Antiwar protestors and car alarms have a lot in common.They are obnoxiously loud, get set off too easily, and alert you to situations far less serious than they sound.There is also one more similarity: they are usually ignored by everyone around them because their noise never seems to end.
In an otherwise slow news summer, Cindy Sheehan, the soon to be forgotten pawn of the left, has tried to fuel the antiwar cause through personalizing the losses of American troops in Iraq.So, every American soldier who has fallen in Iraq has a mother, there is a news flash.And, in yet another example of investigative journalism at its best, the mainstream media have determined that most of these mothers have been devastated by the loss of a child in the War. The left’s concerns for the mothers of the fallen and their propaganda that American casualties indicate a loosing war effort are, however, disingenuous at best.They are far more concerned with embarrassing President Bush than portraying anything accurate about the War or giving the proper honor and support to the families of the fallen.
In a macabre dance of bemoaning the deaths of American soldiers and then gleefully cheering the latest combat fatality milestone, the left has attempted to alter the paradigm of the American consciousness into thinking that 1,800 American deaths is akin to the apocalyptic urban landscapes of “The Terminator” movies.This image could not be further from the truth.The fact is the Iraq War has been one of the most bloodless in terms of American casualties in the history of warfare.For example, on average, over 6,000 American soldiers where killed a month in World War II, and 19,000 were killed in just over one month during the Battle of the Bulge alone.The low American casualty rate in Iraq is indicative of the military’s success in Iraq, not its failure.For the left to call these casualty figures excessive and use them as justification to call Iraq a failure and demand a withdrawal is a willful misrepresentation of the truth.
Many Liberals have been eager to jump on the antiwar bandwagon for political gain.While these Liberals are more than happy to call Iraq an American bloodbath, they are decidedly less fervent in their desire to look at their own casualty figures.
According FBI crime statistics, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, all of which are controlled by the Democratic Party, had a combined total of over 1,900 homicide deaths in their cities in 2003 alone.What is their “exit strategy?”Why are they not demanding deadlines from their city councils for an end to all crime fatalities by the end of 2006?Why are they not threatening to pack up the police department and move to the suburbs?Why are the Liberals so intent to blame President Bush for the continuation the Iraqi insurgency when they cannot even control the insurgency of criminals in their own cities?
Are the police loved by all the citizens of these American cities?Far from it.In many of these metropolitan areas, the police are treated with outright hostility by the residents in some areas despite the fact that the cops are only putting their lives on the line to make their towns a safer place to live.Does this mean the Liberals have failed?Does this mean that the police should stop trying to do their jobs?Of course not.To say such a thing is a disservice to the five great cities above and an insult to the hard working people who live there.Just because malcontents and criminals might oppose you does not mean that you have failed, just that you have more work to do.Why should it be any different for our troops in Iraq?
The Liberals will never talk about these numbers because they do not benefit them politically.They are getting more mileage out of distorting the truth about Iraq than admitting to what it is:A just cause, a noble effort, and an American victory.
Antiwar protestors and car alarms have a lot in common.They are obnoxiously loud, get set off too easily, and alert you to situations far less serious than they sound.There is also one more similarity: they are usually ignored by everyone around them because their noise never seems to end.
In an otherwise slow news summer, Cindy Sheehan, the soon to be forgotten pawn of the left, has tried to fuel the antiwar cause through personalizing the losses of American troops in Iraq.So, every American soldier who has fallen in Iraq has a mother, there is a news flash.And, in yet another example of investigative journalism at its best, the mainstream media have determined that most of these mothers have been devastated by the loss of a child in the War. The left’s concerns for the mothers of the fallen and their propaganda that American casualties indicate a loosing war effort are, however, disingenuous at best.They are far more concerned with embarrassing President Bush than portraying anything accurate about the War or giving the proper honor and support to the families of the fallen.
In a macabre dance of bemoaning the deaths of American soldiers and then gleefully cheering the latest combat fatality milestone, the left has attempted to alter the paradigm of the American consciousness into thinking that 1,800 American deaths is akin to the apocalyptic urban landscapes of “The Terminator” movies.This image could not be further from the truth.The fact is the Iraq War has been one of the most bloodless in terms of American casualties in the history of warfare.For example, on average, over 6,000 American soldiers where killed a month in World War II, and 19,000 were killed in just over one month during the Battle of the Bulge alone.The low American casualty rate in Iraq is indicative of the military’s success in Iraq, not its failure.For the left to call these casualty figures excessive and use them as justification to call Iraq a failure and demand a withdrawal is a willful misrepresentation of the truth.
