Churchill Could Have Been Talking to Our Media Now

It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time.

Found this at Klotzy's Contemplation Corner.....OBL spouting off...see if any of it sounds the least bit familiar:

'I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the
events of Sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you,
and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to
repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses
incidents.

I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to
understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up,
and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in
Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched
me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US permitted
the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these
hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it resulted
in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard determination to
punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon,
it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in
the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and
women.

We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to
the similarity of his regime and the regimes in our countries. Whish half of
them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents
and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and
the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared
during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were
impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries.
Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was
feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations
finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of
freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight
terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he
didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to
Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation
in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we
never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand
of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most
needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the
girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention
to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute
the operation thank god.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.'

All I can say is, if I was Michael Moore I'd be lawyering up. Looks like OBL will be contacting the ACLU soon and suing for royalties.

Two Americas?

The two Americas? Maybe not, but there is a group warfare happening in this country right now. But it is not necessarily a class warfare. It is the aging against the young. The retiring versus those just entering the work force. Unfortunately, however, the young are not even aware that they are under attack.
It is no secret that as a society we are aging. The baby boomers are set to retire. The mean age in 1990 in the US was 36.8. By 2050 it will be 40.7. That is a 4 year rise in just a 50 year span. We are aging, and aging fast.
That is bad enough, but what we are doing to the next generations is much worse. We are simply ignoring the impending Social Security disaster, voting entitlement after entitlement for ourselves, and diving full force into the ‘I want’ mindset. All while screeching, “What about the children.”
Today there are about 3.3 taxpayers to every beneficiary of Social Security. By 2030, it is believed, the level will drop to 2 to 1. In 1990 only 12% of the population was over 65, by 2030 it will be 20%.
You don’t have to be an economics major to see a dangerous trend. The young now are going to be hit hard. They will be bearing a much larger brunt of Social Security taxes than we do now. These very same overtaxed workers will, also unfortunately, be paying for the new government busting prescription drug bill. Add to that Medicare and some believe there could be a 56 trillion dollar short fall when the baby boomers retire. Oh, and by then, I’m sure, we will not only have socialized health care, but any number of other new entitlements promised by politicians simply to buy our votes.
Sadly, the young in this country are blindly unaware of the economic dangers their futures now hold. Their schools don’t warn them. They’re to busy teaching tolerance and false self-esteem. The media won’t alarm them. Where are Jon Stewart and MTV with the 'heads up' here? And worse, many of their elders seem to have the attitude that since they’ve worked hard all their lives, they now deserve anything they can get. Forgetting, of course, that they did receive a pay check for that very same work.
The elderly also seem to believe that it is below them to have to decide between vacations and health care. Between new cars and prescription drugs. It seems odd that this same generation did not offer their parents and grandparents these very same things that they now feel personally entitled to.
It is sad that they will not, or do not, want to see the damage their selfishness will cause the future generations of our country. It is also sad that those with the power to educate our young to this impending disaster sit quietly. Where are MTV, Comedy Central, Hollywood celebrities, sports stars, etc on these issues? Are they ignorant to them or do they just not fit into their political agendas? Let’s ‘get out the vote’ but no way in hell are we going to tell you what our pet politician has in store for your future.
I have to believe that if the young could be made to understand the mountain we were placing in front of them, that they would rise up en masse. That they would spend more time trying to understand the political process in this country before it eats up their futures alive. The aging generation needs to step back and realize that when we put our responsibilities on the young it may push them down like the massive weight of the world. And that in itself could lead to our greatest fear…Atlas Shrugged.

Two Thumbs Up for Brokaw

John Kerry was interviewed on Nightly New with Tom Brokaw last night. I thought it was a very enlightening interview.
Here it is in its entirety:

Tom Brokaw: Senator, if things are so wrong in Iraq and in America, why is this election still so close, just the weekend before Election Day?

Sen. John Kerry: Because it's polarized. And because the Bush campaign has mostly run a very negative campaign to push the hot buttons of polarization. So it's very hard. Particularly when you're a nation at war.

---Polarization Mr. Kerry? What about rich against poor, old against young…for God sakes, your own vice presidential running mate talks of ‘the two Americas’!

Brokaw: A number of people even in your own party, however, say, "look, it's anybody but Bush." They're still not warming to John Kerry.

Kerry: Well, I don't agree with that. Everything in our indicators show differently. The rope lines, the people that I'm meeting around the country. There's an energy out there.

---Where do you get those indicators? Kofi Anan?

Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq. The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

---Well, Mr. Senator, the president does not run every single military mission. Did you learn anything from your stint on the Security council? But, of course, you are aware of that. It is the Commander in Chiefs job to point the direction and the Generals, on the ground, job to run the war.

