Karl Rove is the man, and Howard Dean may be a racist...

Two quotes have stood out in the news today and one seems to be making more waves than the other. Karl Rove speaking at a fundraiser in Manhattan, spoke of the feeling that most of us get when thinking of the democrat idea of fighting the war on terrorism. He said,"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,". Was he wrong? Is he just flat out lying? Dennis Kucinich is a liberal check out his website. Kucinich seems to think we are the cause of terrorism because we make too much money and do not share. Michael Moore is a liberal remember what he said, click here. Moore seems to think that there is no terrorist threat, and Bush manipulated 9/11. It is not just the famous democrats or the leaders who speak of cajoling the terrorists, check out this thread from an online forum the day of the 9/11 attacks, click here. Karl Rove was not speaking some sort of blasphemy. The democrats are going to ask for an apology or for the President to distance himself from the remarks, but neither should happen. For one last example remember Congressman Jim McDermott, who seems to think we have not been attacked in 185 years. Uh, Congressman, do you remember Dec. 7th, 1941? To be honest, like Rove was being, the democrats do not even know who we are fighting. Rep. Rangel (d) from New York, does not even want to call it Islamic terrorism.

Keeping the above in mind, let us take a look at the ever useful dnc chairman Howie Dean and his latest remarks (this guy is a Godsend). Yesterday the lately, ever-present Dean suggested that the Republican party in Ohio were systematically hindering and obstructing the voting process for African-Americans. He said, "It's been widely reported over the past several years that Republicans do target African-Americans for voter suppression. It's very clear here while there was no massive voter fraud, and I concur with the conclusion — it's also clear that there was massive voter suppression," later having to rescind the idea of the fraud being Republican specific. After, their boy Howie, used the oft-used phrase that all liberals use to gin up conspiracies, "the appearance of impropriety". I love that, while it may not be illegal or they may not have actually seen a wrong-doing it sure has the appearance of impropriety. What the #$%# does that mean, really? Appearance of impropriety? One may be subjective enough to see anything as having an appearance of impropriety. Beyond that liberal cliche', let us take a closer look at ol' Doc' Dean's accusation. I do believe I hear some racism creeping in to his rhetoric. Is he suggesting that all African-Americans vote democrat, 100% of them? Last I heard the demographics suggest otherwise. That means Howie is being stereotypically ignorant, and non-multicultural. How can he just lump all African-Americans into one specific group. Either he can read minds or he is being just a tad uncaring at least, or racist at worst.

It is not too far-fetched to imagine that Dean's remarks will pass by the media without much of a wink, while Karl Rove's remarks on the other hand will have a spotlight shone upon them for days. It should not matter, for if we look back the White House advisor did not say democrats he used the word, "liberals". So, when all these members of Congress come out roaring and steaming, all they will be doing is identifying themselves as the true, pinko liberals that they are. They do not call him the architect for nothing.

Taking it all in...

At times even the most intellectual being gets caught up in the minutia that is world events. Opinions roar and ideas wane at different times and at set intervals. To this end I venture to put forward three important tasks for our government to undertake in the near future. With the benefit of hindsight, one can look to our past as a basis of valuable and important endeavors for the betterment of our country. These tasks being in the realm of international politics, and through international diplomacy or action a more peaceful future can be better guaranteed.

1) From the Arctic Cirlce to Tierra del Fuego, a region of hemispheric free trade needs to be initiated. Beyond NAFTA and even CAFTA, an agreement between our regional, continental neighbors, being as economically relevant as Monroe was politically sound with his doctrine, a treaty needs to be instituted. Whereas freedom in commerce may bring with it freedom's natural allowance. Perceived openess to our exports by some means delaying with country's whose labor standards are not as ideal as ours. In and of itself being bad enough for some to oppose such an agreement. As an argument against those opposed, asking a society to avoid the progression we ourselves have gone through makes little sense and creates a too, long awaited level of minimum adherence. A further supportive argument in favor of such an intiative, would be the lesser intended benefit of curbing illegal immigration. Call it the idea of, "a rising tide...". Prosperity and the freedom that such prosperity is partnered with, alleviates the need for a search for home beyond one's borders. Entreprenuerism and the freedom to pursue such, builds in a society a desire for betterment.

