June 30, 2004 - Comrade Hillary Speaks

Today's Commentary: June 30th, 2004


I have to commend Hillary Clinton. Unlike her life-partner Bill, she does -as disgusting as it may seem- let us see what's really under her hood from time to time. Which is no small task for such a huge chassis. Butt, I digress. As first lady, she provided an odious glimpse of her socialist agenda with a failed attempt to remake the US health care system. More recently, as the junior Senator from NY, she endeared us with her shrill on how she is "sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic." Now, according to SFGate.com, which describes San Francisco as "Hillary Country", the former first comrade made the following statement on June 28th:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL

If this does not tell you that she is a Marxist, nothing will. How different is her quote from: "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs?" Her view of America is that all aspects of our society and economy must be controlled and therefore improved, by government intervention, regulation and taxes. Except in her socialist OZ, the wicked witch does more than fly around on a broom - she creates policy. In a recent speech she made on March 3rd of 2004, her vastness said:

"In fact, I'm very proud of the fact that during the 1990s, with the greatest expansion of economic prosperity that our country or any country has ever known, we did create a lot of millionaires and multi-millionaires, but equally important, we lifted more people out of poverty, we put more people on the path to home ownership for the first time, we opened the doors of college to more first-generation college-going students, so it truly was a win-win."

Of course she does not mention the economic collapse which began in the waning months of her monarchy. After she finished taking credit for the technology improvements and productivity increases of the 1990's (leaving the invention of the Internet as Al Gore's brain-child), she continues promoting her socialist utopian agenda:

"Many people talk about President Franklin Roosevelt's great contribution, saving capitalism from itself."

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2004304A58.html

While I believe that there is place for government in the roles of military, building and maintaining infrastructure like highways, and some oversight for our protection (ie. FDA, FAA, SEC, etc) I find it hard to view American capitalism as a domestic enemy of the Constitution. In Hillary's dreamy NeverLand Ranch, government gropes and controls all - and guess who's in the master bedroom? However, what she fails to grasp is that any attempt to centrally manage a huge and growing economy is doomed to fail. The scale and complexity is simply too vast, and in the end, the people at the top do what all people do - look out for themselves and their own.

Some examples from the "ash heap of history" prove this.

Pol Pot's communist nirvana resulted in the deaths of approximately 2 million people, many of whom were scientists, doctors and teachers who were murdered simply because they did not fit his nationalized agricultural industry. Most victims starved to death while working to harvest crops which were exported.

Mao Tse-Tung's "Great Leap Forward" of the late 1950's was a tremendous failure as China attempted to centralize their economy and industry. In 1989, the world was witness to the slaughter of student protesters at Tiananmen Square by Beijing's communist government.

Ask any of the Cubans who risked their lives on the open seas what they think of the communist government in Cuba. When was the last time you heard of a Floridian trying to float the 90 miles to be part of Castro's 'Promised Land'? Ask the residents of North Korea if their life is the panacea that the far left believes socialism and communism to be.

The relatively recent collapse of the former Soviet Union and the stories of their Gulags should prove the ultimate foreshadowing of anyone who thinks that capitalism needs to be saved from itself.

Take a close look at the Bill of Rights. These tenets limit the power of government with phrases like "Congress shall make no law...", "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." and more. Limited government, as envisioned by the founding fathers is the basis for where the United States is today. Communism is the basis for where Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia and North Korea are today.

But go ahead Hillary. Take my money for your needs and raise my kids as your village sees fit. As long as it is done for the common good.

June 26, 2004 - Voter Inertia (LITE)

Note: This appeared in the Wednesday, July 7th, Lawrence Eagle-Tribune letters to the editor.

Today's Commentary: June 26th, 2004


Just how low does the liberal left have to go to organize and motivate their voting base? Liberals are trying every trick under the sun to resolve the only thing that keeps them from completely dominating virtually every elected position in America - voter inertia. If there is an axiom of political physics which describes voter inertia, it would probably look something like:

"A body inclined to vote in a way that sustains its oblivious or at-rest state is likely to remain at rest in November. A body excited about an issue is likely to remain excited about that issue up to and through its vote in November."

