Kennedy - Moral Leader?

Should we listen to Ted Kennedy when he tries to speak with moral authority about such issues as Iraq and whether or not President Bush is lying? Is Kennedy the moral leader the Democratic Party needs at this time? After all, didn't the last election show us that the American people respect values after all and can see through a candidate that lacks them vs. one who has them?

Ted Kennedy has told us that Iraq is a quagmire like Vietnam. Yet, wasn't it Ted Kennedy's brother, John F. Kennedy, as President who first got us into Vietnam? In fact, wasn't it the Democratic Party led by Kennedy and Johnson who pursued the entire strategy of the Vietnam War through several presidential administrations only to be pulled out by a Republican president, Richard Nixon? Was Ted Kennedy calling Vietnam a quagmire back then? I don't think so.

Is this the same Ted Kennedy that went to a party, had too much to drink and then plunged his car into the Chappaquiddick river with Mary Jo Kopechne in it and refused to notify authorities for nine hours after the event because he did not want to be caught driving under the influence? Unfortunately, during that nine hours Mary Jo Kopechne drowned in the back seat of the car on the bottom of the river while Kennedy slept off his drunk at a local hotel. By the time the authorities were notified, there was nothing they could do to save the young woman.

Then our new Democratic moral leader is the same Kennedy who, when faced with a moral decision of either saving a young woman's life and damaging his political career or letting her die and keeping his career, chose the latter. This is the moral leader who lied to the police about his whereabouts on that tragic night and he says he knows the truth about Iraq? This is the moral leader who knows best when to bring the troops home for their safety but couldn't get police or firefighters help for a young woman who may still have been alive in the Chappaquiddick river?

Ted Kennedy is the reason I changed my political registration away from the Democratic Party. Anyone who feels this man has the moral standing to challenge an honest and Christian man like President Bush has their values completely backward. In 1984 terms, you must believe that right is wrong and peace is war to believe that Ted Kennedy is a moral man, let alone a moral leader.

Bush's Inaugural Dreams

You cannot achieve great things without taking great risks.

George W Bush has spoken of an audacious dream of liberty for all the people in the world. This is a noble long-term goal that he knows, and his advisors know, will not be achieved during his tenure as an American President.

But what a dream it is.

As all successful business people know, unless you have a vision, you will never succeed in business. This axiom applies to politics as well. Bush's vision, which will be derided by the mainstream press and laughed at by European sophisticates, is that all people of the world should be allowed to live in liberty and have a voice in the political future of their respective countries. What an incredible vision which, if ever obtained, would completely change the world.

Some say that President Wilson had a similar vision and failed, as did President Kennedy. So I guess the lesson they wish us to learn is that if at first you don't succeed - quit. What about trying again and again and again?

Give liberty a chance and we may find peace. Let the world be ruled by democracies instead of tinpot dictators and we will have a safer world. At the very least, we should not give in to liberal pessimism trumpeted by the likes of Ted Kennedy. Natan Sharansky has written a book called "The Case for Democracy" which outlines a compelling argument that validates this whole thesis.

Iraqis will vote by the millions this weekend as the second example of democracy taking hold in a Muslim country. The MSM will downplay the validity only because the Sunnis are not voting. Who cares? The Sunnis had their feet on the necks of the rest of the country for so many years, why should we care if they vote or not? They bomb and kill innocent Iraqis trying to find work and then say "it is not safe enough to vote." Now they are saying "don't blame us if you are hurt or killed when you vote" even though they are the ones planting the bombs or at least knows who is. Doesn't anyone understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Democracy can change the world into a safer and more prosperous place. In fact, if the world is ever to see true world peace, I believe it will only happen if all countries are democracies. For those who really desire peace, you should be supporting the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Iranians and any others who wish to be free. Yes, it will cost money and American lives but isn't world peace worth it?

It's Not My Fault

I have just finished watching a defense attorney on Fox News who, in all seriousness, said that her client (a teenage boy) should not have been prosecuted for beating his pregnant girlfriend's (also a teenager) abdomen with a baseball bat in order to abort their baby. He was successful in killing the baby inside his girlfriend with this tactic and they subsequently secretly buried the remains of the dead baby in their backyard.

Their attorney's argument is that the two teenagers were given bad advice by two crisis hotlines they called and therefore they should not be held responsible for their actions. What an excellent example the legal profession is setting for the other teenagers in our society. No matter how horrendous the action you take to kill a unwanted fetus, we will always make excuses for you by making sure everyone understands that it is not your fault. We will use our years of training in college and law school to make sure you are not held accountable for your actions. Not only are you not accountable, you are the "victim" of an over zealous prosecutor who doesn't seem to understand that killing a fetus with a baseball bat is perfectly acceptable.

And we wonder why no one takes responsibility for their actions any longer. Gee, I wonder why...

What People's Choice?

The so-called "people's choice" awards were on tonight (something I never watch for reasons explained soon) and you have to really wonder about the voting system for these awards. Michael Moore's farce of "Fahrenheit 911" was voted most favorite movie (equivalent to best movie in Oscar terms) and Ellen Degeneres was voted funniest female star and also best day time talk show host (she actually won two of these 'awards'). Where do they get the people who vote like this?

We just had a presidential election that proved, once and for all, the majority of the people in the country (around 60 million of them) like George Bush and approve of his job as President. Yet, the People's Choice award staff expect us to believe that the "people" like Michael Moore's fraud of a documentary above all other movies in 2004? I don't think so. It is clear that the deck is stacked in favor of those celebrated liberals of the left who never get tired of patting themselves on the back about how incredibly smart and talented they are.

This is why any of these 'awards' such as the Oscar, People's Choice, Pulitzer Prize and even the Nobel Prize in some fields have become so politicized that, in general, conservatives or Republicans need not even apply. Unless you are a liberal and leftist, the chance of your success being recognized by mainstream media and other professional awards is very slim indeed. Why has Bruce Willis never won or even been nominated for an Oscar? He is politically conservative. Why don't conservative writers even get mentioned for a Pulitzer? They're conservative and therefore, by liberal definition, not intelligent enough to win a Pulitzer. For the same reason our universities are filled with liberal professors who only hire other liberal professors, other professions are moving in lock step just as the Nazi's used to. In universities, in newspaper newsrooms, in major media TV anchor slots, unless you share their political worldview you will never get the job, not to mention recognition, that you deserve no matter how talented you may be. For the Nazis, you had to belong to the Nazi party to have an opportunity. For contemporary America, you need to belong to the liberal groupthink to get professional recognition or even an entry level job.

For those who watch this junk TV, they probably don't care that the system is rigged and the award meaningless. That is, nonetheless, the reality of these kinds of shows. They will never tell us who the really talented are because they leave out any actor, writer, journalist or professor who does not dance to their political tune. Therefore the show should be called the "Liberal People's Choice After Eliminating All Conservatives Award." At least that would be honest.