Willamette PI

Racism - The Ultimate Collectivist Act

2009-04-21T23:52:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand in an article written about racism started out the article with this sentence, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." It is an article what every American should read because it reveals so clearly the root cause of racism. Racism is not based on the individual, it is based on the collective or group.

Only with thinking about people as a group or collective can you have racism. If you think of people as individuals, you cannot. When blacks say all white people are one way or white people say something similar about blacks, you are saying that all people with a particular skin pigmentation are collectively the same. If you sincerely believed that all people are individuals and you need to judge them only by their own actions, you cannot rationally make that kind of statement.

So, where is current American society heading?

It does not seem that there has ever been a time in our history where skin color or ethnicity means more to Americans than now. From Martin Luther King's dream of a "color-blind" society we have become a color-obsessed society. MLK must have wanted everyone to be treated as an individual since this was the only way that you could achieve his dream society. So why are we so obsessed with something as superficial as skin color?

Collectivism is the political strategy of the Democratic party here in the US. Their strategy is to first create smaller collective groups, and then merge them into the larger collective, the party. They create victim/minority groups and then say that only their party will create a program to help them while villifying the Republicans for not caring about "their" concerns. Rather than treating people as individuals, they treat them as collectives, or groups. It has been very effective for them politically but is it good for the country?

Republican political philosophy is individualism, not groups, which leads to such positions as smaller government, less taxes, complete freedom of speech. Democratic positions are almost the opposite with bigger and more powerful government, more taxes, and restrictions on speech (political correctness).

Rand's prediction is that the more collective a society is, the more racist it is. Even after our last election, which in some ways likely proved Rand to be correct, America is breaking into collective groups who are competing for government money and power. Unless Americans start considering themselves as individuals rather than groups competing with each other for government largess, Martin Luther King's dream can turn into a nightmare.

Republicans Want Soldiers - Dems Want Felons

2006-09-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

It was a fascinating contrast between the Republican party and the Democratic party on a new 'get out the vote' drive by the Democrats for this upcoming election. Who do the Democrats feel will vote for them to return to power in office? Felons! That's right, the Dems feel that convicted felons are the kind of people that agree with their policies (and ethics).

On the other hand, Republicans have always encouraged those in our brave military to vote since they tend to agree with Republican values and vote the same way.

So, here we have two kinds of classifications of people, one convicted felons and the other young people who are willing to sacrifice their life for the freedoms we all cherish. One group that breaks our laws, murders our citizens, and have no moral standards at all vs. the other group who are risking their lives every day so that we can go about our daily routine. One group that will rob you of everything you own because they believe their entitled to the rewards of your labor and the other believing that the discipline and honor they earn in the military will help them obtain their own success when they get out. One group who will use their guns to commit crimes and the other will use their guns to keep us free.

It is very revealing which group appeals to which party. I know which group of people I would prefer to belong to my party and agree with my principles (hint: it is not the criminals).

Where Hitler Left Off

2006-08-29T18:21:00.000-07:00

There was a brief time when the world recognized the danger of anti-semitism as a sign that injustice to Jews was injustice to all. After the carnage of WWII where millions of people died, including 6 million Jews, the world was sensitive to the signs of intolerance and hatred by a large group against a minority. They were educated in the fact that the Jews were simply the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" and that Hitler's ambitions went much further than only elminating the Jews. The lesson was very expensive, causing the unnecessary deaths of over 40 million people.

Unfortunately, this sensitivity only lasted a few decades after the war and Jews (particularly Israeli Jews) are once more on the forefront of another hate campaign. According to the ADL (Anti Defamation League) in a recent statement by Abraham Foxman, the Muslim press is even worse than Nazi propaganda in demonizing the Jewish people. Muslims have taken the banner of Hitler with his Jew-hatred and are carrying it proudly aloft into battle.

What is the world doing this time?

