Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
Daily honoring the fallen in Iraq
Catholic Medical Mission Board--Largest US-Based Catholic Sponsored Charity Focused on Providing Healthcare to People in Developing Countries
American Catholic--News, Forums, Saints, Questions, Prayer Requests
Saint Jude Shrine
The Constitution of the United States of America incl. the Bill of Rights (among the rights that Congress must not infringe upon, the "right to abort" isn't one of them)
Media Research Center: The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias
Times Watch: Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times
News, Events, Opinion Straight from the Middle East Translated into English--Find out What the Arab World Really Thinks--Middle East Media Research Institute
Read any Ann Coulter Column Right Here
Catholic Online
Intellectual Conservative
Vital books: "The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America" and "Breakdown: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11" both by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz
The Drudge Report
Prevent Russia from turning back into the USSR--keep abreast of current events in Russia, sign presidential petitions--STAY INVOLVED
The real deal on healthcare-- just the facts.
Tax Foundation-- know the truth about your taxes
You wouldn't believe it if I told you. Buy "Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security." "Betrayal" is too benign a word for the shocking damage to US security that Clinton was responsible for.
The Federalist, where Limited Government, as the Founding Fathers wanted it, is promoted.
What's the big deal with communism? 100 million deaths, oppression, and human misery, that's what. "The Black Book of Communism" documents history's greatest evil--edited by French historian Stephane Courtois. Buy it here.
City Journal
Join THE Conservative Forum on the Web Today
Facts and Logic about the Middle East
What Catholics Believe
Crisis Magazine (Catholic)
Human Events online
The Conspiracy to Keep you Poor and Stupid
National Review
FrontPage Magazine
Wall Street Journal on the web
The Weekly Standard
The Conservative Movement Starts Here
The Washington Times
Buy "Among the Heroes" by Jere Longman--the story of flight 93 (it will break your heart yet fill you with pride)
US House of Representatives
Just the Story, no Spin--Fox News Channel
The Heritage Foundation
National Rifle Association
Get your News from Any Source all Over the World, Right Here
The Declaration of Independnce of the United States of America
The Supreme Court of the United States
The President of the United States
US Senate
9/11: Never Forget
Students for Academic Freedom
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| It's the end of my blog as we know it |
| 10.29.03 (7:32 am) [edit] |
And I feel fine....
I have way too many things going on in my life right now to devote the necessary amount of time to writing a first-rate blog, and it's been apparent for some time. I cut and paste a lot more than I used to, but it's usually because the opinions I present are much better than the ones I am forced to write in my time frame.
So I'm retiring from blogging-- it takes a lot of time and effort to maintain one, and as such it needs to be a high priority. Right now, getting ripped apart by the Left-wing vultures is not high on my priority list. A parting thought to those who are such rabid anti-conservative zealots: hate is not an argument, and it's the wrong kind of motivator. Since I've been on this site I've gotten nothing but abuse by the self-styled promoters of tolerance, yet when I fell for their tactic and replied in kind, I got "crucified" for my so-called underhanded tactics.
Anyway, that's what it's become, and I get pretty tired of that. But I do hold a special reserve of hate for Jimmytherighteous. This is a man who devoted a blog to shredding me personally. He didn't even counter my arguments while doing it, he was just out to ruin me. Jimmy made fun of my weight, my job, my education (he automatically consigned me to a high-school diploma, as if anyone who just has a diploma is an idiot anyway-- what an elitist prick, eh?), and my religion. He claims he's from Athens, Ohio, where I'm from.
Let's hope we never run into each other on the street.
Sammy and Winston are under the impression that as long as they use a lot of exclamation points while making outrageous claims, that translates into a credible argument. Casting aside objectivity, they use biased sources and rely on the tactic of using many linked sources in a blog to overwhelm the reader. Knowing that a person probably won't check them out, this lends credibility that these schmucks know what they're talking about.
Winston and Sammy constantly put words in the Bush administration's 'mouth' and assign motives to it that do not exist. For them, context means zilch, and therefore things can look pretty damming. But then, the Cold War is a pretty large and important context. It was the first
postmodern war, it blurred the lines of morality.
And yeah, I have criticized Bush repeatedly. I worship no one, contrary to what Sammy "HO HO HO!" has said.
Which makes it ironic that such amoral, terrorist supporting guys like Winston and Sammy would try and argue against Bush in moralistic terms. But like I always say, whatever gets the job done for the Left (the ends justify the means).
(And why is it that Winston accuses me of 'blaming Clinton for everything', yet it is ok for him to do the same with Bush? Makes no sense...)
But this blog site and the postings on it represent a no-win situation. It's just noise, just talk, and it apparently defines the lives of those I've just mentioned that they dominate the discourse in whaterver juevenile way they can. I can't keep up with the zealotry, the lies, of the Left-wing faithful-- it's the permanence of evil. You can't stop it.
It is hoped that someday those who rely on the sludge of propaganda to advance their goals will be shamed by the truth of things. Of course, I am not arrogant enough to say that I'm 100% right on anything. In fact, I seldom 100% right, despite the title of my blog (which was a joke from the beginning-- I thought it was witty). The thing is, neither are the Lefties. But that's the difference: I admit I'm wrong and I make mistakes. The Left rarely does-- after all, these elitists rely on their 'superior intellect' based on nothing but their ability to swallow left-wing ideology without question. And humbling yourself and admitting that you are wrong from time to time is instantly seen by these nutties as some sort of weakness, when in actuality it is an incredible strength.
I'm not afraid to be wrong, not afraid of the truth.
Anyway, I'm gone. GO ahead and pick through my archives if you like-- I've written or posted a lot of stuff that I think is good stuff. I've got a lot of responsibilities out there that compromise what I want to accomplish with this blog, and as such I'm leaving the not-so-warm embrace of the T-blog community.
Laters.
|
|
|
| |
| Questions Larry King Should Have Asked Michael Schiavo |
| 10.29.03 (4:47 am) [edit] |
[b]The Interview That Wasn't
Michael Schiavo got the usual Larry King softballs. Here are the questions King should have asked.[/b]
by Wesley J. Smith
10/28/2003 9:00:00 AM
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, Terri Schiavo's husband, finally went on national television last night to tell the world his side of the story. Appearing on "Larry King Live," he strived mightily to play the loving husband. Until more than half way through the interview, when King got around to tentatively asking Schiavo whether or not it is true that he has a girlfriend. (King, who must have known the answer, somehow failed to mention that Schiavo has already sired two children with this woman, who he calls his fiancé.)
The loving husband answered, "I'm lucky. I have two great women to love." He then paused to take a swipe at Terri's mom, "My girlfriend has done more for Terri than her own mother." Asked what that might be, Schiavo answered, "She washed her clothes."
THAT EXCHANGE should have opened the door to some very interesting conversation. [b]King could have asked Schiavo if he is raising children with another woman--a matter finally brought up by a caller near the end of the show--why he should continue to have any say over Terri's care, given that the sanctity of the marriage vows he took are no longer operable. [/b]King didn't, of course, which is precisely the reason why people in the center of heated public controversies like to go on his show.
There are a number of questions King should have asked Schiavo:
(1) [b]Why did Schiavo tell a medical malpractice jury in 1992 that Terri would live a normal life span?[/b]
After Terri's collapse, Schiavo sued for medical malpractice. Under civil law, the longer Terri was expected to live, the larger the verdict would probably be. [u]This fact of legal life could explain why Michael presented evidence to the malpractice jury not only that Terri would likely live a normal life span but also that he intended to be a good and loyal husband and care for her for the rest of his life.
[/u]
(2) [b]Why did Schiavo have a rehabilitation expert testify in front of the malpractice jury to present a detailed plan of therapy for Terri? [/b]
[b]Schiavo and his lawyer claimed that Terri is incapable of improving physically, but during the 1992 trial, a rehabilitation plan and its anticipated undertaking provided one of the underpinnings for the jury's $1.3 million award.[/b] Of that money, Schiavo received $300,000, lawyers' fees were paid, and about [b]$750,000 was put in trust to pay for Terri's rehabilitation.[/b]
(3)[b] Given that the jury awarded $750,000 to be used in part for Terri's therapy, why hasn't Schiavo provided any rehabilitation for her since 1991? [/b]
When asked by King about the issue of rehab, Schiavo described some early efforts to help Terri, such as an experimental surgery in 1990. But he never identified when this rehab took place.
Which is an important point. The only efforts ever undertaken to improve Terri's condition took place in 1990 and 1991. They had ceased by the time of the malpractice trial in 1992 because her insurance coverage had run out. [b]Indeed, the pressing need to restart therapy was an urgent part of the malpractice case. It could have--and should have--paid to restart the rehabilitation that had been abandoned due to lack of funds. [/b]
Once Terri's $750,000 was in the bank, however, Schiavo would not approve a single cent of it to be spent on rehabilitation. [b]Not only that, but once the money was in the bank, Schiavo ordered a "do not resuscitate" order placed on Terri's chart so that if she had a cardiac event, the doctors would not attempt to save her. And within a few months of the money being deposited, Schiavo also refused to permit curative treatments, such as antibiotics for infections. If Terri had died during the early or mid-1990s, as Schiavo's orders were designed, he would have inherited somewhere around $700,000.
[/b]
The issue of Terri's money did come up several times during last night's interview. Schiavo assured King he isn't in it for the money because there is only about $50,000 left in Terri's estate.
(4)[b] Is it true that Terri's money has paid for attorneys to make her dead, instead of therapists to make her better?[/b]
The answer is, unquestionably, yes. According to court records, George Felos, the dutiful "right to die" attorney who sat at Schiavo's side on King's show, has been paid over $350,000 from Terri's trust fund. Another of Schiavo's attorneys, Debra Bushnell, has received about $90,000. [b]These two lawyers alone have received more than half of Terri's entire trust. [/b]
According to court records, when Schiavo began his quest to pull Terri's feeding tube in 1998, she had more than $700,000 in the bank. This was primarily because [b]Schiavo generally refused to authorize payments for any nursing home services on Terri's behalf beyond the basics of room and board. [/b]Thus, only about $50,000 was paid on her behalf in the five years following the jury verdict. [b]Since 1998, about $650,000 (not taking into account any earnings from the fund) has gone out--not for therapy, but primarily for lawyers. [/b]
And yet on "Larry King" Schiavo went so far as to suggest that Bob Schindler, Terri's father, is fighting to save Terri's life because he wants her money.
(5) [b]So how could Terri's father make any money off the case?[/b]
Schiavo's story is that once Schindler became Terri's guardian, he would get her a divorce, and then he would stop her food and fluids. The alleged point of such a scheme being that as next of kin, the Schindlers would inherit their daughter's money.
