Uncivil Rights

It is becoming clear Iraqi turnout will be high in this historic election. However, naysayers, mostly liberal-socialists will do their best to downplay the success of freedom and democracy.

From this linked article, "But Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., sounded a note of caution in an interview on NBC's "Meet The Press."

"It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote," Kerry said. "

This statement is indicative of the left's belief in democracy, which is: if EVERYONE doesn't vote then the election is not legitimate. They keep talking about disenfranchisement amongst our voters just because some don't vote. Saddam had 100% voter turnout. Does that mean his elections were legitimate? The fact is, in a democracy, people have as much right to vote as they do to abstain from voting. That is their ultimate right in a democracy. And people that exercise their right NOT to vote should not be chastised or called DISENFRANCHISED. They are exercising their rights.

Do not feel sorry for the Sunnis if they do not have a high voter turnout. People reap what they sow. By refusing to stand up to these terrorists, by refusing to aid the American military in the elimination of these terrorsits, by refusing to condemn the actions of these terrorists around the world as well as in Iraq, the Sunnis have brought this upon themselves. The Sunnis have allowed the terrorists to flourish and fostered their cause.

After the election, when the Sunnis have representation relative to their voter turnout, they will soon learn that for needed and wanted changes to occur, they must participate in the democratic processes. It will be a lesson learned.

GBlagg and I have had disagreements over Air America; he finds it iritating and incomprehensible, I find it very funny that people would not only have those ideas but actually believe those ideas. I also like to go to the blog for Air America, again, for its humor. It displays the level of intelligence of not only the hosts but the followers as well.

For January 26, 2005, AAB posted this:
Democratic spine?!? by crtclb3185 at 01/26/05 07:48 am Good morning and welcome to Wednesday. Let's take a look at some of what's going on in our world today.

I caught some of the Rice debate yesterday on the CSPAN yesterday. There were some good speeches-- how about this gem from Sen. Dayton of Minn.:

"I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," said Senator Mark Dayton, Democrat of Minnesota. "It's wrong; it's undemocratic; it's un-American; and it's very dangerous. It is very, very dangerous. And it is occurring far too frequently in this administration." (Source)

Sen. Byrd and Boxer were particularly good as well, and there is certainly a buzz about Boxer, that's for sure. An article on DailyKos called her the new Wellstone. She has clearly been a spark the last couple of weeks and if you haven't already seen it, there's a Boxer for President blog. I really hope this is an indication of a shift for the Democratics-- can they live up to Boxer? I'm interested in the vote-- not because the outcome is in question-- but I'm interested in seeing which Dems will vote for Rice.

Today also marks the beginning of the observations of the 60th anniversary of the "liberation" of Auschwitz (click the link to find out why some would put that word in quotation marks.) The US is sending Dick Cheney and former Presidents Carter, Bush I, and Clinton are expected to attend the ceremonies marking one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. Take some time to remember and visit the
US Holocaust Museum's site. On Monday, at the first UN session on the Holocaust. the Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom said "We are on the brink of that moment when this terrible event will change - from memory to history" (Source)

Will the world ever learn? Will the cries of "Never Again" ring true? Rowanda and Darfur make me wonder if we ever will.

Come on in, let's blog.

It was then followed by the schedule with topics for the day.

Please notice the "liberation" link. It is to an article in the Montreal Gazette that basically blames the U.S. for the continued murdering of Jews in Nazi death camps during WWII. It is probably the ONLY article anywhere in the world that promotes the notion that the U.S. is to be blamed for these atrocities, and of course it's from Canada.

Now how about the intelligent and witty repartee the blog provides?

Here are just a few "gems"...

nfa_2078 | 01/26/05 - 10:41 am
________________________________________
Hey...this morning on FOX....they had some puto who was yapping about Senator Byrd (D), from W. Vir. I think, ..and he was talking about how he was racist because he voted aginst Clerance THomas and now is blasting Rice....Is this true that he is a racist...he also said he was part of some KLAN recognized group...IF this is true Whats the deal with having a racisits in tah party and if its not this guy on fox should be called out on it...and


crtclb3185 | 01/26/05 - 10:23 am
________________________________________
Quote By: MondoBubba
The Criminal, Little Bush. The lead ass-faced fuckhead.

I did not know that. Hmmmm.....


crtclb3185 | 01/26/05 - 10:17 am
________________________________________
Quote By: MondoBubba
Did anybody know that the ass-faced fuckhead was doing a press conference today?

Which one, there are so many....


WOW! Now that's good stuff! The intellectually stimulating exchange of ideas and philosophies is quite exhilarating. Just think, these people almost won the presidency! On one hand, it should keep the conservatives on their toes to continue to fight these liberal-socialists intellectually in the war of ideologies, but on the other hand it's not really fair when the liberal-socialists are so obviously unarmed and overmatched. It would be similar to the U.S. and its full military force, waging war on France; sure it's fun, but after a while you get tired picking up the weapons they drop when they turn and run.

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 hosted a forum for the mayoral candidates of Aurora last night. AFSCME has roughly 650 members that reside in Aurora and can vote in the upcoming mayoral election. An endorsement by this panel will give the edge to that candidate in the election.

The candidates were given questions prior to the forum and then required to submit them to the Council.

At the forum, the candidates, one by one, were given a total of 15 minutes each, 3 of which were to introduce themselves. They were then asked questions by a panel of union presidents, PEOPLE chairs, and Council 31 staff representatives.

My impressions:

Bill Wyatt: clearly for privatization. He kept making references equate City government to business methods and applications (which is good-to a point). He is for residency requirements that make no applicable sense. He would like to "privatize for profit", meaning he wants to make a profit from someof the privatized services. He has no problem putting a tax levy (for the library which has not been increased since 1996) on the ballot or the people to decide. He's never belonged to a union.
Give him credit for his stance on privatiziation in front of a bunch of union members and leaders. Will this earn him anything other than scorn from union members? probably not.

Tom Weisner: former union leader. He was instrumental in the implementation of Employee Involvement Committees with Local 3298. He talked about mutual respect between management and employees. He discussed growing the workforce as the City grows. Operationally, he was quite knowledgable, and very in-depth with his responses. As far as privatization, he is against it. However, there are times when some outside help is needed. He said he would only hire out to complement the workforce (excellent answer). Library employees need to be fairly compensated, though it may be completes in phases.

