Monday, August 08, 2005

Evil in Our Time, Volume II

Abortion & Population Control (continued)
These days hardly anyone sane gives any credence whatsoever to the “population bomb” hysteria that we endured in the dark decades of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Mass starvation and $100/barrel oil, predictions of the lunatic left fringe, have failed to materialize, despite the population growth of China & India. Global economic progress and the wonders of genetically modified crop technology (both due in large part to the Reagan Conservative Revolution) have terminated these as even remote threats (more on oil prices in a future post in this series). From an intellectual standpoint, the Malthusian limits to growth menace are simply dead. These facts notwithstanding, in addition to championing the idea of abortion-on-demand, the evil Clinton administration allocated almost $300 million a year to international population control – or what is euphemistically described as "family planning." From Brazil to Nigeria, from India to Mexico, couples’ basic human right to control their fertility has been steamrolled by the state, thanks in large part to the of tainted dollars & false limits-to-growth propaganda of the Clinton Administration and their fringe feminist friends.

The United Nations has been complicit in some of the most inhumane forms of population control through the United Nations Population Fund. The UNFPA gave an award to the Chinese government for the effectiveness of its genocidal one child per couple policy. Nobody really knows how many victims there are, but the murder of countless millions of innocent girls (the cultural preference is for boys) is horrendous. It is estimated that at least 10 million babies, almost 90% girls, were murdered at the hands of Chinese population control fanatics (assuming it has ceased). This atrocity will go down in history as one of the greatest abuses of human rights in the 20th century. Infanticide on such a scale has only been exceeded by number of American babies viciously murdered prior to birth since Roe v. Wade. In terms of human casualties of atrocities, only Mao's Great Leap Forward, Stalin's Extermination of Jews, and Roe v. Wade exceed this horror in terms of the massive destruction of life. Sadly, the United Nations continues to spend tens of millions each year on "population control."

These barbaric programs sterilize women against their will, and yet the so-called feminists are silent. How in the world can supporters of programs that sterilize women against their will be called pro-choice? In 1998, the U.S. Senate Committee on Human Rights heard from witnesses of the China population program relate how rural women are forcibly strapped to steel tables in "hospitals" and their babies aborted -- often during the last days of pregnancy. Pro-choice? I think not. There are quite literally millions of mothers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America who would vehemently disagree.

Now that the subject of population control has been breached, let’s note how liberals really feel about humanitarian issues: Nobel winner supported biological warfare as form of population control

Top-secret files recently declassified from the National Archives of Australia...has revealed that one of the fathers of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering advocated using biological weapons against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia...world-famous microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet recommended...in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases...Macfarlane...advised..."Introduction of yellow fever into a country with appropriate mosquito vectors might build up into a disabling epidemic before control measures were established..."

The article then goes on to document what the "moderate Republican" Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize winner (AKA raging liberal), Henry Kissinger and the U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), which he authored, proposed: population control.
The report spelled out a plan to bring about "a two-child family on the average" throughout the world "by about the year 2000." Interestingly, NSSM 200 went into detail about avoiding U.S. responsibility for population-control programs by ensuring that the UN and international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank adopt population-control policies as prerequisites to their giving of aid. The report suggested furthering the camouflage by mandating that countries accepting aid from the UN or the banks form their own population-control ministries.
No conservative would ever approve of or condone such disgusting anti-life policies.

Additionally, reflect on the following: There has been no increase in the global annual childbirth total for nearly two decades. If current trends continue, Earth's population will level off at 8 billion people by about 2050. Global population is expected to fall to about 3.5 billion people by 2150. How much longer would it then continue to decline? Can you imagine what kind of global economic depression we would then enter as economic growth rates begin to slip into the negative? One would imagine that tens of trillions of dollars of equity and real estate value would melt away like dew in the morning sun worldwide, and that standards of living that were once indefinitely sustainable would become impossible to sustain. Sorry about that…I suppose I got a bit off topic. :) More to come next week.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Evil in Our Time, Volume I

