Monday, July 26, 2004

Kerry for President

A friend joined a couple buddies and myself for an after dinner drink last evening. Eyeing the button she was sporting her hand bag that read Kerry/Ewards, one of my friends asked her if she was pro-Kerry or anti-Bush. Of course she answered that she was pro-Kerry.

Normally, I enjoy these occasions to speak, but for some reason I wasn't in the mood. In part, because I was tired from the heavy meal and two Belgian ales and our round of golf. But it was also a little depressing. You see, she is voluteering for the Kerry campaign.

Getting to the point, I just don't understand how anyone can support John Kerry for President of the United States.

At the height of the Vietnam War, while brave American soldiers were dying, John Kerry testified in front of Congress, the American people and the world's media, that American soldiers routinely committed war crimes on a "day to day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command".

In this testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry continued that U.S. soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

I guess that isn't telling enough of Mr. Kerry's integrity.

If anyone wonders how we lost a war without losing a single major battle, this is the answer.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Even with the beloved international coalition which included France, Germany, even with several Arab states supporting the war, even with United Nations security council approval, John Kerry voted against the first Gulf War.

Can anyone imagine the world today, had Saddam not been removed from Kuwait? (hint: we discovered a nuclear program far exceeding our intelligence expectations. Saddam was mere months from going nuclear).

I guess this isn't telling enough of Mr. Kerry's judgement.

George Bush married Laura. Mr. Kerry married Teresa Heinz. I guess that isn't telling enough of Mr. Kerry's character.

Probably the most maddening cliche I keep hearing from Democrats is that the Republicans are "divisive". I get it - When 4 liberal judges decree gay marriage on the rest of the country, the Republican's are being divisive. Let's see, John Edwards stump speech, titled "The Two America's" is about the rich versus the poor, the privelided versus the 'disenfranchised', the..... No divisiveness there. Who exactly comprises the NAACP, National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus? Oh yeah, African American Democrats. When Republican Senator Jesse Watts tried to join the caucus they tried to keep him out. 40% of union members are Republican, but their dues are routinely used to support candidates that they oppose. Oh, but the Republican's are divisive.

Who supports racial preferences that pigeon hole Americans into racial catagories and divide the spoils among "preferred" minorities pitting one group against another? Democrats. Oh, but Republican's are divisive.

Which party has quotas on race, sex and sexual orientation for their convention delegates?

I've also been thinking about the Democrat's new motto: "A Stronger America, Restoring Our Image Abroad".

America has liberated 50 million people from the clutches of two of the most brutal regimes in history. WE * HAVE * NOTHING * TO APOLOGIZE * FOR *

John Edwards speech about "restoring hope". Hope is fine. We are all "hoping" we aren't attacked again, but I prefer having a president who is DOING something about it.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

JFK Conservative

Below I discuss a friend's comments comparing Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore. This same person later wrote something that has me thinking.

He wrote "I have utter contempt for Rush. I think he is a hate monger that, frankly, has done more to polarize America than anyone".

Of course, he couldn't actually articulate to whom Rush is fomenting hate, just as he earlier could not give a single issue that Rush was 'extreme'. Conservative? Yes. Extreme in the Michael Moore sense? No.

But he is correct that American political discourse is more polarized. Why?

I believe it is from several factors.

One factor is the rise of alternative media. Not so long ago, virtually everyone who got their news from television had 3 choices, ABC, CBS or NBC. The networks in turn got their news from the NY Times, along with the rest of the print media, so it follows that discourse would seem more civil. Everyone in the media thought the same - Democrats good. Republicans bad (or greedy or mean-spirited or evil). No disagreement, no asperity.

Another factor is the fact that the Democrats have lost the House and the Senate for the first time in some 40 odd years. Throw in the Presidency and you've got a group that is desperate to regain power - or as Rush would put it "restore the natural order of things".

The third reason has to do with why the Democrats have lost both houses of congress and the presidency - Democrat politicians are out of touch with their democratic voters. Since the Democrats went so long unchallenged by the liberal media they have elected politicians that are far left of the average democrat. That's why Democrat politicians run from the label of "liberal". Many such as Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Watters are not "liberal" but radical.

Conservatives in turn have been largely successful in purging from their ranks the anti-Semitic, racists and other kooks who once found a home. Let's face it - there are no elected Republican Nazi's, but there are numerous socialists and even the occasional anti-Semite Democrat congressman. As you go down to local politicians, it gets exponentially kookier. The kooks can remain due in part to the double-standard of the press.

Illustrating how far left the Democrats have become it is helpful to take a close look at their icon, John F. Kennedy. You tell me which party would give his inaugural address today:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

In addition, consider that during his tragically shortened 3 years in office JFK:

Cut taxes
Intervened in Vietnam
Attacked Cuba
Was a fervent anti-Communist
Believed in a color-blind society

What was liberal is now conservative. What was left is now liberal.