Richard Irvin: Heal-Strengthen-Build, he went into his campaign talking points. In fact, he came in with campaign literature and passed it out as he was speaking. He came across as preaching. He said employees were the backbone of the City. His management style is Total Quality Management. He said he will always be fair and understanding. He was told by City management that there was no hiring freeze (there is, only union hiring freeze). he claimed the City was top heavy. He said his mom is a telecom operator, which makes me wonder, with all the problems they've had for years, why hasn't he advocated changes for the operators before now? One union president said that if he broke the rules he would be punished, however, when his boss breaks the rules nothing happens, how would Irvin address this? Irvin said, "I won't look the other way just because he's a buddy." He then realized what he said and countered he would hire the most qualified people to be managers. Nice try Richard.

Angel Hernandez: rambled.

Jack Cunningham: most humorous. Talked mainly about when he was a "young lad". He said employees were the greatest asset, good wages for good work. He said Aurora was top heavy. He was not versed in the 911 issue. he is against resdiency requirement (obviously for the position of mayor as well since he doesn't live here.) That was very funny.

Overall: I would say Tom Weisner was obviouslyt the most knowledgable of the internal operations of the City and what was needed to make appropriate changes. Richard Irvin was the most comfortable speaker but had mainly campaign rhetoric to say and did not have a firm grasp of the actual operational issues. Bill Wyatt was almost arrogant, almost. I think he was a bit out of his element. I don't think he has faced an employee as an equal before. Jack Cunningham had some insight, however, he seemed out of touch with Aurora today. Angel Hernandez seems like a very nice man who should just go home.

As of this writing, I heard that Tom Weisner will get the endorsement of AFSCME, much deserved. My congratulations to him.

A follow-up to my previous post:

Regarding the Democrats of Maryland taxing those evil corporations and subsidizing doctor's malpractice insurance, the evil corporations decided to pass on the tax increase to the consumers. Why? Because that's what businesses do; they maximize profits by passing on additional costs to the consumers. In this case, the additional cost was imposed by Democtrats in the form of a tax.

In this article, Democrats seem to be outraged that HMOs would pass their tax burden on to the consumers.

Democrats, finally realizing the unintended consequences of their incompetent imposition on business, and probably also realizing the backlash from the voting public, has started to blame the Republican state insurance commissioner, of course, "Maryland Democratic leaders yesterday blamed the Republican state insurance commissioner for health maintenance organizations increasing their premiums and not a new tax the Democratic-controlled legislature levied on HMOs this month."

Now, even more frightening is the amount of involvement the Democrats want in the HMO business. "We are absolutely astonished that the Maryland insurance commissioner would give [HMOs] permission to pass along the rates without a hearing," Executive Director Glenn E. Schneider said yesterday. "At the very least, we should open up their books to see if this increase is necessary, and we call upon these groups to do this."

So we have incompetent liberals imposing legislation and taxes on businesses without thoroughly analyzing the situation and the consequences, who then look elsewhere to place blame when those consequences are found to burden consumers. Sounds like typical liberal-socialsitic-Democrat business practices and methods.

OK students, listen up, again. The big evil corporations you love to punish so much by increasing corporate taxes ARE NOT THE ONES BEING PUNISHED! Do you understand that concept? No?

Here is an article from the Washington Times about Democrats raising taxes on HMOs.


'Health maintenance organizations in Maryland have begun passing onto their customers a 2 percent tax on their premiums, just two weeks after the Democrat-controlled General Assembly enacted the HMO tax.
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers overrode Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s veto of a medical malpractice insurance reform bill that contained the tax, despite his warning that HMOs would pass the tax on to "those who can least afford to pay it." '

"Health insurers such as BlueCross have estimated that the tax will cost them as much as $20 million this year. The increased premiums will cost the average family about $200 more a year."

"The revenue from the HMO tax — about $64 million over three years — will be used to subsidize doctors' malpractice insurance premiums, which have risen nearly 70 percent in the past two years."

'Hospital association President Calvin Pierson yesterday reiterated his support for the Democratic lawmakers' measure.
"The General Assembly did the right thing in overriding the governor's veto," Mr. Pierson said. "It creates a shorter solution to lower physical liability premiums, and it's a good first step in tort reform."'

So we have high malpractice insurance for doctors. These doctors and hospital people complain. Lawmakers attempt to punish HMOs while lowering rates for doctors (government subsidized). Lawmakers raise taxes on HMOs who then pass them down to consumers. The consumers pay the ultimate price and get the proverbial shaft. That's how business works when government gets involved.

Does everyone get that? Raising taxes on corporations means those tax increases are passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays, all the time.

This is to the Rest of the World:

Elections will take place on January 30, 2005 in Iraq. This is just their first step on their road to democracy and freedom. We should be supporting these elections and the Iraqi people.

However, there are those that do not want the elections to take place. No, I'm not talking about other middle-eastern countries like Iran and Syria (although they are not in favor of them). I am talking strictly about those that hate George Bush and everything he does, and everything he stands for, even to the detriment of these elections, the Iraqi people, democracy, and freedom.

For the Iraq elections to take place on time and by a majority of the Iraqi people (estimates are between 60%-80% of the population) would be considered a victory for George Bush, even though he would be the first to say it is a victory for freedom, democracy, Iraq, and its people.

For example, Jimmy Carter and his ilk can go to Venezuela and endorse a fraudulent election of Hugo Chavez, Richard Geer can "get the vote out" for Palastine, but where are the cheerleaders for Iraq. There will be very few, if any, foreign observers to the Iraqi elections, yet here in America, the blueprint for democratic elections, the far left demanded U.N. observers come in and oversee our election process.

The Iraq election's scenarios are set up and then ignored by the left, so they can then claim the elections are illigitimate. Human rights organizations, who turned a blind eye to the murders and torture by Saddam's regime are touting the complete failure of "free and fair" elections in Iraq.

It doesn't matter to the liberal-socialists if Iraq elections are, in essence, successful; they will never admit it. The liberal-socialists will find some fault with the election to claim them illigitimate. Because if they don't, to admit elections were successful would be to give a victory to George Bush, and that is something they cannot allow. They would much rather have the U.S., the Iraqis, free elections, democracy, and freedom fail than to give credit to George Bush, and for that, they are pathetic.