First of all, let me begin by outlining the thesis of my argument. As we all know, American Liberals have allied themselves to the causes of totalitarianism, communism, fascism, despotism, terrorism, and genocide. Many people might think that this is a bit strong, that I shouldn't go there, but I believe in standing up for truth, and the last few years since I have gradually moved from being a moderate Independent to a Conservative Republican (beginning in the year 1999, and sealing my choice with my registration five years later as a first-time Republican preceding the 2004 Republican primaries), I have noted that the Lefties (almost all of them Democrats) have consistently chosen evil. And while many liberals have good intentions, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with them. Deceived do-gooders have perpetrated the vast majority of evil acts in our world. Nobody wants to think of themselves as evil.

Think about it:

Liberals choose death over life for everyone except those who would cause more death and suffering. Saddam Hussein? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Abortionists? Check, check, check, check, check, and check. They are great leaders who can do no wrong, according to liberals here in America. None of them deserves to die. Heck, they all deserve to be in power. No mass murderer/rapist/child molester/traitor/genocidal dictator should get the death penalty, but what of innocent infants, small, helpless unborn babies who haven't been fortunate enough to have been born? They're targeted for annihilation. Infanticide. Terri Schiavo? Kill her. President Bush? They wish to assassinate him. The American Left is consumed with hatred and disdain for life.

Every single time, American Liberals choose death, misery, and oppression instead of liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Let me explain by touching on some “controversial” issues, in alphabetical order:

Abortion & Population Control

As every good liberal knows, at least, deep down in their heart of hearts, the shedding of innocent infant blood for the purpose of avoiding the cost and responsibilities which result from becoming a parent (IOW, the premeditated murder of helpless, innocent little babies for selfish reasons) is called Abortion. But Liberals wouldn’t countenance calling it by its true name, eschewing descriptive terminology, since that would make them look bad (Evil). Even abortion and pregnancy termination, while clinical sounding, aren’t warm and fuzzy. So they have come up with euphemisms such as “a woman’s right to choose” and “Pro-Choice.” They leave out the part about the choices including premeditated murder of a little baby that is completely dependent upon the merciless mother. In online debates with liberals, I have learned that their self-denial is so disciplined that they insist upon calling an unborn baby a fetus (fœtus in the UK) or a blob of tissue, and often other (unprintable) pejoratives which often include the adjectives “blood-sucking” and “parasitic.”

According to Liberals, abortion isn’t actually the premeditated murder of helpless human infants. Leftists prefer to refer to it as the removal of a parasitic blob of tissue. Sure (for the sake of simplicity let’s refer to the baby as a she) she can suck her thumb, she can grasp with her hands, her heart beats, and she metabolizes oxygen & glucose into carbon dioxide and other human waste. She has unique DNA just like every other human on the planet, she reacts to light and noise, and she even hiccups and opens & closes her eyes. A brain scan shows the same electrical activity in her little brain as she exhibits after birth, she kicks like crazy in the womb, and she can even recognize her father’s (assuming he isn’t a deadbeat) voice (and to a lesser extent, her mother’s). She looks and acts human, but according to liberals, she’s just a parasite to be exterminated if her mother doesn’t feel like being responsible for her actions. Now here’s the interesting thing. Liberals believe that if the mother wishes to keep her baby, the moment the infant draws her first breath, she magically becomes human, where mere seconds prior to birth, she’s just a parasitic blob of tissue. Liberals’ suspension of logic & rational thought is truly amazing. They really seem to believe that unborn infants transform into “full-fledged” humans in an instant. That, my friends, is self-deception of the highest order. Abortion is unquestionably (by the sane) evil in our time.

WRT Constitutional “debate” over abortion, let’s be clear: The United States Constitution does not guarantee a woman the “right” to choose the premeditated murder of her unborn baby. There is no “right to choose” premeditated murder of infants in the Constitution. Only a bitterly partisan ideologue and/or a deceived fool would ever argue otherwise. Ann Coulter, the esteemed Constitutional Attorney and (thankfully) conservative pundit extraordinaire, has correctly observed that the “preposterous fiction that the Constitution says anything at all about abortion” only comes about as a result of “hallucinating when reading the Constitution.”