The same thing they did last time - making excuses for the anti-semites. Once again we are being led down the primrose path that if only we understood Arabs and Muslims better we would be able to talk them out of this kind of behavior. The problem is that history has shown us time and time again that there is a time to talk and a time to fight. You will never talk these fanatics out of their hatred of Jews (and every other infidel) until you either kill them or the majority of Muslims stop supporting the idea that they are superior to Jews and any other non-Muslim. The Germans and Japanese thought they were superior as well and look what happened to them.

Islam is not superior, it is just different. The key is that just because someone is different than you are does not make them a target for you to kill. Forget the liberal hogwash about tolerance. This is true tolerance and respect that everyone on the planet should have for each other. Yes, we have differences but we still deserve respect from one another to live our lives in the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our families.

Until the world remembers once again that Muslim hatred of Jews is a sympton of a much larger problem and they need to deal with the root of that problem even if it requires force, we will continue to march toward a time that may kill more innocent people than even Hitler did.

"Humiliating for Islam"

2006-03-23T20:07:00.000-08:00

Abdul Raoulf, a cleric at the Herati Mosque in Afghanistan who is generally considered a moderate and was jailed several times by the Taliban for disagreeing with them was asked about Abdul Rahman, the Christian Afghan who refused to convert back to Islam. His comment was that Rahman's refusal was "humiliating for Islam" and that they should "cut off his head" for refusing to become a Muslim again.

What I find that should humiliate Islam and all Muslims is the thoroughly repugnant idea that if you become a Muslim and change your mind that you should be murdered for it. What kind of religion is that? Are we in the 21st century or are we back in Medieval times? For those individuals who may have thought about Islam as a religion for themselves, you should think again. There appears to be no turning back once that decision is made.

So, this is the Islam of tolerance and peace that we hear so much about? This is the Islam that has been hijacked by radicals but whose current laws demand that if you become an apostate from Islam you should die? How many more examples of Islamic cruelty and intolerance do Americans need before they realize that this is not just another world religion, it is a religion of hate, violence and intolerance if it is practiced in it's original form.

Anyone who still believes that Islam is equal to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and other world faiths as a peaceful, tolerant religion which respects all people is either blind or cannot read. We have seen too much of what Islam is all about over the last decade and the sight is not pretty. Unless Muslims make a huge concerted effort to rid themselves of the ancient and barbaric laws of Sharia and join the 21st century with the rest of us, Islam will continue to humiliate itself and it's followers.

Muhammad Cartoons

2006-02-03T10:37:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin has the big story on the ridiculous controversy that has been backed up by our own US State Department regarding whether or not anyone can mock Muhammad in a cartoon. So-called "peace-loving" Muslims from around the world are calling for the death and destruction of Danes and Denmark for publishing a few cartoons protraying Muhammad in various caricatures.

Here are the cartoons:

I am publishing these on my blog to re-affirm the liberties of free speech that we cherish in this country. No angry Muslim mob will intimidate Americans and try to prevent them from exercising this right. I would call on the US State Department and President Bush to re-affirm these rights as well.

Once you start kowtowing to angry mobs you will never stop.

Broken Back Agenda

2006-01-31T14:42:00.000-08:00

It was no surprise that "Brokeback Mountain" was nominated for eight Oscars. The Academy Awards which awards the Oscar was taken over many years ago to promote Hollywood's political agenda, not to bestow honors on the best pictures and actors. If you would have normally thought that sounded like a conspiracy theory rather than objective analysis, this nomination for Best Picture should make it perfectly clear what their agenda is.

Brokeback Mountain is a homosexual agenda film that took the macho image of the western cowboy and turned it into a homosexual fantasy piece. The film made no money when it came out despite the push to get viewers to go by film critics. Then along came the film awards where Hollywood could not wait to weigh in about how wonderful and daring they thought the film was. It started with Screen Actors Guild awards and is ending with the Academy Awards in a blatant attempt by the Hollywood elite to convince all of us, even heterosexuals, that two men in cowboy hats kissing is the most precious thing we can see. I don't think so.

