A few months ago I listed several reasons that were given by the Bush Administration for entering the war with Iraq.  No matter how many times these reasons are listed by writer after writer, the un-loyal opposition continues to assert the fact that the only reason given by the Bush Administration for entering the war was the “lie” that Iraq housed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Once again, the truth must be told.  Clifford D. May of the Scripps Howard news Service (Minneapolis StarTribune, March 27, 2005) has provided a short list of reasons given by President Bush and others in his administration for the need to remove Saddam Hussein. 

President Bush, October 7, 2002:  Saddam Hussein “has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.”  He added “Some Al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.  These include one very senior Al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad….” (That was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who still beheads people in Iraq.)

President Bush, September 12, 2002 (in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly):  If we meet our responsibilities the people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.  They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.  These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Paul Wolfowitz, October 16, 2002:  “Iraq is part of the global war on terrorism because Iraq represents one of the first and best opportunities to begin building what President Bush has referred to as a better world beyond the war on terrorism.”

As noted by Clifford D. May, it is “odd that such clear and compelling justifications for the war have been largely forgotten in what passes for debate these days.”

Who actually is the "liar" ?

Yale economist, Robert Shiller was quoted (Minneapolis StarTribune, 3/28/05) as describing President Bush’s plan for improving Social Security in the following way:

“All the president’s plan is, really, is a way to borrow money to invest in stocks.  That’s a sensible strategy for some people.  But, I’m worried that most people, who are not attuned to the fine points of margin lending, might take unjustified risks with their portfolios”. 

Finally!  Someone has stated the truth about the left’s opposition to a structural redesign of Social Security…and Shiller said it out loud! 

The issue that those on the far left have with the plan is that they truly believe the average American is too ignorant to handle his or her own money.  They believe that people need to be protected by the government in every way, including having the government invest FOR them. 

Oh, and of course they also hate the fact that the plan will be consistent with a capitalist economy (as opposed to a socialist economy) and that the plan will help stimulate that economy.  That would be disastrous to the far left because it would move America further away from its goal of “socialism in our lifetime”.

The opposition to the plan to improve Social Security is yet another example of the left trying to make the people of this nation dependent in order to control them.  When will we get it and when will we stand up against the attempts of the left to turn America into a socialist state?

The left loves a victim.  After 9/11 America was “granted” strong global support.  Everyone loved a weakened America.  Then we regrouped.  We took up arms against the enemy.  Much of the world tried to bring about the defeat of President Bush by supporting John Kerry.  He was a man they knew would go along with the United Nations and the European agenda.  Their ploy failed.  Now they must live with a strong America under President Bush for another eight years.  While they hate that fact, they are a bit more open to discussion.   But they continue to be an obstacle to progress in the world.

Today America is demonstrating the strength that made our nation great.  The strength that pulled the lives of millions of Europeans out of the fire during the two world wars.  The strength that brought down global communism.  The strength that is bringing democracy to the Middle East.  Our country is not in favor.  The world does not love a strong America.  But our country will continue to do what is right and will fight the evil that much of the world pretends does not exist. 

Now the far left is condemning the President, Congress, and the Shindler family for "politicizing" the Terri Schiavo case.  This is another amazing example of just not getting it. 

The Schiavo case is not political; it is about life and death and about the value placed on the human spirit.  Only those on the far left cannot understand that.  To them, everything is political because it is their one and only goal to secularize America.  Only by changing the moral underpinning of this nation can the far left gain the power it seeks; power that they will use to change America to one without a spiritual basis and one with a socialist economy. 

Conservatives want small government and minimal government intrusion in our lives.  Those on the far left continue to press for greater and greater control of our lives including where we can smoke, what we can eat, what business owners can and cannot do, when we have to wear a helmet, and when and where we can express our religious and spiritual thoughts and feelings.  All of these initiatives regulate day-to-day life, eliminating religious expression and increasing the dependence of people upon people and government instead of some higher value or power.

Despite this, the one area of life in which the far left does not want government intrusion is that of the right to life of innocents.  Sure, the left does everything possible to protect the rights of convicted murderer and sex offenders.  They fight every day to protect the terrorists that are trying to kill us.  All of that helps the left further undermine the moral fabric of our nation. 

But when it comes to protecting the life of someone like Terri Shiavo, the left (in the form of judges and other political activists) seem hellbent on killing.  And, in this case, it IS killing.  (There is a big difference between feeding someone and keeping that person alive through extraordinary means such as resuscitation.) 