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

---We all know that ‘under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons’, but he wasn’t doing it. You see, he was not listening to the scary inspectors. I’m sure they did all they could, like making mean faces or jumping out at him from the shadows, but he just wasn’t listening! Get it? Apparently not, because when it was pointed out he was not destroying them you said, ‘But that's what you have inspectors for.’ I think you might need a time out.

---And do you realize that ‘a legitimate threat of force’ is only obtained when you legitimately might possibly use it…As in ‘if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war’…did you just say ‘might’? Listening to you I just ‘might’ throw up…oops too late. Me thinks Saddam would have laughed in your face…you know kind of like he did for 17 resolutions and a surrender agreement.

---‘But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies’..Mr. Senator, ever heard of the ‘oil for food’ scandal? And enough with the dissing of our true allies already. I’m no New England UN pandering genius like you Mr. Kerry, but I’m not so sure that makes for great diplomacy.

Brokaw: Let me ask you about social and domestic issues. Your colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, says that he's proud to be a liberal. Are you proud to be a liberal?

Kerry: That depends on what the issue is, Tom. I've always hated labels. And I don't abide by labels. You know, I'm an ex-prosecutor. I've sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I've busted up the number-two organized crime figures' organization in New England. What does that make me? I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. What does that make me?

--- ‘I've always hated labels. And I don't abide by labels. You know, I'm an ex-prosecutor.’ Do I even need to comment?

Brokaw: But you don't deny your liberal credentials.

Kerry: On certain issues, I'm a liberal, Tom. On certain issues I'm a conservative. I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe in balancing the budget. And we worked at it, and we did it in the 1990's. You know, like Franklin Roosevelt said, I really don't care if a good idea is Republican or Democrat. I care whether it works for America. And that's what I'm gonna do as president.

---I agree with FDR, and if you can balance the budget and not raise my taxes, you’ve got my vote in 2008. But, truly, I think the Republican party has nothing to worry about.

Brokaw: You're very protective of your family, and very proud of them, I know. Do you regret invoking Mary Cheney in your debate with President Bush?

Kerry: No. I…

Brokaw: You don't regret it at all?

Kerry: Tom, it was done with respect, and it was done with pure sense of admiration for Dick and Lynne Cheney, who I think obviously love their daughter and are very proud of their daughter. She's made it a public thing. He's made it a public thing. I could have and should have perhaps mentioned Dick Gephardt, who honors his daughter. And loves her, in the same way.

---Please tell me you checked with Mr. Gephardt before saying the above.

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

---Wha? I thought all your records were public…just go to your website…

Brokaw: Do you think he's a smart man?

Kerry: I do. Yes, I do think he's a smart man.

Brokaw: Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?

Kerry: I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him.

---Ok, that’s classy.

Brokaw: Senator, I'm going to see the President over the weekend. Anything you want me to convey to him?

Kerry: Just say hello to him, and we'll chat on Tuesday.

Brokaw: I'll say to him what I'm going to say to you. Good luck.

Kerry: Thank you, sir.

Brokaw: Thank you.

And, thank you Mr. Brokaw for an unbiased interview of Mr. John F. Kerry.

Only 5 Days Left.....From Mr. Churchill

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Just Wondering

1) On the missing weapons in Iraq Sen. Kerry said today:

"Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings."

Let me get this straight, the weapons that were not dangerous yesterday because they weren’t WMD’s, are suddenly dangerous now because they can be used ‘to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings’? Nuance?

2) And so,

"I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable."

actually means…I don’t know maybe,

“I saw a couple foreigner looking guys at a restaurant in New York and asked them how they liked the Boston cream pie.”

Let me know when the nuance stops, I’ll start listening.

3) How is it democracy for 1 party to file law suits to keep another parties candidate off the ballot?

4) I have no children, so I often ask friends and family why I should have to pay, through property and income taxes, for schools and education? The usual reply is that we all, as a society, benefit from the education of our children. OK, but if that is the case, then do only those who own property and make over $28,000 dollars make up all of society?

5) How on Earth have I survived 41 years without a flu shot?

6) If John Kerry was a Republican and returned from Vietnam saying that his fellow soldiers were murderers and rapists, would John O’neill, the Swiftees, and many vets still oppose him? I’ll answer this one myself…YOU BET THEY WOULD!

Hey, Let's Be Like Them!