Hollywood is making less money today even with increased prices at the box office. Frankly, they have lost touch with the heart of America and simply use their position, money and influence to push their own political viewpoints rather than make good movies. Out of the five movies nominated for best picture in 2005, three of them (Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich) were clear agenda films.

What can we do? We can continue to do what we have already started doing and that is to stop supporting these agenda films with our hard-earned dollars. If you want to see a movie, pick out some of the old classics where the story lines are creative, the plots actually exist, and no one is trying to shove their political views down your throat. There was a time when Hollywood just wanted to provide good entertainment for the folks instead of indoctrinating them. Some of that period films are excellent to watch over and over again.

Since Hollywood is trying to push their Brokeback agenda on us, we should break their backs by voting with our dollars. No matter how much you hear about how "wonderful", "touching", "path-blazing", "daring" and other subjective adjectives used by the press and Hollywood over the next few weeks trying to get you to be "open-minded" and see this film, keep on riding past the theater cowboys and cowgirls.

When Good Guys Kill Bad Guys They're As Bad As The Bad Guys?

2005-12-30T14:14:00.000-08:00

This is the simplistic morality of Spielberg and Kushner in their most recent film " Munich." It is moral relativism to the extreme. It continues to confirm a long-standing suspicion of mine that creative minds are not analytical minds and should never be trusted in serious matters such as those dealing with morality. Just look at Hollywood.

In the new Spielberg/Kushner code of morality as displayed by the moral lessons of their story of Munich is that those who kill innocents and those who kill the guilty are equally wrong. In other words, the intentional killing of any human being is wrong no matter what the circumstances. This is a purely pacifistic moral philosophy that denies the reality of evil in the world.

According to Spielberg/Kushner, we should never have retaliated for 9/11 by going after and killing those responsible. Using that same moral standard, the US should never have gone to war with Japan over Pearl Harbor or against Germany in WWII. Since it is never right to kill humans in the name of justice we should never defend ourselves when we are attacked or killed.

Fortunately, for Spielberg and Kushner, we did defend ourselves in addition to defending Europe at the cost of thousands of American lives or they would not even be alive today. In case either of them have forgotten, the Nazis were intent on killing all Jews which I assume would also apply to film directors and screenwriters. Since present-day Arabs have taken on the prestigious mantle of the Nazis as Jew-haters, they probably feel the same way.

There is a Talmudic verse that says "If a man comes to kill you, kill him first." According to Jewish law, life is always the highest moral concern. The only way to choose life when someone is intent on killing you is to kill them first. What Spielberg and Kushner also left out of the movie is that this was not just an act of vengeance but also to prevent further attacks by these same Palestinian planners in the future. From what I have read of those responsible for the decision to go after the terrorists is that the latter reason was more important than the former. The Israeli hit team served a dual purpose of carrying out justice while preventing further bloodshed of innocent Israelis in the future.

If it comes to traditional Jewish law of choosing life and self defense or the new Spielberg/Kushner moral code of surrender even if it means your life - I will always choose the traditional Jewish position. Spielberg may be a good film director but he is a terrible moral philosopher.

Education - It Ain't What It Used To Be

2005-12-29T15:54:00.000-08:00

There was a time when education in this country was truly concerned with the development of a young person's intellect to reach a higher level of understanding from multiple perspectives. It was a time when educators believed that we as humans were capable of anything we put our mind to and they motivated their students to dream big dreams. Those days, unfortunately, are gone.

Education in this country has developed an agenda which has nothing to do with the development of young minds and more to do with the indoctrination of young minds. It is more important for teachers and professors to make sure their students share their political beliefs and their contempt for capitalism than providing them with a well-rounded education that exposes them to the best thinkers in history. No matter which textbook you select in any subject, including mathematics, you will find this political indoctrination woven through the pages of the textbook. At times it may be subtle but more often it is blatantly obvious.

When did political indoctrination become more important than education?

