Year Archive
Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 
This Month
October 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
View Article  Doublespeak

This will be my last post for a week.  I will be back after a hunting trip to regain a grip on sanity.  I will be back in time to vote.  This year, more than ever, every sane vote counts.

 

On Tuesday, October 19, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards told a group in Hibbing, Minnesota that he and John Kerry would fight for their right to “go in the national parks and national forests and ride on a snowmobile”.

 

Meanwhile, on johnkerry.com, it is stated that “John Kerry will reinstate the Clinton Administration’s phase-out of noisy and polluting snowmobiles that have been overrunning some of our most precious lands, including Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. “. 

 

While not everyone cares about the snowmobile issue, we all should care about integrity.  Northern Minnesota is home to one of the largest snowmobile manufacturers in the country.  Minnesota is home to 200,000 snowmobile riders.  With his pandering to that audience, he showed, once again, his true colors.  Meanwhile, he and Kerry have every intention (as stated on Kerry’s own website) of taking away the right of those same people to sell and ride snowmobiles.  Now think about other issues such as those relating to the first and second amendments of the Constitution. 

 

John Kerry and John Edwards will do and say everything possible to win this election so that they can begin to carry out their REAL mission.  Many of us already understand that mission.  And if they are elected it will lead to the weakening of this nation and to even greater vulnerability to terrorism.

 

Source:  Editorial, Senator Norm Coleman Minneapolis StarTribune, October 26.

View Article  The Undecided

I am unable to understand exactly how anyone could be undecided one week before THIS presidential election. 

 

There are two choices. 

 

One choice is a party that wants to move America toward a communistic political system with a socialistic economy and with a secular system of values.  That party would weaken America’s national sovereignty and would jeopardize the security of our nation as a result.  While the mission of this party has been camouflaged in the rhetoric of social justice, class struggle, and racism, the intent is obvious to even the most casual observer.

 

The other choice is a party that wants to preserve America’s representative democracy with its capitalist economy and its Judeo-Christian system of values.  That party would maintain America’s national sovereignty and would continue to strengthen the security of our nation.  The mission of this party has been laid out without rhetorical camouflage and its intent is extremely clear to anyone who is listening.

 

Regardless of which side one takes in the debate, there has rarely been such clarity in a presidential election.  And the choice has never been more important.  This election will determine whether America continues as a grand experiment in values-based, free-market, representative democracy or joins countless others in failed secularly-based socialism. 

 

There is no excuse for indecision this time.  All Americans must take a stand.  This is our future and it is the future of our children.  WE will decide which direction will be taken by our nation for decades to come.

 

View Article  The Reason

I think that many of us have missed the point regarding leftist bias within the mainstream media, the universities, and among Hollywood elites.  While some of us have finally come to recognize that bias, we have been misled as to its basis.  Here is what I mean.

 

The broadcast media has long denied any particular bias to the left.  To a large degree, they still do. Yet, a few media luminaries have started to “confess” to a left leaning bias.  Those confessions are clever. While they admit that there MAY be a small amount of bias, they add that it is just due to the frailty of human nature.  Most importantly, they add that, even if a small amount of bias exists, it is only because people in the media care about our country and believe that the left will best preserve our way of life.  If true this could be seen as admirable.  In reality, I believe it to be a smokescreen.

 

Many entertainers who are part of the Hollywood elite also demonstrate a bias toward the left.  They too profess that their bias is out of concern for the preservation of America and its values.  They speak of tolerance and political correctness as bases for their beliefs. Again, I believe, just as in the case of the media, that this is nothing more than a smokescreen.

 

Within the world of academia, the bias toward the left is even more profound.  Again, the professors and instructors in our institutions of higher education rely on the argument that they are simply being politically correct with the deepest concern for American values.  Again, I view this as the crassest of elitist subterfuge. 

 

In order for people to risk losing multi-million dollar careers in the media or in entertainment, or to place their academic careers at risk, they have to have a very strong reason.  People differ on political viewpoint everyday.  In general, people in a representative democracy simply attend caucuses or vote in primaries and elections as a way of having their voices heard.  Some will actually support specific candidates or run for office themselves.  But most would not put a very lucrative or influential career on the line for a simple difference of political opinion, no matter how firmly held.  Unless underlying that opinion was an agenda of mass proportions.  And that, I believe, is the case.