A story in the Beacon News today delves a little deeper into the stances of the mayoral candidates.

Richard Irvin just can't seem to help himself when it comes to power trips and eminent domain usage. "Irvin advocates fines and the use of eminent domain when it comes to vacant buildings. After trying to work with a developer, the city should use all of the tools at its disposal to force the redevelopment of blighted properties, he said." I didn't know that just because a building became vacant, it also became a blight.

On overcrowding, Irvin doesn't seem to be so sensitive to the Hispanic community. "Irvin said Hispanics have to be taught how to be self-supportive instead of relying on slum landlords and their families. Part of that is public education, he said." Actually, tHispanics are doing exactly what immigrants did throughout U.S. history; they move in with relatives until they can financially support themselves. There really has been no long-term overcrowding issues with the same individuals.

On code enforcement: "Irvin said the city should be more aggressive in enforcing the ordinances already on the books and go after small and big offenders alike. The city seems to go after small violations while ignoring some of the most obvious offenses, he said." I guess Irvin has never played "POLITICS", that's where friends of the mayor get away with the kind of stuff others couldn't. I'm sure his "supporters" can't wait till he's mayor for their "turn."

More to come...

The race for mayor of Aurora is humming along nicely. The primary is February 22, and the rhetoric is flying.

We have one candidate, Jack Cunningham, who really doesn’t “live” in Aurora although he gets his mail at a house he owns in the City. He actually resides at a marina in Seneca, Illinois where he is also developing land. At one forum, he was asked about responding to an emergency, and he actually said that Seneca was only an hour away. Currently he is the Kane County Clerk, and Seneca is in LaSalle County, go figure.

We also have Angel Hernandez, who ALWAYS runs for mayor. He usually gets the homeless vote.

Then we have Bill Wyatt. He is a Kane County Board member. He was appointed to his first post, and he won re-election last time. I guess now he thinks he’s ready to be mayor. He had a cable sports show. It would be similar to Goober and Gomer having a cable sports show. He even boxes challengers. The consensus is he’s a goof. He “plans” to build a new police headquarters, about $80 million and much needed in the City, with the promise not to raise taxes. He is a republican that wants to privatize a lot of jobs held now by union employees (not a good way to get an endorsement from the City employees.)

Next we have Tom Weisner, a 17 year veteran of the City of Aurora workforce. He worked his way up the City ladder to create and implement his own Customer Service Department. He managed hundreds of employees with multimillion dollar budgets. He is my choice for mayor because I think he is, by far, the most qualified to be mayor. He is a democrat, but I don’t hold that against him. As mayor, political party agendas really do not come into play except for labor relations philosophies and taxes.

Finally we come to Richard Irvine. He’s a former Kane County Prosecutor (about 2 years), but according to his fans, in those two years, he pretty much cleaned up Aurora. He’s about 34 years old, very aggressive, pompous, and has always had an eye on higher aspirations. He is a Republican and has had several endorsements from the Republican Party in Illinois. What concerns me the most is his consistent theme of using eminent domain to take private property and give it to developers for “economically blighted” properties; this means properties that are not providing as much taxes as they could if they were something else, i.e. residential to commercial. He has even gone as far as talking to developers about property that ISN’T in the City. He brought this proposal up at a recent event, and the neighbors were quite furious. It is kind of funny, but one has to wonder: is this use of eminent domain indicative of the Republican Party agenda or just Mr. Irvin? Either the Republican Party is for eminent domain to take private property and give it to private developers, or the Party should tell Mr. Irvin that it doesn’t back that platform issue. Whatever is the truth, it is hurting an already desecrated party.

I will post more on the eminent domain issue.

From Edmund:


Dear Cracker,

I like the passion you have replied to Quizzer’s article. And now I truly believe that Quizzer was right in calling you “followers of a new-born type of fascism – American fascism”.

Just because you have proven all his allegations by your following comments: (my comments to Edmund)

However, I truly appreciate your sincere collaboration with us in proving you being fascist. You do approve all principles of fascism and you are upset with Bush that he’s not following the path quicker. Don’t worry. He will catch up with you very soon and you will have a pure fascist empire for a while before falling down in a deepest ditch of the history. We have seen that with all fascist regimes so far and we will see that with you too.

As for the source of the definition of fascism you could refer to my friend’s blog: bushism2004.blogspot.com – the source of the article that disclosed you so easily. It was amongst the first postings I read in blogspot and liked the logical vision of its author. It is consisted of 3 gorgeous parts. Blogspot is such a lovely thing: I can find here both thinkers like him and entertainers like you.

If it is discomforting to you I can help you out. Th
edmund | Email | Homepage | 01.22.05 - 6:35 am | #


Ahhh, your Whizzer's friend, that explains everything and it was his article, that's explains the nonsensical ravings. I'll have to let my readers know.

I have no problem being called a fascist or anything else you'd like. I do not represent anyone other than myself. Hence, I have no problem saying we should nuke the middle east and take their oil. I need to fill up my Excursion. Your argument still fails in logic and intelligence, but that never seem to matter.

If you want the true definition of fascism, I suggest you look it up, in a dictionary as well as history, which I provided. If you are relying on bloggers to provide truth, you're even worse off than the Whiz.

So let's reflect, you made up a definition of fascism, made up criteria, made up examples,put them all together to conclude there is a new "American Fascism", I can live with that, it's called fantasy. I would expect nothing less from the liberal/socialistic left, from here or abroad.

Oh, by the way, YOUR response has proved every one of my postings and comments regarding not ONLY the liberal/socialists but Whizzer as well CORRECT.

As for America "falling", only time will tell, but as for the next 4 years, Europe and the middle east are going to have to worry of falling to "American Fascism."

The following is the text of President George W. Bush's second inaugural address, as prepared for delivery.
Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.
At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical – and then there came a day of fire.
We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny – prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder – violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.
My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty – though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.
Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:
From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well – a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.
A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause – in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy … the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments … the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives – and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.
All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself – and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.
America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home – the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.
In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance – preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.
In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character – on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before – ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever. In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes – and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" – they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.
When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength – tested, but not weary – we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.
May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.