In the interest of publishing part rather than nothing at this time, I’ll break for the time being and publish what I have written thus far. I will add to this post next week.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Athletic Achievement

Before I get to the subject of good and evil in politics, let me just point out that Lance Armstrong's achievement in cycling is truly spectacular. Think about it: He has crushed the previous world record by 40%. FORTY PERCENT!

Tiger Woods has won 10 major championships in Golf, while the all-time record is Jack Nicklaus' 18. So to crush the all-time record by 40%, Tiger would have to keep it up until he had won 25 majors. Twenty-Five. Good luck, Tiger. You'll need it. Even to beat Jack Nicklaus by one would be an amazing achievement and put Tiger on top of almost every conceivable golf list. And while it's certainly possible, it is by no means assured.

Michael Jordan's six NBA championships are pretty impressive, but the Tour de France is more physically grueling than any NBA championship, and lance has won Seven, not Six.

The physical pain and punishment inflicted during the TdF is staggering. I know of nothing else like it in the sporting world. Imagine boxers punching through 15 rounds for 22 consecutive days. Or NFL players going at it for seven games in seven days. NBA players wilt on their third game in three nights. To win a grand slam tennis title, a player has to win seven matches in 14 days. It isn’t easy, but it isn’t the Tour. The Tour de France is three full weeks covering 2,236 miles, racing on all but two of the 22 days. In the latter stages, time trials held at all-out, butt-busting, hyper speed, the race traverses hills - no, mountains, my classic Range Rover probably wouldn't even survive. Then a final time trial and a comparatively restful finale.

Lance's Athletic Achievement it truly exceptional. It is amazing. And to add to it Lance's overcoming advanced testicular cancer before even beginning this oddysey really makes Lance's Legend all the more compelling. I wonder if anyone will ever beat Lance's Achievement in any sport, ever. I can't tell you how much I respect Lance Armstrong for what he has accomplished. The kind of faith required to achieve such greatness is truly inspirational.

Well, I should probably move back to politics. Lance is amazing, there's no getting around that. I just hopes he Chooses the Right party if he does get into politics. Currently, that is the Republican Party. Seriously, fellow Conservatives, let's get behind an effort to recruit Lance Armstrong!

Congratulations, Lance!

According to the Breaking News banner at FoxNews.com, Lance Armstrong has just won the 2005 Tour de France. This historic achievement adds a Seventh crown to his collection, cementing his role as the Greatest Cyclist of All Time. Not even Tiger Woods' domination of Golf compares to Lance's achievement. Congratulations, Lance. America is very proud of her Texas Son. LiveStrong!



Update 10:59AM EST SUN24JUL2005: FoxNews Story

John Kerry may not be as smart as President Bush...

...but he seems to have enough brains to think like I do. Sadly, his twisted intent undoubtedly includes using Lance's greatness as a tool to undermine America. John Kerry tries to recruit Lance to do his evil bidding. I know that John Kerry probably believes that his ideology is correct, and that Republicans are wrong, but whether he is sincere or sinister in his motives, nothing changes the fact that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were disasters for our National Security, and John Kerry would have been worse than both of them put together. The reason that President Bush received more votes than any President in history was due to many factors, but one of them was clearly the fact that John Kerry and the Democrats cannot be trusted with our National Security. Bill Clinton's using the U.S. Military to deflect attention from his scandals, his disseminating classified military secrets and technology to the People's Republic of China, and his refusal to accept Osama Bin Laden from Sudan when they offered him to us on a silver platter all highlight the defective thinking of Democrats, and throw Kerry's salivating at the thought helping Lance Armstrong choose the dark side into strong relief.