My theory is that it came from the same baby-boomer generation that has strongly affected all levels of society in one way or another, usually negatively. Being a member of that generation, our generation was one of the most self-centered generations in American history. That same self-centeredness which was born of a very affluent post-WWII society demonstrates itself in the teaching of our current teachers, professors and academic textbook authors. Rather than strive for academic neutrality that teaches both sides of every question, they prefer to want their students to agree with their unrealistic and utopian ideals. It makes them feel better about themselves and that is the true motivation of most baby-boomers.

Most of the baby-boomer professors and teachers are being replaced by the next generation which causes some to think that the problem will go away. Not so. Study after study has shown that these aging baby-boomers have replaced themselves with only those who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in their belief system and will perpetuate their collectivist philosophy. These young teachers and professors are simply regurgitating the leftist philosophy that their aging baby-boomer professors corrupted their minds with. It appears you don't become an assistant professor unless you agree with the professor.

So what does higher education mean in this country?

It means you know how Karl Marx would think about most economic and social issues but nothing about how Milton Friedman would. It means you know more about Che Guerva as a supposed freedom fighter (actually a communist murderer) than true revolutionaries such as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Neither Washington or Jefferson murdered people in cold blood (as Che Guerva did) but rather this statement was made by Jefferson, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

It is my sincere belief that Jefferson would be fighting today against the "tyranny over the mind of man" that the aging baby-boomers and their young parroting accomplices are bringing to America's educational system. Until we stop allowing our children to be indoctrinated and insist on them getting a well-rounded education this corrupting process will continue indefinitely.

We will end up with more of our young people wanting to be like Che Guerva and less like Thomas Jefferson.

Victory in Iraq

2005-12-16T12:52:00.000-08:00

There is just no other way to put it but - victory in Iraq. When nearly 70% of the eligible voters in Iraq voted on December 15, 2005 to establish their first parliament while taking great risk in doing so, we have achieved an incredible victory - and so have the Iraqi people. This was the largest and most free election in the Arab world. There was dancing in the streets, almost no violence and a genuine desire on the part of the Iraqis to change their government for the better. The long lines waiting at the polling booths to vote are proof that the power of freedom is universal.

Combine this with the free elections in Afghanistan and you have a powerful win-win. Two Islamic countries which had both been oppressed. One by religious fanatics who wanted to take Afghanistan back to medieval times and the other by one of the most brutal and sadistic dictators in modern history, Saddam Hussein. That both countries are now free and their combined populations of over 50 million people have elected their own leaders by ballot is an amazing and uplifting story.

But how does the mainstream media play all this? "Ho hum." "No big deal." "Can we talk about something else now?"

As we have all learned, unless there is something bad to say the press does not want to say it. Their hatred for George Bush trumps anything that might make life better for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. This irrational hatred is the reason the days of influence for the mainstream press are growing shorter. For the best of us, this is a time of confirmation that democracy works and that it can be a viable political system for the Middle East and Islamic countries.

We only need to look today at those smiling faces in Iraq to make that positively obvious.

Safety vs. Need for Privacy

2005-12-16T12:06:00.000-08:00

If I had a choice between keeping my boring conversations on the telephone private and making sure that terrorists do not plan their operations using our communications systems it would be a no-brainer. I would choose my personal safety over my "private" conversations anytime.

If the government feels they need to listen in on my conversations on a cell phone, land line or email - feel free! I have nothing to hide and frankly, unless I am doing something illegal, why should I care? If the government feels a real need to wiretap my phones - go ahead. In fact you can use this blog as official permission from me to authorize you to do just that.

Now that I have not only the this blog readers attention but the US government as well, I can really pontificate. Maybe George W. Bush and Condi Rice will finally find out what I really think as passed on by the government agents monitoring my blog and phone lines. Actually, I think they would be pleased since I am a strong supporter of their efforts. One thing though, George, is that I think you are spending a little too much money. Try to keep it down, will you?

So why is the ACLU so upset about the Patriot Act being renewed? Who knows? It may be because they don't want their phones monitored. I wonder why...?