It seems French President Chirac is losing ground in the favorability ratings.


PARIS, Jan 18 (AFP) - More than half of French people (56 percent) say that President Jacques Chirac should not run in 2007 for an unprecedented third term in office, according to the results of an opinion poll released Tuesday.

In response to the question, "Do you want Jacques Chirac to be a candidate" in 2007, 35 percent said "not at all", 21 percent said "no, not really", 23 percent said "yes, I suppose" and nine percent said "yes, totally".

Does France want to play make-up with President Bush now?

This is a response to a comment made by "Edmund" on my previous post. My remarks are in paranthesis and italics.


I found a perfect thing in a blog you hate so much, Cracker. That may be found useful for you.
(First of all, I don’t hate any blogs. I find them all useful in one way or another.)

After defining wrong definitions of “democracy” and “republicanism” in “Republican Republic of the United States of America” let us see what the real self of the current political establishment in America may be called.
(I don’t know what this “Republican Republic of the United States of America” is.)

The present government of the US has based its principles of survival upon lies and misnomers by calling all its opponents within the country “unpatriotic forces” and outside the US – “terrorist groups and states”.
(I don’t believe the present government has ever called anyone or any group of Americans in this country “unpatriotic forces.” If you can find a source, please provide it. I, on the other hand, have called liberal-socialists unpatriotic because they wish to do away with capitalism and the free market economy, both of which have been effective in creating this great nation. Those that wish to bring the U.S. down into mediocrity to appease the rest of the world are unpatriotic. Outside groups that wish to kill us because we are not like them are “terrorists”, nothing more, nothing less. Those states and countries that are supporting these terrorists and their effort are “terrorist’s states.”)
Whoever dares to question America’s rightness is condemned to be included in the list of traitors and terrorists.
(Wrong again, but those that aid and abet terrorists are traitors. Open discussions and dissensions are welcome, however, there comes a point, much like Michael Moore’s film, that is pure propaganda that also perpetuates lies and creates hate and dissent toward Americans, and which also aids and abets the enemy. This too is traitorous.)
For internal rogue groups and individuals there is one more word in American neo-conservative vocabulary: “liberal”. To them Liberalism is a danger threatening “the republic”.
(Liberalism is a danger not only to our republic, but also our capitalism and free market economy by extolling and implementing socialistic and communistic ideals and philosophies.)

While originally “liberal” has got the meaning of intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial and according to unbiased dictionaries “liberalism” is “a political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favouring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority”.
(Autonomy of the individual unless that individual has more than you, then liberals want government to intervene and establish income redistribution through taxes and social programs, take from the haves and give to the have-nots, all in the name of “goodness of humans”.)
In other words, liberals are anti-anarchists and supporters of civil and political liberties. Now we know why the US establishment confronts them.
(Liberals are anti-anarchists and pro socialist and communist, all in the name of “common good”, that is why this libertarian wants to diminish their power and authority, and with the recent election, I would say, the majority of voters did not like or appreciate their agenda and philosophies.)

1. We mentioned American lies (yes, YOU mentioned it, however, a lie denotes intent to deceive and faulty information does NOT support that intent…), but the biggest one is obvious to everybody across the globe: the main excuse to attack on Iraq (….unless you wish to say that the other intelligence information from various countries that had the SAME information was all a lie and all these other countries are conspiring with the U.S.). The dangerous lethal weapons promised to be removed from Saddam’s disposal proved to be nothing more than a sheer lie (again, intent, and I guess the facts that he was bribing several other countries on the security council and the fact he could re-institute his WMD programs in less than 6 months-against UN sanctions, really doesn’t account for anything.) Weapons of Mass Destruction produced by America massively and distributed among its satellite states like Israel have not been discovered even by American survey groups in Iraq (this makes no sense). They lied repeatedly(intent) and officially even at the General Assembly and some people alongside with a few governments trusted in American words and backed the destructive “pre-emptive measures” of Bush. Nevertheless, the campaign is bound to be known as an illegal one in history (it did not violate any law, the US had the right to uphold UN resolutions and consequences), since it did not enjoy the UN’s approval (yes, it’s tough to gain approval when several members of the UN security council is taking bribes from Saddam). America got bogged down in Iraq quagmire (nice liberal word, did you get it from Teddy?) by means of Bush administration’s lies. This point indicates reactionary policy of the US government;( actually, a PRE-emptive strike indicates proactive policies).

2. The US still suffers from different types of chauvinism. American chauvinism exhibited by white Americans against black ones is not a subject of the past yet (yes, actually, except for a very few you would find in any society, most Americans don’t practice racism-except for Jesse Jackson who is one of the biggest racists of this country). Arabs and Muslims together with the French have joined the club of “untouchables” who get touched a lot at the airports and on the streets due to their origins (I don’t know what country you live in, but that is NOT happening here, although it should. Instead of examining a middle-eastern man between 25-35 years of age, TSA is targeting old white women. They are bending over backwards to be “politically correct” to the detriment of the security of this country).
And there is another kind of chauvinism observed in the relationship between the rich and the poor in the country (there is no “chauvinism” in this area. You see, here in America, everyone is born with the same opportunities to make of themselves what they want. Unfortunately, some do not take advantage of those opportunities, and those ride on the backs of the ones that work and earn a living. These “poor” are who liberals like to claim they are helping through income redistribution and social programs. Liberals have successfully created a welfare culture where people are encouraged not to work and live off the labor of others). An American journalist Charley Reece calls it “State chauvinism” and says: “This system has sucked both power and money away from the local and state governments, where they can be used most efficiently and democratically, to Washington, where the price of admission is
edmund | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 1:21 pm | #
________________________________________
An American journalist Charley Reece calls it “State chauvinism” and says: “This system has sucked both power and money away from the local and state governments, where they can be used most efficiently and democratically, to Washington, where the price of admission is a lot of money. We just experienced a presidential contest between millionaires financed by millionaires.” (Yes, John Kerry was the richest guy that has run for president of the US. The founding fathers were always arguing about state’s rights and power versus the right’s and powers of the federal government. Unfortunately, liberals love a big federal government, the bigger the better, more government and more government intervention means more power to those that create a need for government-liberals.)

