You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear/biological weapons in the hands of terrorists.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by Republicans driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

You have to be against capital punishment but pro abortion on demand — in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren’t.

You have to believe conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn’t make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried, is because the right people haven’t been in charge.

You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drags, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

To be a Democrat in America today…

You have to believe that the same public school idiot who can’t teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear/biological weapons in the hands of terrorists.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by Republicans driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

You have to be against capital punishment but pro abortion on demand — in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren’t.

You have to believe conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn’t make it without your help.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried, is because the right people haven’t been in charge.

You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drags, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

I have several questions about the current situation in Haiti. We’ve seen over the past few weeks rebel forces burning and pillaging town after town on their way to the capital in an effort to remove President Aristide from power. How did we get to this point of civil strife in Haiti? Who will step in and help the Haitians?

First, how did Haiti get to it’s current situation? One of the famous foreign policy interventions of the Clinton Presidency was the controversial decision to return Jean Bertrand Aristide to power in Haiti in 1994. Since 1994, both as president and later as the power broker behind the presidency of Ren Preval and the Lavalas Party, Mr. Aristide has ruled Haiti like a mob don. He has extorted the business community, trampled on the 1987 constitution and terrorized his political and economic opponents. Haiti’s 1994 Presidential election, in which less than 5% of Haitians voted, was a sham. Five international human rights organizations released a joint statement denouncing the election’s violent political climate. Amnesty International called upon the Lavalas Party to condemn acts of intimidation and violence committed in the party’s name. The European Union voted to withhold aid. In response, the Clinton Administration sent Anthony Lake, a former Clinton national security adviser, to Port-au-Prince. He came back with an eight-point agreement in which Mr. Aristide promised better behavior in the future. (anything in that sound eerily similar to another dictator’s broken promises?)

Regarded as Haiti’s legitimate president at that time, U.S. authorities granted Mr. Aristide access to the country’s frozen assets, most notably the long distance telephone royalties due to Haitian Teleco. According to Christopher Caldwell, writing in the July 1994 American Spectator, Mr. Aristide “raised hackles at the Latin America division of AT&T by ordering the proceeds from Haiti’s international phone traffic moved to a numbered Panamanian account.” So it is worth revisiting the status of Haiti today, especially to ask how it came to pass that in the wake of that intervention, President Clinton’s political associates–including a former Democratic Party finance chair, a former White House counselor and Joseph P. Kennedy II–ended up in commercial relationships with the Aristide government’s monopoly-owned telephone company.

In November 1993, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Aristide was paying Democratic Party operative Michael Barnes $55,000 a month to lobby for U.S. action to reinstate him. With the help of U.S. troops, he returned to Haiti. After regaining Haiti’s presidency, the telephone monopoly continued to be useful. Because Haiti is one of the top three markets in the region for long distance calls from the U.S., the monopoly is a cash cow. Mr. Aristide placed loyal Lavalas followers in charge of it, keeping it under his control.

This is pretty interesting. It’s a good thing the Democrat party bills itself as the watchdog of corporate cronyism. It’s nice to know they don’t sell out to “big business” as they claim their political rivals do.

So let’s move on to how Haiti resolves its current conflict. As is par for the course, they’ve come running to the U.S. in a frantic “dial 911″ mode requesting assistance. The Bush Administration has asked the criminal dictator to step down. What’s oddly missing in this scenario is the screams and whines for United Nations actions. Where are the Lefties who acted as human shields in Iraq? Where are the lefties who blamed Bush for being a cowboy and wanted United Nations approval before deciding a course of action?

Oh, here they are. John Kerry said that if he were president, he would be pressing Haitian rebels to back off their goal of toppling Mr. Aristide, perhaps by threatening the deployment of an international peacekeeping force. Threatening? You mean without seeking the U.N.’s approval? What kind of cowboy are you?

Kerry continued, “I think you’ve got to be real and threatening,” he said. His message to the rebels, he said, would be: “You’re not going to take over, you’re not kicking him out, this democracy is going to be sustained, we’re willing to put in a new government, new prime minister, we’re willing to work with you, but you’re not going to succeed in your goal of exiling, Mr. Aristide. And unless that’s clear, you can’t necessarily stop it in its tracks.” (a side note to this is that Kerry’s idea of “democracy” was actually an election in which less than 5% of the citizens actually voted and five international human rights organizations released a joint statement denouncing the election’s violent political climate.)

