From Glenn Beck:
The Real Story: Iraq
Last night on TV we ran a new video essay called "The Real Story: Iraq"and we've now made it available for free on our website. The video shows the other side of the war in Iraq: the pictures you've never seen before and the amazing accomplishments you've never heard about before.
We're trying to share this side of the story with as many people as possible, so please help us by sending this email around to everyone you know who is tired of the constant news about violence, death tolls and insurgents.
View the video at: www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml
Friday, October 27, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The "other" Washington's war on naturopathy
If you've been reading the Daily Dose (or my newsletter) for any length of time at all, you're already aware of the conspiracy to limit your healthcare choices foisted on us by the crackpots we send to represent us in Washington, D.C... Their goal: Forcing you to submit to the mainstream's hazardous drugs and needless scalpelings - so they can continue to rake in billions of dollars in approval fees, sales tax revenues, and corporate taxes on the industries that thrive on this racket (insurance companies, drug companies, hospital systems, etc.).
In this column, I've tried to sound the alarm about the hundreds of ways - some direct, some downright cloak-and-dagger - that Big Brother has attempted to limit your access to alternative medical treatments and therapies. So far, it has been like the proverbial "death by a thousand cuts."
But to keep things in perspective, so far the "powers that be" here in the U.S. haven't yet really launched a massive offensive against natural or holistic cures. Only a few (like ephedra) have been banned, and some others (like some red yeast rice extracts) forced to withdraw from the market because of their chemical similarities to certain prescription drugs...
There are reasons why we're not in an all-out war over alternative medicine treatments right now. Among these are the facts that drug makers are still raking in huge profits on almost every pill they can make, insurance companies are still finding that they can force the cost of medicine higher so they can jack up premiums, and there are still enough sick people to fill the schedules of every wet-behind-the-ears doctor they can ram through medical school. But that could all change any day now - especially if alternative therapies gain much more market share.
Currently, half of all Americans use some form of alternative (also called complementary) medicine - whether it's chiropractic care, natural hormone replacement, nutritional therapy, or the use of aggressive dietary supplementation with vitamins, minerals, or other substances. And according to Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., a friend and trusted colleague of mine, such a fight for medical rights may soon be upon us, if what's happening in his home state of Washington is any indication of things to come. Keep reading...
Washington's ironically named Medical Quality Assurance Commission has launched simultaneous investigations into a third of the doctors comprising that state's membership of the American College for Advancement in Medicine - the largest holistic physicians group in the nation, with over 1,000 members. The inquiries stem from a single complaint by a patient against a holistic physician (a bona-fide M.D., like myself) who dared to suggest that he undergo a course of harmless electro-dermal stimulation to help desensitize his body to the food allergies that plagued him.
Mind you, the patient didn't actually RECEIVE the low-voltage EAV procedure, only a recommendation and demonstration of it... Yet once the Washington MQAC got wind of this, they lowered the boom on this poor doc - leveling at him charges of professional misconduct, intrastate and interstate commerce violations, plus an unreal charge of "moral turpitude."
That's right - the same label pedophiles, sex offenders, and prostitutes get! What's even more mind-boggling than these nonsensical charges is what they've done to this doctor's practice, reputation, career, and livelihood.
To recap, merely for suggesting to a patient a treatment for food allergies not sanctioned by the mainstream (electro-dermal stimulation, or EAV), this conventionally trained M.D. has been charged with unprofessional conduct, commerce violations, and "moral turpitude" - the criminal equivalent of being a sex offender!
Keep in mind that this treatment, though not conventionally accepted and not guaranteed to succeed, is nonetheless harmless and as far as I know, has not been banned by the FDA or any other regulatory agency and is completely LEGAL... But that didn't stop the Washington state MQAC (pronounced "M-quack") from slapping the wayward M.D. with a 5-year suspension of his medical license - even though the "moral turpitude" and illegal commerce charges were dropped soon after the investigation into this hapless healer's practice began!
As well, the fines and penalties levied against him remain in force throughout the appeals process, which will likely take years. Beyond this, the Commission (which is convened without ANY representation from the holistic medical community, of course) is requiring that the good doctor meet with them every six months to prove he's practicing their brand of medicine - plus provide proof that he's treating his allergy patients without employing his EAV device.
Does this sound fair to you? I mean, are mainstream doctors threatened with license suspension for prescribing deadly drugs like Vioxx? Are they charged with immorality for hooking our kids on ADHD meds and antidepressants? Are they pounded with fines and penalties for deceiving us into believing that chemotherapy will help us to survive cancer?
As usual, the holistic approach to healing is crucified for not being scientifically proven effective 100% of the time, and mainstream treatment is NOT held to account for "cures" that kill and main us by the hundreds of thousands per year. Yes, it's business as usual in the hallowed halls of "medicine." But there's a way to fight back against this double-standard. Keep reading...
It's especially disconcerting that this kind of persecution of conscientious healers is happening in Washington state, a region known to be sympathetic to alternative medicine (as is the entire west coast). Indeed, Washington and Oregon are home to more naturopaths per capita than any other U.S. states...
But there's hope. If enough people raise enough of a stir, it's conceivable that Washingtonians could force the passage of a law similar to that which not long ago passed the Alaska state legislature: A bill aimed at protecting alternative doctors from unwarranted sanction by the medical establishment - including the state's medical board. The same goes for other states.
Even if the bureau-fat-cats in your state aren't yet loosing the dogs of war against naturopaths in your state, they will as soon as they start smelling the money that's increasingly headed the way of alternative doctors... Make no mistake, a war over medicine is coming. I believe that this Washington affair will indeed prove to be the first shot fired in a long and bloody (literally) conflict between the pill and scalpel medical establishment and the centuries old - yet in some ways cutting edge and brand new - science of natural healing.
If you want to get a jump on things to help fortify the natural position, call or write your representatives, or even your governor. And if you want to help out naturopaths in Washington by relaying your positive experiences with EAV or other alt-medicine treatments to those accountable for this current witch-hunt, contact: Washington State Department of Health, Health Professions Quality Assurance P.O. Box 47865 Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 236-4700 hpqa.csc@doh.wa.gov
This is a fight we should make, folks. All across the nation. NOW. To read more about the persecution holistic doctors in Washington are facing, go to http://www.wrightnewsletter.com and click on "WAR on holistic MDs."
Doing my part - to save medicine's heart, William Campbell Douglass II, MD
In this column, I've tried to sound the alarm about the hundreds of ways - some direct, some downright cloak-and-dagger - that Big Brother has attempted to limit your access to alternative medical treatments and therapies. So far, it has been like the proverbial "death by a thousand cuts."
But to keep things in perspective, so far the "powers that be" here in the U.S. haven't yet really launched a massive offensive against natural or holistic cures. Only a few (like ephedra) have been banned, and some others (like some red yeast rice extracts) forced to withdraw from the market because of their chemical similarities to certain prescription drugs...
There are reasons why we're not in an all-out war over alternative medicine treatments right now. Among these are the facts that drug makers are still raking in huge profits on almost every pill they can make, insurance companies are still finding that they can force the cost of medicine higher so they can jack up premiums, and there are still enough sick people to fill the schedules of every wet-behind-the-ears doctor they can ram through medical school. But that could all change any day now - especially if alternative therapies gain much more market share.
Currently, half of all Americans use some form of alternative (also called complementary) medicine - whether it's chiropractic care, natural hormone replacement, nutritional therapy, or the use of aggressive dietary supplementation with vitamins, minerals, or other substances. And according to Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., a friend and trusted colleague of mine, such a fight for medical rights may soon be upon us, if what's happening in his home state of Washington is any indication of things to come. Keep reading...
Washington's ironically named Medical Quality Assurance Commission has launched simultaneous investigations into a third of the doctors comprising that state's membership of the American College for Advancement in Medicine - the largest holistic physicians group in the nation, with over 1,000 members. The inquiries stem from a single complaint by a patient against a holistic physician (a bona-fide M.D., like myself) who dared to suggest that he undergo a course of harmless electro-dermal stimulation to help desensitize his body to the food allergies that plagued him.
Mind you, the patient didn't actually RECEIVE the low-voltage EAV procedure, only a recommendation and demonstration of it... Yet once the Washington MQAC got wind of this, they lowered the boom on this poor doc - leveling at him charges of professional misconduct, intrastate and interstate commerce violations, plus an unreal charge of "moral turpitude."
That's right - the same label pedophiles, sex offenders, and prostitutes get! What's even more mind-boggling than these nonsensical charges is what they've done to this doctor's practice, reputation, career, and livelihood.
To recap, merely for suggesting to a patient a treatment for food allergies not sanctioned by the mainstream (electro-dermal stimulation, or EAV), this conventionally trained M.D. has been charged with unprofessional conduct, commerce violations, and "moral turpitude" - the criminal equivalent of being a sex offender!
Keep in mind that this treatment, though not conventionally accepted and not guaranteed to succeed, is nonetheless harmless and as far as I know, has not been banned by the FDA or any other regulatory agency and is completely LEGAL... But that didn't stop the Washington state MQAC (pronounced "M-quack") from slapping the wayward M.D. with a 5-year suspension of his medical license - even though the "moral turpitude" and illegal commerce charges were dropped soon after the investigation into this hapless healer's practice began!
As well, the fines and penalties levied against him remain in force throughout the appeals process, which will likely take years. Beyond this, the Commission (which is convened without ANY representation from the holistic medical community, of course) is requiring that the good doctor meet with them every six months to prove he's practicing their brand of medicine - plus provide proof that he's treating his allergy patients without employing his EAV device.
Does this sound fair to you? I mean, are mainstream doctors threatened with license suspension for prescribing deadly drugs like Vioxx? Are they charged with immorality for hooking our kids on ADHD meds and antidepressants? Are they pounded with fines and penalties for deceiving us into believing that chemotherapy will help us to survive cancer?
As usual, the holistic approach to healing is crucified for not being scientifically proven effective 100% of the time, and mainstream treatment is NOT held to account for "cures" that kill and main us by the hundreds of thousands per year. Yes, it's business as usual in the hallowed halls of "medicine." But there's a way to fight back against this double-standard. Keep reading...
It's especially disconcerting that this kind of persecution of conscientious healers is happening in Washington state, a region known to be sympathetic to alternative medicine (as is the entire west coast). Indeed, Washington and Oregon are home to more naturopaths per capita than any other U.S. states...
But there's hope. If enough people raise enough of a stir, it's conceivable that Washingtonians could force the passage of a law similar to that which not long ago passed the Alaska state legislature: A bill aimed at protecting alternative doctors from unwarranted sanction by the medical establishment - including the state's medical board. The same goes for other states.
Even if the bureau-fat-cats in your state aren't yet loosing the dogs of war against naturopaths in your state, they will as soon as they start smelling the money that's increasingly headed the way of alternative doctors... Make no mistake, a war over medicine is coming. I believe that this Washington affair will indeed prove to be the first shot fired in a long and bloody (literally) conflict between the pill and scalpel medical establishment and the centuries old - yet in some ways cutting edge and brand new - science of natural healing.