3. Whoever doubts in imperialistic nature of the US political establishment has to apply for a medical check-up (Count me in. If America was really imperialistic we would rule and own over half the globe, and I don’t see that, do you?). American imperialism is something very vivid and striking and you ought to be blind not to notice it (I need glasses). All the current US-led wars are being done in the name and for the sake of American imperialism (also called democracy and freedom-whatever) and its immense inexplicable expansionist lust (again, I don’t see the rewards we should be reaping since, according to you, we should own half the world). Just go to the link below to got shocked by a lengthy list of American imperialistic efforts to usurp the world’ control:
http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm (HAHAHAHAHAH, you quoted an associate professor from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire – NOW THAT’S FUNNY!)

The current war is the latest proof of American imperialism as Michael Thorburn put it at an anti-war forum organized in Chicago by the Anti-Imperialist News Service on February 16, 2003: “This war is not about "eliminating weapons of mass destruction" or disarmament because it is U.S. imperialism itself which is militarizing the Persian Gulf and filling the region with nuclear weapons (we only need to fill Israel with nukes-they can reach anywhere, so the point is moot). The war is about U.S. imperialism imposing its military blackmail and domination throughout the Middle East.”(Again, if we wanted to dominate the world we could, no questions asked, no quarter taken.)

Thus, three points above could easily prove the existence of 3 elements in American politics: being reactionary (false), chauvinistic (false) and imperialist (false).
Now let’s compare these points with the general characteristics of fascism by American experts:

“. Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:
(Try this for fascism: Mussolini, who helped create modern fascism, viewed liberal ideas as the enemy. "The Fascist conception of life," he wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual." (In 1932 Mussolini wrote, with the help of Giovanni Gentile, an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.)(You see, today’s liberal denies the individual in the name of the State, as I have stated many times on various posts throughout my blog.)

• Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten. (This was Clinton to a T.)

• Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin. (Only if you're OJ.)

• Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies. (Haven't seen it yet...I'm waiting...)

Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its Tenets of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics.”

(I would love to know the source of this.)

And as our neo-conservative “friends” insist, The United States of America has started out as a republic too. (CORRECT! WE ARE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!)
edmund | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 1:23 pm | #

OK Edmund, you started with a false premise, and the argument went down from there. Conjecture, paranoia, and conspiracy theories seem to be running rampant from the left, any excuse for why they lost the election other than a honest evaluation of their socialistic and communistic agendas and philosophies that will always be rejected by this country.

Currently, the biggest threat to the Republican Party is the Republican Party. They must make sure they are a cohesive unit that backs their President if they wish to maintain the majority and pass their agenda.

The Liberal/Progressives, on the other hand, are searching for their unifying factor. Every left-wing group has advice for their party. Here is an article explaining though there are different factions on the left, there are unifying factors in their values.

I personally love articles like this. It provides insight into the thinking of those on the left. I'll break a little of it down. It is a good sappy read.

The thesis: Progressives must become aware of the values they share in order to achieve a consensus of ideas while maintaining their individuality.

All of the types of progressives are right. They all share a commitment to nurturant values, but prioritize different ones.

A progressive government expresses progressive values in its goals and policies. For example:

* Strength: A progressive government must be strong enough to carry out progressive goals.

* The promotion of Safety and Protection for life, health, the environment, and human dignity translate into support for the social safety net, health care, environmental protection laws, and protection offered by the police and military. Governmental laws and policies ensure protection from unscrupulous businesses, pollution, unsafe products in the home, and unsafe working conditions.
This is where socialism enters the progressive picture, and the hate of big business.

* Fulfillment in Life is expressed in many ways: by satisfying and profitable work, by lifelong education and learning, and by an appreciation for the arts, music, and culture. This translates into support for our schools and universities, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, and our cultural institutions. Religious and spiritual fulfillment is supported by our many religious traditions, protected from undue influence by the government.
Notice the "satisfying and profitable" language used. This denotes an argument for the living wage, and again the hate big business mantra.

* Fairness and Freedom are upheld by our civil liberties, offering equal protection under the law and equal rights for all citizens. Universal education and health care and programs such as Head Start are all matters of fairness that also advance freedom of opportunity. A professional, nonpartisan civil service and judiciary support fairness and freedom by preventing corruption, patronage and favoritism in government.
Here we go with socialized medicine. Our government schools are becoming ineffective in preparing our children for an ever changing world and workplace environments. "Nonpartisan judiciary"? can someone explain why liberal judges are creating law rather than upholding the law?

* Opportunity is critical for fairness and freedom, and to achieve fulfillment in life. Our nation's public schools and universities provide opportunities for everyone. Government policies such as Affirmative Action offer opportunity to women and people of color who face unfair disadvantages in society. Government support of honest business practices, full accounting standards, and anti-trust laws provide the conditions for honest businesspeople to succeed.
Yes, the opportunities are provided, so why should we subsidize those that DO NOT take advantage of these opportunities? What is wrong with paying your own way through college? Is that not another choice you have? I believe we have come half way around the affirmitive action cirlce where the white male now suffers because of his color and sex. If we have "honest business practices" will the government then remove regulations that inhibit innovation and creativity?

* Prosperity is based on how well our communities are doing, and whether we all have access to good jobs, a good education, and the conditions needed to live healthy and productive lives. Equal opportunity is important to be able to achieve prosperity. And prosperity is necessary for opportunity. This translates into a progressive goal of government to promote widespread prosperity as a form of seeking the common good. The promotion of general prosperity need not be just a role for the government, but for corporations and businesspeople as well.
Access to good jobs means we need to be friendly to business through deregulation and less taxes. Good education means we need to move to school vouchers and create competition which will in turn breed better educational systems. Everyone in this country has an equal opportunity to prosper; it depends on whether one wants to take advantage of that opportunity or rely on the government to take care of them. The "common good" is a socialistic ideal. Here again is the hate business mantra by claiming a role of business is to bring general prosperity (you mean, make no profit and give a living wage to workers?).

* Community: Healthy communities are needed for healthy individuals. Policies that support healthy communities include well-trained and equipped fire fighters and police officers, hospitals and community care clinics, and other institutions that care for people in the community. Access to Fair Lending Laws, adhering to environmental standards, and sustainable planning and zoning laws all contribute to sound communities. And, an active civil society is a precondition for a healthy community.
Alright, one a can't really argue against.

