Further Proof: Conservatives Care More, Give More to Charity than Liberals

November 29, 2006
By Will Malven

Have you heard the news? The latest study shows that the average Conservative household gives 30% more to charities than their Liberal counterparts. This while earning an average of 6% less per household. Arthur C. Brooks in his book Who Really Cares? The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatives reveals that “family values and religious observance really do matter. Brooks writes:

“For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”

For some of us this comes as no surprise, I have been saying for a long time that Liberals want the government to do what they themselves should be doing. They want government to do it so that they don’t have to be bothered with caring themselves. This goes hand in hand with their me first, selfish attitudes. If someone insults you, run to an attorney and file a lawsuit. It all follows the twisted sense of morallity that eschews personal responsibility for dependency on the state.

Even more worrying for the demagogues of the Left is the fact that the more closely associated a giver is to their church and their religion, the more generous they are. Secular Liberals give the least and expect the most of government.

Don’t expect these results to interfere with the self-righteous Leftist Demagogues in their unceasing tirades against the cold hearted, rich Conservatives not giving their fair share. Don’t expect them to suddenly wake up and stop trying to eliminate the influence Christianity has on the state. Do not expect any sudden turn towards telling the truth, it’s just not in them.

The truth is that Conservatives care more, give more, and do more for the truly disadvantaged than Liberals, up to and including providing more jobs through lower taxes and a growing economy. The “generosity” of the Left is a false gift. They will give you things like money (through welfare), and medical care (through socialized medicine) but in return they want control.

By rationing their gifts, they are able to gain control of your life. The gifts of the Left are the gifts of a master to a servant. Conservatives give to private charities and because of that have no expectation of “control.”

The “caring, generous Liberal” and the “cold-hearted, stingy Conservative” are perfect examples of stereotypes which have no basis in reality and it is time destroy those myths.

Now we know, the wealthy give more than their “fair share” in taxes, and the Conservatives give far more to charity than Liberals. To use the vernacular, Liberals “talk the talk but they don’t walk the walk.”

No news to me, I always suspected this. Now we have proof.

Full Story: Poor Liberals, their words are as empty as their lives.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Thanksgiving and Football, What More Could I Ask For (A Republican Victory Maybe? Sigh!)

Happy Thanksgiving to all you Houstonians out there!
Oh yeah, and the rest of the folks stuck living in the outlands.

Man, nothing rocks Texas like the sport of football and as we all prepare for our Thanksgiving Festivities, we have a lot great football ahead of us this holiday.

Right now your probably saying "What?" Yeah I know, this is a small departure from my usual political screed, but hey, what can I say? Republicans took it on the chin, and (unfortunately) deservedly so. I'm just going to sit back, relax, and enjoy the show as the Democrats begin the juggling act of balancing the promises made to their base moonbat constituency while dealing with the fact that most of the newly elected Democrats are far more moderate than either of their leaders. It promises to be most amusing and to provide plenty of fodder for the cannons of my editorials.

So today, relax and let's talk turkey...or turkeyday football. Of course the big game around here is the great Texas v. Texas A&M battle which begins sometime around the Monday after Thanksgiving the year before and culminates in a battle on the field of honor the day after Thanksgiving.

For those of you not familiar with the intricacies of the Houston and the Texas Football culture, let me first explain that Football is the biggest religion in Texas, dwarfing even the Baptist and Methodist Churches put together.

Even High School football here is a spectator sport where middle aged business men rub elbows with their "blue-collar" counterparts and emotions can run a little bit high. If you have seen the excellent movie "Friday Night Lights," you have an inkling of the fervor with which football is embraced in the Lone Star State. Coaches at Odessa-Permian High School have had their lives threatened for not winning the state title. Now that serious fandom folks. People all over Texas (and the rest of the nation I suppose) are gearing up for the "Big Game." Here it's all about Texas/Texas A&M. It has been since before I was born (yeah they had football back then). This is the 113th meeting between the two teams.

Texas, who has to be the favorite this year, being nationally ranked 11th, as they are has long dominated the series with a won-lost-tied record of 73-34-5 and they have won the last 6 years in a row. Of course expectations are one thing and reality is another. This game has long been known for its upsets and unexpected happenings, so it is no overstatement that a very large majority of televisions will be focused on CBS come 11:30 local time. I guess I'll be pulling for Texas this year as usual, my late cousin attended Texas back in the late '60s and he was my hero so I have always rooted for the 'Horns.