[b]This sounds like a mighty stretch, particularly given that Bob Schindler has spent every nickel he has--including his entire retirement fund--desperately trying to save his daughter's life. If Bob Schindler is a venal man, he has a funny way of showing it. [/b]
Schiavo told King that his falling out with his father-in-law occurred in February 1993, when Schindler demanded a share of the proceeds in Terri's trust fund. But Schindler and his wife Mary tell a different story. [b]They claim that the argument was over their insistence that the long-suspended rehabilitation recommence, since there was finally money available to pay for it.[/b] They contend that the breach of relationship occurred because Schiavo refused. The behavior of both parties since seems much more consistent with this story than with Schiavo's version of events.
Too bad Larry King didn't ask.
[i]Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. He is the author of Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder." [/i]
Copyright 2003 The Weekly Standard-- http://www.weeklystandard.com...
|
|
|
| |
| SYRIA STORING IRAQ WMDS-- US SATELLITE SPY DIRECTOR |
| 10.29.03 (3:41 am) [edit] |
[B]Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs[/B]
By Bill Gertz-- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
Washington Times | October 29, 2003
Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.
Other goods probably were sent throughout Iraq in small quantities and documents probably were stashed in the homes of weapons scientists, Gen. Clapper told defense reporters at a breakfast.
Gen. Clapper said he is not surprised that U.S. and allied forces have not found weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq because "it's a big place."
"Those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," he said.
Congress is investigating whether U.S. intelligence agencies overstated information indicating that Iraq had hidden its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has defended the intelligence agencies on prewar reports that the weapons were there.
Iraqi government officials "below the Saddam Hussein and the sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to dispose, destroy and disperse," he said.
Gen. Clapper said he felt strongly that the satellite imagery of Iraq's weapons facilities before the war was "accurate and balanced."
"Based on what we saw prior to the onset of hostilities, we certainly felt there were indications of [weapons of mass destruction] activity," said the retired general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Gen. Clapper said the judgment was based on analysis of spy satellite photographs and was not proof of "what was going on inside of buildings."
He also said the Iraqi government carried out operations after the fall of Baghdad in April to cover up the hidden weapons programs. The chaos following might have included both looting and "organized dispersal made to look like looting," he said.
"So by the time that we got to a lot of these facilities, that we had previously identified as suspect facilities, there wasn't that much there to look at," he said.
Valuable documents on Iraq's weapons were destroyed or lost in the chaos, which included burning of major government ministries.
Saddam began dispersing his weapons and sending elements of his chemical, biological and nuclear programs out of the country in the weeks before the war, he said.
The dispersal included moving both weapons and equipment as well as documents. The activity began before the United Nations began arms inspections last fall.
"What we saw with the avoidance of inspections, there was clearly an effort to disperse, bury, conceal certain equipment prior to inspections," Gen. Clapper said.
As for shipping weapons out of Iraq, he said, there is "no question" that people and material were taken to Syria.
He said he did not know whether material also was moved to Iran.
Convoys of vehicles, mostly commercial trucks, were spotted going into Syria from Iraq shortly before the start of the war March 19 and during the conflict, he said.
Copyright 2003 FrontPage Magazine-- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
|
|
|
| |
| Michael Stipe, REM on The Tonight Show |
| 10.28.03 (10:55 pm) [edit] |
R.E.M. has been my favorite rock band since I was 14. I have all of their albums, I enjoy watching them on television and, someday, I hope to be able to go to one of their concerts (my sister was blessed to go to an REM concert in Morgantown, West Virginia, 145 miles away, but that is as close as REM has come to where I live in recent years?I don?t remember them ever being in Columbus, anyway). I like their rock and roll because it is ?smart? rock and roll. By that I don?t mean political subjects alone, I mean that whatever they sing about it usually has been crafted with great care and originality, avoiding the pitfalls of rock and roll clichés. But REM is a bit of an activist band, and most people would wonder how I could support such a band?s politics. Well, I really don?t, but I respect the fact that they are sincere about them and I recognize that they simply make great music. But occasionally, I do get irked by their unreasoning stance on things.
REM was on [i]The Tonight Show[/i] this evening playing a reconstructed song never included on 1986?s [i]Lifes Rich Pageant[/i] that will be on their [i]In Time[/i] greatest hits album, released today. Their performance, like the recent Letterman performance, is better than the single itself, which is odd?usually the consensus is that REM has better albums than live shows. Anyway, lead singer Michael Stipe, on the couch after the performance, asked host Jay Leno to ask him what the numbers on his pants meant (a long string of white numbers cascading down his left leg). According to Stipe, this is the number of misrepresented voters in the United States in the last election, to which the crowd applauded loudly. Stipe?s politics are decisively left, and the context of his statement reveals that this could, oh, possibly be, the fault of the Bush administration, as if voter misrepresentation hasn?t long been a problem in the US?and every democracy?since the founding of the republic. Stipe seems to not really care about creating the impression that this is all the Bush administration?s fault?the Left is good at denying facts and history.
Voter misrepresentation goes both ways in every election?voters of every political stripe are screwed (for example, tens of thousands of panhandle voters did not vote in the overwhelmingly conservative Florida panhandle in 2000 because the media called the election before the polls closed?this according to Democrat analysts). It?s not a left-wing issue, it?s not solely a right-wing issue. It?s worrisome that the pavlovian reaction from anyone watching Stipe?s speech would be to automatically assume that this is all because of George Bush (and that?s because Stipe is anti-Bush). Some of the largest election scandals in US history have come from the left (we already know about right-wing culpability?that?s when the Left remembers history, when it makes the right-wing look bad). It?s a bipartisan problem.
Just an observation.
|
|
|
| |
| Iraqis-- "the shame of liberation" |
| 10.28.03 (10:51 pm) [edit] |
**One of the best columns on Iraq I've read. Clear, honest, no bias. Just truthful. I hope that we're able to overcome this problem with the US as an occupier that I just don't think many Americans, who have good intentions, who believe in good things, realize. Pride is a dangerous thing.**
[b]Occupational Hazards
Iraqis have their issues with the U.S.[/b]
By Steven Vincent
BAGHDAD, IRAQ ? These days, the more I experience the situation in postwar Iraq, the more I think of France. After all, both countries were freed from despotic madmen largely through the efforts of the United States. And just as France has become the oversensitive, vainglorious, self-aggrandizing nation we know and . . . well, know ? Iraq, too, is showing increasing signs of resentment toward its liberator. In Iraq's case, however, the symptoms are more serious, threatening to bring social division, political volatility, and a kind of sullen passivity.
[b]To offer one example: At a small social gathering in Baghdad recently, a woman expressed great excitement over the freedom in her life occasioned by the fall of Saddam. In the same breath, however, she added, "but I hate the occupation of my country so much I fantasize about shooting a U.S. soldier." When I suggested a link between U.S. soldiers and Saddam's demise, she replied, "I know that ? and you can't imagine how it humiliates me."[/b]
There, in an Iraqi nutshell, you have it. Underneath the joy these people feel upon their liberation from Saddam runs a countercurrent of shame over the fact that they couldn't do the job themselves. "If you'd only given us more time, we would have risen up and overthrown Saddam," a waiter lectured me. This sense of impotence explains, in part, the ungracious gratitude expressed by many Iraqis toward the U.S. ? otherwise known as the "thanks America, now go home" syndrome. It also underscores how naïve we were to think that our invading troops would be wholeheartedly welcomed as liberators.
[b]The truth is, no one likes being beholden to another for his freedom.[/b] Especially not Iraqis, who, like the French, maintain a somewhat idealized image of their country. In their case, la difference irakien lies in the glories of its Sumerian and Babylonian heritage, plus its rich natural resources. "No wonder civilization started here," a teacher informed me. "We have everything." This pride, however, has its downside. Since Iraq today isn't exactly in a position to fulfill its great potential, its people often project their sense of superiority outward ? most notably on the United States.
France may consider America a barely restrainable "hyperpower"; Iraq just sees us as omnipotent. The ease with which we occupied the country only reinforces that idea, as does America's breast-beating over its technological know-how and advanced weaponry. As a result, many Iraqis have a faulty view of U.S. intentions ? since America is all-powerful, they reason, mistakes and mishaps in our actions are really part of some Bush-administration strategy.
Take, for example, the looting that wracked Baghdad immediately after Saddam's fall. Where we might blame slipshod Pentagon planning, numerous Iraqis contend that America permitted and even encouraged the looting in order to demonstrate Iraqis' inability to govern themselves. Approaching the status of an urban legend is the story of G.I.s who broke open the national museum and invited passersby to help themselves to priceless antiquities. A cab driver swore to me he witnessed American soldiers exhort crowds to ransack government buildings with hearty cries of, "Go on, people, take what you want!" [b]Note how these stories attempt to lift the blame for these acts of criminal vandalism from the Iraqi people and place it on the shoulders of a devious Uncle Sam.[/b]
[b]The overestimation of U.S. capabilities also exerts an unfortunate influence on the Iraqi sense of time. Since America is so masterful, why can't it gin up the electrical grid, restore peace and tranquility, and provide jobs to everyone ? like, today? Here again, the U.S. is victim both of Iraqi projections and of its own high-tech wizardry. Try to explain to an Iraqi housewife the difficulties of repairing a decrepit electrical system beset by saboteurs, and she'll cock a skeptical eyebrow. This from a nation with weapons so smart they can look up a target's address in the Baghdad yellow pages? No, the only reason America is dropping the quality-of-life ball is because Bush wants to keep Iraqis downtrodden and dependent.[/b]
Not every Iraqi thinks this way, of course. Still, I've encountered these sentiments enough to believe they reflect something deeply ingrained in the Iraqi people. A case in point is a conversation I had with the piano player at my hotel. After a superb medley of Sinatra numbers, Ahmed (let's call him) decided to give me the low-down on the Iraq situation.[b] "The only reason America invaded was to steal our national resources," he explained. Ahmed's proof? America didn't have to occupy Iraq in order to topple Saddam, he noted; all it really had to do was beam down special radiation from its super-secret satellites, which would scramble Baath-party communications and enable ? of course ? "the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam." [/b]As to why Iraqis hadn't overthrown Saddam before, [b]that was simple, too: The dictator was supported by the Jews.[/b] The Jews not only established and maintained his regime, but also manipulated him into attacking Iran in order to "keep the Arabs down" and to ? but at this point I requested he play "Send in the Clowns" and escaped to my room.
