Saturday, March 19, 2005

A Response to the February Portal-2005

I write for a small newsletter which is primarily Democratic and Liberal. After I wrote an article in January 4 people tried to criticize things I said. I could not publish my response due to a decision to keep politics out the mainstream...but no one says that I can't publish it here.

Based on February’s Portal I have to ask a question. How many Liberals does it take to try and refute one Conservative? The normal answer is 1, the Wogian answer is 4. I had other plans for my subject this month, but some of the liberal views which were promoted in response to my Conservative Viewpoint in January were so outrageous and contrary to history that I could not but respond.
First, know that the article in January was to demonstrate that Liberals would prefer Conservatives when they are silent, while liberals can speak their mind, anywhere, anytime. Those who know me, know that the original article in November was a presentation of “another viewpoint” which had never found its way into the Portal. I listened to 17 years of left-wing viewpoints in this newsletter which I and many others totally disagreed with, but kept silent. So here with some encouragement from our own colleagues, I agreed to write an article from a Conservative standpoint, not aiming my comments at those colleagues I felt were wrong, but merely offering my opinion. I wrote one article and found someone who could not read it without telling me how wrong I was, then the second article comes out and there are four “rebuttals” to my article on, oh what was the topic again…. “free speech.”
Let’s examine their words and talk about the framers for a minute. Some of my colleagues are trying to convince themselves that the framers were not part of organized religion and rejected their Christian beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth! Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. These facts do not come from what religion they were raised, or what others believed about them. They were asked to identify what their religious affiliation was at the time of the Convention. Contrary to myth, only 3 of 55 (5%) of the framers classified themselves as Deists (who still believe in God, by the way). There were 7 Congregationalists, 24 Episcopalians, 2 Dutch Reformed, 11 Presbyterians, 3 Deists, 3 Quakers, 2 Roman Catholics, 2 Methodists and 1 Lutheran. Therefore, the contention that Deism was a very popular way of thinking for the framers is contrary to history. Attendance at church was considered the norm during these times and most people were raised on stories from the Bible. The liberal view on this matter is called revisionist history. Liberals would like to think that their view was held by the framers so they can promote their anti-religion agenda, so when evidence comes to the contrary, they merely attempt to change history. These people would have us then think that the framers came up with a document for the good of the country whose tenets are contrary to their religiously based morality, values and principles. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" --Benjamin Franklin
Keep in mind also that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were adopted by the framers to promote freedom of religion, not suppress it. The framers put in the Establishment Clause to prevent the federal government from creating one particular religion that would otherwise inhibit our religious freedoms. It was in no way intended to keep religion out of the public arena.
Yes, Jefferson did have the words “separation of church and state” in his letters and so did many others. What the writer fails to acknowledge is that it is the spirit of the words and how they are enacted in society that is the problem today and what I was referencing. The misinterpretation of separation of church and state began with Justice Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Jefferson would be appalled at its interpretation in our world since the reason for writing the clause was opposite to its modern interpretation.
It is very important that when you criticize anothers words, you quote accurately. I don’t mind having an honest debate about something I said, but I don’t like to be misquoted, and I’m sure the framers would feel the same way. I never said that this country was founded on the Christian religion and neither did they. My words were that “this country was founded on values in the Judeo-Christian traditions.” I stand by that, because it’s true.
Another person accuses me of ranting and making unsupported claims. Which ones are unsupported? My colleague doesn’t say. Could it be that she is guilty of what she accuses me of? The writer had not heard the comments and seen the cartoons by some Liberals calling Condoleezza Rice, Aunt Jemima and assumes that because she has not seen these horrible writings that they simply do not exist. Yet, I went back into normal search engines on the internet, plugged in the two words, Rice and Jemima and got 117,000 hits. Apparently my colleague could not find the original racial slurs but managed to find two Democrats who denounced them. Wow! Two Democrats who found racial slurs a bad thing (one wasn’t Howard Dean). She further says that the radio DJ did offer to apologize, but admitted it wasn’t to Dr. Rice. Apparently this is fine with my colleague? Here’s a question for you. If I go up to someone and while laughing at them point at their face and tell them that they look like Porky Pig, and then I suddenly feel remorse and “apologize” by saying, “Sorry…….Porky,” do you honestly believe that this counts as an apology to the person I’ve actually offended? Not acceptable. As far as the political cartoons, I have not seen or heard as yet any retraction or apology of this blatant racism (this was what I was talking about in the article, by the way, not the DJ). This same person rants about inaccuracy and insults made by Rush Limbaugh. Like? Can you offer an example? Apparently not. Maybe they can’t find any, but just don’t like Rush. Talk about unsupported claims!
In another article, the author cannot figure out what a public forum means. No comment on that one, especially since I give many examples. When I said that “our country has been hijacked by the liberal left,” I am referring to the fact that well over 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas and yet we are unable to have a nativity in a school, or perform A Christmas Carol in public? When the majority view is put down and squashed by a small vocal minority, a valid term is “highjacked.” This writer asks that since we have a Republican Senate, Congress, Executive…..etc., “what exactly has been hijacked? Cognitive skills?” No sir….heart skills, tolerance skills, Constitutional skills. I was not speaking of the government, obviously! I am speaking of the media, the ACLU and all those “tolerant people” out there who deny the freedom of speech rights of the Constitution to religion.
Now, how about Louisiana. If you read my article, I never say that I thought the ACLU was wrong on legal grounds. I would have hoped that just one time, the ACLU would demonstrate that they are more interested in the welfare of children then they are in misinterpreting the Constitution. Isn’t it interesting that my colleague first points out that pregnancy and abortion are a big problem in Louisiana, so you would hope that people with any moral sense would back the state in their attempt to curb this. I have already demonstrated what the Establishment Clause means, so what religion is established by Louisiana’s programs? Nada, Bupkiss, Zero….None. Has the ACLU come up with a plan of their own to combat teen pregnancy, or was their aim just to frustrate the plans of Louisiana to try? "The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government." --Daniel Webster
How about this on the separation of church and state. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." I guess there was no ACLU back then.
The name of Thomas Jefferson was also thrown about quite a bit in last month’s Portal with quotes out of context that supposedly demonstrate Jefferson’s denial of his religious Orthodox beliefs . Yet, he himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” My colleague who claimed that Jefferson rejected his religious beliefs, please let me know where you found this hard to believe statement, and did you as most liberal s do, take things out of context. She goes on to state that the ACLU accused the State of Louisiana because they promoted "virgin birth." I realize that many people are not religious, but that statement is beyond ridiculous for anyone who know what that means. Which religion by the way did it promote. Why can't anyone tell me. To close, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist observed in 1985 that "the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." To this I totally agree! Do I hear an Amen?
God Bless America