I hope that Lance Armstrong has enough sense to Choose The Right. If he becomes a Democrat, all the respect people have for the Amazing American, Lance Armstrong, could be subverted and used for evil. Yes, I said evil. Is forcing your views upon people, as the Democrats attempt to do (and unfortunately, have a lot of success in so doing, thanks to the MSM), not evil? Is forcing people to financially support evil causes not...evil?

I'll do a nice long post about the evils of American Liberalism next week. Right now I have to get ready to go worship the Lord with my family, so I'll post when I can about evil and politics. Thanks for reading.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Recruit Lance Armstrong!

Lance Armstrong would be a wonderful American Leader. This is a thought that has been percolating in my head ever since July of 2004, but with increasing intensity since June of 2005. Now that Lance has all but cemented his place as the top Cyclist of all time with another personal & world record 7th Tour de France win, if he chooses the Right, he could be a wonderful patriot. Lance Armstrong is to cycling as America is to the world since Reagan's Conservative revolution qualified America for greatness and God's blessings once again. We overcame Soviet Communism (thanks to Ronald Wilson Reagan, fellow Conservative Republican Patriots, and our God) and have been the lone world superpower ever since (Hyperpower according to les Francais). Lance's faith in himself (and presumably God, although I know nothing of Lance's religious beliefs) overcame testicular cancer and has dominated the world of cycling ever since.

1) As a successful Texan, he would win take Texas' electoral votes.

2) His amazing story of never giving up, overcoming incredible obstacles, and ending on top of the world resonates with Republican, Conservative, American ideals and ideology. His story brings to mind Reagan's triumph over global Soviet Communism.

Unlike the American Left, instead of blaming everyone else for his problems he did all he could to, and one can only assume that he asked God for help as well. There is no doubt that God helped him recover as his recovery was an absolute miracle. I can imagine that Lance exercised an immense amount of Faith, and the Lord blessed him to recover.

He could have blamed his anything and everything for his misfortune like an good little American Liberal (John Kerry & Al Gore, anyone?). Instead, he fought like a true child of God and with his Heavenly Father's help, made himself into a worldwide Icon of American dominance, just like Ronald Reagan.

3) Even though his achievement is in a sport which Americans don't pay much attention to, his story is transcendental in nature (due to the absoluteness of his dominance in the sport) and Lance engenders respect from every American who knows the whole story.

4) Lance probably wouldn't choose to be a Democrat since he seems to believe in:
a) Personal Responsibility
b) The Sanctity of Life
c) American greatness
d) Capitalism
e) Being a nice person
f) The Law of the Harvest

...and he doesn't seem to believe that:

a) America is wrong & always to blame
b) Bush=Hitler
c) France is superior to America (although as I do, he both speaks French & loves the good in France)

If all these things are true, and he ever shows an interest in politics, he will undoubtedly join President George W. Bush as yet another great Texas Republican.

Friday, July 22, 2005

John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor?

As everyone who hasn't been hiding under a rock (or on a remote island in the Pacific) knows by now, John Roberts has been nominated for appointment by President Bush to the Supreme Court, replacing the increasingly liberal Sandra Day O'Connor.

At first I was very nervous, since he doesn't really have enough of a paper trail to prove he's as much a strict constructionist conservative as he should be (in the mold of Clarence Thomas & Antonin Scalia, as President Bush has promised in two presidential campaigns)...

Ann Coulter@anncoulter.com: Souter in Roberts' Clothing
Ben Shapiro@townhall: President Bush's...pick disappoints
Fred Barnes@weeklystandard.com: The Safe Pick
Charles Krauthammer@townhall: What kind of Justice will we get?

To be honest, I felt the same way: Roberts is a safe pick, but the chatter we're hearing about John Roberts seems uncomfortably similar to the chatter surrounding the Souter confirmation way back when I was a kid.