If you want to get a jump on things to help fortify the natural position, call or write your representatives, or even your governor. And if you want to help out naturopaths in Washington by relaying your positive experiences with EAV or other alt-medicine treatments to those accountable for this current witch-hunt, contact: Washington State Department of Health, Health Professions Quality Assurance P.O. Box 47865 Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 236-4700 hpqa.csc@doh.wa.gov
This is a fight we should make, folks. All across the nation. NOW. To read more about the persecution holistic doctors in Washington are facing, go to http://www.wrightnewsletter.com and click on "WAR on holistic MDs."
Doing my part - to save medicine's heart, William Campbell Douglass II, MD
An overlooked yet obvious cause of ADHD
I love it when the establishment media trumpets research findings that support unpopular theories I've been putting forth for years. Not to boast, but it really shows how far ahead of the pack I am - and you are, for reading me. (OK, so I'm boasting...)
That's exactly what happened this past week - a major mainstream news outlet reported evidence that adds even more credence to an assertion I've been making about ADHD ever since it became the disease-du-jour for lazy parents and even lazier psychiatrists (around 15 years ago). Of course, I'm going to tell you exactly how, but first you need a little background...
If you've been a Daily Dose reader (or a Douglass Report reader) for any length of time at all, you've heard me ranting many times before about how ADD/ADHD is - in the vast majority of treated cases - a completely MADE-UP diagnosis.
I've mostly been attributing the explosion in diagnoses of this "disease" to a pair of coinciding seismic cultural shifts: First, the marginalization of traditional parenting skills - as in both tolerance AND discipline - at the hands of a "blameless society" phenomenon that's been sweeping an increasingly multicultural, welfare-state America for the last 20 years.
This guiltless, anything-goes, "I'm OK you're OK" panacea movement absolves parents of almost all accountability for their childrearing, shifting blame for anyone's perceived shortcomings (parents' and kids' alike) to schools, the system, or the evils of healthy, natural competition. Second, booms in both the self-help pop psychology industry and the drug-driven psychiatric profession. After all, hack authors need crises to write books and articles about - and hack head-shrinks need "diseases" to treat, even if they have to make them up.
These influences conspire to brainwash haggard parents into believing that there's something wrong with their kids simply because the process of raising them can be trying at times. That just doesn't square with images of the child-rearing experience they see on TV, in the movies, or on the covers of Perfect Parent and Happy Kids magazines. The combined end result of both of these things is this: Perfectly normal childhood behaviors (like rambunctious-ness and a short attention span) get reclassified as ADHD, resulting in multiple addictive prescriptions being doled out - Ritalin for "unruly" kids and Valium for the "stressed-out" parents. Keep reading...
Due to these two contemporary trends, our culture has all but lost sight of the dual realities that 1) Kids are supposed to be a rip-roaring pain in the rump sometimes, and 2) that parenting isn't always supposed to be a stress-free picnic for all involved.
Because this plurality has vanished on a sweeping scale from the radar screens of parents and those who advise them in the U.S. of A., a whole lot of people (psychiatrists, book publishers, and the fat cats at Big Pharma to name a few) are making a whole lot of money... Meanwhile, the poor kids who are unjustly branded as sufferers of ADHD simply because their parents are insecure and lazy - or their doctors are greedy and lazy themselves - suffer the addiction and ultimately REAL psychological effects this trendy "imbalance" has stamped into the consciousness of an entire generation of Americans.
Winners: Big Pharma, the parasitic self-help industry, and mainstream medicine. Losers: American kids. OK, so now you know where I'm coming from on the ADHD issue - or you've been reminded of it in summary... In the next Daily Dose, I'll tell you why there may be yet another reason for the rampant modern proliferation of this "disease" - one that is NOT made up by industries that prey on the stress of parenting. It's a factor I haven't talked about very much before, owing to the lack of studies that link it to ADHD diagnosis.
Modern psychiatrists (and clueless parents) are quick to point a finger at phantom chemical imbalances to explain why their perfectly normal kids are "hyperactive" or "attention-challenged." But as you now know from part 1 of this essay, I am quick to point my finger at the Big-Pharma-driven medical establishment, the self-help industry and the cultural castration of American parenting for these rampant diagnoses.
However, as you're about to discover, there's a third possible causal factor that I've only barely touched on in the past - mostly because I didn't want to de-emphasize the role bad parenting and allopathic medicine have played in the ADHD boom. It's the number one enemy to children today on multiple medical fronts... SUGAR.
According to Reuters, some recent Norwegian research shows a clear, linear link between hyperactivity among teens and their consumption of sugared soft drinks. The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, focused on more than 5,000 15- and 16-year-olds of both sexes. Those who drank the greatest number of sugary sodas each day reported the worst symptoms of hyperactivity (especially if they skipped breakfast) - and vice versa.
Also, those who gulped the most soft drinks displayed the most behavioral and mental problems... Hmmm. Teenage hyperactivity, mental distress, and behavioral issues. Sounds a lot like a certain over-diagnosed childhood disease here in America, doesn't it? Of course, I've alluded before that sugar consumption and ADHD may be linked. But now that there's a large-scale study linking the key symptoms of the disease directly to sugar consumption via soft drinks, I feel like there's now just cause to point a third finger of blame (the first two are aimed at parents and doctors) squarely at sweets. Keep reading...
It makes perfect sense when you think about it: Every year, kids are exposed to more and more commercials for soda pop and candy. And judging by juvenile obesity rates, more and more of them every year are unable to resist these siren songs that spur them to gorge on sweets.
Add into this mix the modern American de-emphasis on Phys-Ed and sports - things that give kids healthy outlets to burn off both their sugar and their excess energy - and you've got a recipe for hopped-up teens and pre-teens with neither the ability (because they're so fat) or the channels to blow off their sugar buzzes... Which makes them bounce off walls at home and drive their already shackled-by-the-PC-system parents to medicate them for ADHD!
So what can you do to help protect your kids and grandkids? If anyone - a teacher, a pediatrician, a guidance counselor, or even another parent or grandparent - suggests that they have or display symptoms of ADHD, get them off sugar for six months before you even begin to entertain the notion that it may be true. If true chemical ADHD exists at all, it's very rare, in my opinion.
At any rate, it's a far cry from the multitudes of diagnoses that have zoomed upward over the last 15 years in virtual lock step with both obesity rates AND the expansion of soft drink advertising beyond simple TV spots and billboards - to movie previews, i-Pod downloads, "extreme" sporting event sponsorships, and on and on and on...
Of course, I probably don't need to tell you that getting any child you know to kick the "sugar monkey" off his back is a good thing - whether they're being sized up for a Ritalin prescription or not! Giving you the hard truth about the "soft-drink disease,"
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
That's exactly what happened this past week - a major mainstream news outlet reported evidence that adds even more credence to an assertion I've been making about ADHD ever since it became the disease-du-jour for lazy parents and even lazier psychiatrists (around 15 years ago). Of course, I'm going to tell you exactly how, but first you need a little background...
If you've been a Daily Dose reader (or a Douglass Report reader) for any length of time at all, you've heard me ranting many times before about how ADD/ADHD is - in the vast majority of treated cases - a completely MADE-UP diagnosis.
I've mostly been attributing the explosion in diagnoses of this "disease" to a pair of coinciding seismic cultural shifts: First, the marginalization of traditional parenting skills - as in both tolerance AND discipline - at the hands of a "blameless society" phenomenon that's been sweeping an increasingly multicultural, welfare-state America for the last 20 years.
This guiltless, anything-goes, "I'm OK you're OK" panacea movement absolves parents of almost all accountability for their childrearing, shifting blame for anyone's perceived shortcomings (parents' and kids' alike) to schools, the system, or the evils of healthy, natural competition. Second, booms in both the self-help pop psychology industry and the drug-driven psychiatric profession. After all, hack authors need crises to write books and articles about - and hack head-shrinks need "diseases" to treat, even if they have to make them up.
These influences conspire to brainwash haggard parents into believing that there's something wrong with their kids simply because the process of raising them can be trying at times. That just doesn't square with images of the child-rearing experience they see on TV, in the movies, or on the covers of Perfect Parent and Happy Kids magazines. The combined end result of both of these things is this: Perfectly normal childhood behaviors (like rambunctious-ness and a short attention span) get reclassified as ADHD, resulting in multiple addictive prescriptions being doled out - Ritalin for "unruly" kids and Valium for the "stressed-out" parents. Keep reading...
Due to these two contemporary trends, our culture has all but lost sight of the dual realities that 1) Kids are supposed to be a rip-roaring pain in the rump sometimes, and 2) that parenting isn't always supposed to be a stress-free picnic for all involved.
Because this plurality has vanished on a sweeping scale from the radar screens of parents and those who advise them in the U.S. of A., a whole lot of people (psychiatrists, book publishers, and the fat cats at Big Pharma to name a few) are making a whole lot of money... Meanwhile, the poor kids who are unjustly branded as sufferers of ADHD simply because their parents are insecure and lazy - or their doctors are greedy and lazy themselves - suffer the addiction and ultimately REAL psychological effects this trendy "imbalance" has stamped into the consciousness of an entire generation of Americans.
Winners: Big Pharma, the parasitic self-help industry, and mainstream medicine. Losers: American kids. OK, so now you know where I'm coming from on the ADHD issue - or you've been reminded of it in summary... In the next Daily Dose, I'll tell you why there may be yet another reason for the rampant modern proliferation of this "disease" - one that is NOT made up by industries that prey on the stress of parenting. It's a factor I haven't talked about very much before, owing to the lack of studies that link it to ADHD diagnosis.
Modern psychiatrists (and clueless parents) are quick to point a finger at phantom chemical imbalances to explain why their perfectly normal kids are "hyperactive" or "attention-challenged." But as you now know from part 1 of this essay, I am quick to point my finger at the Big-Pharma-driven medical establishment, the self-help industry and the cultural castration of American parenting for these rampant diagnoses.
However, as you're about to discover, there's a third possible causal factor that I've only barely touched on in the past - mostly because I didn't want to de-emphasize the role bad parenting and allopathic medicine have played in the ADHD boom. It's the number one enemy to children today on multiple medical fronts... SUGAR.
According to Reuters, some recent Norwegian research shows a clear, linear link between hyperactivity among teens and their consumption of sugared soft drinks. The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, focused on more than 5,000 15- and 16-year-olds of both sexes. Those who drank the greatest number of sugary sodas each day reported the worst symptoms of hyperactivity (especially if they skipped breakfast) - and vice versa.
Also, those who gulped the most soft drinks displayed the most behavioral and mental problems... Hmmm. Teenage hyperactivity, mental distress, and behavioral issues. Sounds a lot like a certain over-diagnosed childhood disease here in America, doesn't it? Of course, I've alluded before that sugar consumption and ADHD may be linked. But now that there's a large-scale study linking the key symptoms of the disease directly to sugar consumption via soft drinks, I feel like there's now just cause to point a third finger of blame (the first two are aimed at parents and doctors) squarely at sweets. Keep reading...
It makes perfect sense when you think about it: Every year, kids are exposed to more and more commercials for soda pop and candy. And judging by juvenile obesity rates, more and more of them every year are unable to resist these siren songs that spur them to gorge on sweets.
Add into this mix the modern American de-emphasis on Phys-Ed and sports - things that give kids healthy outlets to burn off both their sugar and their excess energy - and you've got a recipe for hopped-up teens and pre-teens with neither the ability (because they're so fat) or the channels to blow off their sugar buzzes... Which makes them bounce off walls at home and drive their already shackled-by-the-PC-system parents to medicate them for ADHD!