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Freedom of Speech-Article that appeared in the January 2005 Portal

First, thank you for the many thumbs up I received after the first article and for your kind words of support. This column is unabashedly devoted to the Conservative viewpoint, family values, and that freedom for which many of our ancestors came to America for and many gave their lives for. Religious freedom. You may have heard of it. We don’t see much religious freedom and tolerance as of late in the public forum. I hear almost daily in the media about some in our society that would like to abolish any religious language, symbol and idea, i.e. no Christmas carols in some schools in Florida and New Jersey this past Christmas, including that rabble rousing hymn, “Silent Night”; and thanks to Tiny Tim, that little Dickens, there was no “A Christmas Carol” in Washington (he says, “God Bless Us, Everyone”). There are people that claim that these examples of aberrant behavior are not allowed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
So, here are some questions for all of you. Let’s play a little game. What part of the Constitution tells us that there must be a separation of Church and State and so by way of example, you can’t invoke your God at a graduation or other public function, or have a nativity scene in a school? Still looking? You’ll be looking for quite some time, because the answer is that it doesn’t appear in the Constitution. It’s not in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence either, and you won’t find it in the letters of Thomas Jefferson (maybe try the writings of Karl Marx). Where did this idea (that would be most foreign to our framers) come from? From our liberal friends, of course. The same ones who pushed Roe v. Wade down our throats. These are the same true-blooded Americans who recently told a Social Studies teacher that he couldn’t teach about the Declaration of Independence in his fifth grade class because it mentioned the word God?! These are the same Americans who told a fourth-grader who bowed his head in the school cafeteria to thank God for his food, that he had better stop or face disciplinary action. He didn’t pray aloud (that would have been horrible, wouldn’t it?), he didn’t invite anyone to join him. He merely bowed his head for a few moments and prayed silently. Fortunately for the other children, there was an alert teacher on duty and noticed this heinous act. This young man was eventually punished with a weeks detention after continuing this practice. I don’t know about you, but before this, I didn’t know anyone who came away from praying worse off then he was before. One must be careful nowadays.
How about this one from the ACLU. Most people I think would agree that abstinence in our youth should be promoted. The opposite view has brought nothing but misery, so you would think that when someone tries to promote abstinence it would find some support. The State of Louisiana on its website tries to promote premarital sexual abstinence. But the ACLU says that this violates the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution. How could this be, you ask? Because on the web site some young people expressed their view that one of the reasons they chose abstinence was because of their belief in God. I thought that we want freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Obviously, if you can’t express your opinion in this way it violates their freedom of speech. Also, in no way do these opinions endorse or try to set up a state religion as indicated in the establishment clause.
It is obvious to me, as it may be to you, that our country has been hijacked by the liberal left. It has been highjacked by people who claim to be pro-choice, until they find out that your choice differs from theirs. They would like you to be tolerant of their beliefs or lack of them, but they don’t have to be tolerant of yours. This country was founded on religious as well as conservative values in the Judeo-Christian tradition, yet the liberals who are in the minority are trying to tell us, and quite loudly at that, that we should give up all that we hold dear, and succumb to their relativist, secularist and humanistic values. Who do you think the framers would most resemble today, Liberals or Conservatives? Liberals want us to believe that we all are wrong about what the framers intended. They would have us believe that any mention of God defies the Constitution as does a Nativity scene in a public park. The comical part is that liberals are wondering how and why they have been losing many elections in recent years. I hate to break it to them, but I believe that most Americans are conservative and realize deep down what is going on. Some may talk a liberal streak to be chic or because some of their friends are, but when it comes to living, they live conservatively. My belief is that this sleeping giant has finally awakened and that we are disturbed at the direction that the liberal left would like to take us. The values most of us truly believe in are being thwarted. Belief in God is ridiculed. The church that has given so much to me has been trashed and is still being trashed. My sense is that we are finally ready to fight back. I know I’m ready.
How about this. Why do some liberals in the media have the audacity to make bigoted and racist remarks about Condoleezza Rice? Why do some liberals almost always attack people more often than they attack ideas? I think I know. Think back to when you were a whiny little kid. What did you do when you became frustrated while playing a game that you were losing. That’s right!! You called your opponent names. Just like a child who cannot have his or her way and can’t think of any intelligent thing to say, they always resort to name-calling. Now to be fair, we have all done this. But eventually it becomes time to mature, develop your core beliefs, learn to articulate them, and then stand up for yourself!
Dr. Rice is not an Aunt Jemima as some have recently labeled her. She is an extremely bright and articulate black woman who has risen to one of the highest positions in American government. I realize that it was too much to hope for, that Democrats who care so much about diversity and multiculturalism would have been pleased. Why do liberal Democrats call someone like Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom? I heard Harry Reid on Tim Russert recently. He said he thought that Thomas has been a disgrace. Really? Did Russert ask him, in what way? No, he did not bother to ask. Reid went on to say that some of Thomas’ opinions were not well written. Did Russert ask for examples, or ask which particular case he was referring to or even ask if he had really read them? No, he did not bother to ask. Oh, that’s right, this happened right after word got out that Thomas was being considered for Chief Justice. One more. How about Miguel Estrada. Born in the Honduras, with a juris doctor degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. No one, before the more tolerant Democrats found that he was going to be appointed by Bush could find anything wrong with Estrada. Yet, Senator Schumer and his liberal cohorts ambushed him with many inane and inappropriate questions.
Now, what do Rice, Thomas and Estrada have in common? Yes, they are minorities, (hmmm…a common thread). Yes, Rice is female. That may be a part of it. I think that there is another, bigger reason. Let me spell it out for you. They are all conservatives!! Now we all know that liberals feel that we can’t have narrow-minded conservatives especially minorities, who are all religious zealots sitting on the bench or in a high governmental position! Only Liberal Democrats have the integrity not to let their personal values influence their decisions (just take a look at John Kerry’s voting record).
Here’s a final thought. I know many people who began as a Liberal (me included) and who eventually realized that that was a wrong-headed view, and so became Conservative. How many do you know, began as a Conservative and later became a Liberal? Interesting, isn’t it? I couldn’t come up with one person either.