The right gets it; the left doesn't.  The left has its reasons.  Human belief in the right to life is one of the biggest issues that prevents the left from eliminating religion and morality from America.  Once the issue is put away, America will be well on the way to being a part of the "new world" of the far left. That is, if we don't stop the tide...NOW!

The left demonizes people who simply want to keep Terri Schiavo alive long enough for a full review of law enforcement and medical records.  In their eyes, WE are the bad guys for trying to let a human being continue to live.  But, let one of us on the right shoot a deer or a pheasant (or, God forbid, a rabid feral cat) and then we are the bad guys for killing a helpless animal. 

The fact is that the animal being hunted is far from helpless.  Unfortunately, Terri Schiavo IS.

Who are the bad guys?

Rush asked the question today...the question that no one else has asked.  He asked people to look into their souls and ask this question:

"Why do I want Terri Schiavo dead?"

The question is excellent.  What harm would it do after 15 years to allow experts to evaluate her condition?  What could it hurt to try proven rehabilitative methods to help her respond and to eat natually?  What do you have to lose?

If you already do not want her die, then please join me in writing to everyone who will listen.  If you are promoting her death, then please reconsider.  let the experts do what they do and then if it fails....

10,000

Since the inception of this site

we have received 10,000 page hits.

Thank you for checking in.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those in the best position to promote free speech are doing everything possible to extinguish it.  While they cite their respect for the First Amendment (and hide behind it), they allow only that speech that meets certain standards of political correctness.  Speech that does not fit the orthodoxy is blocked and those speaking it are banished.  Those who speak the orthodoxy, no matter how vile, are protected and, in some cases, revered.

Examples are plentiful.  Harvard reviled its president for simply trying to instill real discussion about an important topic.  The ACLU repeatedly files suit against those exercising their freedom of religious expression.  Both use the old technique of forwarding a false assertion and then attacking on the basis of that assertion.  For example, the faculty at Harvard misstated what their president actually said and then attacked him on the basis of those statements.  The ACLU asserts that the Constitution calls for separation of church and state (which it doesn’t) and then brings suit based on that falsehood.

It is time for us all to take stock.  The question that we all need to ask is this.  Who is controlling me?  Of all the laws, regulations, and social sanctions that I face each day, how many were installed by the left and how many were installed by the right?  Which institutions and individuals are limiting my free speech and on which end of the political spectrum do they reside? 

In my own life, the answer is clear.  Most of the laws, regulations, and social sanctions that place limits upon my daily life were installed by those on the left.  As you ask yourself these same questions, I hope that you will be honest.  The answer is critical to your future and to the future of America.

Day after day, week after week, the New York Times and every other liberal newspaper in America ran column after column regarding the supposed abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.  Many of those articles suggested directly or indirectly that the abuse was the direct result of policies put into place by high level civilian and military leaders.  Most of those articles were on page A-1. 

Imagine my shock when I read the following headline on page A-5 of the March 10 Minneapolis StarTribune:  “Interrogation-policy probe finds little fault with leaders”.  Wow!  Page A-5!  The article under the headline referred to the Church probe, done last summer but released on March 10.

The first paragraph of the article by Robert Burns of the Associated Press stated that: “A comprehensive U.S. military review of prisoner interrogation policies and techniques for the global war on terrorism concluded that no civilian or uniformed leaders directed or encouraged the prisoner abuse documented in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Although asserting that there were “missed opportunities in the development of interrogation policies”, the article quoted the Church report in stating that “we found no link between approved interrogation techniques and detainee abuse. …An early focus of our investigation was to determine whether DOD (the Department of Defense) had promulgated interrogation policies or guidance that directed, sanctioned or encouraged the abuse of detainees.  We found that this was not the case.”

So, millions of people were told by the liberal press that our Secretary of Defense, other civilian leaders, and key military leaders had developed policies that led directly to abuse of terrorists, thousands will get to page A-5 to find out the truth.  I am sure this is simply an issue of space and not an issue of media bias.  Oh wait.  These were the five front page stories on the front page of the StarTribune on March 10:

Eye to the future, Rather signs off: an article about the forced retirement of Dan Rather

Tice confident he’ll be cleared: an article about the Minnesota Vikings coach and his problems with alleged scalping

Pawlenty seeks tax-increase blocker:  an article about the Minnesota Governor and his fiscal policies

Study:  Kids plugged into high volume media:  an article about multitasking

Dozens dead found in Iraq: an article about the beheaded, decomposing bodies found in Iraq

Apparently correcting misinformation is not high on the list of the liberal press.  Promoting insignificant news on the front page is much more important.  That and continuing to highlight the violence in Iraq at the expense of the progress.