Many Liberals have been eager to jump on the antiwar bandwagon for political gain.While these Liberals are more than happy to call Iraq an American bloodbath, they are decidedly less fervent in their desire to look at their own casualty figures.
According FBI crime statistics, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, all of which are controlled by the Democratic Party, had a combined total of over 1,900 homicide deaths in their cities in 2003 alone.What is their “exit strategy?”Why are they not demanding deadlines from their city councils for an end to all crime fatalities by the end of 2006?Why are they not threatening to pack up the police department and move to the suburbs?Why are the Liberals so intent to blame President Bush for the continuation the Iraqi insurgency when they cannot even control the insurgency of criminals in their own cities?
Are the police loved by all the citizens of these American cities?Far from it.In many of these metropolitan areas, the police are treated with outright hostility by the residents in some areas despite the fact that the cops are only putting their lives on the line to make their towns a safer place to live.Does this mean the Liberals have failed?Does this mean that the police should stop trying to do their jobs?Of course not.To say such a thing is a disservice to the five great cities above and an insult to the hard working people who live there.Just because malcontents and criminals might oppose you does not mean that you have failed, just that you have more work to do.Why should it be any different for our troops in Iraq?
The Liberals will never talk about these numbers because they do not benefit them politically.They are getting more mileage out of distorting the truth about Iraq than admitting to what it is:A just cause, a noble effort, and an American victory.
This will be the year that the decline of France came home to the French. After the collapse of the giant strikes of 1995, after the civic crash of 2002 that saw the far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen get through to the second round of the presidential elections, the failure of the May 29 referendum on the EU constitution and of Paris's bid last month for the 2012 Olympic Games finally tore the last shreds of an illusion and revealed France as the sick man among the world's developed democracies.
The country is in a pre-revolutionary situation. Yet at the same time, considering the weakness of its ruling class, France could find a way to break out of its doldrums. For a change, the French people rather than their overweening State could lead the way in forcing on the country a shock therapy with little risk of political extremisms and social violence.
Traditionally, revolutions happen when a rift develops between the political elite and the people at a time of deep economic and social crisis, when the people feel humiliated and are in despair. The France of 2005 exhibits all these symptoms.
The divorce between the people and the ruling classes is clearer by the day, seen not only in the country's politics but in its media and business. The current president of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, is universally laughed at. His opportunism is transparent, as are his many failures, despite which no credible political alternative has emerged on the left.
The economic ailments are also plain to see. Growth is stuck at 1.5% per year while productivity and purchase power rise less than 1% yearly. Public debt is exploding from 58% to 68% of GDP between 2002 and 2007. The nanny-state saddles France with a €15 billion annual deficit, on average. Add to that the brain drain and the expatriation of skills and businesses that flee a confiscatory fiscal and social system. France is thus caught between a dwindling productive base and soaring collective costs.
No wonder that the country has mass unemployment that has been affecting more than 10% of the population for the last quarter of the century (23.5 % among the youth), 15% of the population living below the poverty level (including 1 million children), a steady decline in social mobility since the 1990's and the state's chronic failure in integrating the growing and restless immigrant population.
In response, France's leaders indulge in demagogy, deny reality and turn others' successes into excuses for their failure to reform. This feeds the nihilism and anger of the French, who are well aware that their nation's losing prestige and influence in a way not seen since the agonizing end of the IVth Republic in 1956-58.
So anything is now possible, including political violence, but also the preparation of a radical change at the next presidential election in 2007.
These next two years inevitably will be lost, since a weak president won't be able to reform. We're already seeing the French government and people in a purely defensive posture, focused only on maintaining the status quo. The government is built around Dominique de Villepin, prime minister in name only, and Nicolas Sarkozy, president in the making. Mr. Chirac put them together in the sterile hope that this division would give him more leverage to write his own ticket in two years time.
The more the country sinks into crisis, the less it is capable of coming up with a clear vision for the future. That's especially true with economic policy, which is neither socialist nor liberal but merely schizophrenic and Malthusian. So France rails against unemployment but sanctions the "social model" that causes it; calls for reform of the State yet continues to increase public expenditures (55% of GDP) and the number of civil servants (5 million, or 20% of the working population); signs on to the rules of the EU and euro yet repeatedly breaks them, invoking a French exception, and indulges in protectionism.
For all that, the years to come will be decisive. From difficult, the situation could become catastrophic if -- as happened in 1995 and 2002 -- the 2007 election turns into yet another aborted attempt at modernization. Capital, business and skills will continue to flee, and the pauperization of France will accelerate. A full-blown economic meltdown in France would be a major crisis for the euro zone, as well. But presidential elections in the Vth Republic are intended to be a turning point when the people choose not only a president but a destiny for the nation.