 

I believe that the real rationale for bias toward the left held by the media, the universities, and the Hollywood elite is deeper and much more sinister than a simple difference of political opinion.  The rationale is about a complete restructuring of America, changing our country from a representative democracy with a capitalist economic system and a strong Judeo-Christian foundation of values to a communist state with a socialistic economic system and secularized values. 

 

If we look at the past sixty years through a telescope we can see that this current attempt to change our nation is nothing but a continuation of what has been occurring in different ways since the end of World War II.  Even in the fifties, the Hollywood elite, the media, and even members of our own government were involved in a process of changing America into a communist state.  The universities increasingly offered their voice to the attack.  Patriots who realized what was happening were ridiculed when they took steps to stop the process.  That ridicule continues today and is promulgated by the same groups that did so in the past, specifically the media, the universities, and the Hollywood elite.

 

Those who want to see America move toward communism mask their mission under the guise of social justice, social welfare, and the good of the people.  And yet, the real world under communism is one of control of people, business, institutions, and religion, redistribution of wealth, and allocation of power to a few.  Through their deception and through our own blindness to the truth, the left is making progress on attaining its goal for the destruction of America as it exists today.

 

Here is the reality.  We are seeing the movement toward a totalitarian state beginning to speed up, although in steps that many might see as insignificant.  Those steps are NOT insignificant.  In fact, it is their seeming insignificance that has allowed many of us to accept them while in the process becoming desensitized to having our freedoms taken away.  In addition, we are even more prone to accept losses to personal freedom because those whose goal it is to change America avow a concern is for the preservation of our country’s values and profess that our losses are for the greater good.

 

As a result small freedoms are being taken away at every governmental level, from the right to smoke in public (even outside) to the right to pray, to the right to own and carry firearms, to the right not to wear a helmet, to the right to own and use fireworks, to the right to listen to certain patriotic speakers at Independence Day celebrations, to the right to protect ourselves from personal or national attack.  We are moving closer to having our choice of foods limited by litigation and regulation.  The progress in health care cost-containment made by effective managed care techniques in the nineties has been erased due to sabotage from the left through litigation, legislation, and regulation…all geared toward moving our nation toward a government-run health care system. 

 

The momentum in most aspects of our lives is AWAY from personal freedom and toward control of behavior by the government.  That is the definition of a totalitarian state.  That is what communists and socialists have been striving for…for more than sixty years.

 

Clearly the case can be made that the media, the universities, and the Hollywood elite are serving the function of mouthpieces and propagandists for those forces.  Some on the periphery of the movement are being duped and used (i.e., useful idiots).  In fact, many of us from all walks of life have been blinded to the real motivation of those who despise the politics, economy, and values that underlie America.  After all, those in entertainment, education, and the media are trained to speak well and to influence others.  But I do not believe what they say.  I think many other Americans are also starting to see the truth, just as a number of patriots did in the fifties. 

 

We cannot allow anyone individual or any one group to destroy America and its freedoms.  Regardless of whether it is communists, socialists, Islamic fascists, Hollywood elitists, academicians, media figures, or anti-American propagandists (e.g., Michael Moore), the effect will be the same if we do not recognize the threat and stop it. 

 

It is time to take action, because NOW it is getting serious.

View Article  Presumptuous

Presumptuous (adj. displaying excessive self-confidence and taking liberties)

like an enemy,

taken in,

nurtured,

allowed to reach his potential,

never defending

and ever condemning the very nation

that let him thrive.

 

This little ditty is one that I wrote about an acquaintance of mine…a man who was raised in Germany as a Brown Shirt; whose father was a Nazi; and who was brought to America after World War II by that very same father in order to escape persecution in his homeland.  He was given every opportunity in this country.  He has lived a full and rewarding life.  He has married, raised a family, and has a profession that has allowed him to live the good life. 