The results of the Church investigation deserve attention.  I can only hope that people will read all the way to page A-5.

In an editorial regarding the demise of the publication “The Public Interest”, David Brooks (New York Times, March 8, 2005) has shown the progression of thought that has been demonstrated by such intellectuals as Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Daniel Bell.  When these men founded “The Public Interest”, they shared a view that government could end poverty and many other social and moral wrongs.  They all voted for and supported the policies of Lyndon Johnson.  They believed in the power of government.

But, the war on poverty failed.  Despite having billions of dollars thrown at it, the rate of poverty did not change.  Social upheaval continued with increases in the rate of divorce, violence, births out-of-wedlock, crime, drug use, and suicide. 

“The Crisis of Welfare” was published in 1968 by Moynihan.  In that remarkable essay, Moynihan said out loud what many believed before and after.  The war on poverty and the Great Society had only succeeded in increasing the number of people on welfare and had on increased citizen dependence upon government.  Government solutions for poverty had failed. 

As these intellectual attempted to figure out the problem, James Coleman focused upon education.  He wrote that the amount of money thrown at education was not the issue.  What really impacts student achievement is family background, peer groups, culture, ethos, character, and morality. Humans, in fact, are not so much economically motivated as many, especially those on the left, had believed.  Governmental focus on economic solutions to educational concerns had also failed. 

Once advocating a negative income tax for the poor, James Q. Wilson suggested in 1985 that the solution to the wrongs of society is virtuousness, whether as “school children, applicants for public assistance, would-be lawbreakers, or voters and public officials”.

As Brooks noted in his essay, “what matters most is the character of the individual, the character of the community and the character of government.  When designing policies, it’s most important to get them to complement, not undermine, people’s permanent moral aspirations – the longing for freedom, faith, and family happiness”.

This is the heart of the matter.  Notice the intense response from the left regarding the simple proposal to allow Americans to invest a small portion of THEIR money in private investment accounts instead of depositing it into the government-controlled Social Security black hole.  The left hates it when people are allowed to contribute to their own welfare because it teaches people that they can handle life, manage finances, and be free of control by the self-serving and by government. 

Those who seek to continue entitlements seek really to maintain dependency.  Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are examples. Some of them believe that people are really pathetic and unable to control their own fate. Some are just ignorant of the facts concerning economics and, more importantly, human nature. The rest just want to maintain control of their political and economic meal tickets, i.e., those they can keep dependent. 

Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats of the 60’s probably believed deeply in the power of government to right the wrongs of society.  They can be excused.  Theirs was a grand experiment that, unfortunately, failed.  Those who have followed have no excuse.  They have seen the devastation that has resulted from government intrusion into the lives of Americans and continue to follow the same path either out of ignorance or self-interest.  They are the ones who are truly pathetic.

Hear the roar.  The far left, like a lion protecting her cub, is coming out in full force against David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights”.  Apparently, the left believes that the louder their roar the faster conservative Americans will back down.  That approach has worked in the past.  For example, when John Kerry lied again and again during and after the Vietnam War, America backed down.  When night after night the mainstream media presented biased reporting, America backed down.  When Dan Rather attacked the young female reporter who questioned him on the street, America backed down. 

Ah, but the times they are a-changin’.  All the Academic Bill of Rights would do is ensure that dissenting students of liberal “educators” are not punished academically for voicing dissent.  Freedom of speech for leftist educators would not be eroded or even challenged.  The bill would protect the freedom of speech of students.  Simple.  But, the left is threatened.  The power it has amassed since the Vietnam era is eroding as the availability of information expands.  The roar will grow louder yet.  Real Americans must stand our ground.  Now it IS getting serious.

We experienced eight years of “leadership” as defined by President Clinton and his wife, Hillary.  While in office, Mr. Clinton added almost no value.  He inherited an economy that could do nothing but grow for seven years despite his lack of economic leadership.  Only toward the end of his administration did recession begin.  He looked the other way at terrorism, avoiding conflict with the leftist base of his party by avoiding his duty to protect America.  He decimated funding for both the military and intelligence.  He told CIA agents they should not associate with bad guys!?!?  He ignored the impending Social Security crisis.  His Attorney General (Janet Reno) cried (real tears) when she did her job in Texas.  Otherwise she looked the other way when dealing with the bad guys. 