Durbin's History Lesson

2005-06-17T22:48:00.000-07:00

Senator Durbin of Illinois, who is the second ranking Democrat in the US Senate, has spoken loud and clear for the Democratic Party by declaring the acts of the US military in Guantanamo Bay detention facility on par with Hitler's Holocaust, Pol Pot's massacre and Stalin's Gulag Archipelago. I have written before about how over-the-top the Democrats are in their hatred of George Bush and everything he does but this is particularly egregious and historical nonsense. You cannot put the US military and their actions in a more distasteful - and inaccurate - comparison.

If this is how the number two Democrat in the Senate is talking and then add on top of that the outrageous comments of Howard Dean who is the DNC Chair - where are they going with this? When you purposely on the Senate floor denigrate the efforts of US troops in the field do you really think you can turn around and tell us - "but we support the troops." Of course you do not support the troops or their mission. You are making their job more difficult and dangerous with these kind of comments. To put it simply - you are encouraging the insurgents/terrorists to kill more Americans and demoralizing the US military men and women in the field by calling them "Nazis." What is so hard to understand about that?

This is the Democratic Party's contribution to the war effort?

Yes, you can be opposed to the war and you can hate George Bush but to try to undermine the morale of US troops in the field who are risking their lives to protect us by comparing them to Hitler is unconscionable. Senator Durbin owes all US servicemen and women a sincere apology and then he needs to resign his position.

The sooner the better.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend

2005-04-12T00:27:00.000-07:00

It seems hard to believe that the American political left, university radicals and some in the mainstream media have chosen to side with the Islamic fascists against the US in the war on terrorism but it is the truth. Why would an American want to betray their own country?

First, you have to understand that the American radical left is by its nature anti-American and is against, not only the war on terror, but most things that America stands for such as capitalism and individual freedoms. They are true believers in socialism and living in a village where we all think alike and everyone gets along. They never believe that anything America does is right and want to destroy the system and start all over again (such as writing their own constitution).

Second, they are ardent Bush haters and would be against anything that Bush was for simply by a reflex action. Their moral compass is - if Bush is for it, I'm against it. It makes decisions very easy (which is good for liberals since they don't like to think too much). So, if Bush wants to defeat the evil Islamic terrorists then they need to support them as freedom fighters. If Bush is the terrorists' enemy, then the terrorists are their friends (at least until the terrorists get hold of them and kill them).

The problem these people run into is that most Americans are not anti-American (they actually love their country) and most Americans share a lot of the values of President Bush (this is demonstrably true since he won the last election by over 50% of the voters). The other problem they have is that most Americans are rational. These facts consign the left and many liberals in the minority of Americans which is why they keep losing elections.

They are also taking the Democratic Party with them which is OK in my book.

AARP - Back Home Again

2005-04-04T01:21:00.000-07:00

The AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) is back home with the Democrats again after a brief fling with the Republicans. Traditionally, the AARP usually always supported Democrats and tried to scare senior citizens into voting for Democrats to keep their social security checks coming. The organization is ran by liberals who usually follow the party (Democrat) line.

Then something unusual happened. The AARP supported the prescription drug plan for Medicare pushed by the Republicans and President Bush because, after numerous years of Congress talking about it, this was a bill that was actually going to help senior citizens pay for their drugs. The bill passed but many Democrats were upset with the AARP for supporting anything that made President Bush look good.

Along came the privatization of social security issue which gave the AARP a chance to prove to the Democrats they were back in the party. And what a celebration there were going to have. Even though most AARP members are not even effected by the privatization plan and a large majority of younger workers want to have the ability to invest their social security benefits, the AARP is throwing millions of member's dollars into advertisements and meetings around the country to - once again - scare senior citizens into thinking that they were going to somehow lose their benefits by the Republicans putting all of their money into the risky stock market.

Needless to say, the Democratic Party is once again pleased with the AARP and all is forgiven.

Terri Schaivo - Murdered by the State

2005-04-04T00:42:00.000-07:00

We have now decided in America, according to Judge Greer of Florida, that if you are not with us mentally and but still alive physically then you may be put to death by your legal custodian. Michael Schaivo, as Terri Schaivo's legal custodian, requested and was granted the right to kill his severely handicapped wife against the wishes of her parents.