Well how about that revelation, Mr. Kerry? If you were president you’d threaten the bad guys. You call for regime change and put your foot down. You deploy troops to stop the murderous rampage.

and yet, with a unanimous U.N. resolution and congressional approval (which you voted in) you claim the Bush adminstration somehow acted wrongly by removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Maybe the United Nations will step up to its obligation and do something this time….. probably not.

Haiti

I have several questions about the current situation in Haiti. We’ve seen over the past few weeks rebel forces burning and pillaging town after town on their way to the capital in an effort to remove President Aristide from power. How did we get to this point of civil strife in Haiti? Who will step in and help the Haitians?

First, how did Haiti get to it’s current situation? One of the famous foreign policy interventions of the Clinton Presidency was the controversial decision to return Jean Bertrand Aristide to power in Haiti in 1994. Since 1994, both as president and later as the power broker behind the presidency of Ren� Preval and the Lavalas Party, Mr. Aristide has ruled Haiti like a mob don. He has extorted the business community, trampled on the 1987 constitution and terrorized his political and economic opponents. Haiti�s 1994 Presidential election, in which less than 5% of Haitians voted, was a sham. Five international human rights organizations released a joint statement denouncing the election�s violent political climate. Amnesty International called upon the Lavalas Party to condemn acts of intimidation and violence committed in the party�s name. The European Union voted to withhold aid. In response, the Clinton Administration sent Anthony Lake, a former Clinton national security adviser, to Port-au-Prince. He came back with an eight-point agreement in which Mr. Aristide promised better behavior in the future. (anything in that sound eerily similar to another dictator’s broken promises?)

Regarded as Haiti�s legitimate president at that time, U.S. authorities granted Mr. Aristide access to the country�s frozen assets, most notably the long distance telephone royalties due to Haitian Teleco. According to Christopher Caldwell, writing in the July 1994 American Spectator, Mr. Aristide “raised hackles at the Latin America division of AT&T by ordering the proceeds from Haiti�s international phone traffic moved to a numbered Panamanian account.” So it is worth revisiting the status of Haiti today, especially to ask how it came to pass that in the wake of that intervention, President Clinton�s political associates–including a former Democratic Party finance chair, a former White House counselor and Joseph P. Kennedy II–ended up in commercial relationships with the Aristide government�s monopoly-owned telephone company.

In November 1993, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Aristide was paying Democratic Party operative Michael Barnes $55,000 a month to lobby for U.S. action to reinstate him. With the help of U.S. troops, he returned to Haiti. After regaining Haiti�s presidency, the telephone monopoly continued to be useful. Because Haiti is one of the top three markets in the region for long distance calls from the U.S., the monopoly is a cash cow. Mr. Aristide placed loyal Lavalas followers in charge of it, keeping it under his control.

This is pretty interesting. It’s a good thing the Democrat party bills itself as the watchdog of corporate cronyism. It’s nice to know they don’t sell out to “big business” as they claim their political rivals do.

So let’s move on to how Haiti resolves its current conflict. As is par for the course, they’ve come running to the U.S. in a frantic “dial 911″ mode requesting assistance. The Bush Administration has asked the criminal dictator to step down. What’s oddly missing in this scenario is the screams and whines for United Nations actions. Where are the Lefties who acted as human shields in Iraq? Where are the lefties who blamed Bush for being a cowboy and wanted United Nations approval before deciding a course of action?

Oh, here they are. John Kerry said that if he were president, he would be pressing Haitian rebels to back off their goal of toppling Mr. Aristide, perhaps by threatening the deployment of an international peacekeeping force. Threatening? You mean without seeking the U.N.’s approval? What kind of cowboy are you?

Kerry continued, �I think you�ve got to be real and threatening,� he said. His message to the rebels, he said, would be: �You�re not going to take over, you�re not kicking him out, this democracy is going to be sustained, we�re willing to put in a new government, new prime minister, we�re willing to work with you, but you�re not going to succeed in your goal of exiling� Mr. Aristide. �And unless that�s clear, you can�t necessarily stop it in its tracks.� (a side note to this is that Kerry’s idea of “democracy” was actually an election in which less than 5% of the citizens actually voted and five international human rights organizations released a joint statement denouncing the election�s violent political climate.)

Well how about that revelation, Mr. Kerry? If you were president you’d threaten the bad guys. You call for regime change and put your foot down. You deploy troops to stop the murderous rampage.

and yet, with a unanimous U.N. resolution and congressional approval (which you voted in) you claim the Bush adminstration somehow acted wrongly by removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Maybe the United Nations will step up to its obligation and do something this time….. probably not.

