Democracy comes to Iraq

I don't have any profound commentary or wisdom on the topic of today's historic election in Iraq. Other than to observe that it is truly historic. And to express goodd wishes to the people of Iraq as they set the course of their future, and to hope for a peaceful process and for the protection of the Iraqi people, coalition troops, and of course the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces as they safeguard the process.

God bless and protect them on this day.

The Tragedy of Abortion

I can't let the 32nd Anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade pass without comment. In the last week many more eloquent columnists than I have written profound columns on the topic of abortion in light of the anniversary and the marches in Washington both on the pro-life side and the pro-choice side.

I'm not going to try to emulate the professional writers and try to address the issue in comprehensive detail. I'll just point you to where others have already done it well, as in this column by Ann Coulter addressing the need to change the law, not just "hearts and minds". She points out, rightly in my opinion, that an issue of life and death that is this divisive in the country needs to be a matter decided by representative democracy, not judicial fiat. Let the people vote! My opinion, after years of study and activism on this issue, is that the current status of abortion policy (available in all 9 months, for almost any reason, paid for by federal taxes if necessary) would not survive a public vote, and for good reason. It's an egregious affront to respect for life and it's entirely untenable.

Of course, in the week of the anniversary of Roe, the slogans and euphemisms were flying. Hillary Clinton began the pandering in one of her speeches designed to "move her to the center" to position for the 2008 presidential election. She said

"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

In that, we agree. We just radically disagree on how to deal with the issue. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a hardcore abortion-at-all costs supporter, as demonstrated by her actions in public over the years. As was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who's first action on his first day in office was to immediately sign five bills to broaden the access to abortion. His first act, on purpose, to reward his most vocal supporters - the extreme abortion on demand for any reason activists.

Honestly, I find the whole issue of abortion slogans tiresome. How many times do we have to dissect the empty, deceptive, and misdirecting slogans of the abortion peddlers? Really, it's so easy to do that it's tiresome. Let's take a couple, for example:

Bill Clinton: who announced that he would like abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Ooohhhh. Have you stopped swooning at the total compassion and reasonableness of that wonderful statement yet? Then let me ask you two questions:

1. If abortion is just the removal of a clump of tissue, as abortion peddlers have argued for so long, analogous to a tonsillectomy and with absolutely no moral issues involved - then why do you care if it's "rare"? Do you care how many appendectomies are performed every year?

2. If, on the other hand, an unborn baby is a baby, a life deserving of the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that our country was founded on - and an abortion is the premature forced taking of that precious life by brutal force of a suction or saline abortion - then why do you only care that it is "safe, and legal"?

The vast majority of the activists on the other side of the rally carrying their "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" signs or waving coat hangers have never thought through those issues. But they are so very self-righteous in their zeal to make the death of an unborn baby as cavalier and meaningless and widespread as possible.

Other slogans are equally ridiculous platitudes designed to depersonalize the issue to hide the moral issues or to sound compassionate when they are in fact murderous. Let's take one more, for example:

Planned Parenthood's slogan: "Every child a wanted child". Fine. Wonderful. Compassionate. Progressive, even. Let's all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya. Oh, wait a minute. Given that Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of abortions in the United States and that a majority of the 1.5 Million unborn babies end their short life on earth in a Planned Parenthood facility, shouldn't honesty in advertising require them to finish the thought: "...and every unwanted child a dead child - no questions asked at our facility for only $350 cash on the barrelhead". That's brutal, but it's true and it would at least be honest.

By the way, I toured a Planned Parenthood facility once. I called the United Way to ask them about exempting PP from my annual UW donation, and the perky and zealous activist that answered the phone offered to arrange a personal tour of the clinic for me to keep me from exempting them. I took her up on it and got a personal one-on-one tour by the director of the local clinic. During the tour of the death-mart, in the midst of all of the talk about how all of the abortion counseling was done by a qualified "nurse-practioner" (no doctor on board, what happened to all of that talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor?), I asked the director if she referred patients to DCFS or other agencies for placement of the child for adoption. She was visibly baffled by the question, had no idea what the adoption options were, and assured me that DCFS did not do adoptions. I assured her, as a father who has adopted two children from DCFS, that they certainly do. So much for choice.

Instead of fighting the whole fight in this one column, let me just make it personal and declare my bias. I believe everyone, certainly the activists, bring a personal bias to this issue because it is a very personal issue. And just the sheer numbers of abortions in this country, 35 plus million in 32 years, make it inevitable that everyone has some experience with the issue: miscarriages, abortions as the woman or as the male or friend who counseled on the decision, parents and grandparents who were active or helpless accomplices, etc. Everyone has a reason to have an opinion. I have all of the standard moral and religious reasons, which are substantial and intellectually reasonable, but I also have a personal bias. So here's my bias:

My wife and I were childless for the first thirteen years of our marriage. Many attempts, many miscarriages and the trauma that accompanies that. We eventually set our hopes on adoption. Like many of the 1.5 million couples in America at any given time who are hoping to adopt, I saw the disconnect in the 1.5 million abortions at the same time that there are parents desperate to adopt. In the meantime, we became foster parents to help the many children in the system who need a home. In the course of fostering, we adopted two very special and precious boys who are alternately wonderful and trying. But they are always a blessing. And it hasn't escaped my attention that their two birth mothers, in the midst of their stressful and dysfunctional birth circumstances, opted to give birth. And even through everything these children went through, they are alive. And I thank God often for that. Had those two moms wandered into the clutches of a Planned Parenthood counselor, they very well might not be alive. And I can't fathom how that's an "enlightened choice" of an enlightened country. You tell me.

There's a building two blocks down from the office building I work in. It's non-descript and bland, barely marked. There's a parking lot in the back. And this week, the anniversary week of Roe v. Wade, like almost every week of the year, I will look at this building on my way out to lunch on Wednesday's and Thursdays and observe that the parking lot in the back is full. The real life, tangible, fruit of the abortion peddler's work. 70 desperate people filling the parking lot each week to slink in the back door with cash in hand. 35 precious babies on Wednesday and 35 precious babies on Thursday, each and every week, who will not live to meet their peers, or the couples who are desperately waiting to raise them. And I take that very personally. And yes, occasionally you will find me in respectful prayer out on the sidewalk of that horrible space.

I know that abortion is a sad and tragic and desperate choice for a woman. I know that, really I do. In this I agree with Hillary. I just disagree that we have to leave women in this desperation and provide them murder as a solution. Really, have we sunk so low as a people that this is our solution? Are we that morally bereft? That is the question for our generation. The great moral test that we face, as other generations have faced moral question before us. We are failing the test.

My choice, my answer to the test, is to work hard to support the abortion "alternatives" like Crisis Pregnancy Centers who support women in the choice to have the child and to find a way to make it work. (I find that most "pro-choice" shouter don't even know that the CPC's exist, or have a twisted view of their function). My question for each of you is: why is this an "alternative"? Why isn't this the preferred choice of a moral people?

Dr. Dobson, Spongebob, and Liberal knee-jerking

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and one of my personal heroes is taking a beating in the liberal press this week. In a week that should have been totally dominated by the Innauguration and by the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, all of the media is transfixed with the story of James Dobson vs. Spongebob Squarepants.

I heard the story everywhere: on WLS talk radio from Chicago, on MSNBC from the smug and self-righteous Keith Olberman, and even tonight on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update from the cute but equally smug Tina Fey. They all told the story essentially the same way. I'll paraphrase them: "Dr. James Dobson, the conservative Christian founder of Focus on the Family, is claiming that Spongebob Squarepants is gay, and is brainwashing schoolchildren through a video in schools that encourages tolerance." Ha, Ha, Ha. Let's all have a laugh at the crazy religious zealot.

