sent straight into danger and possibly death.

Unlike the vigil/spectacle you have created, your son, Casey Sheehan, died a noble death for a noble cause. With courage and dignity, Casey Sheehan is the portrait of all American heroes who died for the noble causes that America stands for. The media circus you have created is neither a noble nor a dignified way to remember an American Hero, your son, Casey Sheehan.

recommended reading:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20050830.shtml