If every eligible voter in America was forced to honestly describe their affiliation as either Republican, Democrat or Independant (who usually vote for the candidate and not the party), and you assumed the "I" vote would split roughly 50-50 for "R" and "D" come November, arguably the Democrats would win every time. However, successful candidates do not attempt to appeal to the general public, but to likely voters.

The quest for Democrat politicians then becomes, how to excite the unexcited and motivate their numbers to vote?

Free booze is one way. The Democrats in Monroe County, New York have figured this out. They have teamed up with a local brewery to offer free beer to those who register to vote. It is unclear if these same Democrats are offering to drive their constituents home after they register. This of course would be a nice gesture on the their part, so long as Ted Kennedy doesn't drop in as an honorary chauffeur.

But free alcohol may not be enough. Enter the next white knight of Democratic politics, the felons. Al Gore is still smarting from his 2000 election loss. Had he been able to deny our overseas military personnel the right to vote, and only a fraction of the sunshine states convicted felons succesfully navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of hanging chad, today Al would be able to lecture us on tolerance while he continued negotiations with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban as Commander in Grief. Expect a big push from the Florida left to support the voting rights of felons before this fall.

It seems that Democrat activists and politicians just can't get past their love affair with criminals. And why not? If the last Democrat president can commit felony perjury and get a free ride, what's a little rape and murder among ideologues? And to show his unity with an elite group of potential clients, Clinton commuted the sentences of dozens of them just before his second term ended. Wire frauds, cocaine dealers, money launderers, meth dealers, felony firearm violators, extortionists - all were welcome to bask in the warm, soft glow of Clinton's embrace. For a full list of the best and brightest, see:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/commutationspaocht.htm

You would think that Democrats would have learned their lesson about felons after Mike Dukakis met up with Willie Horton for a few beers in 1986 to ask him how his weekend off was going. I'm sure Mike was happy to see how smashingly well his "Experiment in Justice" was improving the lives of those attacked during Willie's extended furlough.

To this day the left courts felons the same way a rebellious teenage daughter treats her James Dean wannabe boyfriend that her parents disapprove of. According to a June 24th report from the AP, a Democratic group called ACT (Americans Coming Together), has hired convicted sex offenders, burglars, drug dealers and other hard-core Democrats to canvas the battleground states of Missouri, Ohio, Florida, and possibly others, to conduct door to door voter registration drives which include collecting social security numbers, telephone numbers and other personal information. And who does ACT want to see win in 2004? Hint: He's a Massachusetts liberal, and it's not Mike Dukakis.

If rapists, murderers, armed robbers and other convicted felons want to see John Kerry win this November, who are you voting for?

June 26, 2004 - Voter Inertia

Today's Commentary: June 26th, 2004


How stupid does the liberal left have to get to cater to it's voters? And how stupid do they think we are when groups and events that cater to liberal people and causes describe themselves as "non-partisan"? Liberals are trying every trick under the sun to resolve the only thing that keeps them from completely dominating virtually every elected position in America - voter inertia. The axioms of political physics describe voter inertia as follows:

"A body inclined to vote in a way that sustains it's oblivious or at-rest state is likely to remain at rest in November. A body excited about an issue is likely to remain excited about that issue up to and through its vote in November."

If every eligible voter in America were forced to honestly describe their affiliation as either "R", "D" or "I", and you assumed the "I" vote would split roughly 50-50 for "R" and "D" come November, arguably the Democrats would win every time. However, successful candidates don't try to appeal to the general public, but to likely voters.

Republicans can generally get motivated to promote less government, lower taxes and stronger military, to the point where they become excited and according to the laws of voter inertia, get out and vote. The voting left can get excited too. The die-hards will get excited about higher taxes, greater government regulations, leniency towards crime and more mushy social programs. This will get them to the ballot box. However, the Democrats would crush the vote if they could elevate their at-rest voters to an excited state. These are the people who want government to control their lives more, but have plans in November.