Of course that is not the only game in town, so to speak, we also have the "Brainiac Bowl" here in Houston at Rice University. The Southern Methodist University Mustangs are coming to the 70,000 seat Rice Stadium to face the Rice Owls. Both teams have been surprisingly good this year and this promises to be an interesting game.

Yep, football is being played all over the nation Friday and Saturday while the fans all "spud-out" on their couches enjoying a Thanksgiving leftover repast and nodding off between touchdowns and "lousy" calls with the promise of arguments and enthusiastic conversations around the coffee pots on Monday.

My only regret, well two actually, I miss the "good old days" when the Thanksgiving day game was the big college game rather than a nationally broadcast professional game of marginal interest to most fans. Don't get me wrong, I like football Pro and College, and this Thursdays games should be good, Miami at Detroit 11:30 AM CT, Tampa Bay at Dallas 3:15 PM CT , and Denver at Kansas City 7:00 PM CT, it's just that it seems to me that something really fun was lost when the networks decided to start carrying Pro-ball. It was traditional for our families to gather together on Thanksgiving for dinner and to watch their favorite college team, I just sort of miss that. The second? Well I which that my favorite game was being televised Friday. It seems that the LSU Tigers v. Arkansas Razorbacks game isn't scheduled to be broadcast. Dang, that's #5 against #9...oh well...

Oh yeah, it wouldn't have hurt my feeling if the Republicans had won.

Have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving. May God's Blessings be upon you all.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Incompetent Texas Legislators Contribute to the Death of 4-Year Old Boy

Two pit bulls kill boy, 4, near home
His mom is hurt trying to save him from mauling in east Harris County

By ANITA HASSAN and SALATHEIA BRYANT
Nov. 22, 2006, 8:03AM
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

As his toddler brother scrambled to safety, a 4-year-old boy was mauled to death by two pit bulls Tuesday afternoon in his east Harris County neighborhood.

The boy's mother heard her son's screams and ran outside to find him being attacked by the pit bulls at the King Parkway mobile home community. She suffered minor injuries as she tried to fight them off, but the dogs refused to let go of her son's body.

The dogs released the child, Pedro Rios, only after being distracted by the lights and sirens of the deputies' cars when they arrived minutes later.

Deputies then opened fire, killing one dog and wounding the second. The surviving pit bull was taken into custody by Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services' Veterinary Public Health.

Alright folks, this ones got me really irate. I am tired of these idiots we call state legislators going up to Austin and ignoring the needs of the public while pandering to whatever constituency they can fool into voting for them. This time their incompetence got a four year-old boy killed, if not directly, then indirectly for sure. The evidence of incompetence is clear:

An attempt by state Rep. Al Edwards, D-Houston, to toughen state laws dealing with vicious dogs failed in the last legislative session. His bill would have increased the criminal penalty for owners whose dogs were involved in unprovoked attacks.

Now please, someone explain to me what possible logic the majority of legislators in our State Houses could use to vote against imposing greater responsibility for pet owners over the behavior of their pets? I would love to hear what kind of idiotic argument these "esteemed" state law-(non)makers made against Representative Edwards' bill.

Anybody? Every year we lose victims of driving accidents to unlicensed, uninsured motorists because the our own State Legislators are more interested in pandering to the Hispanic community than they are in protecting the citizens of Texas. We know who the bulk of unlicensed motorists are, and we know who the bulk of the dog-fighting and negligent pet-owners are, yet in the name of "cultural sensitivity" our Legislators continue to fight against the best interests of their own citizens.

People who live in Texas should be held responsible for their actions and not pandered to. Because of this idiotic "diversity" and "sensitivity" we have schools which teach nothing, but the do it in 2 languages. Now children of both dominant cultures can be equally stupid. Every licensed, legal driver in Texas pays outrageous insurance rates because of the problem of illegal, unlicensed, and uninsured drivers.

Now we have our children at risk because the same jerks who selfishly pander to the Hispanic community don't have the guts or integrity do demand of their own constituents what they demand of the rest of we Texans. Will it change? I doubt it. Too many people either just don't care, or are on the receiving end of one of these gifts of irresponsibility.

Me? I'd just like to hear all of these idiots we have sent to Austin exlplain to Mrs. Rios why her son had to die. Well, how 'bout it boys, any voluteers?

