I voted...

this week. As usual, when I vote early, I then get totally turned off by all of the TV ads, and my attention returns full time to my work.

It is so painfully obvious just how biased the media is in this election cycle. I was listening to a conservative radio program the other day, as the host used all of the know facts to debunk the Al Qa Qaa story. On the hour, the Clear Channel station would break for "news". Of course, the news was all about how the Bush administration lost 370 (or whatever number) tons of munitions. Geese, you'd think the news department would pay attention to the stations programs, and not continue to spew the propaganda!!!

Speaking of, I am SOOOO tired of the Kerry propaganda. However, I do like that President Bush is asking for votes from the Democrats. As he should, because I certainly don't recognize the Democratic Party anymore.

Perhaps it IS time for 3 political parties. I don't believe that would work too well in Congress, but what we should probably have is a Democrat Party, made up of Hollywood liberals (and Hollywood wan-a-be's), a Republican Party, made up of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (whomever that is), and the Moderate Party, made up of us normal folks!@!@!@

If nothing else, it would possibly make the TV commercials more interesting...

Part II of Laura's speech ....

can be found here.

Vietnam Vets for Truth

This is why I would never vote for John Kerry. I spent 4 years in the military in the late 1970's. To me, this was a college education in itself. The military, whether intentional or not, teaches discipline, self-respect, and trust. This isn't for everyone, but most adapt and excel.

Laura Armstrong talks about honor, among other things. And I do remember what honor meant when I was in active duty. For one, it meant respecting your fellow soldiers, and respecting the country you serve.

It's interesting that my first impression of John Kerry as a Presidential candidate reminded me of certain people (who will remain unamed) whom I met in the military....opportunists (for lack of a better term). These were people that stood out, not because they were good people, or good soldiers, but because they were so adept at taking advantage of the military system for their own personal gain. Unfortunately, loyalty to this country meant next to nothing. Don't "break" the rules, but take advantage of everything to get ahead personally. Not someone I would trust in the heat of a battle.

Eventually these people seemed to pay a price for this. But has John Kerry actually taken this to a new level? Could he become the President? Could this man, who used a "splinter" to win a Purple Heart, become Commander in Chief?

And I thought Clinton's behavior was a terrible example for our children. Where are we, as a society, possibly headed if this guy is President? What new role model would our children be imitating?

Laura Armstrong, kudos to you for articulating your feelings so well. My congratulations to you for remaining such a strong person and true American. It is truly a sad day that someone like Kerry could even rise to this level. Hopefully the American voters will come to the rescue. It certainly would be about time that American voters protected the troops vs the other way around!

Kerry and Chaney's daughter

I have a very basic opinion of this: Although I don't expect Kerry to take the "high road" on any issue during the debate, his true character is again dramatically exposed. The MSM chooses to constantly portray Kerry as being "Presidential" during the debates, but his approach again illustrates his tasteless character.

Presidential? Not even close.

Democracy and personal safety

I hope I can do this justice, so please bear with me.

One of the dinner conversations I had while in California was with a young, articulate, educated gentleman from Singapore. He strongly disagreed with the war in Iraq, and based his position on the premise that "democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be".

His position was that the Iraqi people don't "feel safe" under the current environment (which would be understandable), and that they lived in a much safer environment under Saddams rule. He believed that under Saddam, as long as they didn't disparage their leader in any way, they were safe from any harm. But with a democratic government, they were constantly fearful of terrorism.

He used Indonesia (where he was born and raised) as his justification for this. Basically, he said that when "democracy" came to Indonesia, all hell broke loose, and many people fled the country for fear of their lifes (refugees). He cited the current terrorism problems as a "democracy" problem, but if a dictatorship existed, this problem would not exist.

I asked him that, if this were true, where are all the refugees leaving Iraq? He said there are "millions" of refugees pouring out of Iraq because of the terrorism. I challenged him on this, although the only information I have is that people leaving Iraq has dramatically declined in the last few months (I don't have the source for this handy). He came back with "yeah, well the wealthy are leaving" (no evidence, tho). If this is true, is that because they CAN leave....now? And with Saddam, they couldn't? This ended the conversation.

Ironically, he lives in Singapore, which seems to be a shining example of a democratic republic, with a strong free-trade economy, and a strong court system, and an establish congressional-type system. Although I am certainly not an expert on Singapore or Indonesia (or Iraq for that matter), I would think that if he really believed in his theories, he would live in a dictatorship-ruled country for his own safety sake.

CA liberals

I just returned from spending a few days in the San Francisco area. I was there attending sales meetings. Naturally, I found myself engaged in a variety of political discussions.

As you would expect, there were many Kerry supporters. But what surprised me, especially among this "educated" crowd, was how their arguments for Kerry were all "anti-Bush", and were very DNC rhetoric. None of them seemed "educated" to facts, nor did they seem interested in the facts.

In fact, during one discussion, I mentioned the Duelfer report as evidence of justification (after the fact, anyway) of why removing Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do, and how Saddam was no doubt related to our WOT efforts. This stopped the conversation cold....but not because they agreed, but because they didn't know what it was!

Another discussion centered around taxes, and a young man took the position that it was wrong that the "rich" could get away with paying only 15% (or so) tax rates. I believe he was referring to reports about Kerry's wife, but he wouldn't admit it, and offered no other evidence. However, he used this as a reason to vote for Kerry, as if Kerry would change the rules so that his wife would have to pay more taxes!