The quest for Democrat politicians then becomes, how to excite the unexcited and motivate their numbers to vote?

Booze is one way. The Democrats in Monroe County, New York have figured this out. They have teamed up with a local brewery to offer free beer to those who register to vote.

http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/0618SM4KQJ4_news.shtml

It is unclear if these same Democrats are offering to drive their constituents home after they register. This of course would be a nice gesture on their part, so long as Ted Kennedy doesn't drop in as honorary chauffeur.

But free alcohol may not be enough. Enter the next white knight of Democratic politics, the felons. Al Gore is still smarting from his 2000 election loss (HA! HA! HA!). Had he been able to deny our overseas military personnel the right to vote, and only a fraction of the sunshine states' convicted felons succesfully navigated the Scylla and Charybdis of hanging chad, today Al would be able to lecture us on tolerance while he continued negotiations with Saddam Hussein and the Taliban as Commander in Grief. Expect a big push from the Florida left to support the voting rights of felons before the year is out. There are also efforts in D.C., where Democrats are a 9:1 majority over Republicans, to get the voices of felons heard.

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040207-112216-4258r.htm

It seems that Democrat activists and politicians just can't get past their love affair with criminals. And why not? If the last Democrat president can commit felony perjury and get a free ride, what's a little rape and murder among ideologues? And to show his unity with an elite group of future clients, Clinton commuted the sentences of dozens of them just before his second term ended. Wire frauds, cocaine dealers, money launderers, meth dealers, felony firearm violators, extortionists - all were welcome to bask in the warm, soft glow of Clinton's embrace. For a full list of the best and brightest, see:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/commutationspaocht.htm

You would think that Democrats would have learned their lesson about felons after Mike Dukakis met up with Willie Horton for a few beers in 1986 to ask him how his weekend off was going. I'm sure Mike was happy to see how smashingly well his "Experiment in Justice" was improving the lives of those attacked during Willie's extended furlough. God knows, releasing first-degree murders for the weekend has always been a hit with the Massachusetts public.

To this day the left courts felons the same way a rebellious teenage daughter treats her James Dean wannabe boyfriend that her parents disapprove of. According to a June 24th report from the AP, a Democratic group called 'Americans Coming Together' has hired convicted sex offenders, burglars, drug dealers and other hard-core Democrats to canvas the battleground states of Missouri, Ohio, Florida, and possibly others to conduct door to door voter registration drives which include collecting social security numbers, telephone numbers and other personal information. And who does Americans Coming Together want to see win in 2004? Hint: He's a Massachusetts liberal, and it's not Mike Dukakis.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTER_DRIVE_FELONS?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

If rapists, murderers, armed robbers and other convicted felons want to see John Kerry win this November, who are you voting for?

Other than having convicts stake out their houses, another way to excite the at-rest vote is to find them at an event where they are already excited and pound them with liberal information. Enter the outdoor, dry-humping extravaganza known as Lollapalooza 2004. Although canceled due to "huge financial losses", Lollapalooza was to include a new showcase called "The Revolution Solution", described as: "a provocative new way of taking on the issues that confront this country." The Revolution Solution includes such centrist organizations as: 'Amnesty International', 'Climate Solutions', 'Future Forests', 'Pesticide Action Network' and 'Peta2.com' (which hosts the winners of the "2003 Sexiest Vegetarian Alive" poll). The Lollapalooza web site describes The Revolution Solution as -are you ready?:

"A non-partisan political campaign - in partnership with the influential grassroots political network, MoveOn.org."

http://www.lollapalooza.com/revolution.php

Hmmm. A non-partisan political campaign in partnership with MoveOn.org...

I think I have just found out how stupid the liberal left has to be while catering to it's voters.

June 24, 2004 - Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.