 

I was taken aback by the fact that this man, now in his seventies, condemns America for its role in the world, offering the all-too-familiar “Blame America First” mantra at every opportunity.  He shows an intense dislike of President Bush.  He consistently takes the elite stance that he and his cohorts are members of the intelligentsia and know more than the rest of us.  I viewed him as presumptuous and as an ingrate.  After much thought, I realized that he really is suffering from guilt about the acts of the Nazi’s and that he is now viewing everything through the same prism.  He sees America as similar to Nazi Germany instead of realizing that America is doing now what it did during WWII in ridding the world of another dangerous dictator.  He demonstrates a hatred for President Bush that borders on the irrational.  Even though I understand the basis for his inaccurate vision of our nation, I cannot forgive it.  It is generally expected that when we take a guest into our home, he shows at least a modicum of respect and appreciation. 

 

And that brings me to George Soros.  Here is another man who I would describe as a presumptuous ingrate.  Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1930.  As a young man, he traded in currency on the black market in Hungary.  When the Nazi’s invaded his country he avoided the fate of other Jewish people by posing as the godson of a Hungarian official who was overseeing the confiscation of Jewish properties.  He escaped from communist Hungary in 1947 to travel to England where he attended college.  In 1956 he emigrated to the United States, where he accumulated a fortune through international investments.  He views himself primarily as a philosopher (he studied under Karl Popper) who has popularized the concepts of dynamic and static disequilibrium.  He blames many of the world’s problems on the failures inherent in market fundamentalism. 

 

In 1988, Soros purchased stock in a French bank and was found by a French court in 2002 to have been guilty of insider trading and was fined $2 million.  On September 16, 1992 (Black Wednesday), his speculation on the overvaluation of the Pound Sterling led to the fall of the Bank of England.  Soros earned an estimated $1.1 billion in the process.

 

Soros has written extensively.  His work primarily focuses on what is wrong with America and with capitalism, despite the fact that it was America and capitalism that allowed him to gain his fortune.  Some of his books include Supremacy:  Correcting the Misuse of American Power and The Crisis of Global Capitalism.  He is labeled a capitalist by the Socialist party, but is described as a socialist billionaire by Phil Brennan (former National Review contributor) and a soft-money Marxist by Scott Shore of IntellectualConservative.com. 

 

There has been much criticism of George Soros from many directions.  One key issue is that his privately owned investment fund is registered in Curacao, a known haven for laundering of drug money and a site of registration that allows Soros to avoid paying taxes and to hide the nature of his investors and what he does with their money.

 

Throughout the years, many have pointed to the hypocrisy of his writings and actions.  For example, despite the fact that America’s freedoms and market economy have allowed Soros to flourish through international currency speculation, he states that “capitalism and the spread of market values” is the number one threat to “open and democratic society”. 

 

His hypocrisy was no more evident than in his reactions to two different presidents engaging in war. While he praised President Clinton’s military action in Bosnia despite a lack of United Nations backing, he is strongly opposed to any action ever taken by President Bush, especially that in Iraq. 

 

Soros also showed his hypocrisy in terms of campaign law.  He was a leading proponent of campaign finance reform.  Now that his effort has succeeded in restricting fundraising and spending by political candidates and parties he has found a way to skirt the laws he helped to create by committing millions to organizations like MoveOn.org that focus on undermining our President and our nation in time of war.    

 

His hypocrisy also is demonstrated in his feelings toward his own religion and traditions.  He has attributed a recent resurgence of anti-Semitism to the policies of Israel and the United States and to successful Jewish people such as himself.  For this he has been called a “self-hating Jewish anti-Semite”.

 

The danger presented by George Soros goes beyond his financial dealings and his hypocrisy.  Much more critical to our nation is the fact that his core belief is that a world order based on the sovereignty of states cannot take care of our common human interests because the principle of sovereignty stands in the way.  Soros has stated very clearly in his writings that the sovereignty of the United States must be subordinated to international law and international institutions such as the United Nations and its International Criminal Court. (Although frequently denied, this is a foundational principle for John Kerry as well.)

 

All of these facts about George Soros bring me back to my acquaintance.  It can be speculated that both are self-hating and guilty about aspects of their past.  Both view themselves as members of the intellectual elite (an excellent defense against self-loathing).  Both demonstrate a hatred for President Bush that borders on the irrational and an overall hatred of America despite the fact that America gave them an opportunity to succeed that they would not have found anywhere else in the world.   Both see the national sovereignty of the United States as a threat to the world.  Both are presumptuous and hypocritical.  But more importantly, although both lived through the impact of Nazi terror, neither can see the need to fight fascism in its current form.  That is why both are dangerous for America since they weaken the moral and spiritual fabric of our nation in the midst of a war on islamic fascists.      