Do you think the gay marriage issue being discussed ad nauseum in California is about the civil rights of a group of people? Do you think the whole debate is centering around a religious issue? Do you doubt it’s purely a political issue? Do you think it compares to civil rights movement of women and blacks?

Well, if you listened to the talking heads on the Left you would. But it’s absolutely not about anything more than a political ploy by a small minority of radicals hell-bent on removing any social or moral decency from our culture. Unlike the vitriolic mess the Left is spewing, I’ll back up my statements with facts.

Is it about civil rights of a group of citizens? They say it is simply to define the discussion (much like calling pro-abortion advocates “pro-choice”). Gay marriage is not a matter of civil rights. Here’s why. In September, 2003, California Governor, Gray Davis signed a bill into law recognizing gay civil unions. The effect of this law grants rights ranging from adopting children to filing joint state income-tax returns for gay partners. Additionally, gay couples now have the right in California to make medical decisions in the hospital or act as a conservator, inherit property without a will, administer an estate, seek compensation for the loss of economic or social support, relocate with a domestic partner without losing unemployment benefits, use sick leave to care for a family member or provide them with employer-based health coverage without additional taxation, file disability benefits on behalf of an incapacitated partner, adopt a partner?s child using the stepparent adoption process, continue health coverage for surviving domestic partners of retired government workers.

So they began advocating gay marriage as a way to obtain rights only granted to heterosexual couples. They got them, and they’re continuing to fight for legal recognition of ‘marriage’ for gay couples. Why? They got the legal rights. But it’s not enough for these “progressive” radicals. Their ultimate goal is to abolish any sense of tradition and value, and the first target is the historical union of marriage, because it represents a lifestyle they do not choose to participate in. They’re now attempting to “undefine” marriage…. not redefine it as they’d have you believe, but undefine. They want the definition of marriage, which is “union between a man and a woman” to not mean that anymore. Period.

It’s a shame they’re comparing their fight to slavery, rights of blacks and woman, because it cheapens those very powerful movements. This is nothing more than a group of people who wish to define their entire existence around their choice of sex partners. This isn’t about inalienable rights or the freedom of man not to be a possession of another. This is about a group of people who’ve carved out a special definition of their own group based on who they sleep with. There is nothing inherent or God-given about the rights the seek… hence, they’re seeking “special” rights.

The far Left has learned over the years that the best way to get a controversial issue before the general public is to either act so outrageous to gain media exposure or find liberal activist judges who want to make laws from the bench. They know the majority of Americans disagree with their immoral, unethical or illegal actions, which means the majority of elected legislative representatives will not see things their way. So they find a handful of activist judges to deliver completely misguiuded judgments, which are then tossed into the news media because they’re so far-fetched, and voila, the radicals have their stage.

This is not about civil rights… they got those in the Fall of 2003 from Gray Davis. No, this is just another way to attack traditional, moral values. Is this the group you want in charge of the country you raise your children in? Not me.

So many hits, so little time

So John Kerry is “blasting Bush” today for things said by someone else. Ever the politician. You see, John Kerry has that unique abililty, like so many great politicians, to create the very argument so he can than take it down. It’s called a Strawman.

Here’s a quote from the AP story:

“Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused President Bush on Saturday of using surrogates to attack his military service in Vietnam and his subsequent activism against that war.”

First off, the surrogate he’s referring to is Saxby Chambliss. Here’s what chambliss said. “Sen. Saxby Chambliss said during a conference call arranged by the Bush campaign that Kerry has a “32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems.”"

See anything about vietnam or Kerry’s activism? No. Kerry has included those points of controversy for his own gain. Sure, Chambliss was blasting Kerry on his voting record in Congress. He should…it’s abysmal. Before he was a presidential candidate, Kerry voted to slash billions in defense spending and supported proposals to cut everything from Navy submarines to Air Force fighter planes. If Sen. Kerry’s cuts to our armed forces had become a reality, the men and women in our nation’s military would be dangerously underfunded in facing the security challenges in the world today.

-In 1996, Kerry introduced legislation that if successful would have cut the Department of Defense by $6.5 billion. His bill failed to attract co-sponsors and never reached the floor for debate.

-Running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut defense spending.

-The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune wrote in 1972: “On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.”