Some info on the EU for those who may be interested:
"Unemployment Rates For The Under 25s
In August 2004 compared to August 2003, the unemployment rate for males in the Euro-zone grew from 7.9% to 8.0% and was unchanged at 8.3% in the EU25. The female unemployment rate grew from 10.2% to 10.3% in the Euro-zone, and was unchanged at 10.0% in the EU25. In August 2004, the unemployment rate for under-25s was 17.5% in the Euro-zone and 18.1% in the EU25. In August 2003 it was 17.2% and 18.4% respectively. The lowest rates for under-25s were observed in Ireland (7.9%), the Netherlands (8.4% in July 2004) and Austria (9.8%), and the highest in Poland (38.8%), Greece (27.1% in December 2003), Italy (27.1% in January 2004) and Slovakia (25.4%)."

And this:
"But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says."

And this:
"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."

And this on racism:
"According to the Financial Times of November 22, the European Union (EU) has suppressed a report it had commissioned on the epidemic of antisemitic violence in Europe.
If you are wondering, 'Is antisemitic violence really a problem in Europe in 2003?' the answer is unfortunately 'yes'. As Leah Vitale wrote in the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) student newspaper, regarding the situation in France:
'My flat mate described having to turn her 'Steve's Packs' (Israeli bag/luggage company) bag around, label against her body, so as to safeguard herself from assault. She also recounted that Jewish boys are unable to wear kippahs [headpiece worn by religious Jews] openly on the street without being attacked. Jews have been stabbed, and elderly women are now frisked upon entering synagogues, as a precaution. Despite nearly 400 incidents against Jews just last April alone, French President Chirac denied there is antisemitism in France.'"

Name cracker's Dog

Post name ideas for his dog here.

Questions for the Left

Being an idiot(Theresa's words)ic right wing zealot, I sometimes have a hard time understanding the mindset of the left. So with this and my endless search for knowledge, in mind, I have some quetions for the left:

1) Why is it that your party is afraid to be honest with the American people as to your true agendas..i.e. socialism, internationalism, gun control, secularism, etc?

2) Do you truly believe that freedom of speech should also be forwarded to those who disagree with you?

3) Where does your freedom come from? Your creator, if you believe in that, or your government?

4) Just what is your definition of 'compassion'.

5) Where does your low view of the abilities of your fellow man come from?

6) Do you believe that you can succeed?

7) Are you really smarter than everyone else?

8) Should your fears and neurosis influence government action...i.e. seatbelt laws, forced social security, government price controls?

9) Are the rich all evil?

10) Do you teach your children that success and profit are bad, and that they should strive for mediocrity?

11) Do you wish government jobs upon your children?

12) Do you believe the government should take money fairly earned from one man and give it to another to pay for the latters bad choices?

13) Do you believe that the loss of civility and ethics in this country have been caused by a strengthening of conservatism or the slippery slope of progressivism?

14) Do you believe that there is a media bias?

15) If you believe in freedom of choice on abortion, why not for schools, social security, taxation?

16) If you believe in higher taxes, why not two systems...one for compassionate liberals and one for greedy conservatives?

That's enough for now, but I really would like to hear your answers to some of these questions. I promise, if you comment I'll try to be civil. I did say try, right?

A Shout out to David Limbaugh..couldn't have said it better myself!

David Limbaugh @ townhall.com

With a Wink and a Nod

Here we are less than two weeks from the election and John Kerry is still playing "hide the ball." The last thing he wants most of us -- excluding his loony, militant base -- to know is who he really is.

Kerry knows that if he releases his military records or is forthright about his true beliefs on the issues, he won't stand a ghost of a chance. His entire campaign, therefore, has been little more than an extended "wink and a nod."

He is locked in an unspoken conspiracy with his wild-eyed Michael Moore/George Soros/Whoopi Goldberg base to feint just enough toward sanity to fool the Ward Cleaver voter. After "winking" behind his shades to the America-haters, he turns toward middle Americans, and with a "nod" fraudulently affirms to them his allegiance to traditionalism.

What is Kerry so afraid of? Why doesn't he want you to find out the identity of that man behind the curtain? Why doesn't he want you to read his book "The New Soldier"? Why doesn't he want you to see "Stolen Honor"? Why won't he release his medical records? Why won't he talk about his Senate record? Why won't he address specific charges about his Vietnam tour?

The answer is that without convincing millions of voters he is someone that he is not, he would suffer the biggest landslide defeat in American history -- bar none. What a sad state American liberalism finds itself in when it can't tout its own candidate as a true believer. And what a sad commentary on the candidate himself that he would willingly participate in such a fundamental deception about his very essence as a human being.

All winking and nodding aside, do you think Kerry could seriously compete for popular or electoral votes if he leveled with the American people? And do you think for a second that his extremist base doesn't know exactly who he is?

Just take his position on gay marriage, for example. He has said emphatically during the campaign that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but in every other respect he's the homosexuals' most ardent advocate.