I'd discount Ahmed's ramblings as the sort of garden-variety anti-Semitism one stumbles over with wearying regularity in Iraq, if they didn't encapsulate the sense of historical grievance, conspiratorial thinking, and thwarted superiority that lurks in the darker chambers of the Iraqi soul. How serious are these complexes? Very. As I've seen, they slip all too easily into an unspoken [b]assumption among many people here that, since the Iraqis aren't at fault for Saddam's abuses, they share no responsibility in repairing the damage America caused in overthrowing him ? i.e., "you broke it, you fix it."[/b] Worse, [u]some Iraqi leaders seem anxious to demonstrate to their followers that they have the moxie to throw out an oppressor ? in this case, the U.S.[/u] Tapping into Iraqi mortification and resentment is one motive, I'd say, behind the efforts of radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr to create a "shadow" government of Shia militia.
What can the United States do? Or, more to the point, how can it avoid further aggravating the humiliation felt by many, if not most, Iraqis? France had Charles de Gaulle to maintain the illusion of French puissance ? clearly that option is not available to us. [b]The next best strategy, it seems, is to build up a functioning Iraqi army that can win some high-profile battles against terrorists and Baathist holdouts. I dream of hearing one day that a crack team of Iraqi special forces has captured Saddam Hussein. How Iraqis' chests would swell! How they would laugh at the failure of the much-vaunted U.S. military to do the job! Of course, knowing the Iraqis, they would also be quite capable of believing that we had Saddam on ice all along, and simply allowed their troops to bag him, just for the purpose of restoring national pride. After all, as we know, the Americans can do anything .[/b]
[i]Steven Vincent is a freelance writer currently in Iraq.[/i]
Copyright 2003 National Review Online-- http://www.nationalreview.com...
|
|
|
| |
| Medicare and SS in the future: 80% of federal spending, 30% of taxes, 15% of GDP |
| 10.28.03 (10:42 pm) [edit] |
[b]Operation please granny[/b]
Rich Lowry
Link-- http://www.townhall.com/colum...
October 27, 2003
Everyone in Washington is congratulating themselves on an agreement last week that will probably lead to the creation of a new $400 billion prescription drug benefit. It is part of a long-running project -- Operation Please Granny -- to turn almost the entire federal treasury over to the elderly, at the risk of bankrupting the country and dimming its economic prospects.
In the 1990s, we decided that it was a bad idea for poor young women with children to batten themselves on government subsidies. But the bipartisan consensus behind Operation Please Granny holds that it is a wonderful idea for well-off retirees living in condos off golf courses to batten themselves on government subsidies. We no longer have a Welfare State so much as a Geriatric State, at the service of the selfish whim of the elderly.
A new report from the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute, "War Between Generations," catalogs the scope and the senselessness of the Geriatric State. Federal spending on the old has skyrocketed and will go higher as the baby boomers begin to retire around 2008. Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid jumped from roughly 27 percent of the federal budget in 1980 to roughly 41 percent in 2000.
That's nothing. The number of the elderly is set to increase by 116 percent by 2040. That means Social Security and Medicare will, if unreformed, gobble up 30 percent of taxable wages by 2040. Together with Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare spending will be more than 15 percent of the gross domestic product and -- assuming the federal government stays at its current size -- will account for 80 percent of all federal spending.
As the Cato report demonstrates, the elderly spending boom is on behalf of a demographic group that no longer needs such largess. The elderly work less than in the past and are wealthier. In 1950, 46 percent of men over age 65 worked; in 2002, 18 percent. The poverty rate for the elderly in 1959 was 35 percent, higher than the population at large; in 2001, it was 10 percent, lower than the population at large.
It used to be that the elderly consumed less than the young. No more. In the 1960s, the average 70-year-old consumed one-third less than the average 30-year-old. By the late 1980s, the 70-year-old was consuming more. Most of the money for this consumption has come from federal transfer payments -- in other words, directly out of the pockets of the young.
According to Cato, a male at age 65 will receive, on average, $238,000 in federal transfers during the rest of his life, while paying $167,000 in taxes -- a net $71,000 gain. A 25-year-old male will pay $524,000 in taxes during his lifetime and get only $202,000 in transfer payments -- losing a net $322,000.
This disparity will only get worse as Washington ladles out more benefits for the elderly and the growth in the number of seniors outpaces the growth in the number of young workers. Higher taxes for the intragenerational transfers will discourage work and productivity. Resources will be taken from young people who would save it -- contributing to investment and other felicitous economic phenomena -- and given to the elderly to spend freely.
We considered it a damning statement of irresponsibility that young women once thought it acceptable to bear children out of wedlock and make the rest of society pay the bill. So why isn't it considered uncouth for seniors to force young families, struggling to pay the bills, to fund their often cushy retirements? The moral odium directed at the Welfare State, which resulted in welfare reform in 1996, should find a new target in the Geriatric State.
President Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, upon the creation of Medicare, "No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents." Families staggering under a tax burden that will only get bigger can only respond 40 years later, "Yeah, right."
[i]Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group, and author of [/i] Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
|
|
|
| |
| The Quakers' unabashed anti-Americanism. |
| 10.28.03 (10:36 pm) [edit] |
American Friends of Saddam Committee
By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 28, 2003
Link--http://www.frontpagemag.com
The detonation of several suicide car bombs in Baghdad on the first day of Ramadan, the most holy days of the Islamic faith, provided violent and bloody examples of one way religion and politics can interact when used by radicals. It is not, however, the only way religion can be twisted to further a barbaric cause. American also has devout activists who are just as anxious to see America fail as any fedayeen.
Take, for example, the American Friends Service Committee. It claims on its website to be "a practical expression of the faith of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Committed to the principles of nonviolence and justice, it seeks in its work and witness to draw on the transforming power of love, human and divine." Certainly, when one thinks of pacifism, the image of the pious Quaker comes readily to mind.
But based on a mailing I recently received from the AFSC, it's clear that this creed of pacifism can no longer be accorded the moral high ground in policy debates. Love, justice and divine inspiration do no comport well with the embrace of bloody dictators or the opposing of those who would seek to transform tyranny into freedom.
I did not even have to open the letter to get my first taste of the AFSC's uncharitable venom. Emblazoned across the front of the envelop was the claim that America was in "a more dangerous time for peace and justice than even the McCarthy era." On the inside, the lead complaint is that the Bush Administration has on eleven occasions broken "promises" to support "serious, written down, legally binding agreements" in international affairs. Only six examples are specifically mentioned, however, and only one?the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was ever actually ratified. The ABM treaty was not, however, "tossed aside." The United States used the process established in the treaty to withdraw from an agreement that was no longer useful or relevant. Archives around the world are full of such documents rendered obsolete by events and now of interest only to historians.
The other agreements AFSC mentions, the Conventions on Small Arms, the conventions on Chemical and Biological weapons, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the treaty to set up the International Criminal Court, have not been ratified by the United States and thus have no "legally binding" affect on American policy.
Though the AFSC proclaims on the first page that it "is not a political organization" it poses to the reader the question, "Can you trust a leadership that so casually discards the provisions that defend our peace, safety and liberty?" The question hangs in the air because no argument is presented in behalf of any of the international agreements to show how they would ?defend" the United States. The history of arms control agreements provides strong evidence that they do more harm than good.
The first international arms control conference was held in The Hague in 1899. It accomplished little, nor was the second Hague conference of 1907 any better. A third meeting scheduled for 1915 had to be canceled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, named after the U.S. Secretary of State and the French Foreign Minister, "outlawed" war. All the major powers that would fight in World War II signed this agreement, pledging to "condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy." The years between the world wars also saw the size of navies limited by treaty. The principle result of these arms control schemes was to constrain the superior industrial strength of the United States so that a much weaker Japan could build a fleet capable of obtaining regional superiority and launching aggression.
The progressive power of democratic capitalism is such that only by hobbling the United States in some manner can rival ideologies hope to close the gap sufficiently to pose a threat. Forging hobbles for American leadership is the apparent goal of AFSC activism.
The AFSC claims in its letter that it was among the first to recognize the "worst excesses of the Third Reich" and "to confront the Nazi government." But in the abbreviated history of the organization presented, this would seem to be the last time the AFSC recognized or confronted any evil outside the United States. As the group states in its online history, "recognizing that most conflicts have their roots in injustice, the Quaker organization has been long concerned with eliminating injustice at home in the United States."
Though the AFSC mentions the "hysteria and mob mentality of the McCarthy era" it does not mention the Cold War or even the Korean War which gave context to that era. There is no mention of the "excesses" of Soviet Communism, nor the continuing threat from a North Korean regime that talks incessantly of aggressive war and nuclear weapons.
The AFSC is proud of its role as "an early critic of U.S. involvement in Vietnam" and brags of its role, after the Communist victories, in rebuilding "lives and communities" in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. It fails to mention that this effort was in concert with brutal Marxist dictatorships which killed millions.
And then, of course, there is Iraq, where the AFSC "did everything it could to put the brakes on the headlong rush to war." If the AFSC had been successful, would have kept the extremely violent and sadistic regime of Saddam Hussein in power.
The letter ends with a prayer for "integrity" in government based on "truth, compassion and honest behavior." The AFSC would be well advised to apply this standard to its own behavior over the last half century. The AFSC has held the bloody hands of the worst tyrants on the planet and attempted to shelter them from true justice behind a plea for "peace" that would perpetuate their crimes and keep them in power. Conservatives often want to give some leeway to those who wrap their politics in Christian rhetoric, even when they disagree. No such consideration is due the American Friends Service Committee. The only friends it has served of late have been Satanic in the extent of their evil.
Copyright 2003 FrontPage Magazine
|
|
|
| |
| Beware of your casual conversation -- someone may kill you for it. |
| 10.28.03 (3:56 pm) [edit] |
From CNN's [i]Larry King Live[/i] yesterday, where King interviewed Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo's murder-er, husband.
King: Why do you want the feeding tube removed? In other words, let's say the parents say they'll take care of her, right? Is that what they say?
Schiavo: Mm-hmm.
King: Walk away.
Schiavo: Why should I, Larry? This is Terri's wish. This is Terri's choice.
King: [b]It's not written anywhere, right? [/b]
Schiavo: Yes, but it's been decided for six years of litigation that this was Terri's wish. . . . And I'm going to follow that wish, if it's the last thing I can do for Terri.[b] I love Terri deeply. [/b]And I'm going to follow it up for Terri.
King: How old was she when this happened?
Schiavo: Twenty-five.