Perhaps if the Chronicle and other newspapers spent half as much time going after idiots like these as they did in their wholesale assault against the Republicans and President Bush, they'd actually be doing the citizens of Texas and Houston some service.

Full Story: Death by Legislator Negligence

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Nancy Pelugosi the Moderate? Riiiight!

Pelosi Splits Democrats With Push For Murtha
Speaker-to-Be Accused Of Strong-Arm Tactics

By Jonathan Weisman and Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 16, 2006; Page A01

A showdown over the House majority leader's post today has Democrats bitterly divided only a week after their party took control of Congress and has prompted numerous complaints that Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and her allies are using strong-arm tactics and threats to try to elect Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) to the job.

Murtha, 74, a former Marine who was among the first on Capitol Hill to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, may have hurt his own chances Tuesday night when he derided the Democrats' ethics and lobbying package before saying he will push for its passage anyway out of deference to Pelosi. His statement, at a gathering of conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, was cited by backers of his rival, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), as further proof that Murtha's controversial ethics record disqualifies him to lead the party in a new political era.

Pelosi's aggressive intervention on behalf of Murtha has baffled and angered many Democrats, who think she has unnecessarily put her reputation on the line out of misplaced loyalty to a friend and because of a long-standing feud with Hoyer, the minority whip. Pelosi has pushed Murtha's candidacy at social events, in private meetings and with incoming freshman Democrats; they have been called to her office to discuss committee assignments, only to hear first that she needs Murtha in order to be an effective leader.

Hoyer, 67, was heavily favored to win the race until Sunday, when Pelosi -- in a move that shocked even her staff -- openly threw her support to Murtha, despite a vow to stay neutral. She said in a letter that she was swayed by Murtha's early call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, and that he would be best positioned to lead a new Democratic majority.

What? You're surprised by this? Stupid Democrat Conservatives. Did you actually believe Speaker to be Pelugosi's claims of moderation? Dance with the Devil, you ain't gonna be in Paradise. Are you really so naive as to believe Nancy Pelugosi when she pulled in her fangs? You idiots are going to get precisely the Government you deserve for your pitiful choices in voting. Don't look for sympathy here. The Democrats have been doing this same deceitful dance for decades, get a clue folks!

Did you actually believe that Mrs. Pelugosi was going to allow ethics to interfere with her extreme Left-wing Moonbat agenda? Silly voter. Murtha is as corrupt as they come and has fought every effort to bring stronger ethical guidelines into lobbying reform. From now on it's gonna be "cut and run crooks" in charge.

Full Story: ...And the Fun Is Just Beginning

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Touch of Class

Allen Concedes Election, Democrats Win Control of Congress

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006; 5:36 PM

Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) today conceded the election to Democrat James Webb, cementing Democratic control of the Senate.

"The people of Virginia have spoken . . . and I respect their decision," he said in a mid-afternoon speech outside the historic Carlyle House in Old Town Alexandria. He said he called Webb to congratulate him.

The race in Virginia was the last Senate seat to be decided in the mid-term election. Democrats will control 51 seats in the Senate in January. Democrats also easily captured control of the House of Representatives Tuesday.

Webb, in a late-afternoon victory speech at Court House Plaza in Arlington, said Allen was "very gracious" when he called today to concede.

Well once again, we see the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Call it a "Touch of Class." Unlike Al Gore, unlike the Democrat whiners who have been crying about "stolen elections" in Ohio and every where else they can get anyone to pay attention, and "Diebold," unlike those who are so callow as to imply that Senator George Allen is a racist, creating an issue where there was non, the Senator from Virginia graciously conceded his loss with no whining, no blaming of anyone. He accepted his loss as soon as the canvassing was completed. He didn't need any lawyers to file lawsuits against legitimate vote counts. No Senator Allen acted like a man and accepted his fate.

Similarly Senator Jim Talent from Missouri has taken reponsibility for his own loss, squared his shoulders, and conceded the election without whining about the fact that ballots ran out in areas of Missouri that are known to be Republican strongholds and that an untold number of voters were forced to give up their right to vote because of that. He didn't whine about the tens of thousands of illegally registered voters that ACORN submitted throughout the state. Both of those voting irregularities might have adversely affected the outcome in a substantial way, but instead of putting his career ahead of the good of the people, he chose to concede rather than contest.

Conrad Burns did the same inspite of a razor thin margin of loss. Why, because he knows that the electoral system is far more important than his own political ambitions are.