Does anyone, including the homosexual lobby, truly believe he is opposed, in his heart of hearts, to homosexual marriage? Does anyone, including the homosexual lobby, truly believe he agrees with traditionalists that heterosexual marriage is a vital institution that must be preserved as a foundational pillar of our civilization? Have you noticed any softness of support among his gay supporters? Of course not.

How about abortion? When Kerry nods toward the Vatican and says he believes life begins at conception, then, while winking to the pro-aborts, says he can't impose his "articles of faith" on others, does anyone believe that the protection of innocent life remotely approaches an "article of faith" for him? Does anyone pick up the slightest inkling that Kerry is troubled by the killing of babies in the womb?

Do you think there's any love lost between Kerry and the military? He has never withdrawn his institution-wide slander nor apologized for it. He did everything he could to undercut our military, its morale and its mission in Vietnam, and he has done exactly the same thing with Iraq. When he criticizes its performance in Iraq every other day, while saying he respects, honors and supports our troops, does anyone believe he's sincere? Well, I guarantee you his military-loathing base doesn't, nor do many of the troops themselves.

What about that evil deficit? When Kerry rails against the president's unbalanced budgets, does anyone detect a scintilla of conviction that he intends to tackle the problem? He would spend our money like a drunken sailor and everyone in his dependency constituencies knows it -- or they'd be complaining.

How about his misspoken pledge to support judges who are neither liberal nor conservative and who would not legislate from the bench? Do you think his activist-promoting Democrat colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee are buying that one?

And if he is really sincere that his faith will guide his every action in office, why are the radical secularists uniformly supporting him?

Do you think his antiwar supporters are the least bit troubled when he puts his war paint on, puffs out his chest, and says he'll hunt down and kill all the terrorists?

Kerry's biggest challenge in this election is to woo the gullible class just enough not to make his nutty base think he might be serious. If that fails, it will have to be election mischief and litigation.

Well I guess this is the October Surprise. Let's step forward ladies....equal rights mean equal responsibilities. Hey, Senator Rangel, no need for a draft now, we just doubled our man?power. What's that you say, Mr. Moore? "Now were sending both our poor sons and daughters to die in Fallujeh?"

The Mind of the Left Part 1

I have come to believe there are two types of people in the world. Those who love and own their freedom; and those who, deep down, fear it. It seems many people in our society only pay lip service to the idea of freedom. They have no problem with the idea of freedom, but the reality scares the hell out of them.
When you break it down, freedom is all about choice. It is the ability of an individual to choose for themselves his or her own path. Physically, verbally, intellectually, religiously, etc. But there are those among us who fear choice. Fear it for themselves, and worse, fear it for others. They would rather some outside force make the decisions for them and others of what the proper action should be in any given situation. They believe in control rather than choice. This is the seed of their neurosis. And it is because of this that we are neck deep in laws in this country.
Where does this idea of ceding control come from? Fear. The fear of responsibility. The fear of life. The fear of failure.
Here is the mindset:
If freedom is choice and it is my responsibility to choose, what if I were to choose wrong? What if my choices lead to negative consequences? Well, then I would be responsible for those out comes. I can’t have that. But if I can cede control to mother government to make me and others act in a specific way, according to her laws, then I will be free from any responsibility. Any negative outcome is the fault of the law and I am off the hook.
This person is more than happy to cede control to an outside force just to keep his or her psyche safe. You see, it is both easier and safer for him to hand over his freedom to another. For if he did not, he would have to look inside himself for strength and conviction…and what if they are were there? That is what he fears.
And what of those who fear life itself. Whose neurosis can not stand the chaotic messiness of it all? They believe that if there could just be a law to cover every unpleasant event in life then life would be that much easier. They would give up freedom for peace of mind. And, as with any neurosis, this only ever leads to failure. Because, of course, life cannot be controlled.
They think: If we mandate seat belts we’ll save every accident victim…yet still people die. OK, then we’ll mandate air bags, still people die. Then child safety seats, that’ll do it. Nope, still dying. Side impact air bags, Onstar, sonar. Where does it end? Here’s an aside: LIFE IS 100% LETHAL. Even mother government can’t protect you from that fact. But I’m not saying any of these options would be bad to have, but that they should be just that…options.
Now I can’t read minds, but I know what some of you are thinking, “But what about the morons who choose not to use these life safety devices, surely they must be forced to do so.” I say to you, if these are your thoughts, then you are a tyrant. That you fear the freedom of others. That you long for control. That you are that same person who screams first Amendment rights, yet would have those same rights taken from those who disagree with you. That you would force your thoughts and beliefs on others by the law of the land. Ask yourself, now, in a moment of truthfulness; “Then, do I truly believe in freedom?”
And still we have the fear of failure. Those who hate the successful because they themselves lack the will and courage to take a chance. They scream class warfare as they hide in their self made bunkers. This country gives them the freedom to choose to strive to succeed, yet they are afraid they cannot. So they don’t even try. And those that have tried and are thriving must be torn down as they are a bitter reminder of their own fears.
It is obvious to me we need fewer of these people. Fewer of them; and more of we, who do not fear freedom. We, who love life however it shows itself. We, who understand pain and mourning are a part of that very life. We, who believe our freedom comes from the creator not the government. We, who will stand for up for ourselves. Who will own our responsibility. Who do not fear our neighbors. Who love our country. Who would die for our freedoms.

