Celsius 488

First read this article from the Star Tribune:
David Brooks: Philosopher Michael Moore explains it all for us

Anti American rhetoric oozes from Michael Moore like puss from infected acne. One which needs to be heavily medicated and covered up so as not to embarrass us in public.

Every member of congress who viewed the opening, should be required to read these quotes of Michael Moore’s into the congressional record, then give his or her critique of this 911 movie laughingly called a documentary.

The definition of documentary is: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly: factual, objective.

Does anyone, even Moore supporters, think that this is really objective? His supporters would probably, errantly, call it factual, but what documentation does he relate to, or employ? Everyone knows this to be a two-hour political advertisement, but can anyone make the argument that it be called a documentary?

Read more about it, and even (gasp) unfortunately, send Michael Moore money (like he needs it), and see this DNC advertisement for yourself, then, learn the facts left out of the “film” and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Is the Supreme Court Killing Americans?

Read this article from USA Today:
USATODAY.com - Rulings on prisoners would make Founders proud

In the USA Today op-ed pages today a piece on the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding those detained in the war on terror, hailed it as something the Founding Fathers of our nation would have been proud of. Rights protected for U.S. citizens in our Constitution have now been afforded to non-citizens not in America.

Does the Constitution of the United States protect the rights of everyone in the world? Should we, for example, go into China and protect individual’s “right” to free speech? Should we go into England and enforce one’s “right” to keep and bear arms?

I have thought since day one that keeping an American citizen without trial, etc. was not proper. However, we must be careful that we do not set precedent under which a non-citizen can claim U. S. citizen rights.

While I agree that some form of oversight to prevent abuses is needed, I do have some questions for the Supreme Court. Under what rules are these citizens and non-citizens to be tried? Would one need to provide Miranda rights to them? Does one get the chance to face ones accusers in court, allowing other terrorists the opportunity to discover where their leak was and to change all plans related to that person, potentially allowing them to elude our detection and therefore kill innocent Americans? If a terrorist does agree to testify, and then is exposed in court only to be identified and later executed by other terrorists for having betrayed them, would anyone else ever want to testify against another terrorist? Does this serve the security needs of our country? Does one who has been proven guilty with a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, get to go free? Free to hijack a plane and bring down a skyscraper, killing innocent Americans?

It has been argued that the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, written before today’s weapons were dreamed of, does not apply to one wishing to keep, for example, an atomic bomb. One cannot argue that this is not an arm, can one? No one wants his or her neighbor to keep a nuclear weapon in the basement. Could not the same argument be made that, at the time of the writing of the Constitution it was not possible for one person to kill thousands of innocent people in one act as can be done today? Due to the devastating consequences should the wrong person be freed, or should the wrong piece of intelligence be released, should we not consider a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, as is already done with the right to keep and bear arms?

I do not want our government to keep anyone without showing cause. However, do we not NEED to implement special measures, different than those afforded a shoplifter, when dealing with potential mass murdering enemies to our Republic? As much as I am against the idea of secret trials, can anyone argue against the need to use them here? Are we not at war? Were not more people killed on U. S. soil on September 11th 2001 than on December 7th 1941? While at war, procedures are always altered. We need to make sure that those detained are reasonably believed to be a danger, but how many guilty terrorists do we need to set free in order to insure that not one innocent person is detained?

If new measures to protect America are not put into place, would the Supreme Court have blood on its hands should one of these detainees be freed and later commit or aid in the commission of a terrorist act due to these latest rulings?
Would the Founding Father’s be proud of, or fearful for our Republic due to this ruling?
Read about it and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Terrorism NOT Linked to Saddam (Part 2)?

Prerequisite. Read my post: Terrorism NOT Linked to Saddam?

The day after the New York Times asks President Bush to apologize for what it calls his "plainly dishonest" effort to link the war in Iraq with the war on terror, Reuters reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin tells the world that, BEFORE the war in Iraq, Russian intelligence informed U.S. officials on several occasions that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Keep in mind that while telling us that we were in eminent danger from Saddam, the Russians, along with the French and the Germans, were trying to talk us out of going into Iraq. By the way, kudos to the Russians for sharing intelligence with us that added to our resolve to do something they wished us not to do.

