Tomorrow is election day.
To say I'm nervous about it is an understatement. I have a deep and horrible fear that George Bush is going to lose the election and we'll get John Kerry.
The War in Iraq is not really the big issue for me, it's the judges.
It's a duel between a candidate who says, "Judges should interpret law based on what the law says." and one who says, "Judges should interpret law based on what they feel or what their social clique believes is right."
It's more than just that activist judges have done things like made abortion and gay marriage legal, it's that they've done so by unilaterally making those decisions based not on what the law SAYS, but on their own moral agendas. Abortion and gay marriage should have been left to the states or the populace through elected officials to decide, not a unilateral on high decision by officials who are neither elected nor able to be fired for their excesses.
The liberal left has realized that what they cannot force through through an elected body like Congress or state assemblies, they can force through by going over the heads of the people and ultimately the constitution by making judicial decrees that have no basis on any semblance of the documents judges are supposed to be using to make rulings.
John Kerry threatens to destroy the fabric of what the founding fathers created in the USA by undermining the constitution with people who say they respect it, but make rulings that go against it at every turn.It is this that I see as the most important issue int his election. With 3 or 4 supreme court justices on the line, the real danger is that we could get a Court that doesn't even look at the constitution any more in it's rulings.
Forget morality, forget opinion. Rule on what our Constitution SAYS, not what they think it should say. If that venerated document is really that far off, let the people call their congressmen and let the ELECTED change it, not some unelected judge. That's not their job or calling.
Do, I'm really nervous. Will the USA choose to hold back the tide of the erosion of our foundation stones, or will they say to hell with it and let it all go to waste?
I sure hope it's the former, because the later gives me the willies.
I've been praying a lot lately, not for Bush to win, but for the population of this country to make a choice that will ultimately make the choice that will preserve at least a little of what the founding fathers fought for.
Now if we could get the Patriot Act revised a little...
On another tact, I watch Europe's utter animosity towards Bush and keep thinking he MUST be doing something right. It reminds me of the playground. All the kids out there, a lot of them doing weed and smoking, and the one lone kid taking a stand against it all. He ends up hated for it, but it doesn't make what he's doing any less right.
The United States should never put its national security in the hands of an outside body. We can argue about right decisions, but I'd much rather have a president who will preserve our sovereignty than tell us we have to "Pass a global test" before we defend ourselves.
This is most certainally true
Monday, November 01, 2004
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Election Worries
I have to be completely honest. I'm scared stiff about what might happen on Tuesday.
The US presidential race is so dang close, and there's a heck of a lot at stake. I see it as a contest of the battle of the "could be better" candidate and the "My GOD NO!" candidate.
The United States has, in a lot of ways, lost its way over the years. We have a massive, bloated government, with its fingers in every pie imaginable, while we provide outlandish socialistic benefits to our citizens that essentially make them slaves to whichever party is able to scare them the most with threats of losing the "entitlement."Worse, we have our fingers in every international pie available. The US shouldn't be the international policeman, but at the same time, we shouldn't be afraid of what the international community thinks of us. Hell, most countries are just plain jealous of us. The animosity comes from that as much as anything else.
So, on one side, we have Bush, the "conservative" who is only sort of conservative, who's seen rampant government spending on his watch, without any vetoes to stop it. Deficit spending is out of control, and his power to rein in congressional excesses has been utterly wasted. Government is growing bigger by the day and taxpayer money is being wasted and a horrendous scale, despite tax-cuts that DID help the middle class. He's a strong leader who means what he says, and does what he says he'll do, but is seen by some as unable to change his mind.
They claim he's responsible for the "rotten economy," which actually isn't ailing that badly at all, and had its roots in a time before he even became president. They say he lied, diverted the way from Bin Laden to Iraq, though the truth may be that it was more a clever ploy to create a true "front" in the war on terrorism, and force the terrorists to put resources on the ground in a country not our own, where we can more easily deal with them. Of course, few think of this possibility, and fewer still have the stomach to put up with the 1000 soldiers that have died since Iraq started (as opposed to Vietnam which lasted far longer and killed tens of thousands more.)
The Military, by a large margin love and support Bush, because, by and large, he supports them. He opposes the left wing judicial activism that uses non-law based judicial rulings to circumvent the people's voted representatives from making the laws through constitutional means. He supports tort reform to save healthcare because 150,000 a year for malpractice insurance is driving many doctors out of business.
He is Pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and detested by folks who stand on the other side of those issues.
On the other side, we have Kerry, the winner of three purple hearts and a silver star, who's military record is filled with inconsistencies and things that make military folks raise their eyebrows in suspicion. He's an antiwar protestor who allied himself with proven liars masquerading as soldiers they never were, who met with the enemy while still wearing his uniform, and tarnished the reputations of thousands his fellow solders, and yet, not once apologized for it.
His senate record is dismal on national defense, and yet, he wants to lead a military that doesn't trust him, and whom he voted against supporting at any chance he had. The military, by a huge margin, does not like Kerry because they know full well his history, and are afraid of what he'll do to them. Worse, he claims he will find more allies to fight in Iraq, and yet, those we do have are denigrated in the very same sentence for not doing enough.
He says he'll cut taxes for the middle class and raise it for the wealthy, and yet his wife who is one of the wealthiest people in the country pays a pittance on her own returns, sheltered by tax loopholes that Kerry supports. Meanwhile, he has voted against nearly every effort to lower taxes. A former lawyer with a trial attorney as a running mate, he opposes tort reform and claims to have a solution for the healthcare crises, and yet, his solution has led to rationing and poor healthcare everywhere else it's been tried.
Kerry is supported by ultra liberals and despised by pro-lifers and the religious right who see him as one of the most liberal and anti-traditional values senators in the country.
I know who I'm voting for. Its based on my own values, and on the base fact that I know what's at stake here. Iraq cannot fail. It cannot be let to be come a civil war zone by an ineffectual president who will try to set arbitrary dates (like he advocated in Vietnam) that only give the Terrorists a date on which to make their biggest counter offensive.
I cannot support a man who promises to appoint only pro abortion judges to the bench, rather than appointing men and women who will read the law and rule according to what the law SAYS rather than their own opinion.
I cannot support a man who denigrated the brave actions of our military by using generalized terms like Baby-killers to label them, and yet 30 years later tries to portray himself as a war hero, while his entire former chain of command opposes him and view him as a lying opportunist.