Is It Gay To Have a Man Crush on Winston Churchill?

"Any man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains."

Empty Promises

That didn’t take long. Apparently now Canadians are beginning to have some problems with U.S. citizens buying their drugs. Interesting. It seems that:
1) It may cause shortages, and
2) They fear rising prices of their own supply.
Of course any person with a somewhat logical mind, not encumbered by the politics of fear and narcissism, would have been able to see through this ploy from the onset.
When the first politician forwarded the idea of cheaper drugs from Canada, one should have asked them selves why they are cheaper there to begin with. The main reason (not the one you wacko anti profit people are thinking right now) is they buy in bulk. There is socialized medicine in Canada and the government buys their drugs in large quantities, thereby getting a better price. For those of you having been taught in government schools, this is kind of like the savings you receive when buying from Sams Club or Costco. The more you buy the cheaper the product.
So now it seems the Canadians are afraid that the drug companies may raise their prices. And fellow campers, that is exactly what will happen. You do not need a PHD in economics to understand this. Companies run on, dare I say it, profit. When their profit is endangered, they normally do one of two main things, raise prices or cut employees. Since there will still be the same amount of drugs needed, they will not cut employees, they will raise prices. And Canada, not having been taught in US schools understands this. If they allow US citizens to buy drugs through the Canadian system they can expect their prices to rise. And in the interest of self preservation, they will not allow this to happen. And you know what? Your politicians knew that…or at least they should have. They are either lying to you or they are ignorant. I’m not sure which I prefer.
But of course, we the people should have realized that. We should have seen through the empty promises made by the power mongers. Oh, did I say we….

Secret Meeting

Well here we go again….the issue that would not die-“A War For Oil.” It’s been popping up on the airwaves as of late so I guess I must comment on it. Well that, and I’m tired of Anonymous posting his letters to Mr. Rather on my website. So here it is an overheard secret meeting of the DNC.

Madeleine Albright: Now John, we have only 14 days until the election and we have yet to hammer the bush administration on an issue very important to our base.

George Stephanopoulos: What are you talking about, Madeline. We’ve scared the elderly with the Bush regimes threat of stealing their social security…

Dan Rather: Yes, and we’ve struck fear in the hearts of the young voters with GW’s secret plan for a draft….’The January Surprise’…my idea by the way.

Jon Stewart: And we’ve got the middle class wetting themselves in the fear of outsourcing, no healthcare, and the brutal economy.

Ms. Albright: Yes, but we’ve left our constituency in the cold on one key issue they hold dear…The War For Oil.

John Kerry: Ah, yes, how could we have let this slip? Someone’s head will roll….

Ted Koppel: But, Mr. President…er…uh..I mean Mr. Kerry, we can still hit them hard on this issue.

Kerry: Yes, Ted, you have an idea…

Mr. Koppel: Well how about this as a lead line on Nightline tonight….John Kerry stated in Ohio today:

“As every American is aware George Bush rushed into this war, rushed in without an exit strategy. Yes, my fellow Americans he has rushed into the War for Oil! His administration is so inept, they could not even get the War for Oil right. Have you seen the gas prices lately? They are astronomical. He has attacked and taken over an entire country just to appease his oil buddies and instead of the prices at the pump going lower, they have risen. He and his ilk of heavy-handed bunglers could not even properly handle a simple conspiracy. Well, my fellow Americans, we can do better. Under a John Kerry presidency we will not only fight the War for Oil, we will win it. We have a plan.”


Kerry: Ted, I like it. Any other ideas?

Maureen Dowd: How about this…for the women’s vote. A War for Oil of Olay! We women would love it. We could arrest the spread of insurgents and wrinkles all in one fell swoop!

Susan Sarandon: Yeah, and along the same lines…A War for Baby Oil…Just think, then we wouldn’t have to be killing babies to get it!

Bruce Springsteen: Uh, how ‘bout a War for the Houston Oiler’s” then…

John Mellencamp: Bruce, they’re the Texans now, you idiot!

Kerry: Enough! These are all good ideas. I’ll pass them by Ted Kennedy and if he gives the OK, we’re all good.

Well, as you can see, the great minds are hare at work planning for a better America.