Would that Democrats had half as much class. Of course, I'm not naive. I know that these facts will not influence or affect the attitudes of those same hateful Democrats. Their arrogance prevents them from seeing there own flaws. They are far too busy pointing their fingers at the flaws of their Republican opponents. Most of them don't even know what class means, and they sure don't concern themselves with demonstrating any of it.

Full Story: Once more Republicans demonstrate what Democrats can't even comprehend, Class

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Let Bush be Bush (a "Moderate")

For Bush's New Direction, Cooperation Is The Challenge

By Dan BalzWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006; Page A01

Tuesday's electoral earthquake triggered an equally seismic reaction in Washington yesterday, one that signaled more clearly than ever that a politically humbled President Bush now agrees with a resurgent Democratic Party on the need for a change of course in Iraq. What was not clear was whether the two sides are genuinely prepared to work together to produce one.

In the wake of an election that swept Republicans from power in the House and left them on the brink of surrendering their Senate majority as well, both parties have greater incentives to reach accommodation than at any time since Bush was elected in 2000. Iraq will provide the critical test of whether either can overcome the ingrained habits and bad blood of six years of partisan warfare that have often left the Capitol in gridlock.

The president took the most dramatic step yesterday in acknowledging how much the landscape has changed. At a midday news conference he announced that he had accepted the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come to symbolize the administration's apparent unwillingness to change a policy that has failed to bring order to Iraq and that has lost popular support at home. Bush said it is time for "a fresh perspective" on the war.

"I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there," he said. "Yet I also believe that most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat."

Sorry Dan, not so much of a challenge. You made the mistake of believing your own propaganda. George Bush is not nor was he ever a "Conservative." He is a very nice, slightly Left of Center "Moderate." He will have no problem adjusting to working with Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. They can afford to be magnanimous now because they have won, so there will be peace on all sides.

You mention the "No Child Left Behind" initiative, I would add to that the Steel protection tarriffs, the billions in farm bills, the ethanol industry subsidies, etc. All of these are initiatives with which the Democrats have no quarrel. It is a certainty that his amnesty initiative for illegal immigrants will be well received and supported by the new Congressional leadership. In fact, I would say that the President's natural instincts lead him to be idealogically closer to the Democrats in Congress than to the Republicans who lost.

Sure, he has been resolute in the war on terror and in Iraq, but beyond that and his judicial nominees, his "Compassionate Conservatism" has more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans.

Bush appears to be more than ready to reach an accord with the Democrats on Iraq and the war against the Global Islamic Jihad.

Full Story: The Truth About "Conservative" President Bush

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hatred and Lies: What Paul Krugman and His Ilk Offer America

Limiting the Damage
By PAUL KRUGMAN

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.

There are still some people urging Mr. Bush to change course. For example, a scathing editorial published today by The Military Times, which calls on Mr. Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld, declares that “this is not about the midterm elections.” But the editorial’s authors surely know better than that. Mr. Bush won’t fire Mr. Rumsfeld; he won’t change strategy in Iraq; he won’t change course at all, unless Congress forces him to.

At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.

In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.

Telling the truth has never been a major concern for Mr. Krugman, so you Liberals out there have little to worry about today as Mr. Krugman once again confirms his bona fides as a Liberal (liar). First, I don't recall when it was that Krugman received his degree in Psychology, I would be interested to learn that one.

There is a major difference between President Bush and Krugman, President Bush is a man. I'm not exactly sure what Krugman is, but it's a sure bet that he wets his pants on a regular basis.

First lie, the implication that the Military Times has any authority as a representative of military attitudes. It is a Gannett publication. That is the same organization that publishes MacNewspaper (USA Today) and has Clinton cabinet member Donna Shalala sitting on its board of directors. Civilian owned and operated, it is mostly read by troops for the lists of promotions and official announcements. As a source of news, it is largely ignored by the troops.

Second lie, the press gave President Bush a "free ride" after 9/11. The critics of the president were in full voice very shortly after 9/11 and any silence was the result of cowardice, fear that the public would react negatively to criticisms, rather than respect or support for the President.

Third lie, that the EPA and CDC have become "FEMAfied" as though the failures of FEMA were a result of the Presidents choices. FEMA's performance, while dismal after Katrina and Rita, it was stellar when compared to the same organization's performance following Hurricane Floyd under the supervision of former President Bill Clinton. That kind of failure is representative of large government bureaucracies, not an aspect of someones inability to run the organization. That is a lesson that you Liberals seem incapable of comprehending.