Of course, I knew better. I've followed Dobson's ministry for many years. He's conservative and passionate and now even political. But he's very sane and very mainstream and does not throw around wild accusations. The story must be more complex than the knee-jerk liberal press was reporting. And it is.

Here are the facts:

- Record producer Nile Rodgers is producing the video and distributing 60,000 copies to elementary schools, with teacher's guides.

- The video features a selection of cartoon characters promoting a message of "tolerance". SpongeBob Squarepants is one of the characters.

- Dr. Dobson did not explicitly say that the character is gay. He "alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a 'pro-homosexual video' ". (AP article) The same AP article that quoted Dobson also acknowledges that some cultural analysts have mused about whether SpongeBob, a talking sponge, is "gay" and that "the cartoon character does have a loyal following among gay men". Oh, but it's crazy for Dobson to assert that the producer's use of Spongebob in his video may have something to do with a gay agenda.

- The video includes a "tolerance pledge" for the little kiddies to say which says:

"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

Oh, but it's wrong to point out the "sexuality identity" part of the "pledge" which elementary school students are encouraged to pledge as a group. That's just crazy religious zealotry.

Okay, just to recap: the issue is not about Spongebob Squarepants. (Personal disclosure: I have kids and yes, they watch Spongebob - endlessly). The issue is about the agenda of the video's producers, who co-opted Spongebob, Clifford the Big Red Dog, and others.

I personally think it's egregious for the producer to use cartoon characters to advance an agenda in an elementary school. I think it's right for parents to challenge any agenda inserted into the school outside of the school board approved curriculum. And I think that Dobson was right to highlight it.

And, if you think that a Hollywood music producer produced 61,000 videos for free distribution to elementary schools, with teachers guides, including "pledges" for the students to recite, without having an agenda that needs to be challenged - then you need to rethink who is the crazy one here.

We Can Leave Today

Today I'd like to point you to Mona Charen's excellent column on "Muslims and the Tsunami" on Townhall.com . Mona does an excellent job capturing the disgust and irritation I feel concerning the ingratitude of the Muslim world toward America's involvement in the relief effort.

First it was the U.N. carping about America and the West being "stingy". Never mind the track record of America always being sacrifial and generous in disaster relief. The UN functionary had to poke his finger in our eye.

Now, it's the governments of the disaster affected Muslim nations, with legions of suffering citizens, who have to make a show of their hatred of America as we're flying aid in via military transport at great risk to the crews. Demanding that the U.S. Marines show up unarmed. That America agree to withdraw any military troops by March 31st. Why wait that long, I say. We can leave today. Ingrates.

Dennis Prager, an excellent editorial columnist, has pointed out this phenomenon before. Muslim countries routinely refuse aid from Israel in times of disaster. Israel has world class resue teams trained and ready and often offers them to countries that are overtly hostile to Israel's survival - like Iran. Muslim countries often refuse the help, preferring that their citizens suffer and die rather than accept aid from their enemy Israel. Apparently, we fall into that category now too.

Here's the unvarnished truth about America and the West, versus Muslim nations, regarding disaster aid. America and Western democracies provide a huge amount of aid to to the world because we can. Not because we're privileged or elitist or resource hogs or any of the other evils that liberals attribute to us. It's because we've built civilizations and technologies that are capable of supporting ourselves and generating excess capacity to give aid to others. Period. Muslim nations, on the other hand, are intentionally backward third world nations that cannot support themselves (without oil money) on a day-to-day basis, let alone rescue themselves in times of disaster.

How many Muslim nations are stepping up to aid Indonesia versus the amount of aid America will generate? They won't because they can't. They haven't built the infrastructure to do it. We have.

In fact, how many Indonesian ships, aircraft, water purification stations showed up in Florida last year to aid the hurricane victims?

Yet they want to insult us even as we gear up, once again, to rescue them.

I repeat: We can leave today.

No Need for Bush Apology on WMD's

The Bush administration announced yesterday that it was ceasing the search for WMD's in Iraq after more than a year of looking for them. Critics of the administration immediately pounced on the news and demanded an apology from the Bush adminstration for allegedly taking us to war based on a falsehood. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of Representatives Democrat minority leader said:

"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war,"

This and other statements from the President's critics are based on the mistaken premise that Bush took us to war over proof of Sadaam having WMD's. This position willfully ignores the basic premise of the U.N. resolutions that were the principal cause of our invasion of Iraq, principally that the burden of proof was on Sadaam.

Let me say that again. The burden of proof was on Sadaam, not the U.S. The conditions of the cease fire at the conclusion of the Gulf War demanded that Sadaam not only destroy the WMD's that everyone knew he had, but also that he provide proof that he had done so. Yes, there were U.N. inspectors involved. But their mission was not to find the WMD's and prove that they were there. It was to verify Sadaam's proof. All of the ensuing sanctions and following on U.N. resolutions were to insist that Sadaam destroy the weapons, and provide proof to the world, or there would be "serious consequences". Sadaam scoffed. Bush lived up to the serious consequences. No apology needed.

The only apologies needed are from France / Germany / Russia for enabling Sadaam's defiance of the U.N. resolutions by throwing their vote in the Security Council in exchange for bribes from the oil-for-food program. Scandalous.

Also scandalous are the statements of Democratic leaders, like Congresswoman Pelosi, who know better and continue to accuse the President of the United States of lying to the world. It undermines our collective credibility as a people in the eyes of the world for cheap partisan gain.

Leaving Dan Standing

A lot of commentary has been written this week regarding the release of the CBS report on Dan Rather / 60 minutes "memogate" forged document debacle. The report finds plenty at fault with the reporting of the story, and four CBS executives were fired or resigned in it's wake. The report also refuses to adequately address the main issues of the story (press bias, the authenticity of the forged documents,etc., and is therefore flawed. The main outcome is that it leaves Dan Rather damaged but still standing.

The most insightful editorials on the topic come from Tony Blankley, who points out that the "independent panel" is on the payroll of CBS and is certainly not independent (my thoughts exactly) and from Jay Bryant, who picks up on the angle of leaving Rather standing in his excellent piece "Not finding bias, or ducks" on towhhall.com. Bryant says:

Dick Thornburgh thereby joins the growing fraternity of establishment Republican report writers who have proven themselves unwilling to rake any real muck, call a spade a spade, a liberal a liberal or a bucket of hogwash a bucket of hogwash.

Other notables in this group include Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission and John Danforth, author of the official report on the Branch Dravidian disaster. Frankly, Ken Starr belongs in the wimp club, too, and I don't care what it says in Bill Clinton's library.

Bryant is right on the money, and he's hit on one of my pet peeves as a Republican over the years. Our Republican leadership has two traits that you can always count on:

- they fall on their swords and resign when they've misbehaved. Examples include Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, etc. They don't have to be forced out of office.

- they always let Democrats off the hook. Examples, including those cited by Bryant above, abound. Republicans, especially U.S. Senators, are too civil to pull the trigger when they have the evidence. They simply let it fade away. In other words, they fail to do justice.

The downside of this second tendency is that they leave the Democrat misbehavors (Clinton, Reno, etc) still standing to claim innocence and victimhood. We all saw it in spades with Bill Clinton's autobiography. It's clear that he has no shame or remorse for his misdeeds and considers himself a persecuted man vindicated by history. As I've said before, I blame the Republicans in the U.S. Senate for leaving him standing to make that ridiculous claim.

And now, it's happened again. Dan Rather, who in my opinion misused the resources of a national network news organization to broadcast a one-sided smear piece using forged documents in a blatant attempt to affect a United States Presidential election and to defeat a sitting President for political reasons, will be left standing. His underlings took the hit and were fired. Rather, who is still on the air every evening, will be allowed to retire gracefully.