Kerry’s voting record in Congress SHOULD be fair game. But, ever the politician, he’s found a way to include the issue of his anti-U.S. activism….bringing it up HIMSELF. Why does he do this? So he can paint this picture for potential voters:

“at his side was Max Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran who lost his Senate seat to Chambliss in 2002 after being portrayed as soft on homeland security.” … He said the president “decided once again to take the low road of American politics.” … Kerry also defended his military record during an interview taped Saturday for broadcast Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I don’t know what it is that all these Republicans who didn’t serve in Vietnam are fighting a war against those of us who did,” the Massachusetts senator said.”

and there you have it. Right to the point. He has set up the strawman argument, where Chambliss appropriately called into question Kerry’s defense voting record in Congress, and has casually inserted his own spin, that of his Vietnam service, all so he could round off this article with his punch at Bush’s (and others’) Vietnam record.

You know what’s most pathetic about all of this? Kerry’s very own statements earlier in the campaign that Vietnam should never be used as a political tool. THEN WHY DO YOU MENTION IT AT EVERY SPEECH YOU GIVE?

ps: If you want to see the true John Kerry, search for “Winter Soldier” and compare his activities therein with what he now claims on the campaign trail to have done…. ahh, it’s almost like not inhaling all over again.

Here’s what I don’t get. The very same people accusing Bush of lying about Iraq’s WMDs are the same people who defended:

“I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”; and

“I did not inhale”; and

the famous Iced Tea defense to explain how it was Al Gore didn’t know anything about the Buddhist Temple fundraising illegalities by suggesting that he had consumed a great deal of iced tea during the meeting at which it was discussed, and the illegal aspects of the visit must have been decided upon when he had left the room to pee.

So, while defending to the death the above absurdities (one of which was later admitted as an outright lie to the nation), these people find it appalling that Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs. The funny thing is, here’s what the same people defended in 1998:

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction” (Clinton)

” It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies” (Albright)

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” (Daschle)

“an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description” (Kerry)

So these brilliant politicians defended the iced tea defense, the line about not inhaling and the admitted lie by the former President, as well as made statements of their own in 1998 about the dangers of Iraq and it’s possession of WMDs, are now claiming outrage by alleging Bush lied…. lied about WMDs they all claimed Iraq had 4 years ago.

What gives, people? Are there really Americans out there dumb enough to buy into this political hogwash? Apparently so…

Why the Democrat Party is like Microsoft.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about today’s version of the DNC, but rather the Traditional Liberal. You see, today’s DNC has been taken over by a far left group of socialist-friendly psychos. Let’s take a look at how it came to be, and how it so closely parallels the progress of Microsoft’s software development over the years.

I don’t believe in my heart that traditional liberals mean harm to this country. I believe traditional liberals are simply a group of people who have a misplaced confidence in the federal government to accomplish many things. Many ideals like helping the environment, helping the fellow man, etc, are values we all hope we have. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is who should oversee the disbursement of such protection and services. Conservatives believe it’s best left to private organizations, and at worst more local forms of government. This way, there is direct and immediate responsibility for actions. Liberals think a group of out-of-touch suits in Washington, DC, can effectively take in money from all over the country and properly distribute it to those who need it, without acknowledging that a needy person in New York City has different needs and circumstances than one in Salt Lake City UT. Not to mention, when Washington politicians do things we don’t like, unless we’re in their district or state, we really have no say in holding them accountable. But I digress….

back to the comparison….

So there’s this group who thinks they can change the world for the better with their new product. This product will level the playing field for many, and impact lives of those so remote they’ve been traditionally forgotten. This product is planned and anticipation in the potential consumer base is high. The product is released into the general public with great fanfare and is quickly absorbed by the market. Millions upon millions race to get a piece and take part. They invest time and vast amounts of money. They’re eager to get their return. The product is accepted so quickly and on such a great scale that market share is almost total. Then there begins the breakdown. Flaws are discovered in the product. Flaws that make universal application unworkable and unmanageable. Flaws that pose great risks to consumers and non-consumers alike. Suddenly, a group of hackers learn to exploit the flaws. Then they learn to create and exploit new ones. However, there’s a problem… the flaws are so enormous, they threaten the very usability of the product. The flaws and exploitation thereof will cost everyone more time and money….time and money many of the consumers can’t afford to give. The vast investments that have been made make the cost of switching to a new solution impossible. Now those who put the product in the market are overshadowed by those exploiting the flaws. The exploiters can then use the high market penetration, combined with the vast investments and inability to switch products to their benefit. They begin to push more flawed products to the masses because the consumers can’t do anything but continue to take them… and pray for a miracle.