Not only did President Clinton fail America, so too did his wife.  Hillary destroyed any chance that America had of revamping healthcare because she chose socialists instead of businessmen as commission members.  She accomplished almost nothing substantive in her role as First Lady.  Basically President Clinton’s eight years in office were nearly a total loss.  He was impeached for lying in a court of law.  And yet, he is praised as a great President. 

In 2005, Mr. Clinton continues to spin his story.  It was "the vast right wing machine" that caused his problems.  It was the fault of “those women”.  He "only had sex with Monica because he could".  It was everyone else's fault but his own.  He tore into a BBC interviewer who questioned him despite the fact that the BBC generally gave him a free ride during his time in office.

Mr. Clinton continues to make me wonder if he is not truly a sociopath (who by definition has no conscience), or whether he is just having fun with the rest of us at our expense. 

So who is longing for the return of Mr. Clinton as President?  People who love the middle.  People who cannot take a stand.  People who value looks and charisma over substance.  People who put values behind politics.  People who live by the lie.

And that brings us to Hillary. 

Here are a few of my personal pet peeves.  Please have patience.  We are all human and we all have our own peeves that sometimes we just have to express.  You probably have a list of your own.   These are mine for today.

*If I wear a flag lapel pin, I am called a narrow minded, nationalistic, racist flag waver.

*When I try to celebrate diversity during "holiday" parties and gatherings by respecting all religions, I cannot display anything reflecting Christianity, including Santa Claus and a Christmas tree, neither of which is particularly Christian.

*While the Constitution says nothing about separation of church and state (it says that the Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or preventing expression of religion), the ACLU (founded by a Communist) sues anyone who tries to exercise religious freedom if it is Christianity but not if it is anything else. Interestingly, the only place I know of that uses the term "separation of church and state" is Article 52 of the constitution of the now defunct (thanks to President Reagan) USSR. 

*The minority now rules this country, not the majority.

*We let anyone cross our borders regardless, and then give them legal rights despite the fact that they are criminals.

*The Democrat party of John F. Kennedy (“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”) is now the Socialist party (“Everyone is a victim and needs to be taken care of by the government”).

*Actors and actresses with marginal intelligence (after all, they are ex high school drama students) try to tell us how to think and what to do when they can barely figure out what to wear without a "wardrobe consultant".

*People like Barbra Streisand tell us to hang our clothes out to dry instead of using a dryer when they don't even own a clothesline.

*Jane Fonda has never been tried for (let alone convicted of) treason for providing aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam War.

*Even after the election, nobody ever talks about what John F. Kerry said to Congress about Vietnam veterans or about his leadership in the VVAW and the Winter Soldier Investigations. (Google that!)

*Liberals are trying to lead this country in a war on President Bush while President Bush is trying to lead this country in a war on Islamofascist terror.

*Anti-war protesters of the 60's and 70's retreated to our Universities and Colleges to teach a "Blame America First", secular philosophy to our children’s  teachers who are now teaching our children that they are all victims who cannot defend themselves against the bad guys and who need the government to protect them.

*Those same "educators" are teaching everyone that our nation cannot defend itself and that we need the United Nations to protect us.

*No one mentions that the primary reason France and Russia did not join our coalition against terror is the fact that they were on the take from Saddam.

*No one mentions that the primary reason that Germany did not join our coalition against terror is that they remain humiliated and shamed by their past actions and cannot support the nation that freed them from their own terror.  (This also applies to France.)

*No one acknowledges that we MUST use techniques of interrogation to get critical information from terrorists.

*When an Islamic fascist cuts off someone's head the act isn't viewed as bad by the press.  When an American mocks an imprisoned terrorist, the press writes about it incessantly.

*Some Arab Americans are complaining loudly about the current storyline of the television show “24”.  For four years they portrayed America’s enemy as terrorists from Bosnia, staying politically correct but fudging on the truth.  When the producers correctly identify our enemy they are pushed to air public service announcements “taking back” that truth.  These so-called Americans are putting race and religion first, over the security of our nation.

*Almost half the people in America do not understand the severity of our situation, the evil that we are facing and that our very existence depends on us winning this war.

*Almost half the people in America voted for John Kerry, a self-confessed war criminal, a man who committed treason during the Vietnam War, and a man whose only real claim to greatness is his ability to “marry up” (at least in financial terms).

So, that’s my list.   I feel better having gotten it off my chest.  But, in all seriousness, it is time for us to wake up, stand up and realize that now it IS getting serious.