But the more I think about it, the more I think I am just being paranoid. And it helps to read the multitude of conservative viewpoints which sound the familiar refrain: "All is well. (or, at least it is going to be better than it was with Sandra)"

Cal Thomas@townhall.com
Larry Kudlow@townhall.com: A 'supreme' pick for business
The Editors@nationalreview.com: Trading Up
Shannen W. Coffin@nationalreview.com: Meet John Roberts
humaneventsonline.com: Conservatives Rush to Support Roberts
Terry Eastland@weeklystandard.com: Reading Roberts's Mind
Fred Barnes@weeklystandard.com: Souter-phobia

While I am not completely sold on John Roberts, he certainly seems to be the real deal...without much of a paper trail, of course. President Bush sure pulled a smooth one with the Introduction of John Roberts:

1) He took his case directly to the American People...a young, handsome, family man who has incredibly good credentials, on live television cannot be borked by a raging Ted Kennedy.

2) The speculation centered upon anybody but Roberts in the days and hours preceding the announcement: Excellent leak control. Well done, Mr. President!

3) Many conservatives are really talking Roberts up. He's being burnished to a bright glow.

The way Bush has handled this has driven the likelihood of a filibuster down to the single digits, IMHO. The Democrats would look incredibly mean and bitter to violently oppose him with the President's smooth introduction. Here's to hoping Roberts is the Strict Constructionist Conservative we're all praying he is. Have a great weekend!

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Back in the saddle...

Sorry I haven't posted in such a long time. I have been busy to the point of having to prioritize blogging out of my schedule, temporarily, of course. But I am back, and I have some things to say.

First: Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson and the MSM & ultra-lefties vs. Karl Rove. Here is a brief listing of selected articles dealing with the issues.

Mark Levin's article today at National Review Online
Joel Mowbray's article today at National Review Online
Paul Greenberg's article today at Townhall
Ann Coulter's informative yet hilarious article at her website

The fact of the matter is that Karl Rove didn't break any laws; his only offense was to help President George W. Bush win re-election in the 2004 Presidential Election. The moveon.org crowd hates the President with such reckless abandon that their white-hot hatred has now turned it's attention to the Architecht: Karl Rove.

Encore Mr. Rove, Encore!

Here's to hoping that Mr. Rove is instrumental in the Republican victory in November of 2008!

Second: If Democrats were truly interested in our National Security they would pay a bit more attention to Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents referring to Clinton's thinking and discussions about terrorism while he was president. He walked out of our National Archives with documents stuffed in his socks , pockets, and by some accounts, his underwear. That is a far worse offense against our National Security (covering up for the failed Clinton anti-terrorism policies) than Karl Rove's warning a reporter against making a mistake in a story. Karl Rove didn't even name Valerie Plame, much less out her. She told anyone who would listen, neighbors, friends, Vanity Fair magazine, etc. that she worked for the CIA. It hasn't even been established that she was a covert agent. After all, she wasn't working overseas, and according to Joe Wilson's book, hadn't left the country for more than five years prior to the Novak column which named her. Oh, and don't forget the fact that her employer (the CIA) was disclosed on her tax returns, it was known by all her friends and family, and she outed herself to Joe Wilson prior to their marriage on their second date, IIRC, according to his book. So if anyone broke the law WRT outing a covert agent, it was Valerie Plame herself. Sean Hannity has pointed this out more than once.

Third: I recently finished reading two wonderful books: Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring and David Limbaugh's Persecution. Of the dozen or so books I have read this year, these two are far and away the best. These are must reads for every American who wishes to be well-informed, patriotic, and honest about history, politics, and what's best for our nation.

Fourth: Yesterday I was in a restuarant for a very late lunch (about 4pm local time), and as my co-worker and I were about to get up and leave, I got into a disagreement with the server. He was praising Michael Moore, and I countered that until he was watched both Fahrenheit 9/11 AND FahrenHype 9/11, as I have, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He countered that he didn't need to because "Michael Moore has millions of fact checkers to check his facts for him." I almost laughed in his face. We have a lot of people to educate if we wish to ensure that truth prevails in future elections.

Fourth: I have to get to work soon, so let me just say this in closing: May God Continue to Bless America!