Wait a minute. That would be the result if we relied only on the MSM and their trumped up "independent report", and another Republican who couldn't pull the trigger. However, it's a new game now and the bloggers are not done yet. This story is not dead yet.

A Great and Generous Nation

A tragedy reveals character. And I'm proud, once again, of the character of the United States in response to the unimaginable scope of the earthquake / tsunami disaster in Asia.

America, clearly, has the capacity and the will to bring to bear enormous resources of aid in that region to people who are not only strangers but are often hostile to the United States. It's not the first time we've stepped up to the plate and it's the reason that the world looks first to the United States, and not the United Nations, when disaster strikes.

Whether it's our government and it's offices with official aid, or private giving by individuals or through relief organizations we're there. With the military, flying in aid or purifying water, we're there. With our churches and their global reach, we're there. With today's announcement by President Bush of the work of ex-President's Bush and Clinton to raise disaster aid, we're there.

Despite the carping of petty minds or hostile bureaucrats, the United States is a great and generous nation and I'm proud to be a citizen. God bless those affected.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year from Partisan. Thank you if you've been reading my little blog.

I'm pondering some changes for the new year. Less top-of-my-head takes on current events, and the sometimes negative tone that that engenders. More topical analysis of specific issues.

See you all in the New Year.

And God Bless the people in Asia affected by the devastation of the earthquake and Tsunami. It's really unimaginable.

The First Draft of History

This is why I'm a conspiracy theorist:

On September 11, 2003 I was working inside of a factory in Alabama. I had no access to news either on TV or radio until my shift was over late in the afternoon. I became aware of the terrorist attack on our nation via a phone call from my wife around 9:30 am or so from my panicked wife who said something on the order of:

"We're under attack. Planes have crashed into the World Trade Center and both towers have collapsed. The Air Force has shot down a plane in Pennsylvania and I think they've bombed the Pentagon too."

That's what I call the first draft of history. Everything after that is edited. Sanitized for your protection. Very quickly after a tragedy like 9-11, especially one involving terrorism, you stop seeing the raw footage. You stop seeing footage on TV of the bodies jumping out of the doomed buildings, because someone has decided that you don't need to see that anymore. In other words, you stop seeing the truth.

Being an Air Force veteran, I clued in on the part about shooting down a plane. It was all a monstrous tragedy, but the shootdown of an American airliner by the military would be unique and historic. That would be a truly important part of the story. Was the Air Force really given an order to shoot down a commercial airliner? My wife didn't make up that bit of information in the middle of that recounting of the morning's events. She was relaying to me actual news stories which indicated that the plane was shot down based on eyewitness accounts. Was it true?

Over time, the shootdown story was dismissed in favor of the now well-known story of the "Let's Roll" passengers forcing down the jet. That's the version that the 9-11 Commission tells in minute-by-minute detail in their Report. The shootdown story was just incorrect. The witnesses were wrong. Anyone who wants to keep exploring the shootdown theory is just a kook, (or Keeper Of Odd Knowledge, as Rush calls them!). Case closed.

Until this week, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld opened it again. Speaking to American troops in Iraq, Rummy made a statement about the terrorists "attacking the United States in New York and shooting down the plane in Pennslyvania". Oops! Slip of the tongue. Nothing to see here. Move along please.

Don't you remember? The witnesses were wrong. Just like they were in Oklahoma City where they saw Middle Eastern companions with McVeigh. Just like they were on Long Island when they saw a missle take down TWA Flight 800. Just like they were when they saw an explosion take down a jet leaving New York in the week after 9/11. They were all wrong.

The govenment told us so. It must be true.

"It's about physics"?

By now everyone has probably seen the video of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering questions yesterday from the troops in Kuwait, troops about to be sent into Iraq. Internet watchers have probably also tuned into the controversial discovery that the most contentious questions from the soldiers were not spontaneous, but were staged by embedded reporters.

I'll focus only on the most serious aspect of the story: Rumsfeld's answers.

Now I'm a fan of Sec. Rumsfeld and I think he did a stellar job in reforming the Cold War structured military to fight and win two terrorist based wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. I'm a fan. And I'm glad he's staying on in the administration.

But this particular press conference is very troubling. I do applaud the Secretary for stepping up to the mike and taking questions unscripted. And, granted, I'll have to assume that we did not see the whole story on the MSM reports. I heard expanded coverage which indicated that he was well received and even had a standing ovation from one group. I'll assume that the whole conversation was taken out of context in the soundbites, as it invariably is.

Having said that, I would have to say that his answers yesterday to the troops were beyond pitiful. Three answers in particular were deplorable:

1. The answer to the question of why the army didn't have enough armored vehicles: "It's not about the army's desire, it's about physics, it's about production."

Not good enough, by far. You're the Sec. of Defense. Break through all of that. Find out if they have enough armor. If they don't, get it to them. Period. You owe it to the troops.

2. General answer to some bitching: "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want to have."

True, but not good enough. You're the guy who's supposed to deliver the army that you want to have. Deliver it already.

3. Further answer on the question of armor: something to the effect of "you can have a fully armored vehicle and still get blown up"

Are you kidding me? You would say that to a gathering of troops heading into battle? Are you a heartless robot?

Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweek had it right tonight when he said that the last statement showed a hopelessly "cavalier" attitude toward soldier's lives. Absolutely right.

John Stewart, of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central skewered these answers in a devastating and hilarious montage.

President Bush stepped out today and rightly corrected these ridiculous comments. And hopefully he gave Rumsfeld a thorough dressing down. We need Rumsfeld's leadership to finish the job there. But he needs to learn a lesson here. His answers were plainly not acceptable.

Awful-izers

My pastor stepped on my toes this weekend, but good. If you are a regular church goer and have a good pastor you know that he's going to hit you where you live every now and again and put you under "conviction".

In my case, it was his description of what he calls "awful-izers". They are the folks around the church and elsewhere that he encounters that take any piece of news and put the worst possible take on it. The example he gave was of a prayer chain that started with the news that a member was going in for heart tests, and by the time it got around the chain the member was dead and the funeral was on Wednesday! Someone in the chain was an awful-izer.

Okay, he got me. I'm a partisan. And a news junkie. And an occupational hazard for a partisan newsjunkie is to be an awful-izer. I've known for a long time that I'm prone to this particular malady and every so often I get reminded of it. It takes a lot of effort to take a balanced look at issues and both not exaggerate the severity of an issue and to see the positive elements of the other point of view. I try to achieve that, but it's hard and I often fall in the trap of being an awful-izer.

Now, I have to list two caveats with the concept of awful-izing in general:

- it doesn't mean that there is never "awful" news or issues that need to be confronted, or exposed, or opposed. And I will take those issues on fearlessly.

- both sides are susceptible to this phenomenon. I feel comfortable saying that it's typically the party out of power that exhibits this the most, as I believe the Democrats did during this election.

Ok. I've fessed up. Anyone else want to examine themselves? You should think about some self-examination if you've any of the following positions in the last year:

- George W. Bush is Hitler
- John Ashcroft is a facist who uses the Constitution for toilet paper
- America is worse than al Qaeda
- Haliburton is the single most corrupt entity in the world (U.N. oil-for-food, pick up the red phone)
- The fundamentalist Christian right is taking over America and shoving it's views down everyone's throats

Come on in. Stick your toes out and get them stepped on. It does a soul good.

Methodists Hold Line on Clergy

The news last week included an item about a United Methodist "trial" of a clergy member living a lesbian lifestyle. The "jury" of clergy convicted her in a vote of 11-1 and has removed her from the clergy. Members of her home church have stated publicly that the would want her to continue her duties as a layman, minus the sacraments that are reserved for clergy.