I cannot support a man who uses race baiting terms like Jim Crow to scare people, who truly have nothing to fear into voting for him.
Kerry has no integrity. Bush is not my favorite president, and I think he's failed in a lot of places, but he'll get my vote because if John Kerry becomes president, I'm deeply afraid for the future of this country.
The US presidential race is so dang close, and there's a heck of a lot at stake. I see it as a contest of the battle of the "could be better" candidate and the "My GOD NO!" candidate.
The United States has, in a lot of ways, lost its way over the years. We have a massive, bloated government, with its fingers in every pie imaginable, while we provide outlandish socialistic benefits to our citizens that essentially make them slaves to whichever party is able to scare them the most with threats of losing the "entitlement."Worse, we have our fingers in every international pie available. The US shouldn't be the international policeman, but at the same time, we shouldn't be afraid of what the international community thinks of us. Hell, most countries are just plain jealous of us. The animosity comes from that as much as anything else.
So, on one side, we have Bush, the "conservative" who is only sort of conservative, who's seen rampant government spending on his watch, without any vetoes to stop it. Deficit spending is out of control, and his power to rein in congressional excesses has been utterly wasted. Government is growing bigger by the day and taxpayer money is being wasted and a horrendous scale, despite tax-cuts that DID help the middle class. He's a strong leader who means what he says, and does what he says he'll do, but is seen by some as unable to change his mind.
They claim he's responsible for the "rotten economy," which actually isn't ailing that badly at all, and had its roots in a time before he even became president. They say he lied, diverted the way from Bin Laden to Iraq, though the truth may be that it was more a clever ploy to create a true "front" in the war on terrorism, and force the terrorists to put resources on the ground in a country not our own, where we can more easily deal with them. Of course, few think of this possibility, and fewer still have the stomach to put up with the 1000 soldiers that have died since Iraq started (as opposed to Vietnam which lasted far longer and killed tens of thousands more.)
The Military, by a large margin love and support Bush, because, by and large, he supports them. He opposes the left wing judicial activism that uses non-law based judicial rulings to circumvent the people's voted representatives from making the laws through constitutional means. He supports tort reform to save healthcare because 150,000 a year for malpractice insurance is driving many doctors out of business.
He is Pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and detested by folks who stand on the other side of those issues.
On the other side, we have Kerry, the winner of three purple hearts and a silver star, who's military record is filled with inconsistencies and things that make military folks raise their eyebrows in suspicion. He's an antiwar protestor who allied himself with proven liars masquerading as soldiers they never were, who met with the enemy while still wearing his uniform, and tarnished the reputations of thousands his fellow solders, and yet, not once apologized for it.
His senate record is dismal on national defense, and yet, he wants to lead a military that doesn't trust him, and whom he voted against supporting at any chance he had. The military, by a huge margin, does not like Kerry because they know full well his history, and are afraid of what he'll do to them. Worse, he claims he will find more allies to fight in Iraq, and yet, those we do have are denigrated in the very same sentence for not doing enough.
He says he'll cut taxes for the middle class and raise it for the wealthy, and yet his wife who is one of the wealthiest people in the country pays a pittance on her own returns, sheltered by tax loopholes that Kerry supports. Meanwhile, he has voted against nearly every effort to lower taxes. A former lawyer with a trial attorney as a running mate, he opposes tort reform and claims to have a solution for the healthcare crises, and yet, his solution has led to rationing and poor healthcare everywhere else it's been tried.
Kerry is supported by ultra liberals and despised by pro-lifers and the religious right who see him as one of the most liberal and anti-traditional values senators in the country.
I know who I'm voting for. Its based on my own values, and on the base fact that I know what's at stake here. Iraq cannot fail. It cannot be let to be come a civil war zone by an ineffectual president who will try to set arbitrary dates (like he advocated in Vietnam) that only give the Terrorists a date on which to make their biggest counter offensive.
I cannot support a man who promises to appoint only pro abortion judges to the bench, rather than appointing men and women who will read the law and rule according to what the law SAYS rather than their own opinion.
I cannot support a man who denigrated the brave actions of our military by using generalized terms like Baby-killers to label them, and yet 30 years later tries to portray himself as a war hero, while his entire former chain of command opposes him and view him as a lying opportunist.
I cannot support a man who uses race baiting terms like Jim Crow to scare people, who truly have nothing to fear into voting for him.
Kerry has no integrity. Bush is not my favorite president, and I think he's failed in a lot of places, but he'll get my vote because if John Kerry becomes president, I'm deeply afraid for the future of this country.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Vietnam = Iraq? The Kerry connection
Iraq equals Vietnam? We've reached that 1000 killed mark and the specter of Vietnam lurks over the horizon. Nevermind that Vietnam's bodycount was far far higher, and Iraq is far more pacified than North Vietnam ever was. Still, it's a spectre lurking nearby, and with Vietnam on the lips of Voters because Democratic Candidate John Kerry was a hero in that war.
The media likes to draw the parallel of Iraq to Vietnam. What they don't understand, or utterly ignore is that John Kerry (with the help of the press) is doing to Iraq what he did to Vietnam... turning a war that could be won into one that will be lost.
It is not the men on the ground that will lose that war for us, but the lies and misrepresentations of a man who has spent the last 30 years building a career on lies and misrepresentations. He lied about the actions on men on the ground of Vietnam. He tried to tell the American people that a victorious North Vietnam wouldn't result in massive reprisal killings. He was wrong on both counts.
That he still, in 2004, repeats his lies of the Vietnam days and twists them to fit this current struggle says a great deal of his character and political focus. Do we have any reason to believe he will act any differently to this war as president than he did to the Vietnam War, or this war as a presidential candidate?
If John Kerry is elected president, the people of Iraq need to fear for their future. The people of the United States do too.
Iraq, whether you agree with the original reasons for invading and ousting Saddam or not, is truly the new front in the war on terrorism. Al Queda, other terror organizations understand this better than any others. Their terror tactics in Iraq only punctuate this point. If a free and stable Iraq fails to congeal, there will be civil war, death on a massive scale and a whole generation of iraqies who will blame America, ripe for the picking as terrorists.