Terri's crime was that, although her body could live for many more years, her mind was not able to communicate cogently with us. If that is the legal reason someone can be ordered by a state judge to be starved or dehydrated to death then what will happen to the mentally ill in this country in a few years? The only difference between Terri Schaivo and the mentally ill is that she could not swallow and had to be fed by a feeding tube. Otherwise, they are the same. The mentally ill cannot cogently communicate with us either. Alzheimer patients get to the point they cannot even recognize their own spouse and family. Should we just kill them and put them out of their misery?

That seems to be Michael Schaivo's position, the ACLU and the mainstream media. If you disagree with that position then, of course, you are a religious nut or on the extreme far right. Yes, we are on the far right if we believe that starving or dehydrating to death a 41 year-old woman against her parent's wishes is the wrong thing to do.

If that makes me on the far right then I am proud to be there. What the state of Florida did, what Michael Schaivo did, what the ACLU did, and what Judge Greer did - there is no other word for but murder.

New York Times - Uncredible

2005-02-15T16:46:00.000-08:00

At one time the New York Times was what they claim to be on their banner, "The Paper of Record." That must have been a long time ago because for at least that last 15-20 years the NYT has simply been a leftist publication which lacks any credibility with the majority of Americans. Very few Americans take the NYT seriously any more and they have good reason not to.

To prove that thesis, if the majority of Americans believed in what the New York Times wrote they would never have elected George W. Bush for a second term. The NYT was leading the charge for the Democratic Party to do as much as they could to discredit Bush and influence the electoral process. If you agreed with the NYT you had to vote for Kerry. It didn't happen. In fact, Bush won by a much larger margin than the last election (thankfully) and gained the most votes of any US President in history.

Has the NYT learned from their mistakes? Of course not. Until you replace the Paul Krugmans, Maureen Dowds, and other leftists from the ranks of writers for the NYT and replace them with journalists on both sides of the political spectrum you will continue to have the politically correct garbage and inaccurate reporting you have now. That is not going to happen anytime soon or possibly ever. They have made their bed and they are comfortable in it.

Yes, the paper of record is now the paper of distortion. Read it at your own risk.

CNN - US Military Targets Journalists

2005-02-03T22:05:00.000-08:00

Eason Jordan, one of the senior news executives of CNN, believes that the US military is deliberately targeting particular journalists in Iraq. He said this at an international conference. Here is a portion of an article written about the meeting by a reporter who was there and heard the comments.

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience.

This is how over-the-top the mainstream media is in their beliefs about conservatives and the US military. This is a clear demonstration of the contempt the media has for the brave men and women who are risking their lives for our protection in Iraq. This CNN executive is not only denying their sacrifice, he is demonizing our soldiers and Marines by accusing them of deliberately murdering journalists.

There is absolutely no excuse for his behavior nor is there any reason that the other MSM stations are not even mentioning what Jordan said. Fox News was the only one to mention it but only once. Bloggers are covering it and CNN has issued a quasi-apology about being misunderstood. Sure.

Anyone who still believes the mainstream media is objective and unbiased must also still believe in the tooth fairy.

CNN's rating have been dropping like a rock over the last few years while Fox News Channel has been surging ahead. Ted Turner was so upset about it that he referred to the Fox News staff as "Nazis." I think it is becoming obvious to everyone why CNN is failing and Fox News is winning. Eason Jordan and his like at CNN has just shown us again why we should never tune in to CNN.

Martha Stewart and Ethics

2005-02-02T15:28:00.000-08:00

I have just read that Martha Stewart will be hosting a new Apprentice show with the full blessings of NBC, the TV network who is broadcasting it. This is a woman who has been found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. Oh well, I guess no one is perfect. Of course she should be honored by getting her own Apprentice program.

What is the message this sends to our young people about ethics?