King: [b]A 25-year-old said to you, if I die, if I'm in this kind of state--most 25-year-olds wouldn't think of something like that?[/b]
Schiavo: It was a comment from watching certain programs. She said, we were watching some programs, and she says, I don't want anything artificial like that. I don't want any tubes. Don't let me live like that. I don't want to be a burden to anybody. She's also made comments to other people about different stories.
So if you're sitting around and casually say "My God, I don't want to end up like that...no tubes" watch out, because someone might think that constitutes your "right to die". Causal conversation over an influential movie/program is not a legal forum, it's not the place where life and death decisions are made. It simply isn't.
Casual conversation is not a legal will-- it's a shame that the Florida courts have decided to put words in Terri Schiavo's mouth.
And by the way: isn't a bit of a stretch for Michael to say "I love her deeply?" He's decided to live with another woman and have children, putting off marriage for guardianship (power and money) reasons (if he marries or gives up guardianship to Terri's parents, he loses the fat cash he got from Terri's malpractice suit and any money gained from Terri's life insurance-- which he would get real quick if he was allowed to barbarically starve Terri).
[b]Terry did not sit down and make out a living will. If this was such a serious issue for her, as her husband say it was, it would have been done as soon as she saw that horrible program. We must respect every human being's right to life in the absence of such legal measures, as hideous as I find them to be. [/b]
Go on with your life, Michael. Let her parents take care of Terri.
|
|
|
| |
| US tax dollars to France via Iraq? Bush administration doesn't deny it. |
| 10.28.03 (1:36 pm) [edit] |
Not only is the US called evil by the rest of the world and opposed by the very nations whose apathy helped create the situation in Iraq, making our work there harder, with absolutely no cooperation, now it appears that our hard-earned tax dollars might be used to pay off Iraqi debts by the Iraqi governing council to France and Germany.
W.H. spokesman Scott McClellan did not deny that could happen, after being asked to commit to a reassurance by a WorldNet Daily reporter.
So we would be basically rewarding a country for opposing us. We'd be aiding our enemies.
I'm sure the Left loves this-- they've always been behind enabling the enemy. Email the President and demand that he give the governing council spending conditions on OUR GRANT regarding Iraqi debt.
president@whitehouse.gov
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
WND article-- http://worldnetdaily.com/news...
|
|
|
| |
| Palestinian hypocrisy on the road to peace |
| 10.28.03 (5:22 am) [edit] |
Everyone's favorite objective news source about the Middle East, the Palestine Media Center, reports that Israel in "yet another violation" of the Roadmap has "authorized" rogue settlements in the West Bank by providing basic services to them (like electricity). This comes at a time when the evil Israeli government is also going ahead with its "apartheid wall", or security fence. Sez the article:
"Whatever its [the fence's] name, its consequences are clear: Israel will encroach upon thousands of the West Bank’s most fertile land, Palestinians will be cut off from Palestinian territory and will not be allowed in Israel, thus leaving them in limbo and all hope for a contiguous future Palestinian state will be destroyed.
"The “roadmap”, which was put forward by the “Quartet” of Middle east peace mediators—namely the US, EU, UN and Russia—specifically demands Israel to stop all settlement-activity on land Israel occupied in 1967: the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."
I remain stunned at the hypocrisy of the Palestinians. This is a group of people that asks Israel to abide by the letter of the roadmap, yet the major requirement of the roadmap, indeed, the only reason why there has to be a roadmap, and not a peace that has been offered for the past 30 years to the Palestinians, which they have rejected, is [b]that the terrorism coming from the Palestinians, supported by the PA and the Arab world, [u]stop[/u].[/b]
Look at what has happened to the Palestinians since Arafat rejected peace and started the intifada in 2000:'
*Sharon rose to power because of the intifada, and keeps it as the PA lets terrorists bomb innocent people. He responds to the terrorists by killing and jailing terrorists, something the PA has refused to do since Oslo (and Arafat won a peace prize for that, we must remember).
*The Palestinians are not likely to see such peace concessions by Israel again.
Yes, indeed, Sharon's settlement moves are disturbing, but they are hardly surprising. When Israel had dovish leaders in power, Arafat and company exploited it, showing their true colors by refusing to accept peace. They thought that if Israel would give the Palestinians most of what they wanted (save 3-5% of the west bank for continuity purposes, land that was recompensed with other land), then why not try and realize the real dream of the "Palestinians" and the rest of the Arab world-- why not eradicate the Jews?
Just as Israel isn't doing its part of the 'roadmap' much more is the PA not doing its part. Ending the violence is the requirement of the 'roadmap', and the Palestinians aren't keen on doing that. Time and time again they refuse to crack down on terror, relying on "cease-fires" instead (cease-fires that allow groups like Hamas to re-load).
A security wall is needed because it is the last line of defense. There is not much else the Israelis can do-- one would think if the Palestinians cared about "their" land so much, then they'd cooperate and abide by their roadmap charge to halt terror attacks. The Palestinian leadership does not want peace, does not want to arrest those that kill innocents in the name of 'martyrdom'.
[b]The Palestinians love to talk about "international law", but it is also a violation of international law to make genocide a policy, which is what the PLO through its Hamas affiliation has done. And it's been that way for decades. The PLO's goal, through Hamas, is not to 'resist the occupation', or 'live side by side in peace with Israel' but to eradicate the Jews, or the 'Zionist entity'.[/b]
It all starts with stopping Palestinian terrorism. Every peace plan that has come down the pike has asked for this, and the Palestinians have violated it. Can you really blame Israel for their security measures? The only entity that is interested in stopping the terrorism is Israel itself. As long as Arafat remains an obstacle to peace as the leader of the PAs, then there is no "roadmap".
Here's the article from the PMC-- http://www.palestine-pmc.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| Terri Schiavo 'debate' response to spartacus |
| 10.27.03 (11:01 pm) [edit] |
I was going to wait to 'reply' to a debate I never knew I was in, but I just want to get it over with. I didn't write this very well, and it will not convince you, but spartacus isn't in the mood to be persuaded on anything-- he'll intimate that I'm narrow-minded and a bigot, while showing the very same qualities. Anyway, this is my response to the real spartacus.
I'm sure the lefties on this site will think I'm a hypocrite because of my reluctance to 'debate', but I am affected by the real world-- I have a job that takes up 60 hours a week (one of them isn't year round, resulting in Jimmytherighteous' inability to do math regarding my income). Anyway, this responds to as much as possible. Wednesday is my best day. I may follow up.
Until then, enjoy.
A)When I said you know zilch about Christianity, Spartacus, that is the truth. I'm not using it as a 'tactic'. I'm not trying to get out of anything or gain anything by it. I think you are anti-Christian, and you basically admit as much.
B)The "Hate Crimes" regarding homosexuals is one new class of rights, but so is the newfound right to permit sodomy in the home. Not only does the Lawrence case rely on a "right to privacy" that does not exist in the Constitution, it negates the 10th amendment and allows for a whole new slew of problems to occur "in the home" and be protected by the "right to privacy", things like incest, child-man love, etc. The new rights given to homosexuals, which shouldn't have made it to federal court, have set a far-reaching legal rprecedent that most don't want to admit.
C)The 'poor me' tactic I used against you wasn't a 'tactic' because you actually attacked me, brainiac. Secondly, I don't care if you think I'm a bigot for my views-- I don't care what you think. I don't think you have the market cornered on "fairness and honesty", and therefore you're not qualified to speak for everyone. I speak as a Christian, I know what I believe. But your own bigotry comes shining through by your, again, lack of knowledge of Christianity translated into what you [i]think[/i] you know about it.
D)I have problems when people disagree with me without explaining why--that was my point. I don't care if you disagree with me, but you should have a reason why. You did that, spartacus, and that's what I responded to. It's an easy way out, it's an anti-intellectual "tactic", if I may use the term.
E)Winston and Sammy are deleting comments, because I've tried to follow up on them in the past. And yes, they should be ashamed of themselves not only for that, but for making things up out of wholecloth. I didn't use the word "crucify" in any sort of clever way-- it just popped into my head. I could have used any word. But they have ripped me apart in past comments, comments you weren't around long enough to see.
F)Again, you say that I'm a bigot, and you're not, but then you go off like you alone possess the truth and unequivocally call Christianity evil. If you don't believe in Christianity, why judge me in Christian terms?
I don't think you're properly equipped to 'debate' me on Christianity-- and that isn't out of any sort of pride on my part, but out of the shocking lack of knowledge-- basic knowledge-- that you exhibit about the religion.
G)While discussing a movie on terminal illnesses with a 25 year old Terri Schiavo, Michael, her husband, claims that Terri stated she would not want to live hooked up to a "machine" (she's not), or be a "burden" (her parents don't consider her a burden and [i]want[/i] to care for her). Michael's brother, Scott, backs up his claim, while his sister-in-law, Joan, told the court that Terri had approved of pulling the life support from the dying baby of a mutual friend and said that if she ever wrote a "will" she would say that she didn't want "tubes."
Casual conversation does not a legal case make-- at least it shouldn't.
But that's all the 'legality' the court needed, which is fairly scandalous. The fact is that legally we don't know what Terri wanted. There is no living will.
A court ordered that Terri starve to death over 2 weeks. Jeb Bush said no. In both instances, others are making the decisions for Terri. If Terri knew that she'd be suffering terrible pain for 10-14 days, including heaving, seizures, nose-bleeding, and the extremities becoming cold and mottled, do you think she might reconsider her youthful casual comment?
It doesn't matter if I know Michael Schiavo personally or not-- I've read quite a bit about this case. It is a fact that he loses Terri's life insurance if he remarries (which is why he hasn't-- he's been with this woman and had children since the mid-1990s). There are many reasons why he doesn't want to give up his guardianship-- which is why he doesn't want to let Terri's parents take care of her.
Michael Schiavo is paying for Terri's care-- I was wrong before when I stated that he wasn't paying for her care. I was reading from an outdated article on the case.
If this were a case involving a living will, or something legally more credible than casual conversation, which is exactly what it was, I would still have a problem with the decision, but it would be a private decision between two consenting adults. I do not believe that this is the case, and that's my opinion. We don't know what Terri wants, no one does, and we should err on the side of life.
We'll just have to disagree.
H)And a final note on Jimmytherighteous' comment about me making fun of him being a scientist. Of course, there's a context here that he doesn't admit to, and it is this: he was mocking something I wrote in a local newspaper, putting words in my mouth, and then proclaimed to the world that he was a scientist so that automatically makes him an expert (even though what he was talking about could have been understood by anyone). This builds on the ole past time of Jimmy making fun of my job, my weight, my religion, and so on. It is he, not me, that started slingin' shit-- look at how many blogs he devotes to me. This man is nuts-- he's almost a cyber stalker.