I'd like to believe that John Kerry understands this... or even cares, but his words say far different. "Set a date!" was his cry during Vietnam. Set a date we did, and sure enough, the North Vietnamese overan the south as soon as we left, and then killed millions in retrebution, and imprisoned countless others. He was irresponsible, or, he didn't care. It almost seems the later, because in 30 years, he has never apologized.
His cry for setting a date for American withdrawel remains the same now. He has even promised to set that date as president.
His date will create Vietnam in Iraq with utter certainty. The foes of freedom with take advantage of it, America will leave and it will create genocide, civil war and agony. It will make the United States even more open to attack than ever. A victory for John Kerry on November 2, 2004 will likely represent a major blow for America in the War on Terrorism.
I pray I'm wrong, but a man's actions speak louder than his words, and Kerry's actions have been shouts.
The media likes to draw the parallel of Iraq to Vietnam. What they don't understand, or utterly ignore is that John Kerry (with the help of the press) is doing to Iraq what he did to Vietnam... turning a war that could be won into one that will be lost.
It is not the men on the ground that will lose that war for us, but the lies and misrepresentations of a man who has spent the last 30 years building a career on lies and misrepresentations. He lied about the actions on men on the ground of Vietnam. He tried to tell the American people that a victorious North Vietnam wouldn't result in massive reprisal killings. He was wrong on both counts.
That he still, in 2004, repeats his lies of the Vietnam days and twists them to fit this current struggle says a great deal of his character and political focus. Do we have any reason to believe he will act any differently to this war as president than he did to the Vietnam War, or this war as a presidential candidate?
If John Kerry is elected president, the people of Iraq need to fear for their future. The people of the United States do too.
Iraq, whether you agree with the original reasons for invading and ousting Saddam or not, is truly the new front in the war on terrorism. Al Queda, other terror organizations understand this better than any others. Their terror tactics in Iraq only punctuate this point. If a free and stable Iraq fails to congeal, there will be civil war, death on a massive scale and a whole generation of iraqies who will blame America, ripe for the picking as terrorists.
I'd like to believe that John Kerry understands this... or even cares, but his words say far different. "Set a date!" was his cry during Vietnam. Set a date we did, and sure enough, the North Vietnamese overan the south as soon as we left, and then killed millions in retrebution, and imprisoned countless others. He was irresponsible, or, he didn't care. It almost seems the later, because in 30 years, he has never apologized.
His cry for setting a date for American withdrawel remains the same now. He has even promised to set that date as president.
His date will create Vietnam in Iraq with utter certainty. The foes of freedom with take advantage of it, America will leave and it will create genocide, civil war and agony. It will make the United States even more open to attack than ever. A victory for John Kerry on November 2, 2004 will likely represent a major blow for America in the War on Terrorism.
I pray I'm wrong, but a man's actions speak louder than his words, and Kerry's actions have been shouts.
Friday, September 17, 2004
The thrashing of Mary Panzer
The Wisconsin primary election was last week. The count on one of the local state senate races just blew me away. Long time Senate member and Senate Majority Leader, Republican Mary Panzer was voted out of office by 21% to 79%. Her opponant, a Republican member of the State Assembly ran against her because of her abject refusal to let the taxpayer's bill of rights come up to vote in the state senate.
What's the taxpayer bill of rights? It's simple enough. It's an ammendment to the state constitution that would state that any tax hike, short of inflation raises, must be put to a referendum to the voters.
With Wisconsin sitting embarassingly at the top of the pile of high tax burden states, the taxpayer's bill of rights is desperately needed. Government spends money like water.
They're like the teenager who's parents pay all the bills. They have no responsibility or consequences for spending irresponsibly, so they don't care. The Taxpayer Bill of rights would kick the teenager out of the house and force him to live on a budget. I support this thing 100% because the taxes in Wisconsin are crushing lower income families (with property taxes), and driving businesses right out the door.
Mary Panzer dressed as a conservative republican, but she was anything but. The real reason she didn't bring the bill up for vote was not because she wouldn't have had enough votes to pass it, but because she was protecting herself and other liberal republicans from the flack that would have resulted if they'd voted against it.
So, she lost the primary by over 55% of the vote. This is not a case of the voters just being a little tired of her. No, this was an out and out rebuke. Other state senators better sit up and take notice. The taxpayers are speaking up.
Some folks say that the average citizen doesn't care about taxes. Truth is, when it comes down to it, when you're liable to lose you house because you're elderly on fixed income and can't pay the irresponsibly high property taxes, you care about taxes a heck of a lot.
What's the taxpayer bill of rights? It's simple enough. It's an ammendment to the state constitution that would state that any tax hike, short of inflation raises, must be put to a referendum to the voters.
With Wisconsin sitting embarassingly at the top of the pile of high tax burden states, the taxpayer's bill of rights is desperately needed. Government spends money like water.
They're like the teenager who's parents pay all the bills. They have no responsibility or consequences for spending irresponsibly, so they don't care. The Taxpayer Bill of rights would kick the teenager out of the house and force him to live on a budget. I support this thing 100% because the taxes in Wisconsin are crushing lower income families (with property taxes), and driving businesses right out the door.
Mary Panzer dressed as a conservative republican, but she was anything but. The real reason she didn't bring the bill up for vote was not because she wouldn't have had enough votes to pass it, but because she was protecting herself and other liberal republicans from the flack that would have resulted if they'd voted against it.
So, she lost the primary by over 55% of the vote. This is not a case of the voters just being a little tired of her. No, this was an out and out rebuke. Other state senators better sit up and take notice. The taxpayers are speaking up.
Some folks say that the average citizen doesn't care about taxes. Truth is, when it comes down to it, when you're liable to lose you house because you're elderly on fixed income and can't pay the irresponsibly high property taxes, you care about taxes a heck of a lot.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
CBS and the Case of the Phony Memos
For all the loud obnoxious claims of the media to be the heralds of the truth and the news we need to know, it has become increasingly apparant to me that things are not always as they seem.
Case in point. CBS's news show "60 Minutes 2" recently had an expose' reported by Dan Rather in which he revealed memos supposedly written in 1972 by the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who was the commander of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard fighter squadron. The memos say Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record, and that Mr. Bush refused a direct order to take the required medical examination.