2) A novel approach needs to be undertaken with an as yet unrealized fellow "super power". In terms of population this country is the larget in the world. Pair that with its contemporary ascendence up the economic food-chain, and curing the issue that is China needs a pro-active rather than reactive undertaking. One portion of this novel approach is not novel by definition in that it has been a staple of our international diplomacy for years. That portion being the backing of a free and support of a democratic Taiwan. Another step toward a lessening of power policy would be the creation of a dissident culture in the world of public opinion and press. Dissidence in the former Soviet state and accompanying Eastern Bloc, i.e. Walesa, Scholtzyneitsen, etc. was a powerful tool in swinging negative perception. The novelty in this approach would be an idea of supporting religious groups, whose activities are not even legal presently, who desire a freedom that as Americans we are beginning to take for granted. The freedom to worship and by any means practice as such can and has been a powerful force on behalf of the cause of liberty.

3) A continent behind walls of famine and destitution is almost unimaginable to the modern mind. Be they beyond third-worldly, inhabitants of Africa reside on a continent laden with natural resources which can almost not be conceived. Billions spent in aid, lives lost in tribal struggles has led to, finally after decades, the idea that a new response to the same problems be instituted. Moneys laid out for improvement must be contingent upon certain behavioral minimums. Unlike the left, with their racist goal of limiting pro-creation, our goals must be substantial in that they are measured in lives saved not minimized. Behavioral being the key word, in that the AIDS pandemic in present-day Africa has a behavioral component. Epidemiological, quantifiable data gathering must be at the forefront of any rational battle against the threat of AIDS in Africa. It cannot be ideological, meaning the results of any data must be substantiated and used in the action for behavioral change. More clearly stated, if the results make apparent the idea that another factor than sexual habits is leading the spread, then that behavior must be made known to the masses. To the point, a logical, fact-based response to the pandemic must be undertaken for the future of a prosperous continent which will in turn be postive for our nation in the long run.
Secondly, seeing that Secretary Rice has finally made the aims of our administration known on Egyptian soil, the idea that aid from our country is contingent upon the existence of Democracy must be expanded throughout the African continent. Zimbabwe, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, along with Egypt need to be given ultimatums along the same lines as Lybia, which by the way is not free and clear just yet.

These three iniatives being outside the focus of the mainstream mindset. These are ideas to keep in mind in the longview, having realized Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea are in the forefront. Lastly an idea to ponder is the eventual demise of Castro and the future of that hemispheric neighbor.

A Quick One...

If anyone is still paying any attention to that story about the UK memo, "Downing Street Memo", well I wrote about it a while back. On May 12th, I posted a column about the unproven memo and some shakey formatting of said memo. If you read some of the stories around the media today. It seems that my assumptions were correct. I love it when I'm right.

The West Wing of all things has inspired me...

The Bravo network seems to incessantly play the silly show the West Wing. I somehow ran across it while flipping and dipping through the stations. In one of those rare occasions where I land on a station and my mind wanders, I found myself viewing this ridiculous yarn. Martin Sheen was acting as if channeling Bubba from a far off place. In the few minutes I watched, three actors playing some type of white house counsels were pushing for the president to veto an act that would repeal the inheritance tax, or estate tax. Ol' Marty was espousing his views about the general public and how they would react to his veto. Loosely quoted Sheen, acting as president, said, "That's what's wrong with the American dream, too many people waiting for the day they expect to be rich". Now I know you may rhetorically ask, "Why is anyone watching the West Wing anyway?" But, I am actually glad I did because it gave me a glimpse at the negativity that is pervasive in the democrat party. What is the American dream but that, an expectation of one day being rich. Working hard, trying likewise, doing all you can to achieve the most that you can. The left seems to think that no one moves up, no one gets rich on their own, no one actually is achieving what Horatio Alger was trying have everyone believe in. So, the left wants to place as many road blocks anyway, and punish those who have somehow miraculously achieved the American Dream. If a millionaire is a person who has, then 7.5 million of our fellow Americans have. That is a gain of 21% in one year. And if anyone thinks that is still a small number in relation to the entire population, those millionaires account for almsot 35% of our population. If anyone cares that is approximately 3.5 times the poverty rate in the U.S. So much for the American dream, huh?

Keep 'em poor, sad, and upset...