So what can you do to help protect your kids and grandkids? If anyone - a teacher, a pediatrician, a guidance counselor, or even another parent or grandparent - suggests that they have or display symptoms of ADHD, get them off sugar for six months before you even begin to entertain the notion that it may be true. If true chemical ADHD exists at all, it's very rare, in my opinion.
At any rate, it's a far cry from the multitudes of diagnoses that have zoomed upward over the last 15 years in virtual lock step with both obesity rates AND the expansion of soft drink advertising beyond simple TV spots and billboards - to movie previews, i-Pod downloads, "extreme" sporting event sponsorships, and on and on and on...
Of course, I probably don't need to tell you that getting any child you know to kick the "sugar monkey" off his back is a good thing - whether they're being sized up for a Ritalin prescription or not! Giving you the hard truth about the "soft-drink disease,"
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Juan Williams Labeled 'Black Ann Coulter'
Juan Williams Labeled 'Black Ann Coulter'
By Ronald Kessler
Since writing a book about the need for African-Americans to take responsibility for their own problems, Juan Williams is now being labeled a "black Ann Coulter" and a turncoat by black leaders and media personalities.
PBS host Tavis Smiley "was going on about how I'm demeaning black people, which I find so incredibly stupid," Williams, an NPR senior correspondent and Fox News commentator, says. "Al Sharpton called me the black Ann Coulter," says Williams.
Williams, who is black, decided to write Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It after Bill Cosby called upon blacks to stop blaming "the white man" for their problems. In the book, which was on The New York Times best-seller list on Sept. 17, Williams comes out swinging against "phony" black leaders and a black "culture of failure."
He lashes out at leaders like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who create support by focusing on "victimhood." "That says to an individual, ‘You can't help yourself; you can't help your family; and therefore all you can do is wait for the government to do something for you,’" says Williams. "I think it is a message of weakness and ineffectual thinking that is absolutely crippling the poor and especially minorities in the United States." The criticism generally comes from "people who think they are being exposed or from academics who just want to pick a fight," Williams said.
His first interview about the book appeared on NewsMax.com on July 27. Williams says he has gotten tremendously positive reaction from people who come up to him and thank him for starting "an important debate." But Erin Aubry Kaplan wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times calling Williams a "posturer" who forgets that the federal government, which was "at best, ambiguous about black equality," failed right along with black leaders.
Williams responded with a piece saying it was easier to blame him than to deal with the "hard fact of a dropout rate now at about 50 percent nationwide for black and Latino students." He said the average black student who graduates from high school reads and does math at an eighth grade level. Williams also cited the fact that 44 percent of the nation's prison population is made up of black people, and blacks account for 37 percent of violent crimes, even though they make up only 13 percent of the population.
In a talk in Washington, for the BMW Stiftung Herbert Quandt Foundation, Williams made the point that black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean are far more successful than blacks who have grown up in America. He attributed that to a self-defeating black culture of victimhood, one that says doing well in school is a cop-out and that the way to be successful is to come off as threatening.
Williams said a recent Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of black Americans agree with 75 percent of white Americans who say too many black people are overly dependent on government programs. "In other words," Williams observed, "a clear majority of the nation, including most black people, are saying that the poor need to look in the mirror and halt self-defeating behavior."
By Ronald Kessler
Since writing a book about the need for African-Americans to take responsibility for their own problems, Juan Williams is now being labeled a "black Ann Coulter" and a turncoat by black leaders and media personalities.
PBS host Tavis Smiley "was going on about how I'm demeaning black people, which I find so incredibly stupid," Williams, an NPR senior correspondent and Fox News commentator, says. "Al Sharpton called me the black Ann Coulter," says Williams.
Williams, who is black, decided to write Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It after Bill Cosby called upon blacks to stop blaming "the white man" for their problems. In the book, which was on The New York Times best-seller list on Sept. 17, Williams comes out swinging against "phony" black leaders and a black "culture of failure."
He lashes out at leaders like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who create support by focusing on "victimhood." "That says to an individual, ‘You can't help yourself; you can't help your family; and therefore all you can do is wait for the government to do something for you,’" says Williams. "I think it is a message of weakness and ineffectual thinking that is absolutely crippling the poor and especially minorities in the United States." The criticism generally comes from "people who think they are being exposed or from academics who just want to pick a fight," Williams said.
His first interview about the book appeared on NewsMax.com on July 27. Williams says he has gotten tremendously positive reaction from people who come up to him and thank him for starting "an important debate." But Erin Aubry Kaplan wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times calling Williams a "posturer" who forgets that the federal government, which was "at best, ambiguous about black equality," failed right along with black leaders.
Williams responded with a piece saying it was easier to blame him than to deal with the "hard fact of a dropout rate now at about 50 percent nationwide for black and Latino students." He said the average black student who graduates from high school reads and does math at an eighth grade level. Williams also cited the fact that 44 percent of the nation's prison population is made up of black people, and blacks account for 37 percent of violent crimes, even though they make up only 13 percent of the population.
In a talk in Washington, for the BMW Stiftung Herbert Quandt Foundation, Williams made the point that black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean are far more successful than blacks who have grown up in America. He attributed that to a self-defeating black culture of victimhood, one that says doing well in school is a cop-out and that the way to be successful is to come off as threatening.
Williams said a recent Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of black Americans agree with 75 percent of white Americans who say too many black people are overly dependent on government programs. "In other words," Williams observed, "a clear majority of the nation, including most black people, are saying that the poor need to look in the mirror and halt self-defeating behavior."
Gross Domestic Product Versus Gross Domestic Waste
From Jim Womack, the author of "Lean Thinking"
I’ve always been fascinated by how humans count, especially the way we always seem to count the wrong things. Recently I was looking at the American counting of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The U.S. government reports that GDP was up 2.6% in the second quarter of 2006, after rising 5.8% in the first quarter, and the economists offering commentary seem to think this is good. We are producing more product per capita, meaning economic output is growing faster than population. But growth has slowed recently toward a level that can be sustained without causing inflation.
Governments in every country across the globe do this same sort of counting with the same thought process. The universal view is that growth in domestic product is good. End of discussion.
But for the Lean Thinker this should just be the start of the discussion. GDP simply counts all economic activity in the economy. Any goods produced or services provided that someone paid for is "product." Thus the surge of growth in on-line and telephone help desks to aid consumers using products they can’t understand how to install, that won’t work with their other products, or that simply won’t turn on, counts as growing domestic product. So does increased spending on recalls of defective products. So does new warehousing for needless inventory. How about construction of massive airports to cross-dock passengers at Point C who really just wanted to go directly from Point A to Point B? Or additional spending on mega medical centers to warehouse patients waiting for the next step in their treatment when the flow paths are blocked?
More growth in gross domestic product!
Clearly the problem here is that one measure called "product" co-mingles two very different things: value and waste. What we really need is to measure Gross Domestic Value (all of the "product" that actually creates value as perceived by the consumer) and compare this with Gross Domestic Waste (or maybe GDM, for Gross Domestic Muda.) We want the former to grow but we want the latter to shrink.
This counting problem actually has two additional dimensions. First, even in the case of goods that clearly create value for the consumer, such as the new computer that actually works without resort to a help desk, the processes of designing, making, and delivering the item are a mixture of value and waste. For example, assembling the parts is clearly value while reworking the finished unit in the factory to a point where it finally works properly is waste. But the consumer has to pay for the value and the waste together.
A second issue is that externalities imposed on the environment by value-creating processes are currently counted as economic product. For example, a recent study by the Chinese government’s environment ministry estimated that of the officially recorded 10% growth in Chinese Gross Domestic Product last year, 3% was actually expended on trying to deal with the environmental damage to human health and agriculture caused by the other 7%! In this case the "internalities," in the form of the goods and services produced for consumers, are confused with externalities: the burden of their production on the environment. Both are counted as GDP.
We are all familiar with product labeling that tells what fraction of the product was made domestically, what fraction uses recycled materials, what fraction is fat, protein, carbohydrate, and so on. How about labels that show how many of the steps involved created value and how many were actually waste from the standpoint of the consumer? That is, an accounting of the steps the customer was happy to pay for compared with those the customer was forced to pay for because of the poor design or performance of the processes involved? And what about "green" labels that show the costs to the environment that ought to be subtracted from the value of the product?
But actually this would be a mistake if it was just another counting exercise. Unless waste was actually removed as result, this type of counting would just be more muda.
What I propose instead is that Lean Thinkers help others with less vision to see that growth is good but only the growth in value, not the growth in waste. And then I hope we will all re-examine every process we touch to clearly distinguish value from waste. That of course, is just the necessary preparation. The value of the exercise lies in removing the waste, not just counting it.
My ultimate hope is that some day our current method of counting Gross Domestic Product will become completely accurate even if we don’t change it. We will really be counting Gross Domestic Value, whatever we may call it, because we will have removed our Gross Domestic Waste.
Best regards,
Jim
Jim Womack
Founder & Chairman
Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI)
I’ve always been fascinated by how humans count, especially the way we always seem to count the wrong things. Recently I was looking at the American counting of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The U.S. government reports that GDP was up 2.6% in the second quarter of 2006, after rising 5.8% in the first quarter, and the economists offering commentary seem to think this is good. We are producing more product per capita, meaning economic output is growing faster than population. But growth has slowed recently toward a level that can be sustained without causing inflation.
Governments in every country across the globe do this same sort of counting with the same thought process. The universal view is that growth in domestic product is good. End of discussion.
But for the Lean Thinker this should just be the start of the discussion. GDP simply counts all economic activity in the economy. Any goods produced or services provided that someone paid for is "product." Thus the surge of growth in on-line and telephone help desks to aid consumers using products they can’t understand how to install, that won’t work with their other products, or that simply won’t turn on, counts as growing domestic product. So does increased spending on recalls of defective products. So does new warehousing for needless inventory. How about construction of massive airports to cross-dock passengers at Point C who really just wanted to go directly from Point A to Point B? Or additional spending on mega medical centers to warehouse patients waiting for the next step in their treatment when the flow paths are blocked?
More growth in gross domestic product!
Clearly the problem here is that one measure called "product" co-mingles two very different things: value and waste. What we really need is to measure Gross Domestic Value (all of the "product" that actually creates value as perceived by the consumer) and compare this with Gross Domestic Waste (or maybe GDM, for Gross Domestic Muda.) We want the former to grow but we want the latter to shrink.
This counting problem actually has two additional dimensions. First, even in the case of goods that clearly create value for the consumer, such as the new computer that actually works without resort to a help desk, the processes of designing, making, and delivering the item are a mixture of value and waste. For example, assembling the parts is clearly value while reworking the finished unit in the factory to a point where it finally works properly is waste. But the consumer has to pay for the value and the waste together.
A second issue is that externalities imposed on the environment by value-creating processes are currently counted as economic product. For example, a recent study by the Chinese government’s environment ministry estimated that of the officially recorded 10% growth in Chinese Gross Domestic Product last year, 3% was actually expended on trying to deal with the environmental damage to human health and agriculture caused by the other 7%! In this case the "internalities," in the form of the goods and services produced for consumers, are confused with externalities: the burden of their production on the environment. Both are counted as GDP.