Per my previous post on the issue, providing only a small amount of the huge piles of evidence connecting Saddam to terrorism, the evidence, even yesterday, would have told even those of us with the lowest of I.Q.s that there was definitely a link between Saddam and terrorism. Today we find that Saddam was DIRECTLY threatening the U.S. In essence he had declared a terroristic war on the U.S. And, rather than wait for another 9-11, was the president not required to take preemptive action?

I would assume that in order to protect sources, prevent public panic, etc. the Bush administration could not publicize this information earlier. Or, maybe they could have publicized this some time ago and were simply waiting for enough people to make fools of themselves first.

Will the New York times have the fortitude needed to, today, make their own apology to the president? Is there anyone (not in a vegetative state) who cannot connect the dots now?

Read more about it, then…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Terrorism NOT Linked to Saddam?

The New York Times today called on President Bush to apologize for what it calls his "plainly dishonest" effort to link the war in Iraq with the war on terror.

For many years the infamous terrorist Abu Nidal lived under the protection of Saddam. Abu Nidal coordinated attacks on numerous international airlines among his many other exploits. Does this “…link the war in Iraq with the war on terror?”

In April of last year Abu Abbas was arrested in Iraq. Can you say “Achille Lauro?” Does this “…link the war in Iraq with the war on terror?”

It is a well documented fact that Saddam Hussein paid money to the families left behind by Palestinian suicide bombers who killed themselves while killing innocent Israelis. It has been reported that some Palestinian suicide bombers did not have a religious reason for their bombings, but rather found their families in such financial conditions as to see this money as the only way to provide for their families. Assuming that these reports are correct not only did he encourage fanatics in their terrorism, but he also created terrorists from financially distraught individuals who probably would never have done such a thing otherwise. Does this not definitively “…link the war in Iraq with the war on terror?”

Is it not "plainly dishonest" for any news organization to claim terrorism and Saddam were in no way connected? The paper has all of the above connections and more, yet prints these untruths anyway. Why? What could be motivating the paper to call for an apology from the president for being right?

Read what I read at http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=56736E36-AD10-4221-BA4DD18415666793 then…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Supreme Leadership?

I am not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV. However, upon reading some on the Supreme Court decision on throwing out the "under God" phrase from the pledge, I can see the legal case for the technicality they used to dismiss it.

Three justices, who disagreed with the ruling to dismiss, stated that they would have ruled it constitutional for the phrase to be in the pledge. Considering some of the remaining justices' past rulings one can expect that many, possibly a court majority would have voted the opposite way. Therefore, by using this technicality they avoided making a potentially very unpopular ruling.

So, is the court really that concerned about the technicality on which they chose to throw out this case? As a divorced father, I want to know, did the court just set a president reducing my rights as a father? Do you find it ironic that the court finds these technicalities in cases where the decision may be dramatically unpopular with the American public?

If the justices were simply avoiding a decision, why? They are not up for reelection. They are not elected. They are not up for reappointment. They are appointed for life. They cannot be fired, except through impeachment, and, though ruling to remove the phrase would be very unpopular in the public, an impeachment is highly unlikely.

Only two thoughts come to mind. No judge wants to be overturned on appeal. Is it possible that the justices thought that sentiment was so high that the people might start a grassroots effort to amend the constitution to allow the phrase? Would that not be the ultimate humiliation for a Supreme Court justice to be “overruled” in that manner?

Or, is it that democratic presidents appointed many of the justices who may have voted to remove the phrase? I would venture to guess that in the American public the overwhelming majority of republicans would be against the phrase being removed, while a lesser majority of democrats would be against it. We know where the president stands on the issue. I do not know what Senator Kerry’s view is. I’d bet that, had the court ruled to remove it, his position would have been something along the lines of “Though, I personally would have preferred the phrase to have been left in, we must respect the authority of the court, and not let our personal beliefs cloud our judgment.” Would a ruling to remove the phrase have energized any voters? With public sentiment as it is would a ruling have benefited the democratic candidate or the republican candidate? This kind of case will come up again. The court may not be able to find a loophole with which to avoid this controversial issue in the future. Was this just a tactic to move it past this presidential election?