Lo and behold, a great number of online bloggers (spearheaded by www.powerlineblog.com), after looking at the online copies on CBS's website, have concluded that there is something rotten in the State of Rather. The rotton has to do with everything from the lack of letterheads in the memos, the porportional spacing, to the use of a superscript TH that was supposedly physically impossible to do on 1972 typewriters.
To make things worse, as the bloggers spun their conspiracy theories, legitimate experts began to take a closer look at the memos as well.
Their discoveries prove that Rather and CBS are careless and "Rather" biased. Ok, actually, it's not the discoveries that do it, it's CBS's reaction to them. Even a week after the memos were called into question, and even after some of the "experts" that CBS claimed verified the memos were real, backed out, CBS and Rather are both STILL standing behind their report.
Why they're doing this likely has to do with the wild hope that the fracus will go away, and the other news agencies won't dig any deeper. If CBS and Rather admit the mistake, they look careless and irresponsible, and CBS's news reputation is more or less toast. Of course, if they don't it's likely the same might happen.
Personally, I have no sympathy for Rather. If he didn' t fact check, as it appears he didn't, he deserves to hang out to dry. It's about time that one of those high horse prancing reporters in the national media gets called on the carpet for biased and irresponsible reporting.
Will it happen?
If this memo thing keeps going on, it just might.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Case in point. CBS's news show "60 Minutes 2" recently had an expose' reported by Dan Rather in which he revealed memos supposedly written in 1972 by the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who was the commander of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard fighter squadron. The memos say Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's record, and that Mr. Bush refused a direct order to take the required medical examination.
Lo and behold, a great number of online bloggers (spearheaded by www.powerlineblog.com), after looking at the online copies on CBS's website, have concluded that there is something rotten in the State of Rather. The rotton has to do with everything from the lack of letterheads in the memos, the porportional spacing, to the use of a superscript TH that was supposedly physically impossible to do on 1972 typewriters.
To make things worse, as the bloggers spun their conspiracy theories, legitimate experts began to take a closer look at the memos as well.
Their discoveries prove that Rather and CBS are careless and "Rather" biased. Ok, actually, it's not the discoveries that do it, it's CBS's reaction to them. Even a week after the memos were called into question, and even after some of the "experts" that CBS claimed verified the memos were real, backed out, CBS and Rather are both STILL standing behind their report.
Why they're doing this likely has to do with the wild hope that the fracus will go away, and the other news agencies won't dig any deeper. If CBS and Rather admit the mistake, they look careless and irresponsible, and CBS's news reputation is more or less toast. Of course, if they don't it's likely the same might happen.
Personally, I have no sympathy for Rather. If he didn' t fact check, as it appears he didn't, he deserves to hang out to dry. It's about time that one of those high horse prancing reporters in the national media gets called on the carpet for biased and irresponsible reporting.
Will it happen?
If this memo thing keeps going on, it just might.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Keyes and Obama - Oooh boy.
I'm watching the interesting interplay of politics down in Illinois this month as the Republicans pull a rabbit out of their hat and dump Alan Keyes on the unsuspecting Illinois constituency.
After the odd and spectacular fall of former (R) candidate for senate, Jack Ryan, the Republicans think that Keyes is their best chance. They had their heads so far up thier collective rear ends for so long that a man from out of state (who criticized Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing) is the best option they can find.
Ryan was a great candidate till his fall from grace. As much as I find his personal habits distasteful, it really was none of the business of that obviously liberal judge in California to release the divorce records to the press. That he did it over the objections of both Ryan and his ex-wife... especially since they have a kid who now probably has to deal with teasing by classmates about his dad's perversion, makes it suspect in my book.
But that's beside the point.
Keyes, as much as I might agree with him on his stand on the issues, seems to have the wonderful gift of shooting himself in the foot with such a politically incorrect mouth that the Illinois press is falling all over itself to cover it.
"Any press is good press" may be an adage that is true in sports, but in politics, when your main voting constiuency is in a city that tends to vote entirely democratic, using politically incorrect phrasiology may not be your best course of action.
Of course, no-one really expects Keyes to win down there. He's not even from Illinois, and it has been publicized so well in state and nationally that everyone knows it.
Meanwhile, Obama has the distinction of having been around for over a year, having an eloquent turn of phrase, and being one of the most radical politicians out there, short of folks like Al Gore and the like. He's a shoo in for the most part. With Chicago, a city with a history of liberalism and corruption going back 80 years, on his side, how the heck can he lose?
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
After the odd and spectacular fall of former (R) candidate for senate, Jack Ryan, the Republicans think that Keyes is their best chance. They had their heads so far up thier collective rear ends for so long that a man from out of state (who criticized Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing) is the best option they can find.
Ryan was a great candidate till his fall from grace. As much as I find his personal habits distasteful, it really was none of the business of that obviously liberal judge in California to release the divorce records to the press. That he did it over the objections of both Ryan and his ex-wife... especially since they have a kid who now probably has to deal with teasing by classmates about his dad's perversion, makes it suspect in my book.
But that's beside the point.
Keyes, as much as I might agree with him on his stand on the issues, seems to have the wonderful gift of shooting himself in the foot with such a politically incorrect mouth that the Illinois press is falling all over itself to cover it.
"Any press is good press" may be an adage that is true in sports, but in politics, when your main voting constiuency is in a city that tends to vote entirely democratic, using politically incorrect phrasiology may not be your best course of action.
Of course, no-one really expects Keyes to win down there. He's not even from Illinois, and it has been publicized so well in state and nationally that everyone knows it.
Meanwhile, Obama has the distinction of having been around for over a year, having an eloquent turn of phrase, and being one of the most radical politicians out there, short of folks like Al Gore and the like. He's a shoo in for the most part. With Chicago, a city with a history of liberalism and corruption going back 80 years, on his side, how the heck can he lose?
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Some careful thoughts Bush vs. Kerry
I found the following in the forums of ABC This Week, August 22, 2004. It was written in reply to a woman who defended George Bush, saying:
"NOT ONCE has the public seen the President visits with the wounded soldiers or the families because the President will not allow these pictures to be used. He even stated on "Larry King Live" that these were private moments for the families. I have seen President Bush keeping a promise to a soldier who lost one of his legs in Afghanistan. President Bush promised to go running with him once he got back on his feet. The only reason I saw this was because a fellow soldier took the picture and sent it to other soldiers in an e-mail. Kerry uses the military based on the polls and his current political ambition."