So are we talking about WindowsXP, or are we talking Welfare? Are we discussing Outlook or Medicare? Operating Systems or Social Security?

You see, programs that may have been rooted in valuable ideals have been replaced by flawed programs that are being exploited by modern day socialists with an agenda. Those who’ve paid into Social Security for many years can’t afford an alternative that will allow today’s workers to pay into a personal savings account, because the product, as it was created, was a Ponzi scheme. (It’s ironic that Ponzi schemes are actually illegal). It’s a system whereby the money taken out of workers’ checks today is paid immediately to today’s retirees and an IOU is placed in an account somewhere for today’s workers to claim when it’s their turn. This provides a wonderful plan for today’s Democrats when it comes to campaigning, because they can simply couch the debate in terms of, “do you want to lose all that you’ve invested?” Who is going to say yes to that one?

So the hackers have infiltrated the system, exploited the flaws and continue to cause us pain and turmoil, while costing us money.

It’s time we took America back to the User’s Manual and learned that these flawed programs were never part of the core product, and as such, ought to be yanked out of the next release. Let’s get back to core functionality and lose the feature creep of the current socialist Democrat party.

So “progressiveness” has finally leaped ahead of common sense and public policy in San Francisco. The “forward-thinking” mayor has declared the value of marriage null and void. Of course, proponents of gay marriage find it easy to support their side as a “civil right”. They argue that they should be granted the sames rights as heterosexual couples. Guess what…. YOU ARE. You’re granted the right to marry anyone you choose, provided it doesn’t go against laws of public policy. But they argue that they’re not free to choose if a state won’t recognize their same-sex marriage. Just one slight flaw - PUBLIC POLICY. You see, there are reasons SOME marriage unions are not recognized - like marriage between close relatives, marriages between adults and children and marriage to multiple partners. While these “other” marriage types are condoned in other various other societies, they’re not accepted in civilized societies. Then they wish to drag up the idea of “culturalism” and the “understanding of other, more accepting cultures”. Fantastic - should we then “understand” and “tolerate” cultures that stone women to death for showing their face in public? How about the nifty “culture” of child mutilation found in the tribes of Africa? I mean, if we’re going to “tolerate” other cultures, should it be wholesale, or a pick and choose scenario? If it’s pick and choose, who gets to decide? Liberals? Conservatives? Atheists? Christians? Buddhists? Muslims?

Despite the bogus claims of some on the Left, the United States was founded on Godly principles. True, the Founders didn’t want a government run by a particular religion, but it wanted a nation whose Lord is God. Check the facades of the buildings in D.C. Check the currency. Check the founding document!

The concept of marriage being a union of “one man, one woman” is found in the bible. The public policy behind laws benefitting husbands and wives is to endorse a family unit, the family unit being a man and woman who procreate children. Sure, opponents of traditional marriage will argue that there are heterosexual couples who can’t procreate for one reason or another, but don’t define the rule by the exceptions. Show me a pair of men or a pair of women who can procreate with each other and I’ll reconsider. Until then, the proper assumption is that procreation occurs between a man and woman with some exceptions, but will NEVER occur between two people of the same sex. Then there’s the notion that a gay or lesbian couple lovingly raising a child is better than a child in a broken or abusive home. This is simply an inflammatory appeal at one’s sense of compassion. You see, to argue in the contrary paints one as a condoner of child abuse or divorce. Obviously that’s not the intention of supporters of traditional marriage. In fact, for those who value Christian principles, the idea of divorce or child abuse is an abomination in and of itself. Nice try, though, you’re almost able to shift the focus of the conversation (like you do when referring to “pro-choice” instead of just calling it “pro-abortion”, which is what the “choice” is really all about).

So, here we go again. We’ve got a clueless mayor attempting to “un-define” marriage (not “redefine” as the proponents claim) in San Francisco, the bastion of liberalism. Religious values codified for the benefit of public policy….like those wacky laws about not killing others, not stealing, etc, etc, etc. To oppose it, they claim, means you’re close-minded. Well, if supporting traditional morals and values is close-minded, so be it. To me the real close-minded are those who refuse to believe in a God worshipped throughout history simply because they can’t see Him. Faith is never a close-minded process, for to have it, you must believe in that which you cannot see…. you know, by opening your mind.