Media's Responsibility?

Does the media bear any responsibility to the public for what it puts forward? In what it allows on its pages, it’s airwaves, it’s screens? Or can it put out any insane idea or nut bag rant and leave it to the public to find its validity? And is ‘truth’ a first amendment issue?
Take Michael Moore’s ‘documentary ‘ for example. Is it his first amendment right to put forward his propaganda as fact? Does he have any responsibility for the false ideas he implants in the minds of his viewers?
How about Dan Rather’s forged documents? CBS’s own experts told them that there were problems with these documents. But Mr. Rather went forward with the story anyway. Should he at least have informed his viewers that there were questions involving those documents? Should he have told his audience to take the story with a grain of salt? Or should he, as he did, state the story as fact and require his viewers to do the fact checking?
On NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” on December 1, 2003 Howard Dean stated the following in reference to George Bush’s foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

"I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?"

If it can’t be proved then why repeat it? What responsibility does Mr. Dean hold, if any, by repeating this conspiracy theory over the air? And what responsibility does Ms. Rehm own in not questioning it?
This line of questioning hit home with me recently, as I was turned on by a friend to a radio talk show that transmits in the area where I reside. AM 1280 out of Aurora, Il has a morning show hosted by Paul Morgan…it is an open forum call in show. The friend stated he had heard many strange calls ranging from the conspiratorial to the outright insane. Callers would complain that President Bush had destroyed the air, the drinking water, and killed all the animals. Another stated that the Bush family was part of the Trilateral Commission, a secretive group who supposedly has had a hand in nearly every evil ever committed in the world. One even went so far as saying Bush has destroyed every thing so badly there was ‘just no reason to live’. Throughout all this rambling Mr. Morgan either said nothing or groaned in an approving manner. He never interrupted these callers to question their credibility or that of their inane prattle.
This, to put it mildly, somewhat upset me…so here is what I did. I called the station in question, got through, and stated that I had scientific proof that George Bush was destroying the oceans. The screener put me on hold and I waited my turn to go on the air. My turn came soon enough and here is what I said:

“I have 2 points to make,” I stated. “First, I recently found out that the moon is moving away from the Earth at nearly 2 inches per day. The moon works the tides on the Earth and without the tides all the animals in the oceans will die. George Bush has been president for three plus years and he has done nothing. GEORGE BUSH IS DESTROYING THE OCEANS.”

Mr. Morgan let me rant without interruption so I made my second point:

“And two, sir, you just let me state over the airwaves that George Bush was destroying the oceans because he did nothing about the moon moving away from the Earth. You let me spout this insane theory without stopping me or saying how crazy that sounds.”

He replied that he new how ‘goofy’ I sounded when he took my original call, but it was my first amendment right to say anything I wanted. He then cut me off and referred to me to a later caller as a ‘goof.’ Did this man have no responsibility to the truth? No responsibility to his listeners to differentiate truth and insanity for them? Or do the listeners have the responsibility to fact check? Is it my first amendment right to lie to the public?
These are important questions. Especially now, in our current divided political environment, it is important to strive for some straight answers. We see that there are no more Edward R. Murrows in our newsrooms, no men we can innately trust. Our media has changed and not for the better.
In closing…Whatever other answers we do find this much I’m sure of: That media has shirked its responsibility to the people who entrust it in favor of advancing it’s own agenda.

2nd Letter to Dan Rather @ CBS News

Dear Mr. Rather,

I am still waiting for a reply from you or your people in regards to my last correspondence. I’m sure there has just been some sort of mix up or maybe one of your producers did not understand the importance of the story. So I am resending it to you along with my latest earthshaking story on the reprehensible actions of the Bush regime.

It has been learned today through a confidential source that George Bush and his science advisor John H. Marburger, met recently at Mr. Bush’s estate outside of Abilene Texas. This source has forwarded this record of the conversation between the two:

Bush: He He He…you wanted to see me?

Marburger: Cheney sent me. We were discussing what to do about the Social Security crisis as per your edict.

Bush: OOOOOH Cheney…I like that guy.

Marburger: Yeah, well. He seemed to like an idea I’d had and thought you might be interested.

Bush: Interested, yeah interested…I hope it involves furry monkeys.

Marburger: Uh..No..sorry sir….

Bush: He He He…monkeys are funny…

Marburger: Yes sir, but I’m here about the Social Security problem. You sent a memo asking your advisors if they had any ideas on how to solve it.

Bush: Memo, huh? That’s a funny word ‘Memo.’…

Marburger: Of course it is sir, but about Social Security…

Bush: Oh, you mean Social Security…well son that’s serious business. ya’ know hard work…by hard workin’ people…workin’ hard…

Marburger: Well, yes it is sir, but…

Bush: And you’re here with a plan I’ll betcha…

Marburger: Yes sir. Very good. That is correct. I believe there is a way to lower the amount of government expenditures to the beneficiaries….