This fellow's reply is eloquent and thoughtful, and worth sharing. It's interesting to note that the trolls on the forum demanded "proof" that he knew what he was talking about. It was their only responce. As a student of history, I can say he does.
~*~
Those who do not know our history…do not know us as a nation. Those who do not know our history… will never know us as a nation.
The answer lies in America's history. America needs a refresher course. Please bear with me.
Gettysburg - July 1,2,3 1863... Our casualties were 57,000 in three days of combat. It was the high tide of the Confederacy, the capture of Washington and the war hung in the balance. Those were casualties America had to endure for its survival as a nation. We had no choice. Before that war was over 600,000 Americans were lost. The common misconception our enemies make is America has no stomach for casualties. The Civil War and World War II disprove that theory.
Gilbert Islands Group, Central Pacific -Tarawa - November 20 -22, 1943… U.S. Marines attacked the Japanese garrison who defended the well-entrenched heavily fortified atoll of Betio in the Pacific. The Japanese commander, Rear Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, boasted "A million men cannot take Tarawa in a hundred years." On paper, he might have been right. This boast sounds eerily familiar to those made by Saddam.
Having seen it (the Japanese bunkers, pill boxes and interlocking zones of fire) with my own eyes from a landing craft off "Red Beach," I have to say I would have agreed with RADM Shibasaki. Yet, three days later, his command of some 4,500 crack Japanese Marines, the defenders of the island citadel, lay dead - There were only 17 Japanese survivors, those who surrendered. There were 1,056 Americans killed and 2300 Americans wounded.
The battle of Tarawa might well serve as a stark analog of the Iraq campaign. Tarawa was the first time American forces had met such a heavy concentration of fanatical warriors. Yes, Guadalcanal was no day at the beach, but it was not Tarawa. The battle was exceptionally well planned. American planners did a fine job of putting together a winning plan, yet due to logistical realities, almost from the beginning things went radically wrong for the Marines.
On Tarawa, as in Iraq, the American forces adapted, and despite protests from the American press about casualties, continued the attack and prevailed against a determined and numerically superior force.
The value of Betio, (Tarawa) was that we learned valuable lessons that served us well during the rest of the Pacific campaign. Yes, the casualties were high, but the hard-learned lessons of Tarawa actually helped reduce casualties in the future campaigns. Within hours of securing Tarawa, the island became a forward base of operation for air assaults on the Marshall Islands...and ultimately the attack on the Marshalls. From there, the Americans moved closer and closer to the island fortress of Japan, and ultimate victory in the Pacific.
Iraq serves a similar purpose. We have suffered hard-learned lessons. However, a democracy in the Middle East, separate and apart from the blessings it brings the people of Iraq, serves a larger purpose, just like Tarawa. That is the true value of our painful lessons in Iraq. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia take note.
As I watched the Iraqi soccer team at the Olympics I could not help but think how they would not be there except for our brave forces that liberated them and their country.
Iraq was a brilliant military campaign, well executed despite difficulties. But Iraq was not Tarawa where the Press was concerned. The world press corps had a free hand to second-guess the American military high command and instantly call-up the bloody visage of Vietnam.
Vietnam, the unexorcised ghost and ultimate "boogey man" of America's military past seems as powerful an image today as it was some 31 years ago. In point of fact, however, Iraq is not Vietnam, was not Vietnam, nor can it ever become Vietnam. Yet, it is most certainly "Vietnam" to those who are, once again, not familiar with America's history. This is all the more laughable when comparisons about Vietnam are made by people who are generations removed from having actually experienced it, and more importantly, having a full comprehension of what Vietnam was, and was not.
As for John Kerry, his recollections of Vietnam are proving astonishingly inaccurate as of late. Kerry, often cites the time he “was in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968, sent there by President Nixon, and suffered the heartache of wondering who would tell his family what became of him as he was being fired upon by NVA, Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge...because the Nixon Government disavowed knowing any US troops were in Cambodia.”
I can only imagine, Kerry, who relishes associating Mr. Nixon with the Vietnam War, must have been chagrined to learn Richard Nixon was not President of the United States on Christmas Day, 1968, but rather, was a private citizen on Christmas Day, 1968. So, 'Nixon" could not have sent him to Cambodia...that was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was, in fact, President of the United States at that time.
More importantly, Mr. Kerry was wrong again. That order was never given. Not even LBJ sent him to Cambodia. Neither he, his swift boat, nor his division was ever in Cambodia.
As for John Kerry's thoughts about Iraq...I am reminded of Henry Ford who once said: "You can not build a reputation on what you would have done...or what you plan to do."
It is so easy for Kerry to “Monday morning quarterback” the war in Iraq. President Bush is the QB on the field, calling the plays in the heat of the moment. That is much more difficult than calling the game from the sidelines, like Kerry.
Unfortunately for John Kerry, reputations are made on what you have actually done. His reputation in the Senate is not a particularly stellar one. He does well to call attention away from what his reputation "actually" is in the Senate. This explains his penchant for calling attention to his Vietnam service. His missed votes and missed committee meetings speak volumes.The bills he voted for, and those he voted against, also speak volumes.
He voted against every major weapon system America used to win the war in Iraq. He voted for sending the troops to Iraq, but voted against funding the effort. He voted against funding Intelligence gathering capabilities.
Kerry's stratagem of pointing to his record in Vietnam is beginning to unravel like a cheap suit.I find it extremely curious that John Kerry spent four months in Vietnam and twenty years in the Senate, yet all we ever hear him talk about is his Vietnam service. God help John Kerry if the American people ever learn about his "reputation" in the Senate.
In short, if the allegations of the Vietnam Swift Boat veterans are correct (and there is voluminous evidence pointing in that direction), Kerry is most certainly unfit for command. How can one entrust our nation to such a man? How can one vote for such a man?
I support George Bush. Love him or hate him, George Bush is a man of his convictions. He does not come forth with a "New" stance every time the political weather vane points in another direction. George made the right call in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was, and is, the right man at the right time for the job.
Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, is incapable of giving a direct answer to a direct question.
As a cadet I was taught there are three answers: "Yes sir," "No Sir" and "No excuse Sir."
I guess John Kerry was absent that day.
God bless you for standing up for our President and our troops. I am sure your husband is proud of you!