I don't particularly have a comment on the specific case or the woman who was on trial. She makes her own choices about her lifestyle and I'm sure that she is a fine and caring person who wants to minister to people in a sacrificial manner. Admirable. I have no desire, and certainly no standing not being a member of that church, to judge her.

I do think, however, it was inevitable and necessary that the hierarchy of her church, to whom she is completely accountable, to judge her by the standards of the church doctrine as they have articulated it through decades of working that question out against scripture and their consciences. I applaud the church for standing on their doctrine and not retreating. And, I don't have much doubt about how John Wesley - founder of the Methodist denomination - might have decided on the question.

My only comment on the case revolves around a statement made by her lawyer who argued that the important issue was whether or not all members of the Methodist Church, regardless of status, had equal rights.

This statement cuts right to the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives. One of the definitions that I've heard and applied on the question is that liberals emphasize group and rights/entitlements where conservatives emphasize individuals and responsibilities. In that light, liberals have made enormous inroads in the last 40 years in focusing public debate related to issues in the news on solely on "rights".

This focus on "rights" over responsibilities is evident in this case and in this lawyer's statement. Let me make the following points:

- Not every member of a church has a "right" to be a member of the clergy. Clearly the clergy is a set-apart subset within the body that is charged with the responsiblity moral leadership. In short, there is on purpose a difference between the clergy and the laymen (and laywomen) of a church. The responsibility-based concept of being "worthy" of being a member of this select group has been lost in our generation to a legion of lawyers litigating "rights".

- Any church has the authority to define qualifications for its clergy. Most do so in published doctinal manuals.

- It is the obligation of the church authorities to test candidates for clergy and to choose only the worthy. This is what is due to the flock, that they are led by worthy leaders.

- It is also the obligation of the church authorities to uphold those standards and to discipline and/or expel clergy members who fail in their duties. Again, no one is ever "entitled" to be a clergy member. There is no tenure in the church. Churches who fail to uphold their standards relating to doctrine, and who pander excessively to the "rights" of individuals as did the Catholic Church with their epidemic of pedophile priests, fail the membership of the church to the harm of the church.

In this case, the United Methodist church had a traditional doctrinal stance that an open homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with excercising the select sacrificial leadership responsibility of the clergy. Not everyone will agree with that stance, but then again membership in the church is a voluntary association. If you don't agree then join a different church.

And, unexpectedly I might add, they upheld their own doctrine in the face of withering publicity about the "rights" of one person to violate the standards and still maintain the role of leadership. They were resisting political correctness in its purest form. I applaud the Methodists for resisting it. And I wish the woman in question well in her life as a member of the church and in her service as a layman.

Clinton's Presidential Lie-brary

President George W. Bush gave an impressive speech today at the Little Rock, AR opening of the Presidential library for former President William Jefferson Clinton. Bush's speech was reverential and respectful, as it should be. We have traditions in this country and civility in the highest political office in the land is one of them. We don't need presidents sniping at their predecessors.

However, the rest of us can - and should - be real about the situation.

A presidential library is the ultimate in spin. All of them, including presidents from both parties, are glass and marble monuments to spin. The president in question gets to set the agenda for the library. He selects the exhibits and the display and context of his presidential papers. He, in short, tells the story of his presidency his way and with the power and eloquence that millions of dollars can buy in marketing prowess. In this case, Bill Clinton personally directed and approved each detail present in the library.

We can debate how the library presents "the record" on important issues of the day like the budget, welfare reform, the Middle East peace process, NAFTA, etc. President Clinton will present them all as historic triumphs. Us partisans will quibble. Historians (mostly liberal) will judge. The end.

Clearly, however, the most interesting part of the library will get the most spin. That would be the "Lewinsky wing", or the part covering the first impeachement and trial of an elected president. Will Ms. Lewinsky's tapes be there? Or the blue stained dress that ultimately brought him to trial? I'm guessing not.

From the early indications, I'm correct in calling it the Lie-brary. Clinton has cast this section as his version of those historic events. You know the story: the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy set out on an unconstitutional coup by means of an illegitimate impeachment. Please - I may gag.

An honest portrayal of the impeachment would address the fact that Bill Clinton lied to the American public when he wagged his finger in our face and said "I did not have sex with that woman...", and it got worse from there. He lied to a federal judge and to a grand jury. He tampered with witnesses and obstructed justice. And he threw all of his trusted aides under the bus to go out an perpetuate his lies. But those lies are probably not represented in the lie-brary. Only the lie that he wasn't guilty and that it was a illegitimate partisan witchhunt.

And for that I blame not only President Clinton, but the U.S. Senate for failing to do their duty after listening to the evidence and for acquitting him. They left him standing. And now he gets to gloat and tell it his way in his lie-brary.

Ashcroft and Arafat: History's Judgement

This week has seen the departure from the political scene of two historic men: John Ashcroft and Yasser Arafat.

The media coverage of these two men by the MSM and the "conventional wisdom" on them held by the American left demonstrates clearly why the left cannot be trusted with the responsibility of providing for our national security.

The left in America and across secular Europe loves Arafat and despises John Ashcroft. This cannot possibly be a more upside down view of reality.

First Arafat, who the MSM elevates to a co-equal among statemen. A champion of his oppressed people. The reality is the polar opposite. Arafat was a thug and a terrorist who, at the end of the day, left his people in refugee status and deep oppressive poverty for 40 years while he pilfered billions from them for his Swiss bank account. He deserved to die in ignominy instead of being welcomed by the terrorist-coddling French.

Second, John Aschroft - who the liberal elite and the MSM despise and caricature as a prudish religious fanactic facist who ran roughshod over the constitution and our civil liberties. Again, the polar opposite of the truth. I could recount his record as our Attorney General, but that has already been done here by Terence Jeffrey better than I could do it.

I will note a ridiculous observation by a celebrated pundit who said this week that clearly, in hindsight, the fear of a terrorist attack during our election cycle was overblown and hyped. Why? Because an attack didn't occur, of course. It doesn't occur to this man that the opposite is true - that the threat was very real and that the reason that we weren't attacked was the courageous and effective work of our Attorney General in thwarting the attacks. Our national security will be set back tremendously if we allow this misunderstanding of Ashcroft's role to go unchallenged in the MSM. I say thank you, John Ashcroft, for you hard work in the face of withering fire from the left. Thank you for keeping us safe.

Ashcroft and Arafat. I trust that history will judge them more wisely than the talking heads of our time have done.

Scott Peterson's Lesson for America

Fortunately, I avoided immersion in the OJ-like celebrity obsession with the Scott Peterson murder trial. I tuned in briefly at critical moments and passed on the non-stop cable coverage of every witness and trial development.

I know four things about the Peterson trial:

1. I had no doubt that he was guilty based on his behavior during her disappearance and his run for the border with the bleached hair and the bags of cash.

2. I did have doubts about a jury's ability to arrive at that conclusion. I think the OJ jury lowered everyone's expectations for the forseeable future. This jury went a long way toward restoring our trust in the system.

3. I have no problem with the death penalty for Peterson, should the jury that heard the evidence vote for that. The man is a psychopathic monster who killed a vivacious young woman and her unborn child just to get out of parenthood.

4. There is a broader lesson for America in this case, and unfortunately it is not about Laci Peterson. There are way too many murders of innocent spouses in this country for there to be a lesson here.

The lesson is with the "death" of the unborn baby, Conner. The 2nd degree murder conviction for the murder of Conner exposes an untenable dichotomy on the issue of abortion.