We are all familiar with product labeling that tells what fraction of the product was made domestically, what fraction uses recycled materials, what fraction is fat, protein, carbohydrate, and so on. How about labels that show how many of the steps involved created value and how many were actually waste from the standpoint of the consumer? That is, an accounting of the steps the customer was happy to pay for compared with those the customer was forced to pay for because of the poor design or performance of the processes involved? And what about "green" labels that show the costs to the environment that ought to be subtracted from the value of the product?
But actually this would be a mistake if it was just another counting exercise. Unless waste was actually removed as result, this type of counting would just be more muda.
What I propose instead is that Lean Thinkers help others with less vision to see that growth is good but only the growth in value, not the growth in waste. And then I hope we will all re-examine every process we touch to clearly distinguish value from waste. That of course, is just the necessary preparation. The value of the exercise lies in removing the waste, not just counting it.
My ultimate hope is that some day our current method of counting Gross Domestic Product will become completely accurate even if we don’t change it. We will really be counting Gross Domestic Value, whatever we may call it, because we will have removed our Gross Domestic Waste.
Best regards,
Jim
Jim Womack
Founder & Chairman
Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI)
Clowns & Harlots: Out of Africa
by Christopher Corbett
The American press -- that includes television and other broadcast media -- is legendary for the paucity of foreign news it reports. In many of the more benighted backwaters they are actually proud of this. Vast numbers of my fellow Americanos cannot name the prime minister of Great Britain. Even larger numbers could not name the prime minister of France. When you get much more than 100 miles from either coast, many citizens could not find Portugal much less the Sudan on a map.
Given the insularity of this country, the news out of Africa is rare. Most of it is cartoonishly cruel. So naturally I was interested that last week the most heavily reported story off that troubled continent was about the rock star Madonna’s visit to remote Malawi and how she went about bringing home a little souvenir of her trip -- a one-year-old Malawian orphan she has decided to call David. Don’t they still sell tribal masks? This freakish tale is easily the most heavily reported story out of Africa in months, perhaps years. I had nearly 2,000 Google hits on it.
Madonna makes good copy. Now human rights organizations have entered the fray to demand that the child be returned. The argument appears to be that Madonna received special treatment in adopting the foundling! No kidding! (Strange, rich white woman with vast retinue of sycophants drops out of sky into impoverished African nation promising vast sums. Local potentates smell moolah and allow her to take home orphan.) This was the sort of thing Evelyn Waugh wrote comic novels about.
One would think that human rights organizations in Africa might have a great deal more to do than worry about one child on a continent devastated by AIDS and civil wars. What about Darfur? But then Madonna makes good copy. And she is a natural mom if ever God made one. Here this snippet from the British press demonstrating her maternal instincts last week:
While Madonna attended the gym on Wednesday, she sent an assistant to buy clothes for David and demanded video footage be sent to her mobile phone so she could approve the outfits.
Sounds maternal to me. Look, I don’t know whether or not a rich dilettante should be able to obtain a live souvenir in Africa. The ethical issues are interesting. (It would probably be more difficult to obtain a lion cub and that ought to give pause, too.) The wires as I am writing this say that other stars -- Britney Spears for one -- are thinking that a little child from Africa might be a fine idea. Kind of like a lawn ornament? A living conversation piece? I just don’t know about this idea of celebrities going on safari for orphans. I know that Malawi is a poor country and I know that Africa is famously corrupt. (I suggest you read Paul Theroux’s brilliant Dark Star Safari if you doubt this.)
Truth be told, the custom of wealthy and powerful people bringing home living curiosities from exotic places is an old one. As recently as the 19th century, it would have been possible in many large American cities to pay to see Eskimos (as they were then called), pygmies or “Chinamen” in freak shows. Chicanerous ship’s captains were famous for shanghaiing unfortunates in the wilds of Borneo or some other exotic spot and bringing them back to Europe or the United States for their “entertainment value.” That’s show biz. The great impresario P.T. Barnum did a roaring trade in exhibiting “wild men” and dwarves and the retarded. Mr. Barnum was always ahead of his time and he knew what the public wanted. Imagine if the old showman had lived to see reality television?
I do not think it much of a risk to hazard that most Americans had never heard of Malawi until the Material Girl decided to help ease the suffering there. Most Americans had no idea where Malawi was or even what it was. Madonna has put Malawi on the map -- or at least on Letterman and Leno and The Daily Show. Now it is the punch line to a joke. One of my favorite moments in this grotesque affair was the Malawian press describing Madonna as “a nice Christian lady.”
But the most interesting thing about this weird, vulgar sideshow was that the British newspapers said that the child’s father -- he’d given the baby up for adoption so technically the lad was no orphan -- had never heard of Madonna. Never heard of Madonna? Zounds!
Hope does indeed spring eternal. Imagine a world where there is still a place where the citizens have not heard of Madonna? Malawi can’t be all bad.
The American press -- that includes television and other broadcast media -- is legendary for the paucity of foreign news it reports. In many of the more benighted backwaters they are actually proud of this. Vast numbers of my fellow Americanos cannot name the prime minister of Great Britain. Even larger numbers could not name the prime minister of France. When you get much more than 100 miles from either coast, many citizens could not find Portugal much less the Sudan on a map.
Given the insularity of this country, the news out of Africa is rare. Most of it is cartoonishly cruel. So naturally I was interested that last week the most heavily reported story off that troubled continent was about the rock star Madonna’s visit to remote Malawi and how she went about bringing home a little souvenir of her trip -- a one-year-old Malawian orphan she has decided to call David. Don’t they still sell tribal masks? This freakish tale is easily the most heavily reported story out of Africa in months, perhaps years. I had nearly 2,000 Google hits on it.
Madonna makes good copy. Now human rights organizations have entered the fray to demand that the child be returned. The argument appears to be that Madonna received special treatment in adopting the foundling! No kidding! (Strange, rich white woman with vast retinue of sycophants drops out of sky into impoverished African nation promising vast sums. Local potentates smell moolah and allow her to take home orphan.) This was the sort of thing Evelyn Waugh wrote comic novels about.
One would think that human rights organizations in Africa might have a great deal more to do than worry about one child on a continent devastated by AIDS and civil wars. What about Darfur? But then Madonna makes good copy. And she is a natural mom if ever God made one. Here this snippet from the British press demonstrating her maternal instincts last week:
While Madonna attended the gym on Wednesday, she sent an assistant to buy clothes for David and demanded video footage be sent to her mobile phone so she could approve the outfits.
Sounds maternal to me. Look, I don’t know whether or not a rich dilettante should be able to obtain a live souvenir in Africa. The ethical issues are interesting. (It would probably be more difficult to obtain a lion cub and that ought to give pause, too.) The wires as I am writing this say that other stars -- Britney Spears for one -- are thinking that a little child from Africa might be a fine idea. Kind of like a lawn ornament? A living conversation piece? I just don’t know about this idea of celebrities going on safari for orphans. I know that Malawi is a poor country and I know that Africa is famously corrupt. (I suggest you read Paul Theroux’s brilliant Dark Star Safari if you doubt this.)
Truth be told, the custom of wealthy and powerful people bringing home living curiosities from exotic places is an old one. As recently as the 19th century, it would have been possible in many large American cities to pay to see Eskimos (as they were then called), pygmies or “Chinamen” in freak shows. Chicanerous ship’s captains were famous for shanghaiing unfortunates in the wilds of Borneo or some other exotic spot and bringing them back to Europe or the United States for their “entertainment value.” That’s show biz. The great impresario P.T. Barnum did a roaring trade in exhibiting “wild men” and dwarves and the retarded. Mr. Barnum was always ahead of his time and he knew what the public wanted. Imagine if the old showman had lived to see reality television?
I do not think it much of a risk to hazard that most Americans had never heard of Malawi until the Material Girl decided to help ease the suffering there. Most Americans had no idea where Malawi was or even what it was. Madonna has put Malawi on the map -- or at least on Letterman and Leno and The Daily Show. Now it is the punch line to a joke. One of my favorite moments in this grotesque affair was the Malawian press describing Madonna as “a nice Christian lady.”
But the most interesting thing about this weird, vulgar sideshow was that the British newspapers said that the child’s father -- he’d given the baby up for adoption so technically the lad was no orphan -- had never heard of Madonna. Never heard of Madonna? Zounds!
Hope does indeed spring eternal. Imagine a world where there is still a place where the citizens have not heard of Madonna? Malawi can’t be all bad.
Orphans of martyred Christians need your help
In the summer of 1999, a twenty one year old college student named Michael Job was killed in India by fanatical Hindus. His father was well known evangelist and Christian worker, Dr. P.P. Job. The fanatics did not like Dr. Job or his Christian message, so they killed his son.
Dr. Job was devastated but not broken. He responded to the hatred by starting an orphanage unlike any other in India.
This orphanage is only for girls; strange enough in a culture that doesn't value girls.
And even more unusual, this orphanage is only for girls of persecuted and martyred Christians.
Today The Michael Job Center for Orphan Girls is a dynamic refuge for hundreds of girls of persecuted families from all over the Indian sub-continent.
Each child that comes to The Michael Job Center is a vision of hope for the future a hope that is born out of sorrow and strengthened with love.
But more children are waiting! Sponsor an orphan girl for just $25.00 a month and you will prepare the way for more girls of persecuted Christians to be rescued from a life of poverty and hopelessness.
Go here to meet a girl who needs your help.
Dr. Job was devastated but not broken. He responded to the hatred by starting an orphanage unlike any other in India.
This orphanage is only for girls; strange enough in a culture that doesn't value girls.
And even more unusual, this orphanage is only for girls of persecuted and martyred Christians.
Today The Michael Job Center for Orphan Girls is a dynamic refuge for hundreds of girls of persecuted families from all over the Indian sub-continent.
Each child that comes to The Michael Job Center is a vision of hope for the future a hope that is born out of sorrow and strengthened with love.
But more children are waiting! Sponsor an orphan girl for just $25.00 a month and you will prepare the way for more girls of persecuted Christians to be rescued from a life of poverty and hopelessness.
Go here to meet a girl who needs your help.
Analysis: Ten Good Reasons to Vote GOP
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.comThursday, Oct. 26, 2006
If the polls are to be believed, the Republicans who control the White House and Congress are in trouble.
Their problem?
People vote their pocketbooks, or wallets, the old adage goes.
But the economy is booming. Even gasoline prices have plummeted. Unemployment, the bogeyman of politicians, has shrunken to a record low point.
As for the security matter, since 9/11, the worst attack on American soil since the Civil War, the United States has been free of any significant terrorist attack. None. Zippo. Zilch.
If Americans do vote the GOP out of either House of Congress, many of these accomplishments are threatened.
Should Democrats get control of the House of Representatives, they have already promised that one of the Republican initiatives that made all these things possible will be rolled back. Higher taxes -- and with it, economic recession and more unemployment.
The Democrats will also signal the terrorists a "victory" for their side with a push for a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Remember, the Congress, not the president, funds our troops abroad. A Democratic Congress will most assuredly withhold funding unless Bush relents.
The list of Republican accomplishments is both long and real, and provides the platform upon which even greater results will be built under a Republican Congress and White House.