I am amazed how even the "educated" in this country are so naive. Most still seem to believe that they can learn about the issues through the Main Stream Media. I don't know whether to be depressed, or challenged!

WMD thoughts

I have been travelling a lot lately...haven't had any time to blog. Plus, for some reason, I have had rotten luck finding quality internet connections. Not as bad as cell service, though.

This is a good read as to what we now know about WMD in Iraq (among other things). Did President Bush make the right decision? I think so, but read it first before you decide.

WWIV

This is a must read.

After all of the rhetoric and misinformation, as well as the biased Press, it will take a lot of courage for many of the "undecideds" to vote for Bush. However, if Kerry is elected, all Americans had better prepare to really find there courage. That would definitely embolden the terrorists. I think Cheney said something along these lines recently. After reading the above essay, I dare say his assessment is correct.

As I've said all along, it's easy to be an arm-chair quarterback, which is what the Democrats consistently do. But calling the shots in the heat of the battle, especially at the level of President, with these stakes, has got to be something else. NOT a job for someone who second-guesses themself.

VP Debate Thoughts

As usual, Hugh Hewitt covered this well. Cheney was very good, and had some great zingers relative to the WOT. I wish he was that strong on economic issues. Edwards simply spews rhetoric.

This debate makes it obvious the difference between being an arm chair quarterback, and being the REAL quarterback. Most people can criticize after the fact. How many can make the right decision when necessary, and not freeze with "analysis paralysis".

I think Kerry is a professional whiner. I would not trust him to make critical decisions at a moments notice, and then commit to them. Bush has proven that he can, and will, do this.

My personal criticism of Clinton is that he never appeared to make the hard choices. He seemed to be driven by polls, not instinct. I think Kerry is very similar, and Edwards seems smart enough to know better....but has been hired to be a rhetoric machine.

I hope the majority of American voters can see this.

Denver Post and the Lone Star Iconoclast

The Denver Post is an extremely Liberal paper. Here is an editorial about Bush's home town paper. I would love to see the Blogosphere discuss this one....

Rathergate

How many times have we heard the Press call for someone's resignation for an ill-advised comment or deed? In most cases, these requests seem justified. Unfortunately, some cases appear to be targeting someone who was just being frank and telling the truth, but paying the price for honesty.

With the absence of any Press organization calling for resignations or firings at CBS for the Rathergate memos, I feel that the Press has forfeited any credibility to continue this practice in the future.

Iraq then, Iraq now...

The basic role of the US in the world today is both militarily and economically driven. If the US chooses not to take on this responsibility, terrorists and rogue states would have a field day disrupting the global economic climate (to their benefit).

For those who compare the current Iraq situation to the Iraq-Kuwait war, I have this to say: the first Iraq war was about oil, and its affect on the global economy. WMD and terrorism may have been a factor, but most (if not all) coalition members were concerned about the affect Saddam could have on the global economy by controlling so much of the world oil production. I think freeing the Kuwait people was secondary (no disrespect intended).

However, the current Iraq situation is certainly focused on the terrorism aspect, with oil as a secondary concern (oil meaning global economic impact), not to mention freeing the Iraqi people. Naturally, many countries will have a different perspective as to commitments to joining a coalition dealing Iraq. There certainly have been many articles concerning France, Germany, and Russia's vested interest in Saddam and oil, and appeared to not have a concern relative to the terrorist threat. No surprise that they were not part of the coalition. But many countries certainly have a vested interest in this conflict, both from a terrorism perspective, and ultimately, an economic perspective.

I praise President Bush and his administration for pulling together the current coalition based upon these circumstances, but to me it wasn't necessary. Even if we went totally alone to oust Saddam, many of these countries would have been thankful for the US's commitment to eliminating this potential threat, and it again demonstrates the courage and commitment of the US to take a lead role in the world. I, as a US citizen, certainly feel much better that Saddam is deposed. To me, this does eliminate some of the terrorist threat, and I feel more bullish about the economy ahead as a result (although I believe the terrorist threat continues to be the biggest issue).

I am also extremely grateful for the efforts of all of our troops. It's too bad that the American Press can't be bothered to feel a sense of patriotism, and show some leadership and courage to congratulation our armed forces on a job well done. This would go a long way towards building US goodwill in the world, the effects of which would further strengthen our economy.

9/11 did change everything. I think it is absolutely the wrong time to elect a war protestor as the President of the US. The US (and many other countries) are in the biggest and most difficult fight ever. First, we must protect the global economy, because it's collapse at the hand of terrorists and/or rogue states would be disasterous. With a healthy global economy, then we have the opportunity to win this terrorism battle, saving millions of lives in the process. And at the head of this battle is the President of the US (not the UN). This undoubtedly requires an exceptionally strong person (and staff) with total, undeniable commitment.

Here's to making the right choices!

High Level opinions from high altitude

I began life as a Democrat, watched my father getting suckered into "welfare" programs for farmers, and ultimately retire as a Republican. I have been moving steadily to the right as a result of getting older. However, spending the Carter years in the military, followed by watching Reagan follow by making the "right" decisions (both economically and militarily) and Clinton running the country by polls, I have come to support the Republicans (although not on all issues).

I am sick and tired of seeing the Press report on subjects they obviously know nothing about, and denigrating the world view of the US in the process. Not to mention intentional misleading of many unsuspecting Americans. I would love to find a way to help those Americans who don't have access to the Internet understand that there are sources of truth available which are NOT the American press. I am constantly looking for more robust and fair viewpoints of American politics.