Someone explain to me how it's rational to hold these two positions simultaneously:

1. If the "unborn baby" is wanted (as Conner was), and a person violates it's rights by causing it's "death", then a legal crime of "murder" has taken place that can be adjudicated by a jury with a penalty attached.

but....

2. If the "fetus" is unwanted (as 1.5 million per year are not), then it has no rights, and a doctor can be paid to "terminate" it with no penalty and the "right" to do this is celebrated by enlightened elite in this country.

The answer is that it is not rational to hold these two views. The biological and legal fact of whether or not it is an "unborn baby" with rights or a "fetus" without rights cannot be determined by whether or not it is "wanted".

Sadly, America will continue a divided partisan struggle on this question until we come to grips with that. And Scott Peterson inadvertently advanced the discussion.

Advice to the Left: Ratchet back the Rhetoric

I'd like to comment on the outrageous observations made by Maureen Dowd last week. Writing from "Murderer's Row" at the nation's leading liberal newspaper, The New York Times, Ms. Dowd flailed out in her post election despair:

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America (emphasis mine) so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Before I comment on what specifically I find so offensive in that writing, let me offer some advice to my friends on the left of the political spectrum: (And, believe it or not, I have some friends on the left.) I've been where you are. I understand the feelings that come after a defeat in a presidential election that you care about. I understand the anger, despair, confusion, and general disbelief that so many of your fellow countrymen could be so foolish or deceived. Welcome to my world during two elections of Bubba Clinton.

My advice, free of charge and hard won by experience, is to do three things:

First, take a deep breath and realize that you will survive. I survived eight years of Clinton and you will survive eight years of Bush. You might not like it. It may grate on you. But you will survive. America as a whole survives even our worst Presidents. (Jimmy Carter, pick up the red phone). I was confident of a Bush win and was deeply opposed to John Kerry, but I had already resolved to myself that I would survive a Kerry Presidency if that unimaginable scenario had materialized.

Second, seriously re-evaluate your thinking. You can go through the next four years believing that an evil administration conspired to steal another election by duping a huge majority of "sheep" in the heartland that are ignorant, religious fanatic, bigots who are bent on oppressing minorities and turning back progress and science due to inbreeding. Or you can allow yourself to consider that there is a sizable portion of America, at least 59 million strong, who have rational, informed, deeply held core principle beliefs that are in opposition to yours. You can read my posts on this blog about topics that Ms. Dowd mentions like stem cell research or gay marriage and agree that they are thoughtful and resonable contrary positions, or you can continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a porch-sitting banjo-picker straight out of "Deliverance". I gaurantee you that you'll live a healthier life if you give up the sterotypes.

And finally, you can ratchet back the over-the-top Michael Moore-ish hyperbole that passed for campaign rhetoric for the last two years. Think back over the positions your side took in the heat of battle. "Bush lied, kids died". Cheney is Hitler. Ashcroft is a facist. The Patriot Act set up a police state. Tax cuts for the rich. It was too much. It was all inaccurate, it didn't help you win, and it was harmful to the political discourse in America.

Back in the Clinton days we were called Clinton-Haters. The irony is that we didn't really hate Clinton. We despised him for his personal corruption. And we strongly felt that he should be removed from office for perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice and the like. But we didn't hate him. The difference is that the left really hates Bush. I have no doubt that Moore and Garofolo and Franken really deeply hate George Bush. And it comes out in the rhetoric.

Which brings me back to Ms. Dowd. I find her observation that "W. ran a jihad in America" to be deeply offensive and the overwrought rhetoric of hate.

Jihad? Is she insane? Jihad? Talk about de-valuing a word.

After 9/11 don't we recognize what a jihad is?

Flying planes loaded with fuel and people as bombs to kill thousands more to the glory of Allah is jihad. Do you see anything in the Bush campaign that resembles that?

Slaughtering hostages with a long knife in grisly and barbaric beheadings is jihad. Is Ms. Dowd confused between those events and a Bush campaign rally?

Slaughtering 50 Iraqi police officers on their way to an R&R simply for cooperating with America is jihad. Slaughtering moms and kids in a school in Beslan is jihad. Sending armed warriors to blow up airliners in Moscow is Jihad. Suicide bombers in grocery stores in Jerusalem is jihad.

Are you really that confused, Ms. Dowd, that you relate a gay marriage referendum in Ohio to these atrocities? Do you compare 250 honorable decorated Swift Boat veterans signing an affadavit to the unfitness of Sen. Kerry to the insane ravings of Osama bin Laden who echoed the Democratic talking points in his last video.

And how was Ms. Dowd's ridiculous screed treated by the MSM. Was she rebuked? Reigned in? Did anyone object to her equating the Bush campaign with jihad - an intentional murderous plan by our nation's enemy to destroy us by violent and barbaric means? No. On the contrary, she was feted this morning with a fawning segment on "Meet the Press".

Let me just say the obvious to Ms. Dowd, Sen Kerry, and the partisans on the left: not being able to distinguish between the President of the United States and our mortal enemy with whom we are at war in a substantive and rational way is what lead 59 million of your countrymen to conclude that your candidate could not be trusted with our national defense. Period.

This over-the-top rhetoric needs to stop. It is inaccurate and completely unhealthy for us as a nation. And it has consequences.

Fox News carried a tragic story today of a 25 year old man who committed suicide at Ground Zero in New York this week. He was "upset about the result of the presidential election". He was a student and was due to be married, but he ended it all in despair. I don't know anything about this young man or his mental state, but this story made me very sad. What a tragic and senseless waste. I won't lay his death specifically at anyone's feet, although I'm tempted to. (Michael Moore, call on line one) But I will urge my friends on the left to spend the time until the inauguration re-examining the rhetoric. Ratchet it back, please.

I'm trying to help you. Really.

Senatorial Smackdown in Progress

Personally, I don't have much use for the United States Senate and, consequentially, the 100 U.S. Senators. The White House, I like. The House of Representatives, I like. The Senate, I could do without it.

The main function of the Senate is to act as a patrician brake on the rabble rousing will of the people. We can't have mob rule breaking out. So the job of the Senate is to be obstructionists. Stick in the muds. Can't get alongs. Activity which doesn't win many points with me, me being a radical get-something-done activist type. The only reason that conservatives would like the function of the Senate is that they contribute to gridlock in Washington D.C. And, for small government conservatives, gridlock is a good thing.

While I merely dislike the Senate, I usually hold Senators in contempt. They are to a man, and occasionally a woman, pampered elites. Millionaire Ivy Leaguers. If America had royalty, it would be the U.S. Senators. The 100 princes and princesses of American government. They are bloated with power wielded over decades with Presidents coming and going while they sit on their thrones. As I recall from my history, Americans don't nuture an overfondness of royalty. Somehow the Senate survived our purging of the royals.

And now, post election, the Senate has come back into focus. With one Senator failing in his bid for the presidency and fading from the stage, another has emerged to engage the formidable focused energy of the blogosphere.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has stepped his pampered, pedicured, toe in the mud on the day after the election and is now front and center in the direct line of ire from the same conservative forces that swept President Bush to a convincing re-election.

Senator Specter has been here before. He routinely angers conservative Republican with his RINO (Republican in name only) stances. Most notably, he disgraced himself during the Senate's darkest hour by voting "not proved under Scottish Law" in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. We don't forget such disgraceful behavior..

Senator Specter survived a fierce primary challenge this year from a principled conservative rival who was clearly the superior candidate. How did he survive? President Bush dropped into Pennsylvania and campaigned for him. And how does Specter pay him back. He stabs him right in the back. Ted Kennedy couldn't have done it any better (although he tried on the education bill.) On the day after Bush's election victory, Specter held a press conference to announce that he would obstruct Bush's judicial nominees, from his pending position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if they were "out of the mainstream". That' liberal speak for conservatives, especially conservatives who are pro-life.