I was thinking, after having read another ridiculous article in my free copy of Rolling Stone, what do liberal, socialistic activists seek. I do not think it is truly socialism or liberalism for that matter. For if their ideal socialistic state were ever attained, what would they do? How would they make a living, what would they have to complain about? I do realize these questions are mere folly. Socialism does not work. An idea that these activists may or may not realize to begin with. For you see their brand of idealistic fervor is meant to rile up a specific group of people. Mostly the young, the impressionable, or the just plain lazy are who they seek. Lazy may be too strong a word, perhaps it is better described as those who are used to an institutionilized form of daily routine. An individual who sees no other form of trials as those set by bureaucratic keepers. A world where forms and permissions are needed gives these people a sense of being cared for by government. It may be politically incorrect, but my father may refer to these types as "line walkers". But, it fits, I need this, "go down and wait in line". I need that, "then get in the proper line". The idea that someone or something is regulating gives some people a warm, fuzzy feeling. So liberal, idealistic activists preach to this brand of person. And when they preach they speak of the big, bad red-staters who want to not give more money away. And without the money, government will not be able to pay for the regulators or the line-keepers or the bureaucrats. The idea of less money scares and upsets a lot of people. But a lot of people do not realize that it is our money. It may irk some to think that there are those individuals who see tax cuts as a bad thing. If the system worked, and those individuals who take the handouts and welfare and grants one day move on to CEO status or are ripe with the entrepreneurial spirit why not flaunt it? Why not tell their stories? I will give you one guess. The system perpetuates needyness, and a sense of us against them. And if an individual has that sense of being kept down, then they are further prime for the activist's message.
Ideally there are those starry-eyed people who go into the "not for profit" sector of the "real" world intent on doing something good, but how they think it is proper to do such a thing is unsound. To cry out for victims of the war in Iraq, makes little sense to those with an ounce of hindsight. For where were these individuals when Saddam was killing and torturing? Where was there P.A.C. for those people, with its tax-free status as a human rights organization?
People are indeed at the core decent in nature. So, when a group makes a big enough noise about some misdeed, be it true or untrue, most people will listen and feel somewhat sad. And when the culprit is the U.S., then they may even be upset. To take a step back and look at the big picture, these liberal, misleading organizations out to do good for the down-trodden have found themselves a pretty good niche. As long as there are people who do not realize that it is in the activist's future best interests that they remain poor, sad, and upset.

College has become easy, too easy...

I have been able to sit back and just watch recently. Blame it on down-time, or just blame it on good observational talents. I am in a rare position where I work at a college and myself am still attending a college. One may use the word"university" to replace the word college, it does not matter in this case. To the complaints of many around me, I have been at it (higher education) for a while now, fifteen years. My personal case does not matter. The length of time matters in that I have been able to see a development that to this writer is a bit worrisome. In a phrase it could be called, "lack of personal accountability". One would only need to look at a local college website and see the multiple programs, represented by acronyms, to aid in the education of our young high-school graduates. I do not know about you, but if a student has trouble learning and does not have a strategy to get past it by the time they finish high school, how did that student get into college in the first place? Not to say that there is not room for those with actual deficiencies, i.e. dyslexia, etc. But, what I am describing is beyond that. All one needs, in the case of your average learning institution, is documentation from a doctor. And what would that doctor's note state? It could cover everything from hearing deficiencies to anxiety to all manner of emotional troubles. Bottom-line: if your child wants unlimited time to take a test, or unlimited time to submit a paper, take him to his doctor for a note. That's right, unlimited time. One can also see that I have not mentioned the biggie: ADHD. Kids used to be hyperactive, and they used to be distracted. It probably is the rare case for a child to not be either at one time or another. Now the powers that be in the psycho-medical field have wrapped it all up in one neat little diagnosis. My child cannot sit still, and his grades are suffering. "No problem mam, here's a pill. Take it once in the morning and once in the afternoon, and here's a note for the school". What will happen to that child when they grow up and move on to the real world, where one cannot call for a timeout, or ask for more time to complete an assignment. Not to be too cynical, but I am waiting for the day when an individual sues his employer for not allowing that individual more time to complete their task. Can you imagine, "My boss says I need to complete the customer analysis by Monday, but I can't because I'm distracted. I need more time. Doesn't he know I'm ADHD. He's being mean." Never let it be said that the ACLU will ever run out of reasons to sue.

The Anti-American Disease by Dr.T

I'm so sick at heart I don't know where to begin. It seems that anti-Americanism is at an all time HIGH. I just don't get it. People peril themselves every day to reach our shores. Immigration is out of control. And yet with all the bad press around, one would have to ask, "why do they come?" According to Princeton Professor Andrew Moravcsik, the American dream is dead. His article according to Larry Elder of Townhall.com, appeared in the European edition of Newsweek back in February. It is interesting to note that the same article did not appear in our own edition. My my, shouldn't we Americans know our dream is dead? Leftist professors, leftist organizations (Amnesty International, the ACLU et.al) and the left leaning media continue to hammer America day after day. According to these folks, we never give enough and we are brutish conquerors seeking to impose our values on the world. Give me a break. There would be no UN (not a bad idea actually) were it not for the U.S.. America is now and always has been the most generous country on earth, giving billions and billons of dollars to everything from Aids prevention to Tsunami relief and all things in between.