For sure, the GOP has had its share of shortcomings. The economy could be doing better. The deficit could be smaller. The postwar plans in Iraq could have been better implemented.
If anything, the Republicans are facing a message deficit. The liberal media establishment is just not letting them tell their story to the American people.
Here are 10 good reasons why you should vote Republican come election day. You won't hear about them on ABCCBSNBC News.
Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.
Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fell to the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.
Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.
Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.
Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.
Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.
Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.
Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program.
Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices.
Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working.
In contrast to this stunning record of real achievement, the Democrats offer no real plans for the way they want to improve America or make us safer.
Instead, issues like the Mark Foley scandal have been used to smokescreen their own lack of ideas in a public debate.
The choice voters will make is whether they want higher taxes and less security by surrendering the tools used to combat terrorism or lower taxes and the continued use of tools like the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, terrorist interrogations and missile defense.
Consider what leading Democrats are promising if they gain control of Congress.
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who would lead the House tax-writing committee if Democrats win in November, said he "cannot think of one" tax cut he would renew. That agenda would result in $2.4 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years.
If Democrats take majorities in the House and Senate, the average family of four can expect to pay an average of $2,000 more in taxes.
The leader of House Democrats and the woman who would be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after 9/11 that she "doesn't really consider ourselves at war ... we're in a struggle against terrorism."
By opposing the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance missile defense and even interrogating the most dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield, Democrats are in direct opposition to the vital tools we use to fight terrorism.
Many Democrats, including the prospective House Ways and Means chairman, favor cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.
Democratic leaders have made it clear that they see investigations and impeachment as viable options should they take control of Congress. They are therefore promising to tie the hands of the president and his administration in the middle of a war.
Democrats want to reverse the president's economic policies that have led to a historically strong economy.
Enough said.
If the polls are to be believed, the Republicans who control the White House and Congress are in trouble.
Their problem?
People vote their pocketbooks, or wallets, the old adage goes.
But the economy is booming. Even gasoline prices have plummeted. Unemployment, the bogeyman of politicians, has shrunken to a record low point.
As for the security matter, since 9/11, the worst attack on American soil since the Civil War, the United States has been free of any significant terrorist attack. None. Zippo. Zilch.
If Americans do vote the GOP out of either House of Congress, many of these accomplishments are threatened.
Should Democrats get control of the House of Representatives, they have already promised that one of the Republican initiatives that made all these things possible will be rolled back. Higher taxes -- and with it, economic recession and more unemployment.
The Democrats will also signal the terrorists a "victory" for their side with a push for a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Remember, the Congress, not the president, funds our troops abroad. A Democratic Congress will most assuredly withhold funding unless Bush relents.
The list of Republican accomplishments is both long and real, and provides the platform upon which even greater results will be built under a Republican Congress and White House.
For sure, the GOP has had its share of shortcomings. The economy could be doing better. The deficit could be smaller. The postwar plans in Iraq could have been better implemented.
If anything, the Republicans are facing a message deficit. The liberal media establishment is just not letting them tell their story to the American people.
Here are 10 good reasons why you should vote Republican come election day. You won't hear about them on ABCCBSNBC News.
Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.
Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fell to the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.
Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.
Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.
Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.
Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.
Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.
Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program.
Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices.
Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working.
In contrast to this stunning record of real achievement, the Democrats offer no real plans for the way they want to improve America or make us safer.
Instead, issues like the Mark Foley scandal have been used to smokescreen their own lack of ideas in a public debate.
The choice voters will make is whether they want higher taxes and less security by surrendering the tools used to combat terrorism or lower taxes and the continued use of tools like the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, terrorist interrogations and missile defense.
Consider what leading Democrats are promising if they gain control of Congress.
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who would lead the House tax-writing committee if Democrats win in November, said he "cannot think of one" tax cut he would renew. That agenda would result in $2.4 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years.
If Democrats take majorities in the House and Senate, the average family of four can expect to pay an average of $2,000 more in taxes.
The leader of House Democrats and the woman who would be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after 9/11 that she "doesn't really consider ourselves at war ... we're in a struggle against terrorism."
By opposing the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance missile defense and even interrogating the most dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield, Democrats are in direct opposition to the vital tools we use to fight terrorism.
Many Democrats, including the prospective House Ways and Means chairman, favor cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.
Democratic leaders have made it clear that they see investigations and impeachment as viable options should they take control of Congress. They are therefore promising to tie the hands of the president and his administration in the middle of a war.
Democrats want to reverse the president's economic policies that have led to a historically strong economy.
Enough said.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Quote of the Day
“Rather than a winning message of economic growth, a strong defense and optimism for the future, Hastert has given us silence. And where’s his response to the House Democrats, who take every opportunity to speak up?
“House Democrats are weak on defense, frail on national security and opposed to anti-terrorist measures such as warrantless wiretaps, data-mining for al-Qaida phone calls, and the interrogation and detention of the enemy. Meanwhile, House Democrats want to raise taxes, unleash a government takeover of healthcare and de-fund the war on Iraq.
“Where’s the counterpunch from the Republican speaker?”
- Larry Kudlow, October 4, 2006
“House Democrats are weak on defense, frail on national security and opposed to anti-terrorist measures such as warrantless wiretaps, data-mining for al-Qaida phone calls, and the interrogation and detention of the enemy. Meanwhile, House Democrats want to raise taxes, unleash a government takeover of healthcare and de-fund the war on Iraq.
“Where’s the counterpunch from the Republican speaker?”
- Larry Kudlow, October 4, 2006
North Korean Nukes Have Clinton's and Carter's Fingerprints all Over Them
The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Monday, Oct. 9, 2006
Reprint Information
The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb
Flashback: North Korea Nukes Part of Clinton Legacy
North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush — but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb.
As Western powers race to confirm that North Korea did in fact explode a nuclear device in Gilju, a remote region in the Hamgyong province, some see it as a culmination of weak U.S. action during the 1990s that led to this fateful day.
Fateful Beginnings
After entering into an agreement with the United States in 1994, the Clinton administration ignored evidence the North Koreans were violating the agreement and continuing to build a nuclear weapon. "In July of 2002, documentary evidence was found in the form of purchase orders for the materials necessary to enrich uranium," NewsMax's James Hirsen previously reported.
"In October 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met with his North Korean counterpart for scheduled talks. Kelly confronted North Korea with the tangible evidence of its duplicity. After a day of outright denial, North Korea abruptly reversed its position and defiantly acknowledged a secret nuclear program."
Timeline of a Nuclear Bomb
A review of recent history shows that that the Clinton administration gave up a clear and perhaps last best chance to nip the North Korean bomb in the bud:
1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
1989: The Central Intelligence Agency discovers the North Koreans are building a reprocessing facility — a reactor capable of converting fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. The fuel rods were extracted 10 years before from that nation's Yongbyon reactor.
The rods represent a shortcut to enriched plutonium and an atomic bomb
Spring, 1994: A year into President Clinton's first term, North Korea prepares to remove the Yongbyon fuel rods from their storage site. North Korea expels international weapons inspectors and withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Clinton asks the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. North Korean spokesmen proclaim such sanctions would cause war.
The Pentagon draws up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea — along with 400 war planes, 50 ships, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Patriot missiles. An advance force of 250 soldiers is sent in to set up headquarters for the expanded force.
Clinton balks and sets up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis — former President Jimmy Carter. Exceeding instructions, Carter negotiates the outlines of a treaty and announces the terms live on CNN.
Oct. 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea sign a formal accord based on those outlines, called the Agreed Framework. Under its terms:
North Korea promises to renew its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, lock up the fuel rods, and let inspectors back in to monitor the facility.
The United States agrees — with financial backing from South Korea and Japan — that it will provide two light-water nuclear reactors for electricity, send a large supply of fuel oil, and that it will not invade North Korea.
( Now here's a good question, if electricity was the goal, why not negotiate for fuel-oil or coal fired plants instead? Because Jimmy Carter didn't like the fact that America was the lone super power and he wanted North Korea to have Nukes! The man is a traitor and should be arrested and sent to North Korea to live out his days!!!)
Upon delivery of the first light-water reactor, inspections of suspected North Korean nuclear sites were supposed to start. After the second reactor arrived, North Korea was supposed to ship its fuel rods out of the country.
The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install ambassadors in each other's capitals — with the United States providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons against North Korea.
(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial commitment — neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never taken.)
Jan. 2002: In President Bush's State of the Union Address, he famously labels North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil."
Oct., 2002: Officials from the U.S. State Department fly to Pyongyang, where that government admits it had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons.
It is now clear to all parties that the promised reactors are never going to be built. Normalization of relations fizzles.
The CIA learns that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium since the late 1990s — probably from Pakistan.
Oct. 20, 2002: Bush announces that the United States is formally withdrawing from the Carter-brokered 1994 agreement.
The United States. halts oil supplies to North Korea and urges other countries to cut off all economic relations with Pyongyang.
Dec., 2002: North Korea expels the international weapons inspectors, restarts the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, and unlocks the container holding the fuel rods.
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty — noting, however, that there would be a change of position if the U.S. resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.
March, 2003: President Bush orders several B-1 and B-52 bombers to the U.S. Air Force base in Guam — within range of North Korea.
April, 2003: North Korea's deputy foreign minister announces that his country now has "deterrent" nuclear weapons.
May, 2003: Bush orders the Guam-based aircraft back to their home bases.
October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all 8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Monday, Oct. 9, 2006
Reprint Information
The Clinton Legacy: North Korea's Bomb
Flashback: North Korea Nukes Part of Clinton Legacy
North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush — but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb.
As Western powers race to confirm that North Korea did in fact explode a nuclear device in Gilju, a remote region in the Hamgyong province, some see it as a culmination of weak U.S. action during the 1990s that led to this fateful day.
Fateful Beginnings
After entering into an agreement with the United States in 1994, the Clinton administration ignored evidence the North Koreans were violating the agreement and continuing to build a nuclear weapon. "In July of 2002, documentary evidence was found in the form of purchase orders for the materials necessary to enrich uranium," NewsMax's James Hirsen previously reported.
"In October 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly met with his North Korean counterpart for scheduled talks. Kelly confronted North Korea with the tangible evidence of its duplicity. After a day of outright denial, North Korea abruptly reversed its position and defiantly acknowledged a secret nuclear program."
Timeline of a Nuclear Bomb
A review of recent history shows that that the Clinton administration gave up a clear and perhaps last best chance to nip the North Korean bomb in the bud:
1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
1989: The Central Intelligence Agency discovers the North Koreans are building a reprocessing facility — a reactor capable of converting fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. The fuel rods were extracted 10 years before from that nation's Yongbyon reactor.
The rods represent a shortcut to enriched plutonium and an atomic bomb
Spring, 1994: A year into President Clinton's first term, North Korea prepares to remove the Yongbyon fuel rods from their storage site. North Korea expels international weapons inspectors and withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Clinton asks the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. North Korean spokesmen proclaim such sanctions would cause war.
The Pentagon draws up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea — along with 400 war planes, 50 ships, Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Patriot missiles. An advance force of 250 soldiers is sent in to set up headquarters for the expanded force.
Clinton balks and sets up a diplomatic back-channel to end the crisis — former President Jimmy Carter. Exceeding instructions, Carter negotiates the outlines of a treaty and announces the terms live on CNN.