Today's Commentary: June 24th, 2004


I love to go fishing. Apparently so do John Kerry and his lackeys. And why not? Fishing is great! You get outside. You enjoy fresh air. You engage in a potentially life and death battle with your adversary. And whether or not things go your way, you can always tell a fish story. Most often, these fish stories are concocted to make the narrator look good, or at least important. But the best fishing expeditions, from which these fables come, require a seasoned first mate to be on board. Someone who doesn't mind getting all stinky and bloody. Someone who has been through this malodorous routine so many times that your 'catch of a lifetime' is just another day at the office for him. And the best mates of all corroborate your fish stories once you get back to the dock.

Enter your salty-dog mate for the day, Dan "that's a big one" Rather and the CBS Evening News. Dan and his outfitters have gut-hooked a hard fighting migratory species known as the September 11th Commission (a.k.a. Medius-circus Blameus-Bushus). And like the self-conscious fisherman trying to impress their friends, they have backed off on the drag to show how much oomph this baby has. The 9-11 Commission Staff Statement No. 15 (Overview of the Enemy) states on page 5: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Even though this revelation does not require a bigger boat, the hard charging mates at CBS are tripping over the bait bucket to milk it for all it is worth. On the Wednesday, June 16th CBS Evening News, John Roberts reported: "It is one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war in Iraq and today took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."

The unbiased report continued with a statement from Joseph Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (obviously a nonpartisan source with no visible agenda): "I think this is the clearest case of the administration deliberately misleading the American public in order to rally support for war and that misleading worked." (As a side note, the interview with CBS occurred just prior to a joint press release with Mr. Cirincione from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, along with Elmo, the Cookie Monster and Big Bird elaborating the details of the Bush administrations deceptions. The text of that press release was not available at the time of this writing, but I am told that it is brought to you by the letters "f" and "i" - as in "fool" and "idiot".)

John Roberts concludes his objectivity, "The report is yet another blow to the President's credibility as he struggles to find the exit door in Iraq, and opens him up to new criticism on the wisdom to taking on Saddam with Iraq's leadership still at large."

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040617.asp

This fish story is now being told on the gold-plated docks at the Heinz-Kerry Nantucket Estate. Observe the June 16th Newswire press release from the Kerry campaign:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=170-06162004

It lists quotes from CBS, ABC and NBC all of which are lining up to go out on the next fishing trip with Kerry. And why not? He must be a great tipper! Notice the last line of the press release which follows the obeisant excerpts from the big three of network news:



"Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc."



Ironic, huh?

However, those of us who are not part of the 'Bush lied-babies died' crowd did not need to look over the side of the boat to see that this fish is no keeper. The US did not invade Iraq because of a Bat-Phone connection between Saddam and Osama. Nor did we invade Iraq over WMD - although this was clearly the strongest issue raised by the Bush administration. The US, along with other nations that have (or had) the onions for it, invaded Iraq because of it's consistent refusal to abide by UN resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284 - thus resulting in UN resolution 1441 which states:

13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned
Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued
violations of its obligations;



Iraq lost the 1991 Gulf War. In order to keep himself in power, Saddam agreed to UN restrictions (that seem to have come with a wink and a nod from the French and Germans). When he stopped agreeing to these restrictions, someone had to do more than issue more UN resolutions. Remind the next person who says "The US had no business being in Iraq" of this annoying fact.

Bush made his intentions clear when he addressed a joint session of congress after September 11th, "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

And if you are part of the 'Bush lied' pacifist crowd, then you MUST believe the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who said "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

Friday, June 18, 2004 - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

But if you would rather go fishing with John Francois Kerry, I understand. After all, he is a man of the people - and it must be one hell of a yacht that he married.

June 14, 2004 - The Anti-Reagan

Today's Commentary: June 14th, 2004


You have not been able to swing a dead cat lately without hitting some coverage of Ronald Reagan's life and recent funeral. The various news networks have been running their Reagan biographies and funeral coverage with fervor. Without a doubt, many of the media execs have shaken the dust off of their Reagan bios much later than they had expected, and with few exceptions, probably much later than they had hoped.