Oh yeah, and Jack, we know where the voter fraud comes from. It comes from your side. ACORN has repeatedly been called down on fraudulently registered voters, including multiple registrations of the same individual and the registering of dead people. If you are concerned about the integrity of our elective process, you had best look to your own party.

You are a disgusting individual with the integrity of a snake. You lie with every keystroke you make. You would betray the American people for the sake of your own political agenda.

Full Story: Jack Krugman: Serial Abuser of the Truth

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Blue Press Desperate to Bolster Democrat’s Flagging Campaign

Will Malven
November 3, 2006

Okay, I know that last editorial was boring, but it had to be said just the same. Hope this one is more fun.

I just came across this little gem of Democrat propaganda on the WaPo website this morning. Seems that the Post will go to any extreme to aid their party in winning the upcoming mid-term election. We have long known that Liberals are very much willing to lie and distort the facts to achieve their political aims, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the constant pimping of the Democrat Party and their candidates by “news outlets” like the Post and the NY Times.

How Low Will Bush Go?
President's Scare Tactics Demean Politics and Voters

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 3, 2006; Page A21

If Democrats manage to take control of one or both houses of Congress on Tuesday, the reason will be that voters were not adequately roused into a state of heart-pounding, knee-knocking, teeth-chattering fear.

Err E.R., I’m not terrified, at least not yet. So it must not be working. Perhaps if Nancy “the Wicked Witch of the Left” Pelosi becomes Speaker I will be, but not yet. Are you, or are you just saying that those common voters whose intellect falls short of your prodigious, elitist, self-anointed, superiority are being frightened? Whoops! I interrupted didn’t I? Sorry.

Not that Republicans haven't been trying. George W. Bush used to claim he was "a uniter, not a divider," but that was a long time ago. These days, he'd probably try to deny the quote the same way he tried to disown "stay the course…"

Mr. Robinson, your neighbor hood must be pretty ignorant if you don’t comprehend the phrase “stay the course.” It doesn’t mean “don’t change anything,” it means “don’t quit before the job is completed.” It has always meant that and the really sad and despicable aspect of your articles and the attacks against the President based on the phrase by your Democrat candidates is that you know that is what is meant. Yet in your zeal to attain control of the government you continue to lie about what the President means. Oh! Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt, please continue:

Thus Bush openly accused those who disagree with his policy in Iraq of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," he said the other day.

Now Eugene, may I call you that? Eugene, I don’t know what you call it, but leaving Iraq before the job there is completed does sort of mean that the terrorists win and we lose, no matter how you choose to parse the words. Oops! Sorry, I did it again didn’t I? Please go on with your rant.

Call me naive, but I never thought a president of the United States would stoop so low as to accuse current and prospective members of Congress -- a number of whom, by the way, are decorated war veterans, unlike Bush or anyone in his inner circle -- of being pro-terrorist. But this administration has so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country that it's now more of a limbo stick: How low can you go?

Umm Eugene, we have had “decorated war veterans” betray our nation before. Surely as a “well informed member of the press” you know this? Perhaps you are naïve; after all you are a Liberal. How low can you go? Darn! I just can’t seem to restrain myself. Talk away:

I've pointed out in earlier columns the difference between a leader who faces troubled times with a message of bravery and optimism -- Franklin D. Roosevelt's stirring words about the Great Depression, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," constitute perhaps the best example -- and a leader such as Bush who encourages people to be afraid because their fear is advantageous to him politically.

Alright, that’s enough of your lies Eugene. First thing, you “intellectual giant,” FDR was speaking about the WAR, not the Great Depression. Yeeesh! Second, how about you provide us with a quote, a single solitary quote in which President Bush has told Americans that they should be living in fear. It is easy for a jerk like you to make an unsupported claim, you did it in this article and the one to which you link. Unfortunately, you provide nothing but your own claims to back up the allegations. You hew to the Democrat line as though you were writing it. The Democrats, like yourself, have been making this claim, that President Bush is trying to scare us into voting Republican for quite some time now, but I have yet to have heard any of his statements that would back up your claim. It sounds more like Democrat propaganda than it does a warning of actual campaign tactics by the Republicans.