Respectfully,
Michael Higgins
"NOT ONCE has the public seen the President visits with the wounded soldiers or the families because the President will not allow these pictures to be used. He even stated on "Larry King Live" that these were private moments for the families. I have seen President Bush keeping a promise to a soldier who lost one of his legs in Afghanistan. President Bush promised to go running with him once he got back on his feet. The only reason I saw this was because a fellow soldier took the picture and sent it to other soldiers in an e-mail. Kerry uses the military based on the polls and his current political ambition."
This fellow's reply is eloquent and thoughtful, and worth sharing. It's interesting to note that the trolls on the forum demanded "proof" that he knew what he was talking about. It was their only responce. As a student of history, I can say he does.
~*~
Those who do not know our history…do not know us as a nation. Those who do not know our history… will never know us as a nation.
The answer lies in America's history. America needs a refresher course. Please bear with me.
Gettysburg - July 1,2,3 1863... Our casualties were 57,000 in three days of combat. It was the high tide of the Confederacy, the capture of Washington and the war hung in the balance. Those were casualties America had to endure for its survival as a nation. We had no choice. Before that war was over 600,000 Americans were lost. The common misconception our enemies make is America has no stomach for casualties. The Civil War and World War II disprove that theory.
Gilbert Islands Group, Central Pacific -Tarawa - November 20 -22, 1943… U.S. Marines attacked the Japanese garrison who defended the well-entrenched heavily fortified atoll of Betio in the Pacific. The Japanese commander, Rear Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, boasted "A million men cannot take Tarawa in a hundred years." On paper, he might have been right. This boast sounds eerily familiar to those made by Saddam.
Having seen it (the Japanese bunkers, pill boxes and interlocking zones of fire) with my own eyes from a landing craft off "Red Beach," I have to say I would have agreed with RADM Shibasaki. Yet, three days later, his command of some 4,500 crack Japanese Marines, the defenders of the island citadel, lay dead - There were only 17 Japanese survivors, those who surrendered. There were 1,056 Americans killed and 2300 Americans wounded.
The battle of Tarawa might well serve as a stark analog of the Iraq campaign. Tarawa was the first time American forces had met such a heavy concentration of fanatical warriors. Yes, Guadalcanal was no day at the beach, but it was not Tarawa. The battle was exceptionally well planned. American planners did a fine job of putting together a winning plan, yet due to logistical realities, almost from the beginning things went radically wrong for the Marines.
On Tarawa, as in Iraq, the American forces adapted, and despite protests from the American press about casualties, continued the attack and prevailed against a determined and numerically superior force.
The value of Betio, (Tarawa) was that we learned valuable lessons that served us well during the rest of the Pacific campaign. Yes, the casualties were high, but the hard-learned lessons of Tarawa actually helped reduce casualties in the future campaigns. Within hours of securing Tarawa, the island became a forward base of operation for air assaults on the Marshall Islands...and ultimately the attack on the Marshalls. From there, the Americans moved closer and closer to the island fortress of Japan, and ultimate victory in the Pacific.
Iraq serves a similar purpose. We have suffered hard-learned lessons. However, a democracy in the Middle East, separate and apart from the blessings it brings the people of Iraq, serves a larger purpose, just like Tarawa. That is the true value of our painful lessons in Iraq. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia take note.
As I watched the Iraqi soccer team at the Olympics I could not help but think how they would not be there except for our brave forces that liberated them and their country.
Iraq was a brilliant military campaign, well executed despite difficulties. But Iraq was not Tarawa where the Press was concerned. The world press corps had a free hand to second-guess the American military high command and instantly call-up the bloody visage of Vietnam.
Vietnam, the unexorcised ghost and ultimate "boogey man" of America's military past seems as powerful an image today as it was some 31 years ago. In point of fact, however, Iraq is not Vietnam, was not Vietnam, nor can it ever become Vietnam. Yet, it is most certainly "Vietnam" to those who are, once again, not familiar with America's history. This is all the more laughable when comparisons about Vietnam are made by people who are generations removed from having actually experienced it, and more importantly, having a full comprehension of what Vietnam was, and was not.
As for John Kerry, his recollections of Vietnam are proving astonishingly inaccurate as of late. Kerry, often cites the time he “was in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968, sent there by President Nixon, and suffered the heartache of wondering who would tell his family what became of him as he was being fired upon by NVA, Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge...because the Nixon Government disavowed knowing any US troops were in Cambodia.”
I can only imagine, Kerry, who relishes associating Mr. Nixon with the Vietnam War, must have been chagrined to learn Richard Nixon was not President of the United States on Christmas Day, 1968, but rather, was a private citizen on Christmas Day, 1968. So, 'Nixon" could not have sent him to Cambodia...that was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was, in fact, President of the United States at that time.
More importantly, Mr. Kerry was wrong again. That order was never given. Not even LBJ sent him to Cambodia. Neither he, his swift boat, nor his division was ever in Cambodia.
As for John Kerry's thoughts about Iraq...I am reminded of Henry Ford who once said: "You can not build a reputation on what you would have done...or what you plan to do."
It is so easy for Kerry to “Monday morning quarterback” the war in Iraq. President Bush is the QB on the field, calling the plays in the heat of the moment. That is much more difficult than calling the game from the sidelines, like Kerry.
Unfortunately for John Kerry, reputations are made on what you have actually done. His reputation in the Senate is not a particularly stellar one. He does well to call attention away from what his reputation "actually" is in the Senate. This explains his penchant for calling attention to his Vietnam service. His missed votes and missed committee meetings speak volumes.The bills he voted for, and those he voted against, also speak volumes.
He voted against every major weapon system America used to win the war in Iraq. He voted for sending the troops to Iraq, but voted against funding the effort. He voted against funding Intelligence gathering capabilities.
Kerry's stratagem of pointing to his record in Vietnam is beginning to unravel like a cheap suit.I find it extremely curious that John Kerry spent four months in Vietnam and twenty years in the Senate, yet all we ever hear him talk about is his Vietnam service. God help John Kerry if the American people ever learn about his "reputation" in the Senate.
In short, if the allegations of the Vietnam Swift Boat veterans are correct (and there is voluminous evidence pointing in that direction), Kerry is most certainly unfit for command. How can one entrust our nation to such a man? How can one vote for such a man?