* Cooperation is a hallmark of healthy communities, where everyone in a community works together to meet shared goals. Open communication requires cooperation and trust. In foreign policy, cooperation is expressed in support for the United Nations, diplomacy, and respect for international agreements and treaties.
Well one isn't bad. Support for the U.N. is nonexistent, and the U.N. should be eliminated. The U.N. has been a failure on all fronts.

* Trust, Honesty and Open Communication are required of an open government that respects its citizens. Open communication is how policymakers learn about the needs of people in their communities. Democracy requires a government that is responsive to its citizens. Regular press conferences, public hearings, and open deliberations by policymakers allow the people to communicate with their elected officials, and foster trust. The Freedom of Information Act and oversight agencies such as the General Accounting Office ensure the openness, honesty and accountability of the government to the people.
We are a republic. My God how many times do we have to repeat it? Perhaps if it were taught in public schools...?

A Progressive View of the Economy

The economy should be a means to these moral ends. Government should promote an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values. The government provides the infrastructure and services needed to enact these values. Taxes are a means to maintain the quality of our infrastructure so that we can continue to live in a safe, well-ordered, and civilized society. Taxes are investments in our future.
The best economy we can have is a free market, capitalistic, economy, one that is allowed to be free and utilize supply and demand and pricing economics. Unfortunately for this author, a socialistic economy will not thrive and will diminish all the good things that this current capitalistic economy has earned. Taxes are NOT an investment in our future other than for military maintenance. To even think taxes are an investment is to believe the governement should run businesses. Entreprenuership is the investment in our future.

A Progressive View of the Environment

Humans and the environment nurture each other. If we want to continue to receive nurturance from the environment, and ensure this nurturance for future generations, we must improve our nurturance of the environment.
I say we destroy our environment and move to another planet...just kidding...sort of.

A Progressive View of Cultural Support

Art and education are part of self-fulfillment and therefore are moral necessities.
Whatever.

A Progressive View of Foreign Policy

The role of the nation should be to promote cooperation and extend these values to the world. This comes from caring about the well-being of people in our own and in other countries, recognizing that all nations exist interdependently in one global "society," and, therefore, wanting to cooperate with other nations to solve problems like hunger, disease, oppression of women and exploitation of children, and political strife.
Where is Jimmy Carter when you need him? So we need to give more of our money and military support to underdeveloped nations to solve hunger, disease, oppression, etc., so thise nations can turn around and tell us how terrible we are...no thanks.

Ultimately, the job of a progressive government is to care for and protect the population, especially those who are helpless; to guarantee democracy (the equal sharing of political power); to promote the well-being of all through cooperation; and to ensure fairness for everyone. Empathy and responsibility are required to meet all of these goals. These values are traditional American values, and progressives seek to reinvigorate them in American political life.
WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC!!!! DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!! There is no equal sharing, just equal opportunity. My God, can this socialist idealism become any clearer?

The best part is, the more they talk, the more people understand what they really stand for, socialism.

Thank you Teddy Kennedy, for excercising your uncivil right to be a socialist idiot here in America. Further discussed on Sticks and Stones, here is the complete "speech", "A Democratic Blueprint For America's Future", by his Bloattedness, the Tedster, Mr. "OH MY GOD, THE BRIDGE!", Sir Keep 'em Comin', The Guy whose nose is a complete roadmap of the "Big Dig" roadway, our MODERATE Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy.

This proves that the "progressive" arm of the Democratic Party have socialistic philosophies and agendas and wish America to move to...Moscow.

There is an old saying that goes, "If your friends are assholes, you must be one too."

First, John Kerry, in his run for President, wanted to cozy up to the U.N. and defer military action decisions to them. We then learned about the enormous Oil-for-Food scandal, and its affect on the decisions of the U.N. Security Council.

Now he's over in France (where he has family) cozying up to Chirac. Meanwhile, in France, supporters of Chirac are trying to figure out ways for him to avoid prosecution for various finance scandals when he was mayor of Paris. He is immune from any prosecution as long as he is president, but his term will be up soon.

Kerry's judgment, and it seems for his entire lifetime, has been less than stellar, and his circle of friends not above reproach.

Now is not the time for Republicans to start the "holier than thou" agenda. Laws should be applied to everyone equally. I guess some Republicans in Congress think they should be above the law, and this is not acceptable.

If a law is good enough for the private sector, it damn well better be applicable to Congressmen and Senators. Republicans do not need this kind of mentality and rhetoric if they want to keep control of both houses.

Why are the liberals so intent on keeping a system that will fail? Is it strictly for political purposes? It must be. I can think of no other reason. Their biggest argument is that it's a "fall-back" plan. They believe the average worker is too stupid to save for his/her future, so it must be up to the government.

I have no problem helping those that cannot help themselves, but able-bodied people should be able to make their own decisions without governement intervention. The biggest problem is, if social security is eliminated, so is the power and control Democrats have over the elderly and the paranoid.

Here is a simple, common sense look at why we should get rid of Social Security.

Some excerpts:


"First, the current Social Security system is what is known as a "pay-as-you-go" system. It is not a savings or investment system, but a simple transfer from workers to retirees. The payroll taxes from each generation of workers are not saved or invested for that generation's retirement, but are used to pay benefits for those already retired. The current generation of workers must then hope that when their retirement comes, the next generation of workers will pay the taxes to support their benefits, and so on."

"The original Social Security tax was just 2 percent on the first $3,000 that a worker earned, a maximum tax of $60 per year. By 1960, payroll taxes had risen to 6 percent. Today's workers pay a payroll tax of 12.4 percent."

"The Social Security payroll tax is already 12.4 percent of wages, or one eighth of a worker's total annual wages. It is the biggest tax the average household must pay. Roughly 80 percent of American families pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income taxes."

"The only way out of this problem is to change Social Security from a pay-as-you-go model to a system based on savings and investment. That is why President Bush wants to allow younger workers to begin saving some of their Social Security taxes. Those who disagree have an obligation to tell the rest of us how they would deal with the grim demographic reality."