The French have two years now to reconcile themselves to the realities of the 21st century and begin to confront their problems rather than hide from them. It will not be easy, but it will be necessary, to admit that they, and no one else, not "Europe" or globalization, are responsible for the decline of their country. As in 1958, the next election could bring a breakthrough. This modernization will need to be accompanied by an overhaul of institutions and economic and social models. Notions of work need to change, as well as attitudes to Europe. France must re-examine its conflicting and ambiguous relationship with liberty and modernity.
This country is upside down, as were the U.S. and Great Britain in the seventies, with major assets broken to pieces by a clogged political system and a vacuous economic and social model. In the absence of any direct outside threat or pressures linked to military operations, such as the colonial wars of the 1950s, it is up to the French alone to make a decision. Freed from the illusions of French might and finally convinced that their country is in deep crisis and come to accept that a cult of status quo doesn't amount to a strategy but to failure and impotence. The 1960s are over, the French are coming to realize. This country needs to adjust, to move beyond conservatism and fear, and replace disillusion with hope.
Senator Bill Frist formally broke today with the Bush administration’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Commenting on the break is Catholic League president William Donohue:
“Here is what Senator John Kerry said when running for president: ‘I believe life does begin at conception.’ Here is what Senator Bill Frist is now saying: ‘I believe human life begins at conception.’ They now agree on one more thing: They will do absolutely nothing to protect the beginning of innocent human life.
“Frist is worse than Kerry. Kerry, a lawyer, said his position on the beginning of human life was based on ‘my Catholic belief.’ Frist, a physician, says that while his Christian faith informs his position, there’s more to it: ‘But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.’
“And it’s a fact of politics that Frist is such a hypocrite. His change of heart has nothing to do with any scientific breakthrough: there is no new evidence suggesting that the human embryo does not constitute human life, nor is there any evidence that embryonic stem cell research can be performed without killing embryos. What’s changed is that Dr. Duplicity wants to be president.
“Frist still calls himself ‘strong[ly] pro-life,’ and says he gives ‘huge moral significance to the human embryo.’ Furthermore, he says the human embryo ‘is nascent human life,’ explaining that we should ‘treat that embryo with dignity, with respect.’ Which raises the question: If it’s okay to snuff out the beginning of human life, how much dignity and respect may logically be accorded the dead?
“Frist says he is not going to run for senator of Tennessee again. Now it’s up to the Republican leadership to make sure he has no future role to play in their party. Who knows, if Frist becomes increasingly Kerryesque, maybe the Dems will draft him?”
Rev. Wayne Perryman has filed suit against the Democrat Party, charging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.”
There’s sweet irony, there’s delicious irony, and then there’s irony that a spoonful of which would just make medicine go down.
As you may know, slavery reparations shakedown thugs have been beating their drum for quite some time now, but have thus far failed to achieve their ends through Congress or courts. Undeterred, they’ve changed their tack and have decided to work from the ground up, pressuring localities to enact pro-reparations ordinances and targeting poltroonish CEO’s who shudder at the prospect of placement in the Greenback Coalition pillory.
The coalition has already enjoyed successes in places like Philadelphia and Chicago, where ordinances have been enacted stating that any company that wishes to do business with the cities must disclose whether or not it profited from slavery. Moreover, businesses like J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and Wachovia Corporation have already capitulated, agreeing to pay-off the Greenback Coalition to the tune of millions.
Licking his chops, interim president of the NAACP Dennis C. Hayes said, “ . . . we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table.” I have to wonder, though, if “all parties” means there’s place at that table for one Rev. Wayne Perryman.
You see, Rev. Perryman, a conservative minister from Seattle, Washington, has filed suit against the Democrat Party, charging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.”
What an inspired idea. This is the party of George Wallace, who blocked schoolhouse doors after an integration order and is famous for the campaign battle cry, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” It’s the party of the original Ku Klux Klan. It’s the party of slavery. It’s also the party occupied by virtually all the members of the Greenback Coalition. Ah, no sweeter irony have lips ever tasted: those throwing the reparations stones are living in a most fragile glass house.
The truth is that if the Greenback Coalition’s thesis -- namely, that entities whose former selves had a hand in or profited from slavery are today responsible for making amends -- is valid, there’s no reason why the Democrats should be omitted from the chain of responsibility. Why, theirs is among the most prominent of places in the hierarchy of complicity. After all, who bears greater responsibility: those in authority who create unjust laws or those subject to that authority who operate within the parameters of the law? The Democrat southern governments abdicated their moral responsibility to afford basic human rights to all persons residing within their borders. The rule of thumb here is that with responsibility comes authority and with authority comes responsibility.