Imagine: A Republican, and a Republican who owes his seat directly to President Bush, steps to the microphone on the day after 59 million people spoke in support of the President to say essentially "not so fast, you've got to get past me".

Bottom line: Senator Arlen Specter must be denied the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when the Senate meets next month to choose its leadership. Tradition be damned. Seniority be damned. You cannot reward this blatant disloyalty with power. Especially on the committee where possible Supreme Court nominees will be vetted. It's not going to happen.

The blogosphere is available, postelection, to be fully engaged in this fight. And if Sen. Arlen Specter thought he had a tough fight in his primary - he hasn't seen anything yet. We will bring him down. It's on now.

More Red than Blue

I have 3 thoughts about the election results this week.

1. I am, of course, mind-bogglingly happy that my guy won. But I was not at all surprised. Friends will attest that I've been very confident all year that the election would turn out with a Bush re-election and strong gains in the House and Senate. Confident enough that I went to bed at 8:30 pm on election night with only a cursory glance at the returns on the networks.

What made me that confident? The candidate? The conventions? The debates?

No. All of those reinforced my confidence. But the clincher that made me confident came much earlier in the year. It was the phenomenal success of the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ". I had been telling people that the movie would open big, stay strong, and rake in millions. Nobody outside of my church believed me. Even my favorite radio drive time talk jock dismissed it the day before opening and guessed that it may break $30 million. Last time I heard it was heading toward $1 billion foreign and domestic box office and DVD sales. Watching the MSM (mainstream media) be totally clueless about that phenomenon was a giant lesson. I knew that the same majority that turned out for that movie to vote at the box office would turn out to support a President who was a genuine man of faith. I was right. The MSM was completely shell shocked, again.

2. There's even more red areas (republican) than blue areas (democrat) if you look at the county - by - county map than there is if you look at the electoral college map. Take a look:

Electoral College map:

and county-by-county:




Check out, for example, Michigan and California which went blue in the winner-take-all electoral map but have sizeable areas of red.

Clearly the divide, if it exists geographically, is between large cities and rural areas.

3. The big loser in the election is the credibility of old MSM journalism, which was so far in the tank for Kerry that they risked blantantly unethical get-Bush "gotcha" pieces and sold their credibility in the process.

- Dan Rather, the "Memogate" fraudulent attack on the President is not forgiven. Your days are numbered.
- Ted Koppel, that hit piece where you went to Vietnam to find Vietcong soldiers to rebut decorated U.S. veterans on Nightline was unexcusable. God bless John O'Neill and the Swiftboat veterans for their service, then and now.
- 60 Minutes, your attempt to explode the bogus "missing ammo" story 30 hours before the election was not unnoticed.

The new media is watching and will hold you accountable. Viva bloggers!

My Election Day Hopes

It's all over now but the voting. And then the cheering or booing. All I know for sure is that half of the country is going to need Prozac for a while whichever way the vote goes. I'm envisioning people curled up in the fetal position for a week.

So, as I finish work today and head home tonight to watch the returns, here are my simple election day hopes:

1. that people vote. All people who are at least moderately informed, vote. Don't hide behind a confusion because you don't like either candidate. Take a stand, make a choice, and vote. We need to have a strongly voiced referendum this year, either way it turns out. Don't stay on the sidelines.

2. that the vote isn't close, either way. Please, campaigns, spare us the litigation wars. It's not healthy for America to have so many people distrust the process. I can't take another 4 year debate on who "stole the election".

3. that we have a gracious concession, either way. Please candidates, don't drag this out for personal power.

4. that there's no violence. Let's demonstrate to the watching world how peacefully democracy works. And if Kerry wins, how a peaceful transition of power looks.

5. that there's no gloating, either way.

6. that we wake up tomorrow and move on with our lives, either way this comes out.

Happy Election Day! Viva America!

The Newest Democrat?

Usama bin Laden, our mortal enemy in the War on Terror, released an election eve video through al Jazeera TV in the Mideast. It was either an attempt to affect our election or a signal to some cell to launch an attack.

As for the tone of the tape - unlike previous tapes where he was a fire-breather who regularly promised our destruction, he seems to have turned into somewhat of a girlie-man terrorist who says it's in our hands not to be attacked again if we leave them alone. I'm guessing that killing or capturing 75% of his killer buddies, under the capable leadership of George W. Bush, has neutered him a great deal.

Nonetheless, he made a couple of interesting points:

- Just like John Kerry, bin Laden argues that President Bush has "lied" to the American people since 9/11.

- Just like Michael Moore, bin Laden argues that President Bush was derelict for sitting in a classroom reading to students during the 9/11 attack.

Gee, when you there isn't a dime's width of difference between our mortal enemy and one of our political parties - there's a problem there.

The one remaining question is: Where is Usama? Maybe he's in Florida hiding as a registered Democrat.

Kerry or the Terrorists: Who's Right?

John Kerry has been on the campaign trail for months now alledging that George Bush was not aggressive enough on terrorism. That he took his eye off of al Qaida and let them off the hook.

Do the terrorists see it that way? Do they think Bush was too easy on al Qaida?

Not according to a tape that is, according to the Drudge Report, in the hands of ABC News and the CIA. The tape is from a member of al Qaida and is a warning about the next terrorist attack. An attack bigger than 9/11. An attack where the "streets will run with blood" and " ' America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead".

And why do they want to attack us again?

"Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing
George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war
on Al Qaeda."

Apparently al Qaida would have preferred the appeasement policy of John Kerry and his elite buddies at the United Nations. Another good reason to vote for George W. Bush.

Why I support President Bush's Re-election

I was re-reading some of my recent posts this week and realized something. They're mostly negative. I've allowed the intensity and negativity of the campaign to dominate my writing here. But a funny thing has happened. Since I've already voted, absentee, I've found that I've almost completely tuned out of the election. I'm on an even keel. I'm not even that interested in weighing in on why the other guy is wrong.

So, I decided to pause and post something positive for a change. Let me list why I support the re-election bid of President George W. Bush.

1. I like his character. He's a staightforward man. He's a principaled man. He's a compassionate man. He's a man of faith. Despite all of his critics on that front, that's what I take from what I've read and heard and observed of him. He's a man of solid and unshakeable principles who is not particularly concerned about his legacy or about being liked.

2. I like his cabinet: - despite the overwhelming tide of hatred from the left mischaracterizing them. I think that Bush's cabinet is comprised of solid, experienced, and talented patriots who take the job of serving the President of the United States very seriously. I like them all: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc.

Rumsfeld - who reacted to a military challenge in the aftermath of the worst attack on our nation ever and is getting the job done with spectacular military wins in Afghanistan and Iraq - reshaping our military from cold war obsolesence in the process.

Ashcroft - who undertook the serious business of reshaping the instruments of justice to bring them to bear on the most serious internal threats that we've faced.

It's clear to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Aschroft - to mention only a few- are men of clear and unwavering convictions and that that clarity upsets a lot of people. So be it. I'm with them.

3. I like his policies: He learned the lesson of 9/11 - that we can no longer be safe with a policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and tracking down the individual terrorists to "bring them to justice", but that it's a war and the main foe is the state sponsor of terrorism that acts as a force multiplier by supplying financing, training bases, etc. He learned this lesson and he will not waver from it even under withering fire from the appeasement crowd in the media.

I like that he applied tax cuts accross the board and did not pander for votes.

Quote from this week on the stump: "The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. If you paid taxes, you should get some relief"

Dead on, constitutionally correct.