If you think about that question very long the answer is obvious. It tells our young people that whether or not you are ethical doesn't matter as long as you have enough money, power or at the very least, friends in high places. In the general sense, it makes us appear hypocritical if we advise them not to lie or cheat. I agree that anyone who serves their time for a crime they committed should not be hounded for the rest of their life for it. On the other hand, they should not be glorified as a shining example of womanhood right after they get out of prison either.

I admire what Martha Stewart did in building her business and achieving great financial success. That is what makes her crime so stupid, she didn't need the money. I don't admire Martha Stewart for sitting on the Board of Directors for the New York Stock Exchange and then engaging in illegal activities to try to keep from losing some money. She knew better and did it anyway.

A recent study showed that 75% of high school children had cheated on their exams in school. This was up from 25% in the sixties and 50% in the eighties. The trend is certainly not going in the right direction. We encourage children and young people to lie, steal and cheat because when certain adults do it we either rationalize their behavior or say it is no big deal. Until we change our treatment of those in high places who are unethical, our own message of ethics will be diluted to the point of being ineffective.

Unless we start showing that we take ethical behavior seriously and that it does have long-term negative consequences, our young people will continue to cheat to get ahead. The message we definitely should not be sending them is that if they are unethical enough, they may get their own national TV show.

Kennedy - Moral Leader?

2005-01-31T20:59:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-26T18:30:00.000-08:00

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

2005-01-13T17:14:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-01-09T23:14:00.000-08:00

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.

Design-a-God

2004-12-24T13:15:00.000-08:00

There seems to be a movement of people who wish to make God into whatever they want him (or her) to be. Some people want God to be just love. Others want a God that will never sit in judgement of them but accept whatever they want to do. The common thread of this movement, which can be quite varied, is that these people decide who God is and what morality God accepts.

In other words, the people who are designing God (usually in their own image) are also throwing off the accumulated wisdom and revelation of traditional religion and deciding for themselves what our moral structures should be and how religion should be practiced. In a very real sense, they are taking the place of God. They are the ones making the decisions, not God. Logic would also tell you that they then consider themselves God or at least they consider themselves with God-like powers such as the ability to discern true morality.

I have no objection to individuals rejecting deism or the existence of God. God gave us free will so that we could make that choice ourselves. What does not make any sense, however, is that individuals would replace God with their own image of what they think God should be, not what he is. Narcissism is defined as excessive self-admiration. One would have to be narcissitic to believe that they can replace God with their own wisdom. By deciding for God what God should believe is to replace God's thinking with their own. They are elevating themselves to the status of God - no - actually above God because their sense of morality is higher than that of traditional God-inspired or revealed morality. What kind of ego must a person have to do that?

No, God cannot be whatever we want God to be. As God says, "I am." He is what he is. You can reject God or accept him but you cannot design God into your own personal deity.

Islamic Terrorism Defined

2004-12-22T13:48:00.000-08:00

It is now official, the Mosul, Iraq attack against the US military base messhall where hundreds of American troops were gathered for a noon meal was caused by a suicide bomber. Over twenty people were killed and sixty-nine others wounded according to the most recent figures for casualties in this attack. Naturally, as a consequence, security will be tightened and people more thoroughly checked on US bases in Iraq with this gruesome reminder that Islamic terrorism is our true enemy.

Why does this all sound familiar? It's familiar because Israel has been going through this for years while the world has made excuses for the Palestinians/Arabs and attacked Israel for it's behavior in trying to stop suicide bombers. The Netanya suicide bombing by an Islamic terrorist killed twenty-nine people sitting down for a Passover meal in Israel in 2002. When I was in Israel in 2003, I visited a bar near the Tel Aviv beachfront called Mike's Place. A week after I left Israel a pair of suicide bombers attacked the same bar and killed several patrons while wounding many more. It was only through the heroic efforts of a security guard at the entrance that prevented many more innocent deaths.