I don't expect we will see a week filled with as much pomp and formality for quite some time. Nor should we. The ceremonies reflect what Reagan did nationally and globally to promote freedom and (God help us) American interests, regardless of what The Boston-Al Jazeera-Globe puts in its editorial pages. To steal a quote from General Patton, "We came here to thank God that men like these have lived rather than to regret that they have died." Reagan referred to America as 'the shining city on the hill.' If what I have read is true, Nancy herself has done her husband proud, led by example and shut Bill Clinton out of speaking at the eulogy. This principled act is a shining city on the hill of Reagan's legacy. The fact that it feels fantastic is, well, just gravy. Reagan treated the Oval Office with respect. Clinton, well nevermind.

Clinton's symbolic censure before a global stage is also a reflection of what many in the democratic party must be going through at the moment. Except for the university and media elite, arrogant air traffic controllers and democratic opponents, America loved Reagan - who even carried Massachusetts in 1984. Not because of his optimism, and not because he had a sense of humor - both of which he had in abundance, but because he pulled the nation out of a psychological and economic tailspin. An economic tailspin that the liberal democrats will again return us to if they seize control in November. Reagan held to his principles and took the torching he knew was coming with a smile - and democrats hated him for it. Now with the nation reflecting on his life and legacy, the democrats are wary not to promote their special interest group agendas. History proves these ideas wrong time and again. And there is a fitting Reagan quote for most, if not all of them:

Government Regulation:

"Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process."

Taxes:

"Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."

Economic Policy:

"Our friends in the other party will never forgive us for our success, and are doing everything in their power to rewrite history. Listening to the liberals, you'd think that the 1980s were the worst period since the Great Depression, filled with suffering and despair. I don't know about you, but I'm getting awfully tired of the whining voices from the White House these days. They're claiming there was a decade of greed and neglect, but you and I know better than that. We were there."

Foreign Affairs and Conflict:

"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong."



Let's be fair to "our friends in the other party," and compare the lives of Ronald Wilson Reagan, whom many Republicans would say is the best we have to offer, with someone the democrats would arguably call their "best". A Clinton comparison would be all right, but how about someone Democrats hold in high esteem and whom I affectionately refer to as the 'Anti-Reagan'. Most people know this man as the lovable senior (and relatively conservative) senator from Massachusetts, Teddy 'Chivas' Kennedy.

OK, I lied. Only after June 5th have I referred to Ted Kennedy as the 'Anti-Reagan'. Prior to this, he was known to me as "the gelatinous fat on the SPAM of liberal politics." But I digress. Lets return to the side by side evaluation.

First, examine their respect for women during their early years. In 1933, Melba King, a 22 year old nursing student in Des Moines, was walking home one fall evening. A mugger approached her demanding money and brandishing a gun. From the window in his his second story flat, Ronald Reagan pointed his revolver at the man and said "Leave her alone or I'll shoot you right between the shoulders." The mugger ran off and Reagan walked Melba home, safe, dry and breathing. Only in 1984, when Melba saw Ron again at an Iowa campaign event, did he disclose the fact that the gun was unloaded. "This is the first time I've had a chance to tell you the gun was empty. I didn't have any cartridges. If he hadn't run when I told him to, I was going to have to throw it at him," Reagan told the audience.

http://www.theiowachannel.com/politics/3392082/detail.html

Only after significant research was I able to find a comparable story for Ted Kennedy. Out of respect to the Kopechne family, I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to find this story in the internet archives. To help you on your way, go to www.google.com and type in "Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo", and see what returns. In his defense, Teddy did have to rush back to the Lawrence Cottage to rescue a drowning olive. Ironically, if Ted Kennedy's agenda was in place at the time, Ronald Reagan would have been promptly arrested and his handgun confiscated after he returned from walking Melba King home. However, the muggers rights would have certainly been preserved.