Saturday, July 24, 2004

Samuel 'Sandy' Berger's theft of classified 9/11 documents

I just read an excellent article located here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20040723.shtml

Too bad the "mainstream" liberal media refuses to acknowledge the truth like Jonah Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and countless other honest Americans do. Come to think about it, liberals rarely do anything BUT lie and spin. This article is so good, snippets just won't do this time. Here's the article in it's entirety:

July 23, 2004

"The innocent explanation is the most likely one, particularly given the facts involved," Bill Clinton said in defense of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Who, you've probably heard, is in some hot water for getting caught illicitly smuggling very classified documents on more than one occasion from the National Archives.

Now, I don't know for sure what to make of Berger's misdeeds, but it's clear that his best defense against criminality is an offensive to prove how sloppy and careless he was. He says that in the process of illegally sneaking the notes he made while reviewing classified material, he "inadvertently" stole several classified documents. He's since lost some of them. And the documents were far from random. He took all of the politically sensitive drafts of the after-action study on the Clinton Administration's response to the so-called Millennium Terror plot, which went to the heart of the Clinton administrations anti-terror policy.

Unfortunately for Berger, even his A-list spin team - Clinton lawyers Lanny Breuer, Lanny Davis and former White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart - are having a hard time proving Berger was as dumb as he's claiming. According to various reports, Berger inadvertently took anywhere from four to five drafts of the same report, plus the final copy, over at least two different visits. Some witnesses claim he shoved documents down his pants, in his jacket and - allegedly according to one witness - in his socks. He says he accidentally carried the drafts and final copy away in a leather portfolio. Still, the drafts were somewhere between 15 and 30 pages each, so it's hard to believe he didn't notice swiping 75 to 180 pages.

It's like a 10-year-old telling his parents he knowingly stole $5 worth of candy but in the process he accidentally shoplifted a basketball. And this guy was the National Security Adviser.

In an interview with the Denver Post, Clinton stuck to the most "innocent explanation," that Berger's just a slob. "We were all laughing about it on the way over here," he told the paper. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe. But ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers."

Now, I've chatted with a few people who are very experienced in the rules and procedures governing the handling of classified documents. And many of them think this "innocent" explanation is the most damning. Berger was the head of the NSA, and he was in charge of countless documents like these when he was in the White House. And here Clinton is defending him by saying mistakes like these are just plain funny because they're so typical. Berger steals documents in the lead-up the 9/11 Commission hearings because - according to his lawyer! - he was too distracted stealing notes that he couldn't keep things straight. And Bill Clinton is laughing it off. Why? Because that's so like Sandy! He was always a slob with vital national security documents.

Mr. Berger has been a top advisor to the Kerry campaign. He resigned this week to stem the damage to the Democrats. But why didn't Berger tell Kerry he was being investigated? I guess being investigated by the Justice Department for his chicanery is as laughable - and therefore trivial - a subject as losing "password" class documents and sneaking past armed guards with notes crammed into your pants.

Now, nobody ever gives this administration the benefit of the "most innocent" explanation. George W. Bush is still called a liar every day, and the Kerry campaign still says Bush misled the country, even though two massive investigations - one in Britain and one by the Senate Intelligence Committee - have exonerated Bush of that charge and cast very harsh light on his accusers, like former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

This election - according to every observer and even the campaigns themselves - will be focused on national security and the war on terror. But the Democrats and The New York Times are convinced the real scandal here isn't Berger's antics but the leak which revealed them. I cannot recall such concern about a single leak in the last year which hurt the Bush administration.

The central debate of this election is national security. Democrats charge that Bush has fumbled it. Republicans charge that the Democrats don't take it seriously enough. Fair debate.

But now comes a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, who helped write the Democratic platform and who set anti-terror policy in the last administration. He's been caught in a scandal in which the most innocent defense they can mount is that he was so careless, so sloppy and so dismissive of the rules that he stole - and lost! - extremely sensitive documents by accident, while illegally smuggling others. And the last Democratic Commander-in-Chief says it's not only typical, it's funny.

That may be the most innocent explanation, but it's also evidence why these guys have their work cut out if they're going to convince voters they're serious about national security.