Oct. 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea sign a formal accord based on those outlines, called the Agreed Framework. Under its terms:
North Korea promises to renew its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, lock up the fuel rods, and let inspectors back in to monitor the facility.
The United States agrees — with financial backing from South Korea and Japan — that it will provide two light-water nuclear reactors for electricity, send a large supply of fuel oil, and that it will not invade North Korea.
( Now here's a good question, if electricity was the goal, why not negotiate for fuel-oil or coal fired plants instead? Because Jimmy Carter didn't like the fact that America was the lone super power and he wanted North Korea to have Nukes! The man is a traitor and should be arrested and sent to North Korea to live out his days!!!)
Upon delivery of the first light-water reactor, inspections of suspected North Korean nuclear sites were supposed to start. After the second reactor arrived, North Korea was supposed to ship its fuel rods out of the country.
The two countries also agreed to lower trade barriers and install ambassadors in each other's capitals — with the United States providing full assurances that it would never use nuclear weapons against North Korea.
(None of the above came to pass. Congress did not make the financial commitment — neither did South Korea. The light-water reactors were never funded. The enumerated steps toward normalization were never taken.)
Jan. 2002: In President Bush's State of the Union Address, he famously labels North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil."
Oct., 2002: Officials from the U.S. State Department fly to Pyongyang, where that government admits it had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons.
It is now clear to all parties that the promised reactors are never going to be built. Normalization of relations fizzles.
The CIA learns that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium since the late 1990s — probably from Pakistan.
Oct. 20, 2002: Bush announces that the United States is formally withdrawing from the Carter-brokered 1994 agreement.
The United States. halts oil supplies to North Korea and urges other countries to cut off all economic relations with Pyongyang.
Dec., 2002: North Korea expels the international weapons inspectors, restarts the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, and unlocks the container holding the fuel rods.
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty — noting, however, that there would be a change of position if the U.S. resumed its obligations under the Agreed Framework and signed a non-aggression pledge.
March, 2003: President Bush orders several B-1 and B-52 bombers to the U.S. Air Force base in Guam — within range of North Korea.
April, 2003: North Korea's deputy foreign minister announces that his country now has "deterrent" nuclear weapons.
May, 2003: Bush orders the Guam-based aircraft back to their home bases.
October, 2003: The North Koreans announce they have reprocessed all 8,000 of their fuel rods and solved the technical problems of converting the plutonium into nuclear bombs.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
On Corruption, Partisan Politics, And Hypocrisy
If anything, the episode reveals the Democrats' hypocrisy about their own behavior. The fact that Foley resigned virtually within minutes of being told that ABC News had copies of his salacious e-mails and text messages indicates he at least felt shame for his actions. Can the same be said for Democrats?
Sadly, it doesn't seem so. How else can you explain the following?
Ted Kennedy - Negligent Homicide, still in office and revered as a Lion in the democratic Party.
• In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with.
Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.
• In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.
What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him — a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."
• In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)
You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked — shocked! — when it comes to light.
There are a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.
Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails — and why did they hold them until now?
This reeks of political trickery.
I'm glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.
That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.
By:Christopher G. Adamo
Thursday 5 October 2006, by Alain
Amid the horrifying breaking news of the past few days, Americans must remain focused on the threats that still loom over their country’s future.
To do otherwise is to invite the possibility that the recent horrors will be immeasurably compounded by another terrorist attack.
Long before the abominable events and disclosures of the past few days, those on the left have been fixated on an agenda that erases or denies the enormity of 9-11, and every preceding circumstance that led up to it. Yet for America to let down its guard, even in the face of other crises, is not an option.
Certain significant facts stand out in this discussion. First, it cannot be denied that President Bush has vigorously pursued the enemy in his “War on Terror.” Just as inarguable is that by doing so, America has remained safe from subsequent attacks. But these are two “dots” that the liberal political machine, and its cohorts in the “mainstream” media, do no want Americans to connect.
To that end, every outrage occurring within the borders of the country is being trumpeted by the left as a reason to ignore the terrorist threat, since in so doing, Democrats see their electoral fortunes improving in November. But while other matters at hand clearly need to be confronted, America had better remain unshakably vigilant as to the activities of the Islamists, who are hardly resting during this time, but instead are undoubtedly working with fierce and relentless determination to ascertain how to take fullest advantage of America’s distracted state.
Conservative America is rightly appalled at the recent revelations of deviant sexual behavior perpetrated by Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley. Yet their abhorrence for his actions transcends any political consideration. Such perversity warrants immediate removal from office, and if appropriate, the severest punishment allowed under the law. Of that there is no dispute, at least on the right.
Let those on the left vent their phony outrage and dismay, and in so doing, display their abject hypocrisy. All of the disgraceful situations in question, from the moral abominations represented by Foley, to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” mindset that enabled him to continue his sordid behavior, to the appearance of national weakness that gives hopes of victory to Al Qaeda, result from that societal dysfunction known as liberalism.
Consider, in contrast, the reactions of liberals to such revelations within their own camp, when the principal in question was former President Bill Clinton. In rapid succession America was told first that such activities never happened. Then, when the body of evidence became undeniable, they suddenly became a matter of Clinton’s “private life.”
Concerned Americans were castigated over a matter that was “only about sex.”
Finally, the shameless hypocrisy of the left reached a crescendo as it attempted to regain the moral “high ground” by accusing the President’s critics of engaging in the “politics of personal destruction,” at the behest of a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”
Inevitably, such unconscionable political posturing was all that the left ever had to offer as a “fix” for its problems. In the end, no real attempt was made to correct the situation, and in the years that have followed, Clinton loyalists have done their best to recast their disgraced leader as an icon of statesmanship.
Meanwhile, the storm clouds of Islamism gathered, along with plans by the North Koreans to build themselves a nuclear bomb. And all of the finger pointing, red-faced denials, and tantrums of the perpetually juvenile former President cannot erase this unfolding nightmare as his real “legacy.”
Moreover, despite the fact that the Clinton political machine no longer has the nation’s highest law enforcement offices to employ in its efforts to destroy its political opposition, the style of the recent political character assassinations undoubtedly prove that it is still in operation.
Admittedly, the sinister effort could not have succeeded, had not its targets been in possession of tawdry skeletons in their closets. And those on the right would be remiss were they to overlook such malfeasance in deference to partisan politics.
But neither should they accept the liberal premise that, as a result of such things, the country ought to henceforth be abandoned to the devices and agenda of the left. On every issue, from those very same twisted personal activities, to the very real terrorist threat, the behavior considered acceptable among liberals is, and has always been far more contemptible than anything infiltrating the conservative movement from its imposters.
And while such behavior will be purged from the Republican ranks as soon as it is found out (the Conservative base would stand for no less), Democrats are invariably willing to obfuscate and overlook anything that might undermine their liberal agenda. But terrorism cannot be overlooked.
The stakes have not changed. Despite every liberal effort, Republicans must stay on message. Losing the Congress will lose the terror war.
P.S.Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
Sadly, it doesn't seem so. How else can you explain the following?
Ted Kennedy - Negligent Homicide, still in office and revered as a Lion in the democratic Party.
• In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with.
Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.
• In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.
What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him — a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."
• In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)
You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked — shocked! — when it comes to light.
There are a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.
Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails — and why did they hold them until now?
This reeks of political trickery.
I'm glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.
That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.
By:Christopher G. Adamo
Thursday 5 October 2006, by Alain
Amid the horrifying breaking news of the past few days, Americans must remain focused on the threats that still loom over their country’s future.
To do otherwise is to invite the possibility that the recent horrors will be immeasurably compounded by another terrorist attack.
Long before the abominable events and disclosures of the past few days, those on the left have been fixated on an agenda that erases or denies the enormity of 9-11, and every preceding circumstance that led up to it. Yet for America to let down its guard, even in the face of other crises, is not an option.
Certain significant facts stand out in this discussion. First, it cannot be denied that President Bush has vigorously pursued the enemy in his “War on Terror.” Just as inarguable is that by doing so, America has remained safe from subsequent attacks. But these are two “dots” that the liberal political machine, and its cohorts in the “mainstream” media, do no want Americans to connect.
To that end, every outrage occurring within the borders of the country is being trumpeted by the left as a reason to ignore the terrorist threat, since in so doing, Democrats see their electoral fortunes improving in November. But while other matters at hand clearly need to be confronted, America had better remain unshakably vigilant as to the activities of the Islamists, who are hardly resting during this time, but instead are undoubtedly working with fierce and relentless determination to ascertain how to take fullest advantage of America’s distracted state.
Conservative America is rightly appalled at the recent revelations of deviant sexual behavior perpetrated by Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley. Yet their abhorrence for his actions transcends any political consideration. Such perversity warrants immediate removal from office, and if appropriate, the severest punishment allowed under the law. Of that there is no dispute, at least on the right.
Let those on the left vent their phony outrage and dismay, and in so doing, display their abject hypocrisy. All of the disgraceful situations in question, from the moral abominations represented by Foley, to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” mindset that enabled him to continue his sordid behavior, to the appearance of national weakness that gives hopes of victory to Al Qaeda, result from that societal dysfunction known as liberalism.
Consider, in contrast, the reactions of liberals to such revelations within their own camp, when the principal in question was former President Bill Clinton. In rapid succession America was told first that such activities never happened. Then, when the body of evidence became undeniable, they suddenly became a matter of Clinton’s “private life.”
Concerned Americans were castigated over a matter that was “only about sex.”
Finally, the shameless hypocrisy of the left reached a crescendo as it attempted to regain the moral “high ground” by accusing the President’s critics of engaging in the “politics of personal destruction,” at the behest of a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”
Inevitably, such unconscionable political posturing was all that the left ever had to offer as a “fix” for its problems. In the end, no real attempt was made to correct the situation, and in the years that have followed, Clinton loyalists have done their best to recast their disgraced leader as an icon of statesmanship.
Meanwhile, the storm clouds of Islamism gathered, along with plans by the North Koreans to build themselves a nuclear bomb. And all of the finger pointing, red-faced denials, and tantrums of the perpetually juvenile former President cannot erase this unfolding nightmare as his real “legacy.”
Moreover, despite the fact that the Clinton political machine no longer has the nation’s highest law enforcement offices to employ in its efforts to destroy its political opposition, the style of the recent political character assassinations undoubtedly prove that it is still in operation.
Admittedly, the sinister effort could not have succeeded, had not its targets been in possession of tawdry skeletons in their closets. And those on the right would be remiss were they to overlook such malfeasance in deference to partisan politics.
But neither should they accept the liberal premise that, as a result of such things, the country ought to henceforth be abandoned to the devices and agenda of the left. On every issue, from those very same twisted personal activities, to the very real terrorist threat, the behavior considered acceptable among liberals is, and has always been far more contemptible than anything infiltrating the conservative movement from its imposters.
And while such behavior will be purged from the Republican ranks as soon as it is found out (the Conservative base would stand for no less), Democrats are invariably willing to obfuscate and overlook anything that might undermine their liberal agenda. But terrorism cannot be overlooked.
The stakes have not changed. Despite every liberal effort, Republicans must stay on message. Losing the Congress will lose the terror war.