Bush: ‘Beneficiaries’, that’s a big Yankee word ain’t it?

Marburger: Uh….yes?

Bush: OK, so who are ya’ again.

Marburger: I’m your Science advisor, Marburger, sir…..

Bush: Marburger, eh, is that some kinda Angus….

Marburger: Sir, the issue of Social Security…

Bush: Yeah, he he he, you got us ‘a plan fer it.

Marburger: Yes sir. Who is it that receives the most from the Social Security Fund?

Bush: I know this one. It’s old folks.

Marburger: Uh huh….And how could we lower the amount of benefits?

Bush: You’ve done it haven’t you….My God, man, you’ve discovered the fountain of youth!

Marburger: Well, no sir we haven’t. But if we could just get rid of a large number if beneficiaries, then the fund would surely stabilize.

Bush: So no fountain of youth?

Marburger: No sir…

Bush: And no monkeys?

Marburger: No sir…try to concentrate. What do old people need this time of year to survive the winter?

Bush: Igloos? I always wanted an igloo…had one flown down here to the ranch, but it melted,
and windows…they ain’t got no windows…

Marburger: NO SIR…NOT IGLOOS! Flu shots. If we can stop the old people from getting their flu shots many will not survive the winter. Thus saving Social Security..and sir, old people mostly vote Democratic.

Bush: He he he…strategery!

So Dan as you can surmise from the above conversation, the reigning regime is up to no good. The aged
in this country are under attack. It is our duty to get this out, our comrades must be informed.
Oh, and no need to verify the above, I have 2 sources…..the source and of course me….that makes 2, right?
Also, Dan if we can get this out before the election ABC News political director, Mark Halperin, would be positively elated.

Signed,
Anonymous

Hope is on the Way

I originally wanted to wait some period of time before posting this in respect to Mr. Christopher Reeves. However, after this messianic rant by John Edwards on 10-11-04 stating:
“We will stop diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other debilitating diseases…When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”
I can wait no longer.

1) There are 2 types of stem cells, adult and embryonic.
2) Embryonic stem cells have yet to cure or even aid in the cure of any disease.
3) Many scientists feel clinical use of embryonic stem cell research is many years away from producing results.
4) Adult stem cells from bone marrow and cord blood are already being used successfully.
5) Adult stem cells have been used in treatments for cancer, arthritis, lupus, and in making new corneas.
6) Adult stem cells have been shown to repair neurons on the brains of mice and repair heart tissue in both mice and pigs.
7) Stem cells taken from liposuction patients have been transformed into bone, muscle, cartilage, and mature fat cells.
8) The National Institutes of Health states:
“Published scientific papers indicated that adult stem cells have been identified in brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, epithelia of the skin and digestive system, cornea, dental pulp of the tooth, retina, liver, and pancreas." Basically anywhere scientists have looked.
9) Adult stem cells taken from the same patient have no chance of transplant rejection.
10) Embryonic stem cells would require life long use of drugs to prevent rejection…unless taken from a clone of the patient.
11) A viable embryo, or in the future a clone, must first be ‘manufactured’ in order to cultivate embryonic stem cells. An embryo is killed in this process.
12) The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 12, that scientists have been frustrated by their inability to get stem cells to grow into endoderm (the cells that make up the liver, stomach and pancreas), whereas they can coax them to become heart and nerve tissue.
"Scientists speculate," the Journal explained, "that might be because the embryo early on needs blood and nerve tissue to grow, while endoderm-based organs aren't needed until later."
This would mean growing the ‘embryo’ until those types of cells were produced…how far are we willing to let the embryo develop? 1st trimester, 2nd, 3rd?
13) There is no ban on adult stem cell research. None.
14) There is no U.S. ban on embryonic stem cell research. Only on federal funding of such.
15) However, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg and Austria ban it.

Come on, Mr. Edwards enough with the messiah complex…I thought that was for the far right zealots. You are either uninformed on the issue or you are a liar. And to the media, since it seems you are either too lazy or too biased to report the news, maybe you should start adding fine print to your news columns…I’m sure Mr. Edwards would be happy to help you with the wording. But for the rest of us…Hope is on the Way!!!