Being a 'scientist' doesn't impart some great credibility on you. People that readily refer to themselves as scientists and engineers want people to go "Garsh! A scientist!" They have no reason to be so full of themselves. Jimmy was trying to get away with that, and as such I mocked him for it. That pales in comparison to what he's written about me, for no reason except for me writing a blog. As long as he devotes his pathetic life to bashig me, I'll respond with equal venom. It's up to him to stop it.
Don't believe the hype from Jimmytherighteous.
Now I'm off to get some sleep.
|
|
|
| |
| For Sammy, being wrong is second nature |
| 10.27.03 (7:12 pm) [edit] |
Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when the country was our ally. Why were they our ally? Because it was right after the Iranian revolution, which the USSR funded, and the USSR was trying to overrun the Middle East (hey! the Ruskies also invaded Afghanistan for no good reason too!). Of course, the Left can't criticize this, because they morally equivocate, so let's drop that argument right there (it was something called "real politik", which you might want to check out sometime).
Cheney had zero to do with Iraq's WMD. In fact, the United States didn't 'give' Iraq WMD. The US gave Iraq anthrax cultures, and yes, I think we all knew what that was for. But see, the purpose of the UN resolutions and the purpose in this war is to make sure that the WMD that Hussein developed from not only that anthrax, but more importantly the EAST GERMAN SARIN AND VX THAT HE USED PREVIOUSLY AGAINST THE KURDS was accounted for.
Now, I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I do know that the majority of Hussein's chemical and biological stuffs for WMD were [i]not[/i] given to him by the big, bad evil United States but by communist satellites in Eastern Europe (not to mentiont he USSR itself). That doesn't excuse what the US did in any respect, and I never made an attempt to gloss over that. But our troops are trying to account for this stuff that Hussein refused to do so by international mandate on top of being attacked and killed by the French and Russian weapons were sold to Hussein clear up until (and probably after) 1991.
It's amazing that the Left can just throw in any lie and think that it somehow makes their argument better. No one ever said the US is perfect, but such was the reality of the Cold War. The Soviet Union killed hundreds of thousands through experiments with deadly agents (including 20,000 killed in an anthrax accident in the Ural Mountains). The US is destroying their stockpiles; so far we don't know if Russia is, or even if they've stopped developing them.
|
|
|
| |
| Rockets that hit Baghdad hotel Sunday were French and Russian |
| 10.27.03 (12:11 pm) [edit] |
The rockets fired at the Baghdad hotel on Sunday were French and Russian made in "pristine" condition, one military official said.
General Dempsey admitted that he didn't know if the missiles came from Hussein's arsenal, but Hussein did have those missiles in his arsenal.
Of course, I've repeatedly shown that Russia, France, and China supplied the Iraq regime with 82% of its arms from 1973 on, and I believe that the missiles discovered last month by Polish troops in Iraq [i]were[/i] French, but after EU pressure and threats, the Poles decided to say that they made a mistake.
French and Russian oil deals and trade didn't stop after the Gulf War (er, "conflict"), so why should we think that their arms deal would? Said one soldier, responding to a CNN anchor's leading question about being shot at by American arms, "No ma'am, everything we're finding over here is French or Russian."
And these are our partners in stability? Here's the article about the rockets-- http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
|
|
|
| |
| Gore's quote: "I took the initiative in creating the internet." |
| 10.27.03 (2:17 am) [edit] |
"Creating" is a synonym for [i]inventing[/i].
What did Gore actually do? He voted with the same House-Senate majorities and the President that voted to approve funding for the DoD to develop the internet
So did Gore, and Gore alone, take the initiative, or was it a whole bunch of people??? He was trying to take credit for something he had little to do with.
There is nothing approaching this kind of sophistry from the conservatives and 'imminence'. Again, I don't know what this takes, but Bush said in his SOTU flat out that Hussein wasn't 'imminent', as did Cheney numerous times (two times on Meet the Press alone).
Has Al Gore yet denied that he took the initiative in creating the internet?
That's not even the point, because as we all know, the media never reported on the Gore lie, which is something he actually said, but won't hesitate to report on the Bush administration's "imminence" claims, which never existed.
Whatever Gore said, it was patently false. But so far no one has come up with anything remotely as damming about Bush and "imminence", and that's because the administration made it's case repeatedly. It was clear. Leave it to the media to muddle it up.
There's a clear intent by the media to say things about Bush that he never said. And when you're talking about a war here, that kind of stuff becomes propaganda-- it demoralizes troops and stirs the public. It has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with emotion.
The accusation constitutes the guilt.
|
|
|
| |
| Do I have concerns about Iraq? You bet. |
| 10.27.03 (1:59 am) [edit] |
I have some problems with the Bush administration?s decision to go to war with Iraq (and a few more on the economy [free trade] and the Medicare px bill). [b]While I agree with the rationale for war, postwar has been very problematic for the US, not the least of which is refusal for the rest of the world to support a mission that it is responsible for (UN resolutions, anyone?).[/b]
[b]Today there were several suicide attacks in Iraq that killed 37 or more people, and 2 soldiers were killed.[/b] Last week was the bloodiest week in Iraq since the reconstruction began. The security problem in Iraq is a problem for many reasons. For one, we won the war too fast? with all of the soldiers that disappeared into the night, with old rulers still at large, and with Hussein?s releasing hundreds of thousands of prisoners on the eve of war, the US was facing a massive problem of sabotage. Secondly, the US?for good reason?disbanded the army and the government bureaucrats, including the police forces, but that created a security vacuum that is only now beginning to fill up . Thirdly, the citizens of Iraq have not taken the thoroughly involved stance in its own reconstruction that the US had hoped. At first, US officials thought it was a fear of Hussein, but I think it?s just the psychological reaction to a people depressed by decades of rule? like the communists in Russia, they don?t know how to do for themselves because it was always taken care of by big government.
Then we have problems from the rest of the world. The war on terror is a war that affects the whole world, not just the US. Some day, and I fear soon, the US will not be a ?super?, much less a ?hyper? power. But terrorism and anti-freedom forces will still affect democracies. But the UN, which legitimizes the terror states, is slow to catch onto this. They abused their own charter by refusing to defend their own resolutions, and made the US go at it alone in Iraq. Even their recent resolution legitimizing the effort was met with no troop or money commitments. A neo-Marxist anti-war movement materialized to oppose Bush, who was basically defending the rights of all free peoples from those who would take them away. The Left found itself in the position of defending Saddam Hussein, something they still can?t quite explain (a lot like their defense of Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh).
The Left and the Democrats running for President have not articulated anything they would do differently, or how they would solve the problems in Iraq, the War on Terrorism, or the economy that they?falsely?blame Bush for.
But there are serious problems in Iraq, problems that the media will drumbeat endlessly until Bush does something tragic, like withdraw US troops or give it to the UN. I hate to see innocents and soldiers die. I hope and pray that things turn around. But this war was not a ?fraud?, and the Left and the Democrats are in no mood to help.
Other problems in Iraq:
*Jessica Lynch/Shoshana Johnson disability ?scandal?: it appears that Jessica Lynch receives more of her pay in disability than does Shoshana Johnson. Is this a ?racist? ?double standard? as the Rev. Jackson has said, or is there something more to it (like the severity of the injury dictating what kind of disability a soldier receives?).
*The Fort Stewart ?squalor? ?scandal?: it appears that there is a lack of doctors to attend to everyone hurt in Iraq, and that many patients are being held at Fort Stewart. The Left gloated once that we took Baghdad with ?Clinton?s army?, so why shouldn?t they also realize that ?Clinton?s army? slashed about 70% of the US military, resulting in the shortages that Bush gets blamed for. The Army Secretary has vowed improvements (which will subsequently be cut when a Democrat becomes president).
*CPA ?missing? 4 billion in Iraq. Of course, we all know that it isn?t missing anymore, but what is ?truth? to the anti-Bushies? The money is accounted for, and will be posted shortly. The reason why this hasn?t been done sooner is because there was a disagreement with the UN over auditing.
*The CIA leak probe. Joe Wilson made it his personal mission to destroy Bush, but the ?leak? of his wife?s name wasn?t really a leak. She hadn?t worked undercover in five years, which means her identity isn?t secret. Plus, the CIA did not object when Robert Novak told them he was going to use her name. Hell, her name even appears on ole Joe?s biography. The Dems, who created the independent prosecutor for Nixon, then hated it when it was used for Clinton, now want it to appear again for a Republican.
*Halliburton ?price scandal?. Halliburton is accused of charging unfair prices for fuel in Iraq, though there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Just as the fact that Dick Cheney once worked for Halliburton, it means nothing. Halliburton has been one of, if not the, premier contractor for the US government for many years. That?s because they?re good at what they do.
*No nuke threat found in Iraq ?scandal?. Since Bush never said there was a working Iraq nuclear program, this is not much of a scandal. It would be one, however, if this was discovered during the Clinton administration (he?s the one that said Iraq had such a program). The administration?s justifications of the Iraq war were pretty clear, and there are some good arguments against preemptive war. It?s just amazing that the Left never uses them.
These are just some of the many ?mini scandals? that the press cooks up on a daily basis to make Bush look bad. They?ll probably succeed.
[b]I?m most concerned about our troops dying over there. The reconstruction is going very well in Iraq, except for a concentrated area. The fact that these Baathists and foreign terrorists not only attack US troops but the UN and the International Red Cross, tell you that they are against freedom and human rights in general. I sometimes think that if the Iraqis and the civilized world don?t want to join us in fighting terror, then we should give that task to them anyway. We should just patrol the borders and remove our troops from the world. That?s the Pat Buchanan philosophy, and while it is attractive, it doesn?t work. We have to stay engaged in this world, whether we choose to be the superpower or, like the Leftists and Iraq, whether we are forced to be the superpower. We should all hope and pray for a speedy reconstruction, for no more lives lost, for a free and Democratic Iraq.[/b]
The war on terror is not Bush?s war?it was brought to him by a decade of ignoring warning signs, greed, and thinking that the world was safe because the Cold War was over (of course, it isn?t). But Bush is responsible for waging the war now, and I hope and pray he is making the right decisions.
God bless our troops,
And God save the United States.
|
|
|
| |
| I'm James Yerian, and according to a man who lives to bash me, I'm 'hopeless' and spineless' |
| 10.27.03 (12:13 am) [edit] |
Jimmy is upset that I wrote a blog refuting what he said. Why can't Jimmytherighteous write a blog refuting what I said? I mean, more people read blogs than comments. What, exactly is Jimmytherighteous so pissed about?