Next on policy issues, Reagan stood fast against an orchestrated push by the Soviets to shelve SDI and took a beating in the press over the "failure" at Reykjavik. We need more "failures" like this. He also increased government revenues by, get this, reducing the overall tax burden for each taxpayer. Note to liberal historians, standing tough against the Soviets and cutting taxes worked for JFK as well.

Now let's compare this to the record of Michael Moore. Teddy has voted against sending troops into Iraq even though this ended the reign of Saddam Hussein and brought forth an Iraqi governing body unanimously approved by the UN. He also voted against the 1991 Gulf War, a military spanking of the feared Iraqi Republican Guard that startled even our allies. Domestically, he has never met a tax hike that he didn't love almost as much as the sound of ice cubes clinking in his tumbler. To quote Senator Stoli: "The trends that are evident in today's economy demonstrate that a larger role for government is needed if we are to insure that our children enjoy the same widespread economic opportunity which my generation did." (March 1, 2004, Center for Humanities, City Univ. of NY http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/04/03/2004301813.html)

The final comparison should be pretty clear. After 93 years, Ronald Reagan was not with us long enough. After 72 years, Ted Kennedy has been with us far too long.

June 7, 2004 - Si Vis Pacem, Parabellum

Today's Commentary: June 7th, 2004


This weekend my family went to a neighborhood graduation party. While there, I ran into a fellow card carrying member of the nationwide blood-cult which Hillary Clinton refers to as the "vast right wing conspiracy." On June 3rd, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond referred to us as "the Taliban wing of American politics." For those not belonging to this confederacy, you may be interested in how fellow cell members, who have never met before, establish and verify mutual association, so pay close attention.

While standing on the patio, I was passed by a stranger whom I will call Peter (I don't want to divulge full names as Peter has a family to protect). He was smoking a cigar he had recently lit and when I saw it I said "That cigar smells good! I wish I had remembered to bring one of mine."

Peter replied "I have a box of them in my car. Would you like one?"

"Sure!" I said graciously.

Carefully, Peter began probing to see where I was on the spectrum. "These cigars are good, but not as good as the Cubans my son brought back from Iraq."

Being a closely guarded conspirator, my interest is instantly piqued, but I am wary not to blow my expertly crafted cover as a citizen of Massachusetts. "Wow, is he still overseas?"

Peter begins the intricate dance of verification. We vast right wingers can never be too careful. "No. He's back stateside now. He will probably be redeployed in the next few months though."

With palms sweating, and in the depths of espionage reminiscent of a Tom Clancy novel, I take the leap of faith and begin the transmission of secret codes. "You must be proud of him".

Peter looked at me as we continued to walk towards his car. A twitch of his eyebrows gave him away. This was a tremendous risk. Outside of the realm of 'the conspiracy' (as we like to call it), a slip up like that could have been lethal. "Yes. It's scary having my son in the middle east, but he loves it. He always tells me that it is far better there than the media would have you believe."

Bang-Zip-Boom! It is done. The coded messages were passed, authenticated and verified. Bi-directional transmission of concepts critical to 'the conspiracy' can begin.

After lighting up, we returned to the party and were happily discussing recent topics ranging from Al Gore's recent lunatic howling at New York University to the death of Ronald Reagan announced earlier in the day. Unexpectedly, a woman who looked to be in her 70's approached us. Peter tells me that this is his aunt and introduces her. I believed Peter, although I suppose it could have been Dick Cheney in one hell of a disguise. I throttle back the radical discussion of topics like the high rate of taxes and the death of personal responsibility. Peter senses my change in tone and says "Don't worry, she's one of us."

As I engage this charming woman in discussion, she states "You know, I almost don't know who to vote for. Things seem to be going so bad".

In my attempt to reassure her, I remind her that while peace is good, freedom is better. And we are far better off fighting battles in Iraq as opposed to Manhattan. She realizes this and no longer seems disheartened about making her choice in November.