Subtle Revolution

Here’s a question. How do you take over a country without firing a shot? What would you need to do? What would you need to control? Could it even be done?
I’m here to say Yes and I believe I’m not the only one who knows it.
Nonetheless, here is what I’d do:
1) Gain control of the schools. If you can control education you will eventually own the minds of the next generations. There will be those, obviously, with strong family backgrounds that will be able to fight off the indoctrination; but most will easily succumb. Teach socialism, false tolerance, and victimhood. Attack individualism and mock independence. Teach a fear of life, a fear of failure, a fear of the future. Oppose personal responsibility and advocate rationalization. Preach fallacious self-esteem. Make Good Sheep.
And when these young grow and begin to find their lives some will most certainly choose to teach. Quickly, then get them tenure!
This done now for the next step:
2) Take over the media. This need not be done with gun-toting thugs controlling the airwaves. You’ve just to unleash your new brood of sheep. Let them find jobs as newsmen, on editorial boards, as movie and television producers, and writers and artists. Therein lies the true power. Despots of the past, and even those today, have known you control the minds by controlling their stimuli. Stimuli in the hands of those you’ve previously personally indoctrinated. Of course, there may be some who will see through the propaganda spewed by your willing sheep, but most will follow the herd.
This of course is the point you take control over the rabble and here’s how:
3) Make promises to the stupid and lazy allowing them to not have to change. “I’ll give you what you rightly deserve. No need to work hard or strive for a better life. It is your right and you will get it from me. I will take care of you. No need to grow up.”
and
4) Give them someone to blame. “It is not fair that this Jaguar driving greed bag has what you do not. Follow me and I’ll take what’s his(he has too much anyway and probably got it immorally) and give it to you. He only has because you have not. He doesn’t deserve it. You do!”
and
5) Never let anyone make judgments. Tear down all values. Scoff at the idea of personal evil…Hate the sin not the sinner. Never injure self-esteem with any idea as petty as that of 'responsibility for actions'.
There you have it, follow these tactics and it’s just a matter of time. You see, you only really need to fool 51% of the people. And we both know how stupid and unable most sheep really are…that’s why you OWE it to them to run their lives in the first place. Right? Well, just put these strategies into action and soon the drivel will be under your control. And you will never have fired a shot.

Homerism

"Marge, don't discourage the boy ! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ! Except the weasel."

Ode to Mr. Edwards

I had a novel idea the other day. This surprised me as I have come to believe, through the study of philosophy and thought, that there are no new ideas just new names for them. It is an idea, judging by the flow of our societies tide, who’s time has come. But first some pointed background.

Point 1. Most of us know of someone or worse have ourselves been the victim of a civil lawsuit. This is a process more of who can financially hold out the longest than in any search for justice. There are lawyers who will attempt to get extension after extension on a case just to lengthen the time a person must pay for his own legal defense. This, many times, causes a settlement just because the settlement is cheaper than retaining the legal representation.
Point 2. You can not pick up the paper, watch the news, or open your mail without hearing about some new class action lawsuit about something or other. The problem with this, as most of us know, is that when damages are paid out most of the money goes to the lawyers. How many times have we heard of million dollar settlements and the actual victims receive a check for 37 cents?
Point 3. It has long been understood that we have 2 justice systems in this country. There’s one for the rich and there’s one for the rest of us. Time and time again the rich, by the ability to afford the most expensive lawyers and teams of lawyers, have gotten off on charges that would have sent any of the rest of us to jail for life.
Point 4. There is a crusade in this country right now to push for socialization of many things that used to be an individuals responsibility but now are considered a persons ‘rights’. I.E. “I have a ‘right’ to medical care, a ‘right’ to pharmaceuticals…the government should pay for them!”

I wonder how many of you after reading these points have had the same epiphany I recently enjoyed…or maybe the brainwashing runs too deep. Well, for those of you who may not have figured it out, here is my great idea. A SOCIALIZED LEGAL PROFESSION!!!!
This would, in one fell swoop, fix the problems innate in all the above points.
Point 1…justice would again be done as each person involved would have representation throughout the full process of any civil suit.
Point 2…If all lawyers are paid a yearly rate, say $50,000.00, then the cash amount of any settlement will go to those who deserve it-the victims.
Point 3…All lawyers would be free to the people and chosen by whoever would be up next on the docket, thereby leveling the playing field for the rich and the poor.
Point 4…There is no clause in the Bill of Rights for medical care, but there is one for legal defense. So I ask, why not?
Well here’s why not. Because in this great country, unfortunately, the lawyers make the laws. How many congressmen, how many governors, how many justices, how many presidents and presidential candidates are lawyers? Do you believe any lawyer would vote for such a zany idea?
When it comes right down to it, it shouldn’t surprise me that this is such a novel idea. I have come to believe that it’s not that no one has ever come up with it, just that anyone who has is somewhat hard to locate. And because of this I am sending this letter to as many people as I can and posting it on the internet. Unless, of course, some faceless group of lawyers tenders me an offer of a little hush money.
*For the slow witted, the above is meant as sarcasm and irony. Or is it?