I wish for once someone would have the stones to give the world a wake up call. If we just pulled half of our funding the impact would be enormous. I'm tired of seeing our hard earned money (remember it's not the government's) forked over to people and places that don't appreciate it.

In the meantime, my message to the enemies within our own country who talk us down and make us out to be "the evil empire" is quite simple. "I'll be glad to help you pack your bags."

Rolling Stone Hates Us and Everything We Do...

Some marketing guru sent me a free copy of Rolling Stone magazine in the mail, which included an offer for four more free copies if I wish. It may bring a boost to my laughter quota per day, but in short, "not on your life!" Needless to say I would never have actually bought a copy of their rag in the first place, but had I not received this complimentary copy (there is a joke in there somewhere) I would not have been treated to such all out, uncontrolled diatribe of left-leaning, Bush-hating B.S. I have seen in a while.
I used to actually enjoy R.S. when I was in high school. It was one of the only places I could read about what was then called "alternative music". I really enjoyed their college radio lists in the back (does anyone remember Robyn Hitchcock and the Egyptians, probably not). Part of the reason I enjoyed R.S. back then was for the music. I either payed no attention to their political leanings or did not notice. I even thought P.J. O'Rourke was on their side, which shows you how uninformed I was back then (too bad P.J. does not work there anymore). Now when I searched for some news on some "new" music, all I found was a story about some group I knew of anyway, or the articles consistently reported on how much the artist is a lefty. Just to remind everyone, I knew better, and I know there are better resources to dig up new music, e.g. conservativepunk.com. But, I was amazed at the hatred, the rhetoric, and the uncontrolled pap.
Quick example, they refer to Sen. Harry Reid (d) of Nevada as "the gunslinger". Thinking back on the perusal of the flat-out garbage printed in the rag, I can say it is a good look at how far gone the left is today.
I missed last month's edition, but I would bet it was much of the same. Writers espousing liberal beliefs, telling us of bands we already know, and it all mixed with the sheep squealing, "Bush is baaaad". I was reading the letters to the editor, in the front of the mag, and saw that a reader was taking a writer with a liberal slant to task. The piece from last month was titled, "the Quagmire". I guess that one can easily realize that the piece was about Iraq. The writer of the piece was named Dreyfuss, and much like the rest of the liberal established press a reader points out that Dreyfuss quotes a source close to the military as saying, "our plan is to make Iraq a colony". I suggest going back and reading above again. Someone is responsible for this crap. Who actually believes our country's intentions are to turn Iraq into a colony? Who uses the word colony anymore either? But wait the writer, Dreyfuss, responds to the readers letter. Dreyfuss writes, "The military brass now says ( good grammar there) that American troops will be in Iraq for ""many years"". That may not qualify as a colony, but it's damn close." Come on, this is too easy. Does this guy call himself a journalist? I have a few questions for this guy. How long have our troops been stationed in Okinawa? Or Germany? Or Korea? Or Sicily? These may not qualify as colonies, because they are not.
Of course there is more to refute in the mag. This is but a small sampling. Stay tuned for more when I pick apart the R.S. piece on AIDS funds to Africa.

Not so much a "touchy" subject

As one reads through the columns that have been posted here by Dr. T and myself, one may gather that there are topics that have been avoided. That is not necessarily so. In some cases research needs to be done. Research is sometimes simply gathering more information on specific subject matter. Basically its the point that our columns hold enough importance with us, that they not be interpreted as a device for "half-cocked" rantings.

To the point, so-called "same-sex marriage", is not marriage at all. The idea that a definition of marriage has ever been understood to not necessarily mean one man and one woman is preposterous. Two men coming together under the auspices and idea of being betrothed in matrimony should make as much sense as my dog trying to marry the tree he relieves himself on in my yard. What the lesbian and gay lobbies want is an as of yet undeclared right that has not been created. Their screams of inequality are flat-out false. Each individual citizen in this country has as much right to marry as the next person, given that the person that the citizen wants to marry is of the opposite sex. A gay man has as much right to marry his boyfriend as I have as a married man to marry another woman in addition to my wife. The "same-sex marriage" crowd simply wants recognition, while they scream about legal and financial benefits that they are lacking. Bunk, simply bunk. I can legally leave my estate as defined by the directions set out in my last will and testament to absolutely anyone I choose. Heck, I could even leave it to my aforementioned dog. Which by the way does not mean I want to marry him (his breath is awful!). I can direct my doctor to allow anyone I wish to visit me in the hospital. I can legally name as a beneficiary to my life insurance policy anyone I wish. Heck I could even pick up a piece of driftwood and express my vows to it in front of a witch doctor, it still does not mean that I am married to said piece of wood.