After the party was over I thought about what Peter's aunt (a.k.a. Dick Cheney) had said. And I realized that she was 100% correct. Things do seem worse than they did in the Clinton administration. In 1998, I never worried about Islamic radicals or dirty bombs. I was too busy watching my mutual fund and stock holdings scream into the stratosphere, oblivious to the idea that maybe the financial reports were not truly as rosy as what was being reported. In addition, terrorism was something that happened in southeast Asia, not here.

My, how things have changed in a few short years.

But while things seem worse, are they? I could be happy eating fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner followed by a six-pack of beer every night. I may be blissfully oblivious to a massive stroke waiting for me next time I pick up a snow shovel, but am I better off? Is it not better to heed the warning signs and react appropriately to avoid a true disaster?

Neville Chamberlain obtained "Peace for our time" with the 1938 Munich Conference, but at what cost? Only the ghosts of Czechoslovakia know for sure. More recently, the US benefited from a 'peace dividend' during the 1990s, but at what cost? I sure was happy, but the price of keeping blinders on was innocent lives who thought September 11th was going to be just another Tuesday at the office.

'Si vis pacem, parabellum', is a phrase as old as Rome which translates, 'if you want peace, prepare for war.' It may not make you happy, but by heeding it, you will be better off. While I may heartily disagree with more than a few of the current administration's policies, I will not be voting for a president who will let the UN make the critical decisions regarding our national defense and security.

Neither will Peter's aunt, or maybe she was Dick Cheney. You can never tell...

June 1, 2004 - Note from Osama, "Do not stare at the hooters!"

Today's Commentary: June 1st, 2004


I was going to pen something about Al Gore's recent 'Evening at the Improv', but that would have been too easy. Although when he calls this administration the most dishonest since Nixon, I must confess to being amazed at his brass onions. I suppose it all depends on what your definition of 'felony perjury' is. It also is a great example of knowing the audience you present to. I guess he knew they were partisan idiots. But I digress...

Several months ago, I read a book titled "Terrorist Hunter" written by Rita Katz. It is an impressive story of a Jewish woman in Iraq who was a child when Saddam Hussein came to power, and how her family escaped through a then secular Iran.

She is currently at the SITE institute which tracks down terrorist entities (the Arab word for this is 'charities') in the US. Given her fluency in Arab languages, she also does alot of translations. I recently received an email from the SITE list which contained a translated Al Qaeda training manual on kidnapping. Only 6 pages long, it is a highlight of kidnapping how-to's. It describes the reasons for a kidnapping, the physical and psychological requirements, how to perform a public kidnapping (ie. the theater in Moscow) and how to perform a secret kidnapping (ie. Dan Pearl).

In a section titled "Security measures for public kidnapping:", two rules caught my eye. The first was "Abide by Muslim laws as your actions may become a Da'wa [call to join Islam]." So apparently the 'religion of peace and love' wants its members to be certain that kidnap victims are treated with the accords of Muslim law, including the part where their brains are made into a Picasso if negotiations are stalled. Well, as long as innocent hostages are slaughtered Islamically, I guess it's OK.

The second security measure of interest for public kidnapping was "Avoid looking at women." Yep. In the high stakes, high pressure, life and death world of global terrorism, a perfectly good Jihad can be blown by checking out the panty lines on one of your hostages. Imagine the 'behind the scenes' discussion between Salib and Mohammed at the next kidnap standoff to be plastered on network and cable news outlets...

"Salib, do you have the detonators?"
"Praise Allah, check!"
"Is the perimeter armed?"
"Check!"
"Are the ventilation shafts sealed off?"
"Check!"
"Are the hostages secured?"
"Check!"
"Is the escape vehicle fueled and ready?"
"Check!"
"Now Salib, let's not have a problem similar to the botched embassy job in Algiers."
"But Mohammed, the receptionist was not wearing a bra and it was cold!"
"Praise Allah!"


I wonder how the National Organization of Whiners feels about this?