P.S.Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
300 million strong... and growing
by J. Christoph Amberger
Sometime next week, there will be 300 million people living in the United States of America. The U.S.A. will rank third behind China and India in regards to population.
And while populations in Europe and industrialized Asia are stagnating if not already shrinking, the U.S. just keeps adding people. Between 2004 and 2005, government statisticians confirmed a natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths) of 1.7 million people and another 1 million immigrants.
This makes the United States the odd man out among industrialized nations. No other industrialized country comes even close.
An addition of 2.7 million people means that the United States absorbed the equivalent of the total population of Oman or Mongolia or Jamaica in a single year; or added the equivalent of the total population of the city of Chicago -- each and every year.
-- The effects of that immigration can bee seen anywhere you drive in the Northeast and South as well as the West Coast. I noticed it again as I drove our Boy Scout troop down to Calvert Cliffs for our weekend campout:
Roads that were distinctly rural a decade and a half ago, when this immigrant was making his first exploratory forays, had transformed into broad, smooth strips of asphalt that make the original Autobahn look like a gravel path. And they cut a swath through new residential developments, strip malls and new commercial townships that consisted of bait and liquor stores when the first Bush was in office.
Townships that put billions into developers’ pockets and are now pumping billions into households and tax coffers.
In this month’s Smithsonian magazine, Joel Garreau provides a bit of perspective what this means:
“One fortuitous result (...) is that the median age here is only a little over 35, one of the lowest among the world’s more developed countries. This country also has the most productive population per person of any country on the planet -- no matter how you measure it, and especially compared with Japan and the members of the European Union. This is crucial to everyone who plans to retire, because once you do, you’ll want a bunch of young, hard-working, tax-paying people supporting you, whether directly, through family contributions, or indirectly, through Social Security and pension programs. Unless you’re rich enough to live off your investments, there is no alternative.”
Immigration to the United States is also keeping its neighbors content... or at least in a blissful state of inactivity that comes from someone else solving one’s economic problems. American economist and frequent Forbes contributor Steven Hanke wrote last June:
“Rather than modernize the economy, Mexico’s politicos have embraced a Tito-inspired strategy: when incapable of fostering productive jobs, export the labor force. As a result, over 27 percent of Mexico’s labor force is now working in the U.S. and these workers are sending home $20 billion in remittances. That equals one third of the total wage earnings in the formal sector of the Mexican economy and 10 percent of Mexico’s exports.”
When thinking about the state of the U.S. economy, these are factors that somehow never make it into the general awareness of the mass media: The U.S. economy not only is strong enough to have almost full employment of its population, it also carries over a fourth of the total labor market of its neighbors. Add in the outsourced jobs -- all the Indian telemarketers and Chinese laborers -- that depend on American orders and you get a more accurate picture of America’s role as the engine of global economic growth.
Sometime next week, there will be 300 million people living in the United States of America. The U.S.A. will rank third behind China and India in regards to population.
And while populations in Europe and industrialized Asia are stagnating if not already shrinking, the U.S. just keeps adding people. Between 2004 and 2005, government statisticians confirmed a natural increase (i.e., births minus deaths) of 1.7 million people and another 1 million immigrants.
This makes the United States the odd man out among industrialized nations. No other industrialized country comes even close.
An addition of 2.7 million people means that the United States absorbed the equivalent of the total population of Oman or Mongolia or Jamaica in a single year; or added the equivalent of the total population of the city of Chicago -- each and every year.
-- The effects of that immigration can bee seen anywhere you drive in the Northeast and South as well as the West Coast. I noticed it again as I drove our Boy Scout troop down to Calvert Cliffs for our weekend campout:
Roads that were distinctly rural a decade and a half ago, when this immigrant was making his first exploratory forays, had transformed into broad, smooth strips of asphalt that make the original Autobahn look like a gravel path. And they cut a swath through new residential developments, strip malls and new commercial townships that consisted of bait and liquor stores when the first Bush was in office.
Townships that put billions into developers’ pockets and are now pumping billions into households and tax coffers.
In this month’s Smithsonian magazine, Joel Garreau provides a bit of perspective what this means:
“One fortuitous result (...) is that the median age here is only a little over 35, one of the lowest among the world’s more developed countries. This country also has the most productive population per person of any country on the planet -- no matter how you measure it, and especially compared with Japan and the members of the European Union. This is crucial to everyone who plans to retire, because once you do, you’ll want a bunch of young, hard-working, tax-paying people supporting you, whether directly, through family contributions, or indirectly, through Social Security and pension programs. Unless you’re rich enough to live off your investments, there is no alternative.”
Immigration to the United States is also keeping its neighbors content... or at least in a blissful state of inactivity that comes from someone else solving one’s economic problems. American economist and frequent Forbes contributor Steven Hanke wrote last June:
“Rather than modernize the economy, Mexico’s politicos have embraced a Tito-inspired strategy: when incapable of fostering productive jobs, export the labor force. As a result, over 27 percent of Mexico’s labor force is now working in the U.S. and these workers are sending home $20 billion in remittances. That equals one third of the total wage earnings in the formal sector of the Mexican economy and 10 percent of Mexico’s exports.”
When thinking about the state of the U.S. economy, these are factors that somehow never make it into the general awareness of the mass media: The U.S. economy not only is strong enough to have almost full employment of its population, it also carries over a fourth of the total labor market of its neighbors. Add in the outsourced jobs -- all the Indian telemarketers and Chinese laborers -- that depend on American orders and you get a more accurate picture of America’s role as the engine of global economic growth.
The Liberty Bell Tolls For America On Election Day... Are We Listening?
By: Kevin Fobbs
Saturday 30 September 2006, by Alain
America may not only be losing its identity it may very well be losing its most defining quality: our American liberty unless pro-American candidates are elected on November 7th. With the mid-term general election season upon us a crucial question we must ask ourselves as we enter the polling place is whether or not the gubernatorial, congressional, and state senate or representative candidates will be voting for our American liberty or for the liberty of illegal aliens who are carefully disassembling our American culture, our educational and health systems and, quite frankly, our children’s future. The mid-term elections could very well determine our nation’s future security as well.
Why are the mid-term elections important? Just ask any mom, dad, classroom teacher or sports coach who is desperately shorted of essential supplies and resources because their much-needed funds have been diverted to pay — nationally as well as locally — for educating illegal alien children? According to the national group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) the illegal immigrant children and those illegal immigrant children born on American soil are costing American taxpayers close to $28 billion annually.
What about our congressional representatives who will be taking office in January? They will be taking up possible illegal alien giveaways determining whether or not a 700-mile border fence will be truly built instead of the 2,000-mile fence that should be built. They may be considering another amnesty bill or whether or not your local hospital will continue to provide services in the billions of dollars and forcing dozens of hospitals to be shut down all across America (in a neighborhood near you!).
We willingly embrace the notion that our national security efforts have been firm against post-9/11 terrorism and how we are keeping would be terrorist activity at bay in the Middle East and not on American soil.
We have to address the national security threat which is invisible to most Americans. When a hospital shuts in the community next door, or the local school cannot provide your child with the programs that you remember as a child, that is a national security threat.
What about the jobs that are slowly disappearing, the housing benefits that your American-born family is not entitled to (but illegal aliens are!), or the college scholarships going to illegal aliens but not American-born kids, or those confusing multiple language signs which are appearing regularly in public so that America can be transformed into Mexico north?
What is liberty to Americans if we don’t stand up for it on Election Day? Election Day is the one time we have the opportunity to exercise our choice, our selection, our defenders!
The Liberty Bell should be ringing loud and clear in our ears on Election Day. So let’s begin to prepare for it now. In between the weekend college football game or the favorite Sunday pro-hockey game or the playoff bound baseball team game, take a few minutes to learn about the candidates who either support your rights as a legal American citizen or support the other unique American pastime: 1 – 3 million illegal invaders crossing our borders every year. Their supporters downplay their negative impact and casually refer to them as undocumented workers, which is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.
These “uninvited guests” take away part-time jobs that your son may have had in order to afford a down payment on a car or to pay for his college tuition or supplies. Or consider the next emergency room visit you make to take your newborn in for a sudden illness and you are sent away because the emergency room personnel have their hands full due to treating the first-come first-served illegal aliens.
Is it fair? Is it correct? That is for you to judge on Election Day, but what is not open for debate is the level of liberty that we are being asked to surrender week-by-week, community-by-community and sanctuary city-by-sanctuary city.
FAIR has identified the adoption of “sanctuary” policies by cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego and Houston as a growing barrier to combating the illegal alien invasion despite a 1996 Congressional ban and a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, which removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally.
In 1950, the United States Department of the Treasury had 55 full-sized replicas of the Liberty Bell cast and shipped as gifts to all states and territories of the United States and the District of Columbia. The bells were displayed with the slogan "Save for Your Independence" and were to be rung on patriotic occasions. I believe that November 7th fits into that category.
What is the Liberty Bell to mean to our children and our children’s children? What meaning will “sacrifice” and “honor” and “principle” and “one union” have for them? Will they have to study the sacrifice of our forefathers in Spanish because it has replaced English as the primary language? Would “sacrifice” be defined in new textbooks to mean “making it successfully across the border into the United States and successfully dodging border patrols (soon to be the bad guys in the textbooks) to take advantage of the politically corrected political system that has torn away our heritage and ravished our culture”?
Think it can’t happen? Just remember the little brouhaha earlier this year when Spanish-speaking artists came up with the novel idea of changing the words to the Star Spangled Banner and having it written and sung in Spanish. The new Spanish version of our "The Star-Spangled Banner" called "Nuestro Himno” in Spanish — translated “Our Anthem” which could handily dispose of our U.S. national anthem and our strictly English-language tradition in our nation’s classrooms.
So for whose liberty will the bell be tolling on November 7th? Our Liberty Bell is not a “Compromise Bell” or a national symbol of “Come-and-Get-It” or even a “Tread On Me Because We’re Suckers Bell”.
What is wrong with our nation when we are so ready to compromise our freedoms? With each successive generation the nation and its life, its values, its traditions, and its language will disappear because we Americans were too preoccupied, too narrow to see that an illegal alien invasion was taking our children’s liberty. We have to stop ringing the bell for them and start ringing the Liberty Bell for us once again.
When you are standing in the voting booth on election day, November 7th, just pause for a moment and think about the Liberty Bell and whether or not the officials who you are electing will give our children a reason to see our Liberty Bell rung again or whether the American national anthem will be the new Spanish version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" called "Nuestro Himno".
It’s your choice…Ring the Bell for America and save our independence. Vote November 7th.
Saturday 30 September 2006, by Alain
America may not only be losing its identity it may very well be losing its most defining quality: our American liberty unless pro-American candidates are elected on November 7th. With the mid-term general election season upon us a crucial question we must ask ourselves as we enter the polling place is whether or not the gubernatorial, congressional, and state senate or representative candidates will be voting for our American liberty or for the liberty of illegal aliens who are carefully disassembling our American culture, our educational and health systems and, quite frankly, our children’s future. The mid-term elections could very well determine our nation’s future security as well.
Why are the mid-term elections important? Just ask any mom, dad, classroom teacher or sports coach who is desperately shorted of essential supplies and resources because their much-needed funds have been diverted to pay — nationally as well as locally — for educating illegal alien children? According to the national group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) the illegal immigrant children and those illegal immigrant children born on American soil are costing American taxpayers close to $28 billion annually.