He calls me a coward again for not having comments, but in actuality, having a place for comments attracts the kind of comments that Jimmytherighteous has levied at me in his blog for a long time-- and it's more than the five blogs about him from me that little Jimmy whines about.
(And a plus: I actually refute his argument when I write about him-- I don't use hate as an argument.)
This is the bottom line: you either say something or you don't. Blogs are the appropriate place to do that. When I had comments I didn't get any great 'intellectual' gems from the left, I got the same shit that Jimmy "the scientist" excels at-- calling me names (fat, coward, etc.). ... Jimmy gets upset that I'm writing blogs that disagree with him and actually show why I disagree with him, yet all he has done is devote his free time to writing blogs attacking me.
Jimmy, why not use your blog space to write something thoughtful in response to me, instead of whining for me to put my comments back on?
All this does is try to divert attention away from the fact that Jimmy doesn't have an argument, and apparently can't take it when someone disagrees with him in writing.
Hey, it's Sammy, Hybrid, Newbie, Winston, Sulky, and Jimmtherighteous against one person-- a lone conservative. Yet I still write my blog in spite of the vitriol.
And I'm the one that's spineless? Boo-hoo, Jimmy. You can gain ground by offering something insightful yourself instead of complaining about me. I don't know if you're capable of doing that-- so far, you've not shown that you even want to do that. [b]You seem to like making fun of me more than disagreeing with me.[/b]
What a shame.
|
|
|
| |
| Jimmytherighteous: is Bush a moron or is he 'crafty', a master conspirator? |
| 10.26.03 (11:09 pm) [edit] |
Which days is George Bush a bumbling fool and which days is George Bush the Prince of Darkness? Jimmytherighteous has chosen the POD, referencing the 'crafty' lies of the administration this time, instead of the 'Bush is a buffoon' tactic. Oh well....I'm not surprised.
And I'm also not surprised that, just as with the Left's accusations, jimmy's blog doesn't offer any facts either. He mentions Bush's "Niger" claim in the SOTU. Well, we all know that Joseph Wilson claimed that claim was wrong-- but he was not a CIA operative, he admitted he didn't do anything while in Niger, and he is an open partisan against Bush (admittedly so). Is it any surprise that the Bush administration paid little attention to his "drinking sweet mint tea" mission to Niger?
It is also a fact that the British intelligence, which is the country Bush attributed the Niger claim too, stands by its claim. Most believe that the reason why the source isn't mentioned is because the source of the claim is French intelligence, and as you all know France politically was against the Iraq war.
So that's hardly a lie. If Jimmy cares to dig a little deeper he can quote the part in the SOTU speech where Bush flat out says that we [i]can't[/i] wait until the threat is 'imminent', because then it will be too late. That is the argument the Bush administration has used since 9/11-- but it is conveniently forgotten when it helps further the Left-wing cause.
Meanwhile, there were so many real lies, told to a stupified public during the Clinton administration (like "There are no nukes pointed at your children," "We're attacking Saddam's nuclear weapons programs," "We bombed a terrorist training camp" (and not an aspirin factory), and so on). The reason why these lies didn't matter then is the reason why Bush is being accused of lying now: the Left-wing establishment, the fifth column, makes it so.
We still read many articles still recycling the 'imminence' and 'nuke programs' canard, but Bush's points were always clear. It is dishonest, yellow journalism.
And Jimmytherighteous, along with everyone else, knows it.
By the way, I don't always defend Bush. I've been critical of him. But when people of any political stripe start fudging the facts, it starts to become propaganda. While the Left sees propaganda as a tool, because they believe that the ends justify the means, they believe in power at any cost, conservatives simply cannot get away with anything that the Left does.
I mean, shit, Donald Rumsfeld's memo to [i]four people[/i] posing questions about the war on terror got leaked, for Christ's sake, and was immediately held up that the administration lacked confidence in its own plan. Of course, they overlooked the fact that Rummy was merely trying to get positive feedback about the military strategy in Iraq so that, if there are problems, they may correct them. I would think any American would want an administration that would do that.
In Vietnam, which was started and gruesomely expanded by two Democratic Presidents, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara exuded pure liberal arrogance in running the war, never expressing any doubt despite the mounting deaths and bizarre strategy of not taking land. Thirty years later he apologized for realizing his plan-- and about 50,000 soldiers-- were doomed from the start.
(And unbelievably, many on the Left refer this war as "Nixon's War". [i]That's[/i] the power of liberal media bias, folks. Nixon ended the war when his administration was actually starting to win it, something JFK and LBJ could not do.)
And the liberals forgave him. But they won't forgive the conservative leadership for trying to do the best thing, for openly questioning their own policy in an attempt to improve it. Rumsfeld believes in progress and doing things right. That should be welcomed.
THe Bush administration is opposed by a biased media and a zealous, unreasonable left-wing minority in the US. He can't say that grass is green without it being leaked and having Ted Kennedy holding a press conference to call that an 'outrage'.
The Washington Post article was another political hit job based on things the President and the administration did not say or even intimated, and shows its hypocrisy in the light of its treatment of real scandal.
|
|
|
| |
| Putin's political opponent arrested for "tax evasion". Democracy in Russia? Nyet. |
| 10.26.03 (9:59 pm) [edit] |
From Future of Russia .org, a group that has documented the lack of Democratic reform in Russia-- http://www.future-of-russia.o...
[b]Putin Political Opponent Arrested by Masked FSB Agents[/b]
As reported by the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com... on Sunday, October 26, "...armed Russian security agents stormed aboard oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky's private plane during a pre-dawn Siberian refueling stop and arrested him yesterday on allegations of massive tax evasion and fraud."
In what is the latest chapter in a series of politically motivated moves orchestrated by Vladimir Putin http://www.future-of-russia.o... , his pre-dawn arrest represents a significant escalation in [b] the battle between pro-democracy reformers and Putin's FSB-guided inner circle[/b].-- http://www.future-of-russia.o...
The Washington Post further reports:
*The "...arrest marked a dramatic escalation of an election-year battle between the Kremlin and Russia's richest man."
*"A phalanx of masked, black-uniformed agents from the Federal Security Service (FSB) http://www.future-of-russia.o... , the domestic agency that succeeded the KGB http://www.future-of-russia.o... , rushed aboard brandishing guns, kicking down doors, ordering the passengers to the floor and shouting, 'Don't try to defend yourselves or we'll shoot.'"
*"Politicians across the ideological spectrum denounced the arrest as a politically motivated Kremlin attack, and leading business figures expressed fear it would damage the booming Russian economy."
*"Reformist politician Boris Nemtsov called it a "political contract hit" and said in a telephone interview, 'I'm absolutely certain the Kremlin is involved in this project." Nemtsov...added, "The Russian elite understands completely, 100 percent, that this is an absolutely political decision, and the decision was made to show that if you want to be an independent . . . in this country you will face a criminal investigation http://www.future-of-russia.o... .'"
*"Putin was silent on yesterday's arrest, although he met at the Kremlin with top government officials, including the director of the FSB."-- http://www.future-of-russia.o...
*"Several political analysts said that only Putin could have approved such a significant arrest http://www.future-of-russia.o... and that it signaled a decisive turn by the president toward the security service veterans among his Kremlin advisers who are known as "chekists," after the first Soviet secret police force, the Cheka."
It has been widely reported that Khodorkovsky, a political opponent of Putin's and man widely recognized as having established one of the most transparent and open businesses in Russia, Yukos Oil,-- http://www.future-of-russia.o... exchanged sharp words with Vladimir Putin at a meeting last February in which Khodorkovsky brought up the subject of corruption in the sale of a Russian oil company to the State. As the Post reported, "...In the months that followed, Khodorkovsky and his partners became targets of multiple government criminal investigations."
[b] Khodorkovsky joins Boris Berezovsky http://www.future-of-russia.o... , Yakov Goldovsky http://www.future-of-russia.o... , Vladimir Gusinsky http://www.future-of-russia.o... , Platon Lebedev http://www.future-of-russia.o... , Alexei Pichugin http://www.future-of-russia.o... and Yury Shelfer http://www.future-of-russia.o... as those who have been imprisoned or forced to leave the country by Putin's government in recent history.[/b]
***
Looks like nothing has changed in Russia: the old guard of communists still rule, they have not stopped enabling the rest of the world with nukes, and they continue to shovel the sh-- out there that they are a reformed democracy at peace with the United States.
It is amazing that all these unbelievable lies can be hurled at Bush, that he is taking away civil rights, that he is a tyrant, yet if these left-wing nuts said anything about Putin as an opponent they'd be jailed.
People in America have no idea how free they truly are.
|
|
|
| |
| Response to therealspartacus |
| 10.26.03 (12:29 pm) [edit] |
The post that spartacus put up made fun of my intelligence. It was an insult.
I have no idea what spartacus means by this:
"I have noticed a recent conservative strategy like that. Whenever the evil liberals suggest something like say, seperating church and state, or gay rights, the conservatives try and appear as if they are a helpless minority group, who is contiually being assulted by bigots. I think I know where they picked this tactic up from."
??????? I've written many blogs on church and state and gay 'rights', I've never used the tactic of being assaulted by bigots. Do a text search, spartacus.
Then Spartacus goes and projects the actions of conservatives at his school newspaper with me.
I've been pretty clear about homosexuality, and I'll state it again. I think homosexuals are fine people, one of my best friends in graduate school is a homosexual. But, interesting he, like me, does not believe that in the name of "tolerance" they deserve a whole new class of rights. That violates the 14th amendment of the constitution. And I personally am against the practice of homosexuality-- and that's because I'm a Christian. I don't resort to some "poor me" tactic. That's not even what I did in my comment to the real spartacus.
My comment was to indicate my being upset that he ridiculed my intelligence yet offered no proof of his own. After all, spartacus did disagree with me. I have problems when people do that. Because I do not say something without explaining my position.
I've written many thoughtful comments to folks like Winston, Sammy, etc. But they always erase them. And, when they do crucify me for my comments, it's usually a comment where I'm responding to another liberal name-calling attack on me.
And, spartacus, I didn't call you names in my response to your mother theresa blog. But you did denigrate Christianity, and you still, in my opinion, know zilch about it. I choose not to debate you because I don't think it would accomplish anything. The unseriousness of both your mother theresa blogs proves this.
You are not in a position to consider another side.
The Schiavo case has everything to do with liberals govering you, because liberals support the "mercy killing", "right to die" movement. Their philosophy believes in government, not individual freedom, and as such is tyrannical.