Read up on this issue and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Thank You, Ronald Reagan

November 1984, I ran across a cold North Dakota college campus to cast my first vote. Age 18, I entered the first time through the front doors of the gymnasium, waited in a short line to vote for Ronald Reagan. Four years earlier at his first presidential election I was a disinterested young teen knowing little of politics. Oh how the next four years would change that.

My decision to vote for Reagan was made months before this November election day. I remember taking a date to a dance in my father's car, and hearing on the radio about the airliner shot down over soviet airspace. If memory serves it was KAL flight 007. We talked in the parking lot for a long time before entering the school. We contemplated this starting world war three. Frankly, it scared the crap out of me. All of the sudden world politics touched ME. Not just some anonymous person half a world away.

I began paying more attention to politics. The next president could get me drafted and sent to die on some foreign shore. This was personal. As I looked at the president and Mr. Mondale I cared about what they would each do domestically, but I most studied what foreign leaders thought. The prime minister of England loved Reagan. While the Soviets hated him, they also feared him. Mutually Assured Destruction only works when you know the other guy will push the button to assure your own destruction. I had my candidate.

As the next years passed we witnessed the dismantling of the U.S.S.R., due more to the efforts of one man, than any other in the world. The world, owes President Reagan a huge debt for the security we have in a post cold war world.

Reagan was more than a brilliant (cold) wartime leader. He personified the heart and soul of America. No matter how bleak things seemed he could give a speech with such optimism in America's ability to overcome, that he convinced America to overcome, seemingly, by simply talking us into it. With his infectious smile, one simply felt proud to be an American with President Reagan as its face for the rest of the world.

The world is a much brighter place for Ronald Reagan having lived, and it is just a bit dimmer now, with his passing.

May God bless America. And if God wants to know what ways are best to do that, he can simply turn and ask the Gipper himself.

Is Bush Moving Toward Kerry?

Recently, about May 27, 2004, the L. A. Times had an article by Ronald Brownstein starting with the premise: "Sen. John F. Kerry faces a stark new challenge in the campaign skirmishing over Iraq. As President Bush has moved toward his position, the Democratic Party is moving away from it."

To read the entire article follow this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20040527/
ts_latimes/kerryfeelssqueezeoniraqpolicy

Let's examine the premise of the article. The premise is, basically:

First, the Democratic party is fickle. They do not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep the party in one place. The only thing important to the party is getting elected, even if it means abandoning what it believes in.

Second, John Kerry is a decisive leader. He has a core set of beliefs, which founds him and guides him though tough decisions keeping him in one place. He makes good decisions and sticks with them. He does not change his mind on important issues.

Third, President Bush is fickle. He does not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep him in one place. He changes his mind on issues based on what he thinks will get him elected. He makes decisions, but does not follow through.

Now let us determine if this holds water. The article is short on facts. The only two issues spelled out in the L. A. Times' article are the Democrats' desire to pull out of Iraq, and President Bush's asking for international help in Iraq.

First, is the Democratic party fickle? Can the party not decide on key issues? My understanding is that the Democratic party has been against the war in Iraq since day one. Am I wrong? Was the Democratic party at one time whole heartedly for the war in Iraq, only to now change their minds and be against it? If so, will someone please send me press releases from 2 years ago when the Democratic party supported the war? The party line, I thought, was that we should never have been there, kind of like pulling out before going in. So, you tell me, has the Democratic party changed its view on one of the most important issues of this election?

Second, is John Kerry a decisive leader? Can Senator Kerry vote for the $87 billion before voting against it? Can he vote for war in Iraq and be opposed to it? Did he throw ribbons or metals? As the senator stated, is there no distinction between the two? If not, why does he draw the distinction? Does Senator Kerry stand for any issue long enough for anyone to move toward, or away from him?