What about our congressional representatives who will be taking office in January? They will be taking up possible illegal alien giveaways determining whether or not a 700-mile border fence will be truly built instead of the 2,000-mile fence that should be built. They may be considering another amnesty bill or whether or not your local hospital will continue to provide services in the billions of dollars and forcing dozens of hospitals to be shut down all across America (in a neighborhood near you!).
We willingly embrace the notion that our national security efforts have been firm against post-9/11 terrorism and how we are keeping would be terrorist activity at bay in the Middle East and not on American soil.
We have to address the national security threat which is invisible to most Americans. When a hospital shuts in the community next door, or the local school cannot provide your child with the programs that you remember as a child, that is a national security threat.
What about the jobs that are slowly disappearing, the housing benefits that your American-born family is not entitled to (but illegal aliens are!), or the college scholarships going to illegal aliens but not American-born kids, or those confusing multiple language signs which are appearing regularly in public so that America can be transformed into Mexico north?
What is liberty to Americans if we don’t stand up for it on Election Day? Election Day is the one time we have the opportunity to exercise our choice, our selection, our defenders!
The Liberty Bell should be ringing loud and clear in our ears on Election Day. So let’s begin to prepare for it now. In between the weekend college football game or the favorite Sunday pro-hockey game or the playoff bound baseball team game, take a few minutes to learn about the candidates who either support your rights as a legal American citizen or support the other unique American pastime: 1 – 3 million illegal invaders crossing our borders every year. Their supporters downplay their negative impact and casually refer to them as undocumented workers, which is like calling a burglar an uninvited houseguest.
These “uninvited guests” take away part-time jobs that your son may have had in order to afford a down payment on a car or to pay for his college tuition or supplies. Or consider the next emergency room visit you make to take your newborn in for a sudden illness and you are sent away because the emergency room personnel have their hands full due to treating the first-come first-served illegal aliens.
Is it fair? Is it correct? That is for you to judge on Election Day, but what is not open for debate is the level of liberty that we are being asked to surrender week-by-week, community-by-community and sanctuary city-by-sanctuary city.
FAIR has identified the adoption of “sanctuary” policies by cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego and Houston as a growing barrier to combating the illegal alien invasion despite a 1996 Congressional ban and a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, which removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally.
In 1950, the United States Department of the Treasury had 55 full-sized replicas of the Liberty Bell cast and shipped as gifts to all states and territories of the United States and the District of Columbia. The bells were displayed with the slogan "Save for Your Independence" and were to be rung on patriotic occasions. I believe that November 7th fits into that category.
What is the Liberty Bell to mean to our children and our children’s children? What meaning will “sacrifice” and “honor” and “principle” and “one union” have for them? Will they have to study the sacrifice of our forefathers in Spanish because it has replaced English as the primary language? Would “sacrifice” be defined in new textbooks to mean “making it successfully across the border into the United States and successfully dodging border patrols (soon to be the bad guys in the textbooks) to take advantage of the politically corrected political system that has torn away our heritage and ravished our culture”?
Think it can’t happen? Just remember the little brouhaha earlier this year when Spanish-speaking artists came up with the novel idea of changing the words to the Star Spangled Banner and having it written and sung in Spanish. The new Spanish version of our "The Star-Spangled Banner" called "Nuestro Himno” in Spanish — translated “Our Anthem” which could handily dispose of our U.S. national anthem and our strictly English-language tradition in our nation’s classrooms.
So for whose liberty will the bell be tolling on November 7th? Our Liberty Bell is not a “Compromise Bell” or a national symbol of “Come-and-Get-It” or even a “Tread On Me Because We’re Suckers Bell”.
What is wrong with our nation when we are so ready to compromise our freedoms? With each successive generation the nation and its life, its values, its traditions, and its language will disappear because we Americans were too preoccupied, too narrow to see that an illegal alien invasion was taking our children’s liberty. We have to stop ringing the bell for them and start ringing the Liberty Bell for us once again.
When you are standing in the voting booth on election day, November 7th, just pause for a moment and think about the Liberty Bell and whether or not the officials who you are electing will give our children a reason to see our Liberty Bell rung again or whether the American national anthem will be the new Spanish version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" called "Nuestro Himno".
It’s your choice…Ring the Bell for America and save our independence. Vote November 7th.
Democratic Party Strategy: Forget the Truth
By: Thomas E. Brewton
Saturday 30 September 2006, by Alain
Democrats, dominated by their liberal-socialist wing, have swallowed whole the socialistic and pragmatist philosophy doctrine that truth is simply whatever opinion wins in the media marketplace. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.
Daniel Henninger’s editorial page article in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, "Can the Democrats Beat Bush’s Beliefs With Poll Politics?" captures the unreality that has become the Democrat’s policy position on foreign affairs.
Mr. Henninger writes: "Democrats want voters to view the November election through the fogged and bloody prism of the war in Iraq.... It is difficult to imagine that the U.S. soldiers in Iraq would regard the political debate back home as measuring up to the seriousness of what they do every day. How would you like to roll out of your bunk in al Anbar province, Mosul or Baghdad on a Sunday morning and read across the top of the local U.S. paper that everything you’ve done in Iraq for three years has merely made the terrorism threat worse? You just might lose heart a notch, a dangerous thing when fighting a war.
"But at this late stage of the campaign, Iraq-as-failure has become the central narrative in the Democrats’ strategy. A memo sent out to Democrats last week by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a strategy group led by former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg, discusses Mr. Bush’s ’failure in Iraq, which energized Democrats and dispirited Republicans.’ It urges Democrats: ’On Iraq, stress Bush/GOP ’mismanagement’ and need for a ’new direction.’ "
Advertisers of consumer products often structure advertisements to associate their products with a mood or a sense of pleasure, often without providing specifics about the product. Advertisers appear to believe that image, at least in the Baby Boomer world, is everything.
Basing their campaign strategy on the sort of focus-group polling employed by consumer-goods advertisers, Democrats just want voters to associate their party with peace and opposition to anything that might require our military forces to enter dangerous combat. The declared intent of Islamic jihadists to subjugate or destroy all non- Muslim societies must be ignored, as it would conflict with the nebulous image that fighting back is the root cause of terrorism. Appeasement, aka "negotiating" via the UN, is the Democrat’s Ned- Lamont socialist answer.
Such was the fantasy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he met with Adolph Hitler in Munich to sanction National Socialist Germany’s seizure of Czechslovakia’s Sudetenland. Mr. Chamberlain happily returned to England, on the eve of World War II, proclaiming, "Peace in our time."
Democrats have convinced themselves that dealing with terrorists is the same as stopping ordinary criminals, with arrests after the fact, public trials, and rehabilitation programs.
This follows from another liberal-socialist doctrine: crime and war are the result of unequal distribution of income, which creates aggressive behavior among those deprived of their "constitutional rights" to the same level of income as everyone else.
The Democrats, the party of John Dewey’s socialistic pragmatism, resolutely oppose the data of real-life experience and cling to the Darwinian doctrine that the world is a matter of chance, producing a process of social evolution. Yesterday’s "truth" (of course, with the exception of socialism and pragmatism) will not be today’s or tomorrow’s "truth." With everything in a continuous state of flux, according to that theory, there is no truth, merely valid or invalid propositions. If an action works to your advantage, regardless of what happens to others, it is "valid."
If their campaign to destroy President Bush succeeds, no matter what happens to our troops around the world or to our nation in the future, the necessary actions are, by Democrats’ pragmatic lights, "valid."
Given liberal-socialist control of most of the opinion-forming media – newspapers, magazines, TV, movies – Democrats may win on image without substance. After three quarters of a century of educational indoctrination in the religion of socialism, too few Americans have been given the historical knowledge necessary to distinguish fact from fiction.
Saturday 30 September 2006, by Alain
Democrats, dominated by their liberal-socialist wing, have swallowed whole the socialistic and pragmatist philosophy doctrine that truth is simply whatever opinion wins in the media marketplace. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.
Daniel Henninger’s editorial page article in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, "Can the Democrats Beat Bush’s Beliefs With Poll Politics?" captures the unreality that has become the Democrat’s policy position on foreign affairs.
Mr. Henninger writes: "Democrats want voters to view the November election through the fogged and bloody prism of the war in Iraq.... It is difficult to imagine that the U.S. soldiers in Iraq would regard the political debate back home as measuring up to the seriousness of what they do every day. How would you like to roll out of your bunk in al Anbar province, Mosul or Baghdad on a Sunday morning and read across the top of the local U.S. paper that everything you’ve done in Iraq for three years has merely made the terrorism threat worse? You just might lose heart a notch, a dangerous thing when fighting a war.
"But at this late stage of the campaign, Iraq-as-failure has become the central narrative in the Democrats’ strategy. A memo sent out to Democrats last week by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a strategy group led by former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg, discusses Mr. Bush’s ’failure in Iraq, which energized Democrats and dispirited Republicans.’ It urges Democrats: ’On Iraq, stress Bush/GOP ’mismanagement’ and need for a ’new direction.’ "
Advertisers of consumer products often structure advertisements to associate their products with a mood or a sense of pleasure, often without providing specifics about the product. Advertisers appear to believe that image, at least in the Baby Boomer world, is everything.
Basing their campaign strategy on the sort of focus-group polling employed by consumer-goods advertisers, Democrats just want voters to associate their party with peace and opposition to anything that might require our military forces to enter dangerous combat. The declared intent of Islamic jihadists to subjugate or destroy all non- Muslim societies must be ignored, as it would conflict with the nebulous image that fighting back is the root cause of terrorism. Appeasement, aka "negotiating" via the UN, is the Democrat’s Ned- Lamont socialist answer.
Such was the fantasy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he met with Adolph Hitler in Munich to sanction National Socialist Germany’s seizure of Czechslovakia’s Sudetenland. Mr. Chamberlain happily returned to England, on the eve of World War II, proclaiming, "Peace in our time."
Democrats have convinced themselves that dealing with terrorists is the same as stopping ordinary criminals, with arrests after the fact, public trials, and rehabilitation programs.
This follows from another liberal-socialist doctrine: crime and war are the result of unequal distribution of income, which creates aggressive behavior among those deprived of their "constitutional rights" to the same level of income as everyone else.
The Democrats, the party of John Dewey’s socialistic pragmatism, resolutely oppose the data of real-life experience and cling to the Darwinian doctrine that the world is a matter of chance, producing a process of social evolution. Yesterday’s "truth" (of course, with the exception of socialism and pragmatism) will not be today’s or tomorrow’s "truth." With everything in a continuous state of flux, according to that theory, there is no truth, merely valid or invalid propositions. If an action works to your advantage, regardless of what happens to others, it is "valid."
If their campaign to destroy President Bush succeeds, no matter what happens to our troops around the world or to our nation in the future, the necessary actions are, by Democrats’ pragmatic lights, "valid."
Given liberal-socialist control of most of the opinion-forming media – newspapers, magazines, TV, movies – Democrats may win on image without substance. After three quarters of a century of educational indoctrination in the religion of socialism, too few Americans have been given the historical knowledge necessary to distinguish fact from fiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)