What we are witnessing is a very liberal Democrat Party supported by a very liberal media that is being forced to portray a comparatively mainstream Republican party evermore radical just to make themselves appear more centrist.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Same Old Europe

Swedes and the Swiss are fine folks, I'm sure. But few consider during WWII, they were neutral. Neutral against Nazis. They boasted of that policy of neutrality throughout the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Neutral against the 'Evil Empire' and proud of it.

It worked out well for Switzerland and Sweden. Both sold raw materials and provided other support for the Third Riecht and were basically left alone, so long as they didn't cause trouble.

The Poles, Danes, Belgians, British, the Dutch all fought, most with no hope of even slowing down the blitzkrieg. Even the French fought for a couple weeks, back then.

At the conclusion of the war (i.e. victory) Switzerland's and Sweden's cities were intact and their casualties minimum. This seems to be the lesson many Europeans learned from WWII.

Do Swedes and the Swiss ever allow themselves to wonder how long Hitler would have left them alone had he been victorious and others not fought in their stead? Imagine how it would stick Hitler's craw, every time he would look at a large wall map of Europe and saw one big "Germany" as his eyes were immediately drawn to the two tiny pockets of appeasers.

Here's the real lesson they learned; It's easy to be neutral when others will fight for you.

Friday, July 09, 2004

Bush Haters

Why do they hate Bush so much? His amiable personality should not elicit such emotions from so many. Here's my personal view:

Democrats are still not over the 2000 election. Even those who acknowledge that Bush did indeed rightly win Florida are still bitter over their narrow defeat.

With such circumstances, they expected Bush to be a weak president with no mandate.

Everything changed after September 11, 2001. After 9/11, Bush became a strong leader with tremendous popular support to do what he believed he had to do to protect the country. This popularity, strength and, perhaps most of all, his moral conviction has made them unhinged to the point that they are more concerned with fictional "lies" about war than rejoice in the liberation of 50,000,000 human beings from the clutches of two of the most brutal regimes that ever existed. Remember, these are the same people who proclaim loudest their passions on "human rights", "social justice" and "equality". Well, George Bush has done more for human rights, social justice and equality than any one person since Winston Churchill or FDR. Prior to that you'd have to go to Abraham Lincoln.

This is the other reason that they are unglued. Should this administration be successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East, George Bush will be remembered as few world leaders before. They'd rather have a failed Middle East than a Republican getting credit for its success. I can only hope for most of them, its an unconscious thought.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Well Educated Fools

I was the guest of a friend at a going-away party last evening at a fancy restaurant. The gentleman who was moving was an attorney and worked for the District Attorney's office, here in San Francisco. Needless to say, there were several other attorneys present.

Late in the gathering the subject of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was brought up by one of the guest, who by that time I learned had attended law school at Yale. He was quite animated by the topic and obviously was a fan of both the movie and Moore.

At this point a friend of mine commented that Moore "was just like Rush Limbaugh. Both extremes".

Really? Leave aside the fact that no one can ever honestly name a single issue on which Rush is actually "extreme", let's look at Michael Moore:

Michael Moore's website, September 11, 2001:

If someone did this [9/11] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him!.

He praises our enemies who are beheading innocents in Iraq and who are fighting against freedom for Iraqis.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

He shows contempt for our American soldiers who fought and died for the removal of the "Butcher of Baghdad" and for the right of Iraqis to vote, go to school, have a free press, an independent judiciary...

I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe - just maybe - God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

He slurs civilian workers like Nick Berg and Paul Johnson who were slaughtered trying to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure helping provide them with clean water and power.

Those are not contractors in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE.

He has contempt for ordinary Americans that he openly expresses to foreign audiences.

They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . we Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.
- London Daily Mirror

Should such an ignorant people lead the world?
-Open letter to the German People in Die Zeit.

At the fall of the Soviet Union he displayed his moral confusion:

One evil empire down, one to go!

Rush Limbaugh speaks for 3 hours per day, 5 days a week and rarely has guests. He is on 600 radio stations with 20 million listeners. He has been doing this for 20 years. Can anyone find one quote from Mr. Limbaugh that is nearly as utterly foolish as any of the above quotes from Michael Moore? Bear in mind that Rush faces a barrage of hostile callers (those who disagree get on first) while Moore has stated openly that he will not give interviews to anyone who will question his film.

Michael Moore is not what troubles me. He is but one ignoramus with a platform. It is the well-educated, intelligent, successful people who support him that is disturbing.

They seem almost giddy that this anti-American drivel is broadcast throughout the world. Are there large numbers of Canadians who would rejoice at blatantly anti-Canadian propaganda garnering worldwide attention and accolades? Are there Germans? French? Belgians? Costa Ricans?

There must be something physiologically satisfying to this segment of our country that takes pleasure in bashing this, the greatest society that ever existed.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this entire affair is that those who cry the loudest about America's "image" in the world being tarnished by Bush are exactly the same people who are embracing this person and this film. Do they think this helps?

What is it about a country that grants to the greatest number of the most diverse peoples, the most freedom and prosperity ever enjoyed by human beings, that makes them so hostile to it?