This post is for those that believe in themselves, in their freedom of choice, and in their freedom from government intervention.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Here are some comments from a liberal-socialist regarding my previous post “Republic vs. Democracy”.

“Let me tell you that Senator Clinton was absolutely right. Maybe your system is not as corrupt as in some other countries, however, your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic and you really have to dream of a similar electoral system as in Ukraine.”

Now this thought (in bold) tells me either he never read the post or did not understand the post. The article CLEARLY STATES, “…the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.” The framers foresaw potentially few populated areas ruling the country, so they avoided this situation. Most people fail to understand that the President is not selected by popular vote. In fact, when one votes for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for the Electoral College vote for that candidate. One does not “vote for the president” of the U.S, it is a balance of power between the states.

The liberal was actually correct to say, “…your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic…” Why did the framers avoid the “democratic process” in the election of a president? As the article states, “In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.” So how is this different from a republican form of government? “John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.”

I understand this is difficult to grasp for those minds lacking analytical skills and a logical thought process. This failure to understand the difference seeps into the misunderstandings and misperceptions Europeans have with American society and politics.


”Ukrainian nation showed to you all that they have learnt the lessons of democracy much quicker and better than you, while you’ve been preparing to teach them how to live democratically. How can the votes of just one state define the results of the whole election in the entire country? You have to grow up to understand what democracy really means.”

Again, one must think the commenter had no understanding of the article. The article clearly states, “They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.” The framers were battling a tyrant in the King of England and did not want the newly formed government to mimic that much hated form of government they were fighting. In fact, “The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.” “John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.”

The founders were very wary of “mob rules”, their fear can be expressed form the following passage: This is from Neal Boorts at www.boortz.com
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

I guess, according to the commenter, we need to grow up to understand democracy and the fact it will fail. I believe the framers also knew a pure democracy would not succeed and therefore deliberately set up the republic to avoid that failure.


“The antonym for “democracy” is “dictatorship”, not “republicanism”. Finally you are hinting, dude, that this blog belongs to a bunch of miserable dictators.”

This comment clearly exemplifies the liberal-socialist mentality. This person thinks that if it is not a democracy then it must be a dictatorship, an uneducated thought. From Britannica Online, a republic is, “Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.” America does not have a direct democracy regarding our presidential elections, herein defines the difference.

It is this lack of knowledge and intellect that dominates the liberal-socialist agenda and philosophy. Perhaps the liberal-socialists and Europeans should read and learn some American history before illuminating their lack of intelligence.

I was a bit upset that the liberals would make such a mockery of our election process when they suspended the election certification for voting "irregularities" in Ohio. Even though a recount proved the President won handily in Ohio, Boxer (that's all she gets) took the floor and opposed the certification. Hillary Clinton had the gonads to say that we had much to learn from the election in Ukraine...let me repeat that...Senator CLinton said we had much to learn from the election in Ukraine. Is she implying someone should have spiked Kerry's brie with poison or something, or is she saying our election process is corrupt?

Perhaps someone needs to educate these Senators about elections. Our founding fathers DELIBERATELY set up our election system to be run by the states. The federal government does not, nor was it ever intended to, run elections. the founding fathers felt it would give too much power to Congress and provide too much opportunity for fraud and corruption. I would say they got it right.

The liberals, so devastated by the 2000 election, have had 4 years to bring change to their own state's election process. Have they done anything? Some have. Unfortunately, this latest, reprehensible escapade of the left, has not only brought shame and embarassment to the U.S., it has jeopardized legitamacy in future elections no matter who is deemed the winner.

I believe the goal of the liberals is to challenge the President's legislative aganda mandate. It's all politics, and as usual, for their own gain with no regard to the citizens of this country.

Here is a great article on election reform from the Cato Institute. Here is the executive summary:

Election Reform, Federalism, and the Obligations of Voters

by John Samples

John Samples is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government. John Samples is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government.

Executive Summary

Congress will soon decide whether to change the American electoral system. Several private commissions--one headed by former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--have already reached their conclusions and proposed changes to the way we run our elections.

Since the founding of this country, state and local governments have had primary responsibility for running congressional elections. Congress has the authority to override state and local regulations regarding congressional elections, although the Founders foresaw this power being used only in "extraordinary circumstances." The events of 2000 were not "extraordinary."

Congress should preserve the primacy of the states in electoral administration. If Congress decides to spend federal tax money on elections, the funds should go to the states without any strings attached. Nationalizing elections through federal mandates would be a constitutional and policy mistake.

Until now the election reform debate has ignored the need to preserve the integrity of elections. Voters have at least the obligation to register and to be informed enough to cast a ballot successfully. Seeing election reform as a collective problem to be solved solely by collective action is a profound error that may harm the Republic.

The states should be free to make their own decisions about voting equipment and voter registration systems. Congress should reform the Motor Voter law by removing the obstacles that have ruined many voting lists. States should consider sharply limiting absentee and other voting outside the polling place. Provisional voting will prove costly both in direct outlays and in delaying election results. Election Day should not be a national holiday. Media projections of election results do little harm and should not be banned directly or indirectly by government. Voters need more education, a goal served by more competitive elections and an end to current restrictions on campaign finance.

You can click on the link above and view the entire article. Please do.

The word "democracy" is being thrown around a lot, and I don't think people know in what context to use the word. Remember when Howard Dean said it was the media's responsibility to enforce and protect our democracy? Europeans also like to talk about democracies. Well, for clarification, here is a copy of an excellent article from Walter E. Williams from townhall.com explaining the difference.

Are we a republic or a democracy?
Walter E. Williams (archive)
January 5, 2005 | Print | Send

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

I believe the Europeans use the term "democracy" in the proper context because that is what they believe. Americans, on the other hand, are confused by term and use it in the wrong context while disgarding the term "republic." Whatever the case, we must never succumb to a democracy and fight for our republic.

Gbalgg, you have St. Louis in the superbowl pool. I have Green Bay. Perhaps we'll see each other in the final four. Doubt it.

You owe me $20. $10 for the pool and $10 for not selecting Minnesota.

For the sake of this argument, we will assume that there is nothing wrong with the Social Security system.

Should people be allowed to opt out of Social Security system to a privatized market system?

Should people be allowed to opt totally out of a State sponsored retirement program?

Discuss.