 

Sources:

David Bossie, Editorial, The Washington Times, 11/24/03

Wikipedia

Open Society Institute biography

 

 

 

View Article  Bias: Another follow-up

This entry is just a quick follow-up regarding media bias.  In a letter on Talkingpointsmemo.com, Reed Hundt, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission stated the following:

 

“…since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commission, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced and fair coverage of major president and congressional candidates…The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters and honored by almost all of them.  …Part of the tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate.”

 

Of course, the stated ideal is one that is not only reasonable but honorable.  The interesting thing is that this has only become an issue now that Sinclair Broadcasting has decided to show a film that could reflect negatively on Senator Kerry.  I heard no such outrage during the past year when the majority of news stories, commentaries, television dramas and sitcoms have presented a one-sided, distorted, and sometimes fraudulent image of the President of the United States. 

 

Sinclair has as much right to show the documentary as “60 Minutes” has to devote three hours of prime time television to a series of books that condemn our President.  If they choose to offer Kerry equal time, that is kind of them.  I think in reality Kerry is winning the time competition hands down.

View Article  Bias Revisited

Here is one of those Associated Press headlines that one cannot make up:  “Democrats, senators fight plan to air anti-Kerry film”.  The story goes on to say that “the Democratic Party and 18 senators are objecting to a broadcasting company’s plan to air on 62 TV stations a documentary critical of John Kerry’s anti-war activities after he returned home from Vietnam three decades ago”.

 

The film in question is “Stolen Honor:  Wounds That Never Heal”.  The broadcast company is Sinclair Broadcasting Group.  Local media has taken up the cause, trying to get the stations owned by Sinclair to not air the documentary.  For example, the Minneapolis StarTribune has said that the showing should be illegal and that to show it would be “a flagrant and cynical abuse of the public airwaves…”  The newspaper editorial goes on to state that the film “was written by a former reporter for the off-the-wall Washington Times and paid for—at least initially—by a group of Pennsylvania veterans.”  So, one of the few newspapers in the nation that has a conservative bent is “off-the-wall”.  And the fact that veterans paid for the film casts aspersions on the work.  And, of course there is the fact that the paper even casts subtle doubt on the fact that the veterans really paid for it.

 

As usual, the liberally biased media cannot see beyond its own blinders.  Apparently veterans cannot be trusted unless they are one of the six or eight who support Senator Kerry.  Apparently, any news outlet is “off-the-wall” if views the world from a more conservative point of view.  Apparently, they did not care that “Fahrenheit 9/11” has been shown for several months in theaters, on pay-for-view, and on DVD despite the fact that much of what it forwards not only is not factual but propaganda against our nation…in a time of war!

 

According to what has been written to date about the documentary, it focuses on Kerry’s anti-war activities 30 years ago.  Apparently, one Vietnam War veteran who was a POW during the war states that Kerry “committed an act of treason” because “he lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest.  And now he wants us to forget.”  It is a sad commentary on today’s media that a POW who served his country should be not only stifled from having his voice heard because, in the words of the StarTribune, the film wasn’t produced by any sort of credible news organization”.  I wonder if CBS would be included in the list of credible news organizations.  They have done such a good job with the truth.

 

Relative to that point, the StarTribune adds the following:  “Many people argue over whether this network or that has a political bias.  But those arguments are over nuance—small stuff compared to this.  Here we have a non-network owner of television stations using its properties to inject a bitterly partisan work into the closing weeks of a very close presidential race—and calling it ‘news’”. 