And the difference between Jesus Christ, my hero (and yours too) and Terry Schiavo is that Terry isn't allowing herself to be killed. That's the point-- someone else is making this decision for her, based on no living will. She is not terminally ill, she just has to live on a feeding tube. If we do not know what she would want, it is barbaric to assume she'd want to die. And the state-- or a court-- should not make that decision.
Michael Schiavo does not want to support his wife. He has not spent one dime of the money he received for her treatment on her, and the only thing that has prevented him from marrying the woman he shacked up with years ago is that doing so would prevent him from being able to kill his wife-- and gaining more money.
Schiavo has said his wife told him she wanted to die. That's not legally binding, and given the actions of Michael Schiavo, not terribly credible.
Ah, I was waiting for the Crusades equalizer. The Crusades was a reaction, not an instigation. The Islamic Empire, their attempt to conquest Europe? Forced conversion or death?
If you're going to go that route, then I'll just remind you of the 100 million civilians killed by the left's favorite ideology communism, the one they apologized for until the gore became too much to deny. The one that the left still supports (International ANSWER, for example).
And pray tell, spartacus, what does [i]that[/i]have to do with my post on Terry Schiavo? It's just your attempt to slur me.
You're basic flaw is that you think this really is about what Terry Schiavo wants. We don't know what she wants-- and the court and state shouldn't be making that decision. We should err on the side of life.
If we don't, then we will have babies, the elderly, the disabled, dying in record numbers...."because they wanted it".
Spartacus, you're too sensitive. My comment was merely to explain myself, which I did. It was also to ask you to go further than saying "Partially wrong" on something if you disagree with it, and then make fun of my intelligence. That's an anti-intellectual way to look smart.
But thanks for your response about the Schiavo case. We'll just have to remain in diagreement about your anti-Christian views.
|
|
|
| |
| Washington Post furthers the Big Lie-- "Search in Iraq fails to find nuclear threat" |
| 10.26.03 (11:55 am) [edit] |
If you like to read long articles that rest their assumptions on things never said, go to this Sunday feature of the Washington Post right here-- "Search in Iraq fails to find nuclear threat"-- http://www.washingtonpost.com...
If you want the short version, here it is: contrary to what the Bush administration said in its drumbeat to war, senior army and inspection officials from the US and Australia have confirmed that they've found no existence of a nuclear threat in Iraq. Those aluminium tubes weren't for centrifuges but for rockets. And the Bush administration, once again, has egg on its face.
Well, not exactly. In what has been a shameful year for the Post, as well as the New York Times, they rest these "gotcha" articles on things the administration never said. Like the "imminence" canard, the Bush administration never said Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Dick Cheney said he believed Hussein was trying to reconstitute his enrichment program-- and Joe Wilson's sham investigation aside, we have no reason to doubt that. And the "mushroom" cloud that the administration referenced was in regard to the consequences of not acting. That is very much true-- after all, the UN was not, and is not, concerned with enforcing its own resolutions. What would stop Iraq from doing as it pleased in regards to proliferating?
There was no significant nuke work in Iraq after 1991, according to the "internal judgments" of David Kay and George Tenet, and that would fit in line with the administration's judgment that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program, but wanted to reconstitute it. The Washington Post never offers any damming evidence that the Bush administration said otherwise, and that's because they didn't.
But there was one president who did say, repeatedly, that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. To wit: Bill Clinton's December 16, 1998 speech justifying his unilateral bombing (on the eve of his impeachment) against Hussein:
Example 1: "Earlier today, I ordered AMerica's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's [b]nuclear[/b], chemical, and biological weapons [b]programs[/b] and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Example 2: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with [b]nuclear arms[/b], poison gas, or biological weapons."
All the Bush administration said was that, because of Hussein's violations, he was a "grave and gathering" danger. Notice that the Washington Post doesn't use the "imminent" canard this time around. Cheney said that Hussein was seeking to reconstitute his uranium enrichment program-- he never said Iraq had a nuclear program, or that Iraq posed a nuclear threat. That would be an imminent threat, now, wouldn't it? Indeed, Cheney's assertions fit right in line with the Bush "grave and gathering" assessment all along, that if we don't take care of the problem now (preemptively, I must say) then it will be too late to do anything when the threat is 'imminent'.
"Imminent" like North Korea, for example.
The Washington Post makes up things that the Bush administration has said, or "creates impressions" that are taken out of context, all to further the Leftist Big Lie.
The only President to ever speak definitively of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, i.e. an 'imminent' threat , was Bill Clinton. But the Left-wing hypocrites were silent on that.
The truth is out there, for those that have paid attention and have cared about it. The Washington Post, the Left, care more about hating a president than reporting the truth.
|
|
|
| |
| Jimmytherighteous is right....but this changes my argument how? |
| 10.25.03 (11:09 pm) [edit] |
Hey Jimmy,
You're right! (Applause) The entire EU is [i]not[/i] part of NATO, but--and it's a big but, studly--is that Germany and France, two of the four countries that are forming an EU separate military force, which will dismantle NATO, [i]are[/i] NATO countries.
I made an elementary mistake-- mea culpa.
(Britain, which is [i]also[/i] a NATO member, is warming to this idea as well.)
So Jimmy, what is your point? That I lumped [i]all[/i] EU countries together under the NATO banner? I am sad to say that you're right, Jimmy. That might mean something if ALL the countries involved in the EU military force were non-NATO countries. Since they are not, my point, my argument, still stands.
So what are you feeling so good about? That you corrected a point totally irrelevant to my argument?
Remember folks, this man is a 'scientist', he's brilliant!
When you're ready to respond to my actual argument, go right ahead.
This is where the Left is at in America, folks: attack me for making a small error that affects my argument in no way whatsoever, and claim that I'm an idiot.
|
|
|
| |
| Winston Smith's objectivity on 'missing' funds: believe the leftist accusation, forget the facts |
| 10.24.03 (11:03 pm) [edit] |
For those on the left, times are great: Bush is Hitler, but will be exorcized by Howard Dean in 2004, American is being duped by a conspiracy so vast that only idiots that write blogs can notice it, hatred of Bush is a policy, the Left doesn't have to use facts, or logic, (or a sense of shame) to "debate" (which they don't do anyway but merely shout you down), you can vote for a war with Iraq one day and say you didn't the next, you can forget the Clinton years which was every bit as 'neo-conservative' as the Bush years in terms of Iraq, (and you can call Bush a draft dodger for serving as a national guardsman but can't call Clinton one for high-tailing it to the USSR, not serving in any capacity to help the country, while 18 year old boys are dying in rice paddies). You can morally equivocate to the point where Kim Jung Il having nukes is less of a threat, in your warped, fucked up, mind than George Bush having them.
Yes, we are in the bizarro world.
So it is no surprise that our CIA conspiracy guru and uber Bush hater Winston Smith would distort the UK ultra-left NGO that accused--without any facts whatsoever-- that there is 'missing' money in Iraq. Like Pavlov's dog he has the ready reaction to the bell: It's Bush!!!!
But then, Winston doesn't seem to like to read facts about the case, or examine the evidence, or even wait and see how it all boils down. The accusation is the conviction-- it makes it much easier to call yourself brilliant that way (you're never wrong!).
Here's what the CPA head Paul Bremer had to say about the allegations, from "US rejects allegations that billions in Iraq funds are missing", an AFP story:
"Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, said all funds were being spent or transferred in a "completely transparent" way and that auditors' accounting of CPA expenditures from those funds would soon be posted on the internet and provided to an oversight board.
'The entire accounts of the Development Fund for Iraq will be posted on the internet and made available on a regular basis to the members of the international board,' Bremer said.
He said the CPA, [b]in the absence of an agreement on the creation of the UN-mandated board until last week, had moved to hire its own independent auditor to go over the fund's accounts and that its findings would be made public.[/b]
'There is absolutely no question about transparency,' Bremer told reporters at an international donors conference for Iraq at which the United States and others are expected to pledge billions in assistance.
'We are going to be completely transparent the funds are spent for the Iraqi people,' he said. 'I have absolutely no qualms about it, I don't think we have anything to apologize for. There are no secrets about it.'
Asked whether the criticism was unfounded, he replied: 'Yes, correct.'"
Look at the bolded area in the text. Yes, that's right, the UN is to blame for this-- as I reported a long time ago.
This happened last week, folks, this disagreement. Give the CPA a break.
Now, will Winston submit a retraction? A correction? Will he be the least bit objective? Don't count on it.
For lack of argument, Winston relies on the propaganda principles of the "Big Lie". He repeats the same thing over and over, and people think they are getting the truth. That's why he's a 'featured blog', which is like making 'Mein Kampf' a 'featured book' at a Jewish book store.
What will happen is things will go exactly as Paul Bremer said it would, Winston won't admit he's wrong, the blog will stay up, and Winston, in some major exercise of denial, will still insist he's right.
Sad stuff.
|
|
|
| |
| Why liberals should never-- EVER--govern you |
| 10.24.03 (10:35 pm) [edit] |
From Thursday's [i]New York Times Editorial[/i]-- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1... , discussing the Terri Schiavo case (the Florida case where her husband wanted to remover her feeding tube, even though she wasn't terminally ill):
"True respect for life includes recognizing not just when it exists, but when it ceases to be meaningful."
Have I not repeatedly said that the Left thinks it knows how to live your life better than you? They are the elite, the ultimate in arrogance and power, and they want nothing to do with 'equality' and 'respect for human rights.' They reserve the right to kill you, just when they think your life has lost meaning.
This is exactly the same Hegelian philosophy that launched the Third Reich's "mercy killings", which morphed into the Holocaust.
The irony is that they kill in the name of 'compassion'. Babies, older adults, the disabled, the terminally ill-- those that they would arrogantly assume don't have 'meaning' in their lives. And it's not even their decision to make, now, is it?
If Terri Schiavo cannot speak for herself, she doesn't need the state speaking for her. And, since she does not have a living will, and since we've seen what her husband has done (shacked up with another gal, but not married for that would mean he would lose guardianship of Terri, had kids with her), he shouldn't be making that decision either.
Doctors say she will have a regular life-span if she is fed. She is not terminally ill. Her parents want her to live, and so does her sister. They'll take care of her.