Another consideration is the fact that just like the hapless corporations that find themselves haunted by the ghosts of the distant past, the Democrat Party was a beneficiary of slavery. For instance, by being a guarantor of the perpetuation of slavery the Democrats gained and retained power. Given this fact, and in light of the Greenback Coalition’s demand that corporations disclose whether or not they filled their coffers on the backs of slaves, there should be an investigation of the Democrat Party to determine the degree to which it benefited financially from slavery. After all, we know that political parties tend to get donations from those who benefit from their policies. So, let’s find out how much money the Democrats received from plantation owners and other businesses that had a vested interest in the institution of slavery.
This is a golden opportunity for the shakedown thugs to prove that, well . . . they’re not thugs. You see, some people could get the fanciful idea that the drive for reparations is animated by ignoble motivations like greed and the pursuit of political power. Why, people get some crazy ideas, don’t they? Standing on principle and applying the same standard to all -- including your political bedfellows -- would serve well to dispel these notions.
And never has there been a better time for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to rise to the fore. C’mon, Reverends, being men of the cloth it’s incumbent upon you to offer spiritual counsel. Please tell your comrades that the first step toward renewal is getting your own house in order. And don’t forget the passage from Scripture that encapsulates this concept beautifully: “Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in your brother’s.”
So I’m issuing a clarion call to all Democrats: contact your representatives and demand accountability. Since we’ve been told that the time has come for the expiation of antebellum sins, let’s start where a cleansing of souls is most necessary.
Could it be that the Kronia / thoth group is correct about the universe being driven by electric plasmas? For some really interesting reading try these two web sites and see what you think. I have followed the thoth group for years because I can't really bring myself to believe in the Rube Goldberg like big bang theorists.
Liberals always insist that they love America, despite their constant complaints, but they can never seem to point out exactly what it is they love about it. Whereas most Americans can simply say, “I love my country,” and leave it at that, liberals always have to follow that statement with a “BUT...” But what?
Consider a relationship in which one person demands that the other change his or her taste in music, books, television shows, movies, and style of dress. Imagine that person also being coerced to stop wasting time with cherished recreations, cease eating favorite foods, alter old habits, and drop old friends. Is that indicative of a healthy relationship? It’s a selfish, controlling kind of affection... “I love you not for who you are, but for what I can change you into.” That’s how liberals seem to feel about America.
& nbsp; &n bsp; Ask liberals why they love America. Really listen to their answers. Do they say they love America for her tolerance and diversity? Then why do they not tolerate those who have opinions that differ from their own? Do they profess to love America’s economic opportunities? Why do they want to cripple businesses with oppressive regulations and punish those who succeed with higher taxes? Do they tell you they love America for her beautiful forests, plains, rivers and mountains? If so, why do they complain about the manner in which those lands became part of this country, and demand that it all be preserved as if behind glass? Do they claim to love America for the freedoms we enjoy? Why, then, do they despise the military and police that protect our freedom? Why do they protest our military for helping others secure freedom for themselves and their children?
Liberals claim to support our military... but it’s an odd kind of “support” that primarily consists of comparing them to Nazis and Soviet thugs, and accusing them of torture and wanton slaughter. What kind of “support” calls for them to abandon their mission before it’s completed, and run away from an enemy who chose this fight? How can you say to someone, “I support you, but despise everything you stand for and everything you do, and will take every possible opportunity to make my feelings obvious for all to see?” That’s not love and support; that’s utter contempt, lacking even the common decency to be honest about it.
There seems to be nothing about America of which liberals whole-heartedly approve. When they encourage teachers to stop using red pens because red is ”pretty frightening,” and feel that testing students at their grade level is “inherently unfair,” you know they can’t think much of our educational system. Liberals take no pride in our history, our political system, our traditions or our ability to exercise our religious freedom. Don’t they frequently accuse America of committing horrible atrocities and being a nation of religious extremists? Don’t they condemn patriotic displays and complain about “rigged” elections whenever they lose one, without serious evidence or reason? They claim they’re just looking at America “warts and all,” but the warts are all they see. Imagine saying to a person in earnestness, “Sure I love you, but you’re ugly, stupid, and smell bad.” Wouldn’t any reasonable person characterise that as emotional cruelty, at best?
It’s time for America to get out of this abusive relationship. We’ve put up with liberals bad-mouthing our country for far too long without putting up a defense. The next time you hear a liberal insisting that he or she loves America and supports the troops, “BUT...” gently interrupt and ask, “why?” If you get an answer at all, it should be enlightening.