I like his stand to do what is right, not what is politically popular with the elites and the media of this country. Taking down the Taliban was the right thing to do. Deposing Sadaam was the right thing to do. (And I like that he spent the political capital that came with a 90% approval rating to do the right- but difficult - thing in Iraq.) I like that he stood up to the delusional United Nations and told them that they were on the verge of irrelevancy after 17 failed resolutions in 12 years in Iraq. Bush does what's right, not what's politically correct.

4. I like his leadership style: He's an executive. He sets the course for his team and delegates to them the responsibility to get results. He's not a micro-manager. He's not a legislator. He's an executive. And that is the job description of the President.

5. I like his wife: a very classy First Lady.

6. Finally, I like his optimism: It comes through in all of his speeches. While his opponent drones on with a litany of failures, misjudgements, and "lies" the President remains steadfast in demonstrating leadership through optimism.

While his critics have carped at him relentlessy through this term, he has perservered. At each step, his critics have been wrong. They've said:

- you can't go into Afghanistan and win. Look at what happened to Russia
- Iraq will be a quagmire with tens of thousands of casualties and will take months if not years to win
- you can have democratic elections in Afghanistan

and now, the chorus is - you can't have elections in Iraq. Oh yes we can, if Bush is still President.

I did not vote against someone. I did not vote for the "lesser of two evils". I voted, proudly, for someone who I admire, trust, and respect for President of the United States of America.

Jimmy Carter: Devaluing the Ex-Presidency

Jimmy Carter has apparently lost his ever-loving mind. And he's trashing the reputation of ex-Presidents as senior statemen who's opinion should be valued and sought in weighty matters of state.

Jimmy Carter has been in the news for three things of late:

1. Certifying the election in Venezuala as an election monitor. This was an election so fraudulent, apparently, that event the European Union will not recognize the results. A thoroughly corrupt coronation of a thug for president. And, it can surely be said, Jimmy Carter never met a thug dictator that he did not like - so he certified the election.

2. Answering the question of what his two favorite movies of all time are: Casablanca and Farenheit 9/11. Puh - leeeeeeze. This answer alone should disqualify him from being sought for an opinion ever again.

3. Opining this week in the press that the American Revolutionary War was an uneccessary war. That if England had only respected our rights a little more the war could have been avoided and eventually America would have gained our freedom without bloodshed.

Why does anyone still seek Jimmy Carter's opinion? Reporters: please let him stay with the noble causes he's good with: teaching Sunday School and building houses for the poor. Those are worthy endeavors. Meddling in foreign affairs? That, ehhhhhh - he's not so good with.

Into the Booth

I voted today! Absentee, because I'll be out of the state on Nov 2.

I guess I'm just a spectator now for the next two weeks. I'll fire up the popcorn and watch from the sidelines.

Halloween comes early for the Kerry campaign

We're two weeks from an election, and 13 days from Halloween, and the Kerry campaign for President is trotting out the usual skeletons and boogeymen to scare voters into voting for them:

- scaring seniors that George W. Bush is going to take their social security away from them through a "January surprise" to privatize social security. Nonsense. Bush's plan for personal retirement accounts is sound and has been known since the 2000 election.

- scaring young people that the Bush administration is going to start a draft after the election. Nonsense. The only congress critters to propose a draft were Democrats and the bill was soundly defeated in the house 400 to 2 by the Republicans.

Hey - John Kerry. Boo!

The Kerry's Tax Hypocrisy

Really, it's just too much to bear.

The sheer magnitude of the hypocrisy of Sen. John Kerry, who certainly did marry up to a billionaire heiress, and the heiress herself Teresa Heinz Kerry is truly stunning.

After a year and a half on the campaign trail bashing President Bush for irresponsible tax cuts that only benefit his rich buddies in "the richest one percent of taxpayers", Mrs. Heinz Kerry finally deigns to release her tax records. And what a stunner they are.

It was bad enough when John Kerry released his tax records and revealed that he only paid approximately 12% tax rate compared to the Bush's tax rate of over 20%.

Now, we discover that Teresa, whose net worth of over $1 Billion surely puts her in the richest 1%" bracket, paid much less. According to this excellent report at Newsmax.com, Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid a paltry 1.2% tax rate on her income of approximately $50 Million in 2003.

This one fact should be all you need to know to not vote for John Kerry.

Let me say that again: 1.2% tax rate. In fact, I would be hard pressed to call her a "tax payer" at all at that rate.

That is, if the records are even accurate. Kerry reported income of $5 Million, which under reports her probable annual income of $50M based on a reasonable return against her net worth. Again, from Newsmax:

"Financial experts cited by the New York Post on Saturday said that the Kerry family's reported $5 million annual income wouldn't come close to covering their lavish lifestyle, which includes five estates; multiple cars; a $3.5 million Gulfstream V jet complete with plasma TV, gold fixtures and two bathrooms; a yacht worth $750,000 to $1 million and servants in every location."

What happened to all of those speeches about the rich paying their fair share?

Obviously, she has the best lawyers and accountants that money can buy to shelter her income. Maybe John Kerry could propose a government entitlement program to help the poor and downtrodden by providing them with Teresa's tax lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes. But then again, how would they fund it if everyone avoided taxes like Teresa does?

The Kerrys. John and Ter-aaaaa-za. Champions of the poor and downtrodden. Working for the little guy. Paying their fair share.

It makes me want to vomit.

John Kerry's America

After watching the 3 Presidential debates, and listening to John Kerry's relentless drumbeat of pessimism and negativity, here's what I've learned:

In John Kerry's America:

George Bush has:

- Lied us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time - apparently for the wrong reason having to do with making his oil buddies at companies like Halliburton rich while the bodies pile up in Iraq (more in September than there were in August, more in August than there were in July, more in July than there were in June). Or was it to avenge his daddy?
- Squandered our budget surplus to give tax giveaways to all his rich buddies
- Lost all of our good jobs overseas to make greedy companies richer.
- Sold out our government to the wishes of the Saudi Royal Family.

and George Bush wants to:

- Leave all of our children behind.
- Take away your Social Security checks.
- Keep you from having prescription drugs free from the government.
- Stuff his religious, bigoted, scientifically ignorant beliefs down every Embryonic Stem Cell's throat.
- Take a way a women's constitutional right to choose. (Choose what? Oh, sorry, we're not supposed to ask that question)
- Raid your house and toss you in jail for fun under the Patriot Act

While John Kerry would:

- have a good job for everyone. Not as high paying as being a gigolo Senator with a billionaire wife, but you know what he means.
- give everyone all the prescription drugs they want, preferrably from Canada
- Make the French and Germans like us. Oh, and the UN too.
- Hunt and kill the terrorists, but not go over there to do it
- End the deficit and give tax cuts to "those who need it most", or at least the ones that he needs votes from.
- Ban guns, except for the hunting guns that he happens to use for sport when he's not, say, windsurfing

After all, he has plans.

And apparently in John Kerry's America you can:

- Vote to authorize a President to use any military force deemed necessary to depose a dangerous dictator who potentially has weapons and intent to harm us, but not acutally ever use that force - and still get what you want if you do it "smarter"

- "Defend your country when you're young" and be a 3 month war hero fit to lead this nation, and also be patriotic by returning home and trashing the war and painting all of your fellow veterans as murderers and rapists.


Please, spare me. I'm getting depressed by John Kerry's America.

Define "Contain"

Could the United States, as an alternative to going to war in Iraq to depose Sadaam Hussein, have continued to “contain” him effectively?