Michael Schiavo should choose life, and we should never elect a Democrat again.
|
|
|
| |
| Dems are for choice, right? Not for health care. They terrorize seniors with lies. |
| 10.23.03 (10:36 pm) [edit] |
Back in the 1970s, Ted Kennedy helped launch private HMOs as a way to alleviate spiraling health-care costs. Contrary to what most people think of them, most HMOs provide very good care, utilizing the world?s best medical technology. When HMOs make medical decisions that seem callous, the socialists trumpet that as proof that Americans cannot rely on the private sector for medical care. In reality, though, giving government control of medical care would, in effect, make the US government the world?s largest HMO, and worse, its callous decisions would not be reported and the high cost of drugs and treatment would merely be passed on to the taxpayer (and only 50% of Americans pay taxes). With the government in firm control, with no competition, costs will skyrocket. As a result, American citizens will be saddled with a 60% tax rate, and the government will set caps on the costs of drugs, resulting in millions of American jobs lost in pharmaceuticals (the US is the world?s leader in pharmaceutical research and development). Not only that, but drugs will be in shorter supply and will not be as potent. There is no accountability in a government-controlled system.
But in an effort to scare seniors into supporting the government-cure-all philosophy, one that ran 180 degrees from the Founding Fathers, and one that exacerbates current problems in medicine, Teddy-boy and the Democrats, who are a minority in Congress, have mouthed their ?concerns? with the current ?universal? px drug coverage bill trying to be reconciled by both houses. While the bill is a disaster anyway at a 400 billion dollars estimate, and while seniors have routinely said they do not want the new coverage, and while millions of Americans will lose their preferable coverage because of this plan, Republicans in Congress want to allow Medicare to compete with HMOs on drugs. Such a plan would give the medical patient (customer) choice by letting the two plans compete. There is nothing wrong with this plan, it will actually lower costs, yet Teddy-boy and the Dems say it will raise insurance premiums.
Competition is a good thing because it forces companies to improve the product and lower the price of goods in order to get customer business. It empowers the consumer. Now, some will say that a patient and a ?consumer? cannot be equated, but that is false. You buy medical coverage in the private system through direct payment, just as you buy medical coverage in the socialist system through taxation. As such, the laws of capitalism will apply to a choice. If you make a product that no one else makes but everyone needs, you can set any price. If there is competition, you have to reduce the price while delivering on quality. There will be different choices for different seniors. The quality of the care will improve when there are choices. Democrats are against this because this is a huge cash cow for them?reliance on government, huge tax rates, etc., are what they are all about. It?s robbery.
The Democrats fear a loss of influence here, when this decision shouldn?t be about politics. After all, Congress has already exempted themselves from the plan they want to force the rest of American to accept. The drug coverage plans that they?but not us?enjoy allow choice and competition (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program). Some conservatives in Congress wanted a drug system equal to the one the Congress uses, but it was struck down. Their program is stable, it is not losing money (unlike Medicare and Social Security).
The Democrats have used scare mongering and misleading rhetoric to stifle a needed reform in the Medicare px bill. Competition with the private sector will act as a check against the government, will keep prices honest, will lower premiums and allow for better care. The myth about Social Security and Medicare is that they cost less than their private counterparts. This is not true at all. The cost is the same, but it?s passed on differently. And now the government programs are losing out?both systems will be bankrupt within 10-15 years. Yet the Democrat?s answer to all of this is to raise taxes.
And George Bush and some Republicans should be rebuked as well, because to closet a potential 2004 campaign issue they?ve decided to put this band-aid over a mortal wound and approve the bill. This is a horrible bill, but its severe effects for Americans would be lessened a little if the government were forced to compete with the private sector. Not providing choice for the nation?s 40 million seniors is a slap in the face to them. If they knew the facts of the case instead of listening to Ted Kennedy, they?d support choice as well.
We will pay dearly through punitive taxes, and the quality of drug coverage will suffer greatly, for this ?utopian? lie of government salvation.
|
|
|
| |
| Dems attack a judicial nominee-- again |
| 10.23.03 (10:30 pm) [edit] |
[b]Democrats Attack--Again
Another Bush judicial nominee appears headed for a filibuster.[/b]
--Byron York
Normally, a judicial confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee ? even one that promises to be contentious ? starts out with a few niceties. A senator from the nominee's home state says good things about him or her, the chairman asks the nominee's family to stand and be recognized, a few compliments are spread around ? that sort of thing. Then the bloodletting gets under way.
That's the way it's done normally. But it was not how it was done Wednesday, at the hearing for Janice Rogers Brown, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. First of all, even though Brown lives in California ? she is a justice on the state supreme court ? neither of her senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, chose to say anything on Brown's behalf. With no senatorial courtesies to get things started, both sides dispensed with the pleasantries. The fighting began literally in the first few seconds of the hearing.
"The last nominee considered for this court ? Miguel Estrada ? was treated shamefully by this committee," chairman Orrin Hatch said, starting things off. "He was badgered for adhering to the Code of Judicial Ethics; his record was distorted; and he was attacked for withholding information that he could not provide...Many are proud of that fact, but I think it was a sad day for this institution."
Hatch went on to blast a similarly aggressive campaign now under way against Brown. The fight will be particularly intense, Hatch said, because Brown "is a conservative African-American woman, and for some that alone disqualifies her nomination to the D.C. Circuit, widely considered a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court."
[b]Hatch then did something that put Democrats on the defensive for much of the day. Brown is opposed by a number of old-line civil-rights groups, and her nomination has been greeted with sometimes-vicious criticism in the black community. To illustrate that, Hatch unveiled a blow-up of a cartoon that had appeared on a website called BlackCommentator.com. The cartoon portrayed Brown as a fat black woman with huge lips, an unruly Afro, and an enormous backside. In the cartoon, President Bush is introducing her to other blacks in government. "Welcome to the federal bench, Ms. Clarence...I mean, Ms. Rogers Brown," the president says. "You'll fit right in." To the side, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice stand applauding.[/b]
"Now I want to make clear that I am not referring to any of my colleagues here on the committee," Hatch said as he revealed the cartoon. "But let me show you what I am talking about ? an example of how low Justice Brown's attackers will sink to smear a qualified African-American jurist who doesn't parrot their views. I hope that everyone here considers this cartoon offensive and despicable."
Everyone did, or at least said they did. For the rest of the hearing, Democrats repeatedly condemned the cartoon and asked Hatch to remove it from display. He declined, and it remained on an easel beside the dais.
After Hatch finished, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, who was leading the Democrats at the hearing, started his remarks by suggesting that Brown did not live close enough to Washington to merit appointment to the D.C. Circuit. Noting what he called "the oddity of President Bush going 3,000 miles away from Washington D.C. to pick a judge for the D.C. Circuit," Durbin said that Brown has "zero background in D.C. or with federal agencies," which he suggested was itself enough to disqualify her for the job. Of course, the D.C. Circuit is virtually a national court, ranking just below the Supreme Court, and [b] Democrats dropped their line of attack when Republican Sen. John Cornyn pointed out that "presidents traditionally look across the nation for individuals to serve on the D.C. Circuit," and that judges from South Carolina, Michigan, and Colorado have been appointed to the court.[/b]
Then Durbin got down to the business of attacking Brown's record. "You are the lone dissenter in a great many cases involving the rights of discrimination victims, consumers, and workers," he told Brown. "In case after case, you come down on the side of denying rights and remedies to the downtrodden and disadvantaged."
Durbin then began a long series of accusations against Brown that sounded very much like a prosecutor's brief. Brown was insensitive to victims of housing discrimination. She was insensitive to victims of disability discrimination. She was insensitive to victims of age discrimination. And so on.
It was, even by the standards of Judiciary Committee hearings, a pretty tough opening statement. As Durbin finished, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter asked to be heard.
"I don't like the way this hearing has started," Specter said. [b]"It seems to me that Justice Brown has been convicted without a hearing." Referring to Durbin's list of charges, Specter added, "That would be a good closing prosecutorial case, not an opening one."[/b]
Through it all, Brown sat quietly. And she had to sit quietly for several more minutes, as senators argued back and forth, before Hatch turned to her for an opening statement. She hadn't planned to give one, she said, but she did want to say a few words about the cartoon on display a few feet from her. "People have said to me, 'It's not personal, it's just politics,'" Brown said. [b]"Well, I am here to say it's very personal to the nominees and the people who care about them. I can't tell you how distressing it is to see this cartoon." Then, in a way that might be described as judicious, she defended the cartoonist's First Amendment right to attack her.[/b]
The cartoon episode seemed to set Democrats back on their heels a bit. While they continued to attack Brown, they did so with a little less edge than they might otherwise have done. They also seemed somewhat uneasy with Brown's life story and her open discussion of what her family's values had meant to her growing up.
Brown was born in 1949 to a family of sharecroppers in Greenville, Alabama. She described a family with a "firm and stern" set of values that placed great emphasis on hard work. Her grandmother, Brown said, encouraged her to do her best ? even if it was just as a dishwasher ? and not complain. The family was not big on complaining.
"If my family had a motto, it would be 'Don't snivel,'" Brown said. "We had a very clear sense of right and wrong."
Brown ultimately moved to California and received a law degree at the University of California law school. In the years that followed, she worked for the state legislature, the state attorney general's office, and former governor Pete Wilson. In 1996, she was appointed to the state supreme court, and in 1998 she was retained in a statewide election, winning 76 percent of the vote.
It was an impressive record, even if one had not started out black in 1950s Alabama. But at times Brown's obvious sense of self-reliance and her disinclination to rely on government to solve society's problems seemed to trouble Democrats. On several occasions, Democrats cited passages from writings in which Brown criticized the role of government regulatory and civil rights agencies. For example, Durbin read a portion of an opinion in which Brown, in discussing California's anti-discrimination agency, wrote that, "Not only are administrative agencies not immune to political influences, they are subject to capture by a specialized constituency." [b]While that might seem fairly tame and self-evident to some observers, to Democrats it suggested that Brown harbored an implacable "hostility" to government itself.
[/b]
"I am troubled not only about your hostility to our nation's constitutional tradition but also your hostility to the federal government," Durbin said. "Given your hostility to the federal government and its role in our lives, your nomination to the D.C. Circuit is ironic."
Much of the discussion that followed centered on the role of government in issues like affirmative action, housing, and the rights of criminals. [b]At times, Democrats did not seem to know the details of the cases Brown had decided ? she often had to remind them what issue was actually being decided in a particular case ? but they suggested that her opinions somehow reflected an insensitivity to the "downtrodden and disadvantaged."[/b]
In the end, what was striking was how little Democrats seemed inclined to dig into the actual questions involved in the cases Brown has decided; each time Brown delivered a crisp defense of her reasoning, Democrats simply moved on to another sound bite. [b]It was as if Durbin and his colleagues had chosen to make a series of short-form attacks, [u]get the hearing out of the way, and then move on to the more serious matter of filibustering Brown's nomination.[/u][/b]
Copyright 2003 National Review Online-- http://www.nationalreview.com...
|
|