The debate on governmental disaster aid provides an insight into the philosophical differences of government politics. We have foreign parties accusing the U.S. of being stingy in its disaster aid. The American press, including John Roberts and Diane Sawyer has picked up on this theory and are currently running with it. Sawyer even brought up the “Percentage of GDP” argument claiming the U.S. does not give a similar percentage as other countries. This is strictly a government aid number and does not reflect the amount given by private citizens, so why is the latter number ignored? Is it simply to make the U.S. look bad? Possibly. I believe the underlying theme is a basic difference in views on the role and identity of the government, a basic difference of philosophy of and about the individual.

As Americans, we believe we have inalienable rights granted us by a higher power, God. The government does not afford us any rights, it takes them away. Conversely, Europeans believe each individual is a part of the State, and the State grants these individuals rights. Without the State, the individual is nothing. These two philosophies pit a true capitalistic republic society against a socialistic/communistic society. It is this basic difference why Europeans do not, nor cannot consider private donations as part of America’s overall generosity.

The Europeans do not define and consider an individual in and of itself; rather individuals are defined and considered in the context of the State (government). Americans believe the government is defined and considered in the context of the individual. It is this basic conceptual difference that separates our successful capitalistic society and the failing socialistic/communistic societies of Europe.

Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
"The Perpetuatuion of our Political Institutions"

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bounaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Thanks Cao. Cao can be linked at http://caosblog.com/:


The federal government has no business mandating wages. It's counterproductive and actually serves to create a new serf class. It actually destroys the jobs of many it is designed to help. Such concepts as the minimum wage are antiquated vestiges of Soviet-style, command-and-control government that empowers the powerful at the expense of the little guy.

How liberating it would be for the lowest wage earners if government actually got off their backs and cut taxes, eliminated programs like Social Security and ended wealth-redistribution programs of all kinds – including the minimum wage?

Let's assume one earns the minimum wage of $5.50. Let's assume that person never earns more than $5.50 an hour –an almost ridiculous assumption, but one I'll make for the purpose of illustration only.

If that person works 40 hours a week, he or she will earn $220. Over 50 weeks a year, that equals an annual salary of $11,000. Saving only 15 percent of that income – less than the amount taken from an employer for Social Security – he or she will have saved $1,650 a year.

Not much, you say?

After 40 years of saving $1,650 per year, at only 6 percent interest, that person would have $266,000. At 8 percent interest, that person would have $462,000. At 10 percent interest, that person would have $830,000. At 12 percent interest, the accumulated wealth would reach a staggering $1,560,000. That's how easy it would be for a minimum-wage earner to become a millionaire.

All this is possible if only the worker had the right to invest the money currently grabbed from him by the government for Social Security in a private, interest-bearing account.

It shows what an absolute rip-off Social Security is.

But back to the minimum wage thing. No one is helped by hikes in the minimum wage. They are a pittance in the big scheme of things. If you rely on the government raising the minimum wage so you can make more money, then you are dependent on the government. That is a trap. And it's a trap many politicians like. They love it when you look to them for everything. The socialists in the democratic party are TRYING to make us even MORE dependent on government.

I would ask a couple of questions to those so eager to raise the minimum wage by a dollar or more. For starters, why are you so cheap? Why not raise it 100 percent? Or, better yet, how about 1,000 percent? If raising the minimum wage doesn't have any negative effects on the economy, why not mandate salaries of $100,000 a year?

If these incremental hikes in the minimum wage are really so good for the economy, if they don't have any negative effects on people, why not make them much bigger, much more "generous"? Why not hit our target the first time? Why do we have to keep going back to the well?

The reason, I think, is clear. Everyone acknowledges that such large mandates on private commerce would have a devastating impact. We would destroy the U.S. economy. If there is major harm done by large-scale intrusion of the government in private business matters, then smaller injuries -- perhaps even undetectable hurts -- are occurring with the smaller mandates.

No one is suggesting that the economy is flourishing because of increases in the minimum wage in recent years. What they argue is that the damage they do hasn't been very severe -- which means they concede there has been some damage. And that means that our economy would be stronger -- by some degree -- if these increases had not been approved. So, why on earth would we want to keep gambling? Why would we take an action that could very well start the next recession? Why would we want to slow down the economy by even a tiny percentage? Why take action to hurt the economy at all?
Caoilfhionn, at 2:22 PM

The Illinois legislature and Democratic governor have just initiated increasing unemployment rates by passing a law that will increase the minimum wage. They passed it even though studies have shown raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment.

The article also states the increase was supported by the AFL-CIO. Now why would unions want the minimum wage increased? Hmmm...I wonder...oh yeah, a lot of union contracts are tied to the federal minimum wage rate. Therefore, by increasing the minimum wage to help out those "at the poverty level", union members will get an across the board increase without having to go through negotiations.

Labor and the Democratic Party, hand-in-hand to ultimately stick it to the consumers by artificially raising prices, and all for support and votes (vote for us, and we will give you stuff from the public coffers).

And on top of all of this, rumors are running rampant that Govenor Rob has a little problem. Rumors claim he has impregnated a young lady who is NOT his wife. Welcome to the world of Illinois politics.

It is hard to believe people actually blamed the recent tsunami on George Bush and his environmental policies. They claimed the tsunami was ultimately caused by global warming. It is time to inject some facts in to the discussion.


It seems New York City has grown warmer by graph design but not in fact...

Tony Blair appears convinced by the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis but atmospheric CO2 levels do not fit changes in the CET at all well. For example, from 1695 to 1733, the annual mean temperature rose from 7.25°C to 10.47°C at a time when there was negligible change in atmospheric CO2 - the running mean did not return to such readings until the 1990s. On the other hand, annual mean temperatures fell from 10.62°C in 1949 to 8.47°C by 1963, a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were measurably rising. Greenhouse does not appear to be exerting a strong influence on the CET.

The one thing we did not find is any suggestion of increasing hurricane season severity. The most active period within the Twentieth Century record is the 1930s-1960s with something of a lull subsequently. This is not supportive of the hypothesis that the globe is warming catastrophically or that there are more and more severe storms occurring.

The Atmosphere and Enhanced Greenhouse - What's Going On?

But my favorite: Of course the earth is getting warmer, THE SUN IS GETTING HOTTER!