That was a topic of discussion at a family gathering this last weekend. I was discussing the election and the war with my brother in-law. He’s no wild eyed lefty. He shares a military background with me. As do his brothers – Air National Guardsmen all - who, for the first time in their lives, are considering voting for a Democrat – John Kerry. They’re not gung ho Kerryites. They just have a beef with President Bush of his handling of the Iraq and even his decision to go to war in the first place. They strongly believe that we could have done more to “contain” Sadaam. I would guess that the stress that the war has put on National Guard unit factors into their displeasure with President Bush.

As these are men I respect and whose opinions are worth considering I gave this some thought this week. Could we have contained Sadaam satisfactorily in the post 9-11 era given that the terrorism ante had been raised considerably?

I, of course, had an opinion on this topic being the news junkie that I am. But I paused to give it further serious reflection. Here’s what I think:

It depends on what you mean by “contain”.

Prior to our deposing Sadaam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad by military force our containment of Sadaam had these features:

1.No fly-zone: air cover over 2/3 of Iraq with hundreds of sorties flown each year since 1991, putting our pilots at risk, with no foreseeable end in sight.
2.Sanctions: prohibiting Iraq from selling it’s most abundant and profitable resource. Did it stop Sadaam from an extravagant and profligate lifestyle of building luxury palaces in his own honor country wide? No. It did however result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children because of Sadaam’s greed and neglect of his people.
3.Oil for Food Program: the exception to the sanctions to remedy the child starvation. Did it save children? No. Instead it funded bribes to France, Germany, and Russia to keep the U.N. off Sadaam’s back. More that $10 Billion was siphoned from the program in a successful effort to corrupt both our allies and the U.N. to the bone to overlook Sadaam’s transgressions.
4.U.N. Resolutions: 17 in 12 years demanding that Sadaam comply with provisions of the peace deal that ended the Gulf War, including disarming and destroying the WMD’s. 17 resolutions demanding “serious consequences” that were rendered worthless by Sadaam’s gleeful defiance. Unenforced resolutions that threatened to render the United Nations authority as a world body irrelevant.
5.Weapons Inspections: the goal of which was not to find WMD’s. The burden of proof as established in the UN Resolutions was not on the inspectors to find them, but on Sadaam to furnish proof that he had in fact destroyed his weapons. Inspections that were inoperative after 1998 when Sadaam kicked the inspectors out of the country and Bill Clinton allowed that to stand. Inspections that were mocked when George Bush’s influence caused the reintroduction of inspectors in 2002 and Sadaam provided reams of useless data as evidence.

So, I’m left with two questions:

First, did the “containment” work?

Not in my opinion. Continuing the “containment” with our pilots continually at risk and Iraqis dying under our sanctions as Sadaam continued squandering their rationed national resources on palaces and death squads was immoral and irresponsible. Sadaam was free to operate in Iraq and bribe allies and international bodies to look the other way. He was free, in fact, to be a national sponsor of terror at least in the Middle East in general and possibly with al Qaida directly. This was not a tenable situation after 9/11.

Second, did the weapons inspections – as John Kerry has said – “work”?

Not in my opinion. Granted that stockpiles of WMD’s have not been located in Iraq since our invasion last year. However, there remain two possibilities for that: 1) that he had destroyed all of the WMD’s and 2) that he hid them or transferred them out of the country to Syria and Lebanon.

Not only did every intelligence source believe that Sadaam had WMD’s, but events since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 tell me that the second option is the most likely. Two examples:

- convoys of trucks were aerially photographed leaving Iraq into Syria in the weeks preceeding the invasion
- Terrorist al Zarqawi of Iraq was implicated in a bombing attempt at an embassy in Jordan using chemical weapons acquired from Syria with Iraqi origins

So after reflecting on my friend’s concerns about the necessity of the War in Iraq I’ve arrived at my conclusion. It was not tenable to continue to try to “contain” Sadaam Hussein in the post 9/11 era. Sadaam continued to be a threat that we could not tolerate. The invasion was both necessary and justified.

Exploiting Embryos

So, exactly how did Embyronic Stem Cell (EST) research become one of the main election year issues anyway? Do most voters in America lose sleep over whether or not the Federal Government, as opposed to private companies, is spending enough tax dollars on EST? Really? Is that what will drive you to the polls? While we're at war? Really?

However it became an issue, it is an issue. And rarely has a public issue been so propagandized, distorted, and exploited. And with the death of Christopher Reeves this week the exploitation will ramp up exponentially.

I already had my say on this blog on the topic of EST research. (July 29th, A Choice...Reason or Ignorance"). But let me just recap a few salient points:

1. George W. Bush did not ban EST research. He banned federal funding of stem cell lines that were not currently existing. That's federal funding, not all funding. Private companies are free to fund research, and if there were in fact a miracle cure to be found in this research they would be throwing dollars at it.

2. To date EST research, which has severe moral implications in destroying a life to obtain the stem cells, has not had any successfuly trials. In fact, several trials had to be stopped because of severe adverse reactions in trial patients. By contrast, adult stem cell research - which does not entail any of the moral issues - has shown potential. This simple fact has been widely distorted by EST supporters for unfathomable reasons. We should at all costs be pursuing cures through adult stem cell research.

3. Several disabled celebrities or family members are passionate activists for EST research. Ron Reagn, Jr (based on his father suffering from Alzheimer's) and Michael J. Fox who is suffering from Parkinson's come to mind. However, their emotional appeals are distorting the issues. Doctors concede that EST holds no promise for a cure for either Alzheimer's, in Reagan's case, or spinal cord regeneration in Reeve's case. Reeves himself acknowledged this. And the Parkinson's trials were the trials that had to be stopped. The EST activists are using these emotional, and understandable, appeals to distort the basic facts of the science of this research. EST doesn't work. Adult stem cells do.

4. Finally, the demagoguery of John Edwards saying this week that research that could be conducted under a John Kerry presidency could have had Christopher Reeves up out of his wheel chair walking is the lowest form of political pandering and exploitation of suffering I have seen in my long political life. No question about it. Despicable.

CBS's External Coverup, er..... Investigation

So news junkies: are we on pins and needles, waiting with baited breath, to see what oh what the results of the CBS external cover-up, er... investigation into Dan Rather's Memogate might reveal? Well, apparently we'll be waiting a little longer.

From today's Reuters:

"Les Moonves, the co-president of CBS parent company Viacom, told an analyst meeting that the review of the CBS "60 Minutes II" report being done by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi had no timetable for completion. But he said he did not want it to interfere with the Nov. 2 election.

'Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on,' he told a Goldman Sachs media conference in New York."


Let me get this straight: CBS, Dan Rather, and 60 Minutes had no problem airing a one-sided smear piece attacking a sitting President with fabricated evidence less than a month before his bid for re-election. That "affect" on the election they don't mind. But it's apparently unthinkable that they would conclude an investigation into this sloppy and unprofessional "reporting" in a timely manner before the election because it might affect it.

Well, yes if the results of the investigation show that there was, as it appears there was, collusion between the CBS staff and the Democratic National Committee and/or the John Kerry campaign to smear the President. I'm guessing that is a result they would rather announce after the election.

The question is: Where is the rest of the media on this story? Are they going to let CBS get away with stonewalling this "investigation"? Is any news organization going to do independent reporting on the key remaining questions of the scandal?

- Where did Bill Burkett get the fabricated documents if he wasn't the original source?
- Is it just coincidental that the broadcast of the 60 minutes story was coordinated to the day with the DNC's "Fortunate Son" ad campaign?
- Is it coincidental that the DNC chairman was using specific language ("sugar-coating") from the fake memos early in the day before the CBS broadcast aired?

Are there any journalists out working independently on this critical election related scandal? Or are they all sitting in the press room at CBS waiting for the handout from CBS on the results of the "external" investigation?