As usual, lies follow from your “pen” like the ink inside it. Have you any doubt that our enemies are using the words of Democrats to promote their efforts among the Arabic speaking nations? Are you really that uninformed about what is taking place in the Middle East? If so, I suggest you get your head out of your…office (that’s office, not orifice) and read a little of the propaganda coming from the terrorists with whom we are engaged.

The number one source for talking points in use by Ahmin al Zwahiri’s, Kim Il Jung’s, Hugo Chavez’s, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches are the statements by members of the Democrat Party and members of the Paleo-press like yourself. Every accusation, every defeatist statement, every negative attack on our military and our soldiers (ala John F. Kerry-Heinz this week), and every call for a cut and run policy (in whatever guise the Democrats choose to dress it) is echoed by our enemies to undermine our troop’s moral and that of our allies in Iraq and elsewhere. In fact, you and your Democrat buddies are the number one source of enemy disinformation.

You accuse George W. Bush of fear mongering and use FDR’s statement as proof, without providing a single statement by President Bush with which to compare it. So please, allow me to provide a couple of statements from the current President for you. Let’s see how much fear-mongering he has been doing:

“The resolve of our great nation is being tested. But make no mistake: We will show the world that we will pass this test. God bless.” [September 11, 2001]

Is that the one Eugene? No? Well surely this next one:

“We will not allow this enemy to win this war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.” [September 12, 2001]

How about that one, it that it? No? Hmmm, here's one:

“…I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” [September 14, 2001]

Yeah, that’s it. That’s the one right…oh, I guess not.

“You will be asked for your patience; for, the conflict will not be short. You will be asked for resolve; for, the conflict will not be easy. You will be asked for your strength, because the course to victory may be long…Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our country, with courage and concern for others. Because this is America. This is who we are. This is what our enemies hate and have attacked. And this is why we will prevail.” [September 15, 2001]

Okay Eugene, are those the words you are talking about? I don't know bud that one sounds pretty strong to me. Or...maybe, is it something else that has you in such a stir, like maybe the truth of the statements the President made yesterday at a campaign stump in Georgia? Is this it:

“...The Democrats want to get us out of Iraq, and the Republican goal is to win in Iraq. I'm not saying these good folks are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. You can't win a war if you're not willing to fight it.

I want you to go home and think about what retreat from Iraq would mean before the job is done; it would embolden the enemy. It would enable them to ridicule countries like the United States to folks who are wondering where the balance of power will lay in the world. It will embolden the extremists and radicals. It will enable them to gain a new safe haven from which to launch further attacks on the United States. It would strengthen the hand of the extremists and deny hope to millions and millions of people who simply want to live a peaceful life. It would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who have worn our uniform.

I want you to understand in this different kind of war, if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here. Envision a world in which moderate governments have been toppled by the extremists because we left; envision a world in which people use oil -- extremists use oil as blackmail to the Western World; envision a world in which a country which can't stand America has a nuclear weapon. And people will look back and say, what happened to them in the year 2006? How come they couldn't see the impending danger to a generation of young Americans? Why weren't they willing to defend our security at that moment...?”

Oh, I get it now, you are confused. Eugene, you are making a common Democrat mistake. You are confusing telling the truth about the implications of a Democrat victory with fear-mongering. You are unhappy because President Bush is telling the people what will happen if Democrats win on Tuesday. I get it now.

Well please allow me to disabuse you of that impression. Fear-mongering is saying things that are untrue, like this quote from the New York Times:

“President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.” [By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: December 16, 2005]

The use of hot-button words designed to evoke fear, words like “eavesdrop on Americans,” or “domestic spying,” when you know that the program is specifically targeted at monitoring telephone traffic to and from known and suspected terrorist operatives within and outside of the US, is fear-mongering. Implying that the average citizen is being targeted by the Bush administration for “eavesdropping” is fear-mongering

A brief perusal of your own writings reveals a “journalist” whose primary concern seems to be the primacy of the Democrat Party and their socialist ideals at the expense of the freedom and economic well-being of the citizens of the United States. You are the great nay-sayer. Virtually every one of your columns is laced with lies about the individuals within the Bush administration and about the President himself.

Eugene, how low will you go?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Message From Our Troops to Senator John Kerry

Hey Senator Kerry, I didn't want you to miss this so I thought that I had better post it as much as possible.

Our troops wanted to send you this message:


Kerry, you're such a putz! Too bad George's grades were better than yours, no wonder you were in Vietnam.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below