What this argument is about is societal change, trying to change the foundations of western civilization. And specifically the bedrock of our society which is the family. A family as realized to be one man, one woman who are naturally assumed to produce the next generation of our society, ie. the child. That man and that woman then raise and nurture the child together (it doesn't take a "village"). Call it the duality of man, call it the yin and yang, but its two unequal beings equally creating and nurturing a future together.

To be continued...

Real Quick: Hypocrisy of the Left!?

Howard Dean gave a rip-roarin' speech to a bunch of left-wing, supporters at the "Take Back America" conference in Washington yesterday. Along with saying that Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives", he spoke about pension plans. I believe Howard Dean may be actually losing his mind. He said pension plans "ought not to be controlled by companies, they ought to be controlled by the people who those pensions belong to". Now I know I am not crazy when I ask, isn't that what the Republican president of this nation wants to do with social security, ie. give control to the people who pay into it? Dean seems to think that it is bad when "big" corporate America controls retirement accounts, but good to have "big" government control retirement accounts. My advice to Howie:
1) Get a grip, you're a doctor for gosh sakes. Act like one, not like you need one.
2) Have someone proofread your speeches.
or 3) Keep on keepin' on, the more you speak the weirder your party seems.

How Can They Have It Both Ways?

First they tell us that Saddam had weapons, key word had. Then they come out and report, right before the attack on Baghdad, that Iraq is weapons free. We go to war, change Iraq forever, and they tell us Bush lied. He lied about weapons, he exaggerated the intelligence, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they were not involved in making WMD. The last two have been used for years now by the extreme left, by the democrats, by the press, and by everyone who does not like President Bush.
Now the U. N. has a report from weapons inspectors that says material and technology that can be used for the production of WMD is missing since the start of the war. Wait a minute, I thought there were no weapons. And if Saddam was not trying to build any, why would there be material and technology missing? The report states that on top of material and technology that can be used for the production of chemical and biological weapons, there were also materials to design and build long-range missiles. Missiles like the ones that were banned from Iraq by the U.N.
Who is right? If this UNMOVIC report is right, then so was President Bush, bottom-line. And all these people who yelled about the lies will now start yelling and asking where these weapons and materials have gone. I can tell you where they have gone, the Baqaa Valley in Syria near the border with Lebanon. It is just like people on the right have been saying all along. And is it not convenient that now Syria is testing Scud missiles? Coincidence?
If you go and read the stories about the report, you will see that the report is based on satellite imaging of the regions suspected of being WMD production sites. The report came from analysis of before and after images. What strikes me funny is that when the U.S., prior to the Iraq war, was talking about satellite images showing massive amounts of trucks moving from Iraq over the Syrian border it was brushed off as lies. Now the U.N. reports using the same analysis. Are they lying too?
We were right. The Iraq war was right. We should now keep a very close eye on Syria. I do believe they are next.

A Message From the E. B. C., or (European Broadcasting Company)

To whom it may or may not concern,

Our attempts at making Brussels, Belgium the "fourth" Rome, have resoundingly failed today. Please, with all due respect, do not tell those greedy bastards in the U.S. It seems our fervent effort at making one big, liberal, social, welfare bureacracy out of a bunch of smaller welfare bureacracies went down to a second defeat today.
We really wanted to call it the European Union, but we all knew it was going to be another empire. An empire with a president, an anthem, a capital, but we were not really sure about an army though, hmmm? We know what we are doing when it comes to empire building (don't think our accusations thrown at the U.S. in Iraq are baseless, we know of which we speak), just take for example: the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, do not forget that we were eventually going to include Turkey which was once part of the Ottoman Empire, see the pattern. To be fair there have been others, but those we do not like to speak about like the First and Second French Empires, and who could forget the Third Reich, those were led by bad people and we would not let that happen again. We swear.
Well, its back to the drawing table, as they say. We are not sure where everything went wrong. We were positive the world needs a new super power. It looks like the U.S. is having way too much fun. And our constitution is just like the Americans, except you guys had 7 articles while we would have 448. Everything was going so smoothly. Every parliament up until this weekend was overwhelmingly approving the darn thing and then those silly French had to put it to referendum. We will know better next time to not let the people speak for the smarter politicians. Now we firmly cry for a "do-over".

See ya' on the world stage soon,

Jack and Gerry and maybe even Tony, someday