I support George Bush. Love him or hate him, George Bush is a man of his convictions. He does not come forth with a "New" stance every time the political weather vane points in another direction. George made the right call in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was, and is, the right man at the right time for the job.
Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, is incapable of giving a direct answer to a direct question.
As a cadet I was taught there are three answers: "Yes sir," "No Sir" and "No excuse Sir."
I guess John Kerry was absent that day.
God bless you for standing up for our President and our troops. I am sure your husband is proud of you!
Respectfully,
Michael Higgins
Friday, August 20, 2004
A crushed and squeezed middle class... Oh really?
One of the things that has always irritated me about politics is how certain parties use class warfare tactics to sway voters. They tell us how "evil" the wealthy are, and how they're getting richer and richer on the backs of the poor and middle class.
The wealthy are portrayed evil opportunists who given a chance will lie, cheat, and hurt to get more money. While certainally some of the wealthy are like this (as there are bad apples in every sort of people), the whole idea of the wealthy of some sort of evil group is silly and to be honest, completely disingenueus. Of course, we COULD decide to believe that the wealthy are awful evil poor-kickers... but then that would have to include John Kerry and John Edwards who are both worth millions. Oh wait, they're Democrats. They don't count.
The truth is, the wealthy are some of the greatest philanthropists in America. The Wealthy do more investing in the businesses of America than anyone else. They have the money to invest int he economy and make it grow. All in all, the wealthy are a vital part of America's economic strength.
Now we have John Kerry talking about that report from the IRS that says that incomes shrank over 5% in the past 2 years. He belabors the idea that Bush is at fault and the poor middle class is getting squeezed by it.
The truth is, it's not the middle class that saw their incomes shrink at all. In fact, the less money you made, the less likely it was for your income to shrink. The more money you made, the harder you were hit. In fact, if you made an income of less than 100,000 dollars a year, your income, on average, went up. Of course, John Kerry is glossing over that fact. It's an election year of course.
BVut this disingenuousness is the sort of thing that Kerry and others like him have used to scare people into voting for them for years. A thinking person who looks deeper can see that the story is a lot more complex than Wealthy= bad.
Donald Luskin has a great article on the National Review about the IRS report. It even has graphs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408191200.asp
The wealthy are portrayed evil opportunists who given a chance will lie, cheat, and hurt to get more money. While certainally some of the wealthy are like this (as there are bad apples in every sort of people), the whole idea of the wealthy of some sort of evil group is silly and to be honest, completely disingenueus. Of course, we COULD decide to believe that the wealthy are awful evil poor-kickers... but then that would have to include John Kerry and John Edwards who are both worth millions. Oh wait, they're Democrats. They don't count.
The truth is, the wealthy are some of the greatest philanthropists in America. The Wealthy do more investing in the businesses of America than anyone else. They have the money to invest int he economy and make it grow. All in all, the wealthy are a vital part of America's economic strength.
Now we have John Kerry talking about that report from the IRS that says that incomes shrank over 5% in the past 2 years. He belabors the idea that Bush is at fault and the poor middle class is getting squeezed by it.
The truth is, it's not the middle class that saw their incomes shrink at all. In fact, the less money you made, the less likely it was for your income to shrink. The more money you made, the harder you were hit. In fact, if you made an income of less than 100,000 dollars a year, your income, on average, went up. Of course, John Kerry is glossing over that fact. It's an election year of course.
BVut this disingenuousness is the sort of thing that Kerry and others like him have used to scare people into voting for them for years. A thinking person who looks deeper can see that the story is a lot more complex than Wealthy= bad.
Donald Luskin has a great article on the National Review about the IRS report. It even has graphs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408191200.asp
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Swiftvets for Truth: Are they really?
I listen to a lot of talk radio when I drive. I'd listen to music instead, but for the most part, music makes me drowsy in the car. Talk radio is the best alternative because it keeps me intellectually stimulated enough that I don't bang my head into my steering wheel and careen off into the other lane of traffic.
Since I'm doing a lot of job hunting these days, I listen to the radio quite a bit. It tends to be more conservative than otherwise, though the station I listen to all depends on my mood.
Lately on talk radio, there has been more and more coverage of a group of Vietnam Veterans who have come out against Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. They say they're non-partisan, and their beef with him is not political. Rather, it's that he has systematically lied about his tour of duty in Vietnam. They have called on him to release his full service records to the public to set the record straight.
Their allegations are documented on their website:
www.swiftvets.com
Their allegations include the following:
* Kerry's first purple heart was a scratch recieved due to his firing a rocket propelled grenade and it detonating to close to his boat and hitting him with schrapnel. The wound was essentually self inflicted. The resulting injury was a scratch according to the doctor who treated him and his commanding officer at the time, and neither would have even considered it worthy of a purple heart. Yet, somehow, he got a purple heart for it.
* Kerry's allegations that he and other Swift boat men engaged in war crimes were utter fabrications made by a man who wished to advance his political career. The alleged warcrimes he described in his famous congressional appearance never occured, and in fact, he made them up... tarnishing the reputations of all the men he served with and under for his own advancement.
* John Kerry lied about his secret mission in Cambodia, and has told conflicting stories about it over the years. In actuality, no such mission is on record as occuring, and in fact, had he actually gone into Cambodia, serious consequences for his career would have resulted.
* John Kerry was a marginal officer, who not only had trouble obeying orders, but was hard to work with, prone to doing anything he could to stay out of harms way, and not a team player in a job that required swift boats to work together. His released service reports are maginal at best.
The swiftvets believe that John Kerry has a history of lying about his service, that his awards were recieved based on either self inflicted wounds or exagerated and false accounts of really happended. They believe that because of this, John Kerry is ill suited to serve in a position of Commander in chief of American Armed Forces.
~*~
I sort of find it ironic that the man who's party has actively tried to shmear GW Bush for his incomplete records is now being taken to task for his own. And unlike Bush, who has released his complete records as requested (though some are missing, no fault of his, it seems), John Kerry has promised to do the same and has yet to fulfill his promise.
What I find interesting is that the swiftvets are made up of over 200 men who served along-side John Kerry on swift boats that worked in tandem with him, or served over him in his chain of command. These men contain fellows who are themselves decorated, some with Congressional Medals of Honor, silver stars and purple hearts of their own.