 

I cannot understand how any editorial writer could write that statement with a straight face.  CBS clearly tried to influence the election using forged documents and standing by their authenticity even in the face of their own experts.  But according to the liberal media that is “small stuff”.  Beyond that, CBS, NBC, and ABC along with their cable outlets have consistently slanted reporting to favor the left.  Bernard Goldberg wrote about that fact in “Bias” and “Arrogance”.  But, it doesn’t take a genius to see it every day.  Photos are selected to favor one side.  Headlines slant the facts of the story in one direction.  Comments made by commentators subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) cast a slant on the speaker from one party.  If the slanting was done equitably, that would be bad, because it is the role of journalists to present facts objectively.  The real problem is that the slant of the major broadcast networks is consistently one way…in favor of the left.  That is worse than bad.  It is outrageous and made even more outrageous by the fact that they will not admit their bias.  That should be grounds for losing FCC licenses.  Instead the focus is on Sinclair, an ownership group that has been clear in its bias and hat has every right to carry the documentary. 

 

Two questions for later:  Why does the elite media consistently “blame America first” and why do they want America to lose the war on terror?

View Article  Lies

Unfortunately, Senator Kerry has lied once again in a Presidential debate.  In fact, it is the same lie that he continues to put forth time and time again.  He continues to state that America went to war with Iraq only because President Bush said that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Here is the truth.  The congressional resolution authorizing military action in Iraq consisted of 23 items, only one of which mentioned WMD.  Twelve of the items referred to U.N. resolutions that had not been followed by Iraq.  Congress approved military action in Iraq because of many factors.  The issue of WMD was believed by almost everyone in the nation and by most of the civilized world to be important at that time...but that issue was NOT viewed as the one factor making regime change in Iraq necessary.  Mr. Kerry knows that but tries to obfuscate the issue with his continued lie. 

Saying a lie out loud does not make it true.  Although he has gotten away with lying for over thirty years in the political spotlight, I hope that America teaches him, finally, that lying doesn't pay.

View Article  The Victim Vote

Democrats are known for the fact that they do not vote in very large numbers….unless they become angry.  It is a clear tactic of their leadership to ensure that they become angry.  And what makes them really angry?  Being told that they have been victimized.  Once they are convinced that they are victims, they run to the polls. 

 

Anger is the center of power for the left which is why their leadership works so hard to not only convince their legions that they are victims but to ensure that they remain victims.  That is why the left promotes dependence on big government.  That is why the left tells people that they are entitled to handouts.  The leadership of the left has convinced lower income people who have never taken a dime from government that they are entitled to take that dime and should take that dime.  And they keep those who take that dime dependent on more…just enough entitlement to stay barely afloat but not enough to be independent of big government. 

 

That is what gives power to the Democrats.  As a result, the leaders of the left encourage people of lower income to vote against their own self-interest so that the left can maintain its power base.  It is incredible that this tact works no matter how fast the economy is growing.  The hypnotic chants of the left are a refrain that has no basis in reality. 

View Article  The Forgotten

The Vice President said during the Vice Presidential debate that he had not met his opponent until stepping onto the stage together prior to the debate.  The only logical explanation for the fact that Vice President Cheney did not remember meeting Senator Edwards is that Edwards is a forgettable character…a pretty-boy with no legitimate record of leadership…a man who falls below the radar of a true leader. 

 

If I was forgotten after a meeting with the Vice President, I would understand.  I would be embarrassed if I was Senator Edwards. 

View Article  Integrity

The first debate is over.  The elites are having a field day.  Senator Kerry speaks more eloquently than President Bush.  No kidding!  Too bad for the democrats that speaking ability doesn’t equate with truth, integrity, or resolve.  A current NY Times poll suggests that even Kerry backers continue to see him as pandering. 

 

Mr. Kerry wants to be President.  He always has.  His entire life has been orchestrated to reach that goal.  That includes marrying very rich women to support his goal.  His entire life has been one of self-promotion.

 

President Bush lived his life, decided to run for office, and was elected Governor of Texas and then as our President.  Now he wants to continue to defend America against evil.  He is not an eloquent man, but he is real.  He is not a self-promoter.  He showed that in the first debate.  He also showed that he has integrity.

 

I choose integrity over self-promotion any day. 

Recent Visitors
Brother - Fri 06 Nov 2009 06:21 PM CST 
Psych - Wed 04 Nov 2009 04:24 PM CST 
Mister5liter - Sat 24 Oct 2009 11:42 PM CDT 
gordwick - Fri 23 Oct 2009 01:33 PM CDT 
TresElle - Tue 06 Oct 2009 12:56 PM CDT 
Search