The world thought that Israel alone was going to be target for Islamic terrorism and they could ignore it, or even worse, excuse it by blaming the Israeli government. The US had this same approach until 9-11. Some of the wiser pundits compared Israel to the proverbial canary in the mine shaft. Unfortunately, they were absolutely right. Our enemy is not Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, Palestinian radicals, Chechnyan rebels, Indonesian extremists, or any other name the media uses. Our enemy is Islamic terrorism which is not defined by one nation, one people or one race. It is defined by it's religion and it's political goal which is fascism.

Just as with other fascists, Islamic fascism must be defeated, not negotiated with. Islamic fascists do not want to negotiate with you but they will give you a choice - convert or die. We must defeat this fascism as we defeated the Nazis in WWII in order to bring true peace to the world. Those who support our troops in Iraq and their mission represent the honest "peace party" because they know this is the only way to achieve peace in the long run. The short run will be difficult and painful, just as it was in WWII, but the goal is an honorable and worthy one.

Hanukkah and Nativity Scenes

2004-12-22T11:26:00.000-08:00

This is the time of year that political correctness goes bananas. People and organizations use the excuse "we don't want to offend anyone" to try to remove all Christian symbols from the public square. This is not about anyone feeling offended but more about secular power flexing it's muscles.

Let's look at that phrase "we don't want to offend anyone." You can use this excuse to ban almost anything. That is exactly the point. The people and organizations, like the ACLU, are using this broad language to push their own agendas, not because they are sincerely interested in protecting anyone's rights. We hear this phrase over and over again but it only applies to Christianity and Christian symbols, not Muslim, Jewish or anyone else. Why is that? Is anyone offended by a public menorah celebrating Hanukkah?

Here in the Northwest the city of Portland, Oregon has a tradition of putting a huge Christmas tree (soon to be Holiday Tree?) in the public square downtown and also allow the lighting of a large menorah for Hanukkah. No nativity scene is allowed because it is too religious. What about the menorah which is lighted each night by a rabbi? Is that not religious? What if a Christian was offended?

This exact same case was recently decided by a Florida court where a woman wanted to put a nativity scene along side an existing menorah display on city property and was denied by the city council. She went to court and the city tried to argue that a menorah is not a religious symbol. They lost. The nativity scene will now be added to the public square as it should. To most Jews, the idea that the menorah has no spiritual meaning to the Jewish people is ridiculous but it shows how far the secularists and anti-Christians will go to remove true Christian symbols from public buildings and squares.

Diversity should be the celebration of all faiths and ideologies, not the suppression of the majority religion and elevation of everything else. This is the view of the proud politically incorrect. And to be even more politically incorrect we want to wish everyone a very "Merry Christmas!"

The New/Old Target - Rumsfeld

2004-12-20T13:58:00.000-08:00

It is typical for the mainstream media to have a political target that they choose and then gang up on. The current target is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (not a new one) and his supposed crime of being blunt with a soldier about armored Humvees. Rumsfeld was right that you cannot protect everyone simply by upgrading armor. We recently read of a young soldier from Oregon that was killed while in a M-1 tank. The M-1 is the most powerful tank in the world with the best in armor plating but was still damaged by a IED in Iraq which cost the life of this brave young man.

As usual, all the facts you can throw at the mainstream media will not deter their course. Once they had decided on a target, like junkyard dogs, they go after the throat. The only remedy is for the public to be educated by non-traditional media sources that do not have a political agenda or at least tell the other side of the story. Thank God for the internet and our ability to communicate with each other exclusive of the what the mainstream press desires to serve up for us.

Rumsfeld is also being criticized for not personally signing letters to the families of those military citizens who have been killed in Iraq. Although this seems to be a petty criticism and hardly worth mentioning among all the important duties of a Secretary of Defense during a period of war, if President Bush has the time to do so, then Rumsfeld should as well. It would be interesting to research if any other Secretary of Defense has machine-signed these letters during other conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea and WWII. Frankly, I think you would find that the SOD during those wars did not personally sign each letter so why does this criticism have so much coverage by the media? Could it be sharks circling in the water?