The Kerry campaing of course is livid about the allegations and supposedly is preparing to systematically attack the credibility and reputations of the men involved. This is to be expected. It's politics of course. But I find it hard to believe that 200 men, all who served along side Kerry, all veterans, some highly decorated with distinguished careers would all be lying through their teeth about what they saw John Kerry do and act in Vietnam.
Why should they? What have they to gain by it except to have the the Hammer of Thor fall on them in the press as the Kerry Campaign tries to spin the news? It just doesn't make sense to me that all these decorated men would be making it all up, what with how much they have to lose. Besides, if they really are lying, why doesn't Kerry just release his records and make it clear for all to see?
The real thing that gets me about this entire thing is that because of the Swiftvet ads, the Democrats in Congress and in liberal action groups are starting to get up in arms about the "527" loophole in the Campaign Finance Reform bill.
I find it disingenuous that they are having a fit about it NOW, when one of their own is subject to attack, but have had no problem while Moveon.org, a extremely liberal leaning organization, has been savaging GW Bush for the past 5 months. I've seen their ads. How are they any less partisan and candidate attacking than the Swift vets?
http://www.thehill.com/news/081004/kerry.aspx
Can we say double standard?
Since I'm doing a lot of job hunting these days, I listen to the radio quite a bit. It tends to be more conservative than otherwise, though the station I listen to all depends on my mood.
Lately on talk radio, there has been more and more coverage of a group of Vietnam Veterans who have come out against Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. They say they're non-partisan, and their beef with him is not political. Rather, it's that he has systematically lied about his tour of duty in Vietnam. They have called on him to release his full service records to the public to set the record straight.
Their allegations are documented on their website:
www.swiftvets.com
Their allegations include the following:
* Kerry's first purple heart was a scratch recieved due to his firing a rocket propelled grenade and it detonating to close to his boat and hitting him with schrapnel. The wound was essentually self inflicted. The resulting injury was a scratch according to the doctor who treated him and his commanding officer at the time, and neither would have even considered it worthy of a purple heart. Yet, somehow, he got a purple heart for it.
* Kerry's allegations that he and other Swift boat men engaged in war crimes were utter fabrications made by a man who wished to advance his political career. The alleged warcrimes he described in his famous congressional appearance never occured, and in fact, he made them up... tarnishing the reputations of all the men he served with and under for his own advancement.
* John Kerry lied about his secret mission in Cambodia, and has told conflicting stories about it over the years. In actuality, no such mission is on record as occuring, and in fact, had he actually gone into Cambodia, serious consequences for his career would have resulted.
* John Kerry was a marginal officer, who not only had trouble obeying orders, but was hard to work with, prone to doing anything he could to stay out of harms way, and not a team player in a job that required swift boats to work together. His released service reports are maginal at best.
The swiftvets believe that John Kerry has a history of lying about his service, that his awards were recieved based on either self inflicted wounds or exagerated and false accounts of really happended. They believe that because of this, John Kerry is ill suited to serve in a position of Commander in chief of American Armed Forces.
~*~
I sort of find it ironic that the man who's party has actively tried to shmear GW Bush for his incomplete records is now being taken to task for his own. And unlike Bush, who has released his complete records as requested (though some are missing, no fault of his, it seems), John Kerry has promised to do the same and has yet to fulfill his promise.
What I find interesting is that the swiftvets are made up of over 200 men who served along-side John Kerry on swift boats that worked in tandem with him, or served over him in his chain of command. These men contain fellows who are themselves decorated, some with Congressional Medals of Honor, silver stars and purple hearts of their own.
The Kerry campaing of course is livid about the allegations and supposedly is preparing to systematically attack the credibility and reputations of the men involved. This is to be expected. It's politics of course. But I find it hard to believe that 200 men, all who served along side Kerry, all veterans, some highly decorated with distinguished careers would all be lying through their teeth about what they saw John Kerry do and act in Vietnam.
Why should they? What have they to gain by it except to have the the Hammer of Thor fall on them in the press as the Kerry Campaign tries to spin the news? It just doesn't make sense to me that all these decorated men would be making it all up, what with how much they have to lose. Besides, if they really are lying, why doesn't Kerry just release his records and make it clear for all to see?
The real thing that gets me about this entire thing is that because of the Swiftvet ads, the Democrats in Congress and in liberal action groups are starting to get up in arms about the "527" loophole in the Campaign Finance Reform bill.
I find it disingenuous that they are having a fit about it NOW, when one of their own is subject to attack, but have had no problem while Moveon.org, a extremely liberal leaning organization, has been savaging GW Bush for the past 5 months. I've seen their ads. How are they any less partisan and candidate attacking than the Swift vets?
http://www.thehill.com/news/081004/kerry.aspx
Can we say double standard?
Friday, August 13, 2004
An introduction
It's always hard to start one of these things out. What does one say at the beginning of a blog?
"Yo! This blog will b so Kewl! U shld red it"
I'll try to do better than that.
I'd like to think that people will find my words interesting, but of course, it's easy to have a high or low opinion of oneself without any outside verification of whether your opinion is justified. So, I'll just let time tell.
I'm a young white male, age 27 at the time of this writing, currently unemployed unfortunately, a conservative Republican, and a conservative Christian. For now, that's enough to say. What I'll write about will be colored by the perspective colored by the above. That said, I pride myself for being open to contrary opinions... so long as they're backed up with facts. I even change my mind sometimes, something that in these times of bitter contention, seems to be a dying art.
What will I write about? Things that suit my fancy. And there's a lot out there to comment on.
So, let it all begin.
"Yo! This blog will b so Kewl! U shld red it"
I'll try to do better than that.
I'd like to think that people will find my words interesting, but of course, it's easy to have a high or low opinion of oneself without any outside verification of whether your opinion is justified. So, I'll just let time tell.
I'm a young white male, age 27 at the time of this writing, currently unemployed unfortunately, a conservative Republican, and a conservative Christian. For now, that's enough to say. What I'll write about will be colored by the perspective colored by the above. That said, I pride myself for being open to contrary opinions... so long as they're backed up with facts. I even change my mind sometimes, something that in these times of bitter contention, seems to be a dying art.
What will I write about? Things that suit my fancy. And there's a lot out there to comment on.
So, let it all begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)