Third, is President Bush fickle? Can the President not decide on key issues? I thought that one of the problems that democrats have with him is the fact that he has deeply held convictions, which are diametrically opposed to theirs, and he acts upon them. Was President Bush at one time opposed to the war and now supporting it? Did President Bush ignore the UN? I seem to recall months spent going to the UN, asking for the international body to have the courage to enforce its own resolutions. Months that allowed Sadaam time to hide, sell, trade, give away, or destroy the WMD that seem to always headline the news when we cannot find them. That is until some serin gas is found, then it seems to be buried deep in the bowels of the paper. So, given months of begging the UN to act, even before the war, and having almost continuously asked for assistance since the war began, has the president recently changed his position on international assistance, to get closer to Senator Kerry’s position, as the Mr. Brownstein suggests?

Did Mr. Brownstein get the facts right? Did he come to the correct conclusions? If either were wrong, why? Was Mr. Brownstein ignorant? Did he have an agenda? Can you think of another reason for the inaccuracies?

Did I incorrectly summarize what Mr. Brownstein wrote? Read the whole article and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Is Bush Moving Toward Kerry?

Recently, about May 27, 2004, the L. A. Times had an article by Ronald Brownstein starting with the premise: "Sen. John F. Kerry faces a stark new challenge in the campaign skirmishing over Iraq. As President Bush has moved toward his position, the Democratic Party is moving away from it."

To read the entire article follow this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20040527/
ts_latimes/kerryfeelssqueezeoniraqpolicy

Let's examine the premise of the article. The premise is, basically:

First, the Democratic party is fickle. They do not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep the party in one place. The only thing important to the party is getting elected, even if it means abandoning what it believes in.

Second, John Kerry is a decisive leader. He has a core set of beliefs, which founds him and guides him though tough decisions keeping him in one place. He makes good decisions and sticks with them. He does not change his mind on important issues.

Third, President Bush is fickle. He does not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep him in one place. He changes his mind on issues based on what he thinks will get him elected. He makes decisions, but does not follow through.

Now let us determine if this holds water. The article is short on facts. The only two issues spelled out in the L. A. Times' article are the Democrats' desire to pull out of Iraq, and President Bush's asking for international help in Iraq.

First, is the Democratic party fickle? Can the party not decide on key issues? My understanding is that the Democratic party has been against the war in Iraq since day one. Am I wrong? Was the Democratic party at one time whole heartedly for the war in Iraq, only to now change their minds and be against it? If so, will someone please send me press releases from 2 years ago when the Democratic party supported the war? The party line, I thought, was that we should never have been there, kind of like pulling out before going in. So, you tell me, has the Democratic party changed its view on one of the most important issues of this election?

Second, is John Kerry a decisive leader? Can Senator Kerry vote for the $87 billion before voting against it? Can he vote for war in Iraq and be opposed to it? Did he throw ribbons or metals? As the senator stated, is there no distinction between the two? If not, why does he draw the distinction? Does Senator Kerry stand for any issue long enough for anyone to move toward, or away from him?

Third, is President Bush fickle? Can the President not decide on key issues? I thought that one of the problems that democrats have with him is the fact that he has deeply held convictions, which are diametrically opposed to theirs, and he acts upon them. Was President Bush at one time opposed to the war and now supporting it? Did President Bush ignore the UN? I seem to recall months spent going to the UN, asking for the international body to have the courage to enforce its own resolutions. Months that allowed Sadaam time to hide, sell, trade, give away, or destroy the WMD that seem to always headline the news when we cannot find them. That is until some serin gas is found, then it seems to be buried deep in the bowels of the paper. So, given months of begging the UN to act, even before the war, and having almost continuously asked for assistance since the war began, has the president recently changed his position on international assistance, to get closer to Senator Kerry’s position, as the Mr. Brownstein suggests?

Did Mr. Brownstein get the facts right? Did he come to the correct conclusions? If either were wrong, why? Was Mr. Brownstein ignorant? Did he have an agenda? Can you think of another reason for the inaccuracies?

Did I incorrectly summarize what Mr. Brownstein wrote? Read the whole article and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!