God Bless America


"Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since. The Ten Commandments provide the very foundation of our nation's legal code. They also make up the basis of the moral values that thankfully guide us in our everyday lives." --Lawrence Kudlow

"[T]oday, it is not coincidental that America, the country that most thinks in terms of good and evil, is the country that most affirms Judeo-Christian values. In the contemporary Western world, most people who identify with the Left -- meaning the majority of people -- hate war, corporations, pollution, Christian fundamentalists, economic inequality, tobacco and conservatives. But they rarely hate the greatest evils of their day, if by evil we are talking about the deliberate infliction of cruelty -- mass murder, rape, torture, genocide and totalitarianism. ... Ask leftists what they believe humanity must fight against, and they will likely respond global warming or some other ecological disaster (and perhaps American use of armed force as well). In fact, the Left throughout the world generally has contempt for people who speak of good and evil. They are called Manichaeans, moral simpletons who see the world in black and white, never in shades of grey." --Dennis Prager

Saturday, March 12, 2005


I’d like to also address a different kind of topic that is out there and that pops up once in a while in the news but is rarely discussed; euthanasia. This is where a patient asks repeatedly to die, fills out a form, and under the care of a physician is killed by him or her. Sounds simple. As a Catholic Christian, for me though, all life is sacred on any level or in any circumstance. I do of course understand the desire not to see a loved one suffer, I would just find it difficult to act upon these traumatic emotions.
Now, there are countries that already support the idea of doctor-assisted suicides, and what I would like to do is to show what can happen when these liberal ideas are promoted and sanctioned. The Dutch have had doctor-assisted suicides since 2001. As far as I know, there is a Hippocratic oath that doctors take. There are modern versions as well as the original one, but the ethical sense is there in either form. Here is a part of this oath, “I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.”
Now of course you can take an oath and disregard its intent. I don’t believe however, that this makes you a very honest person, but a deceitful one. What does a person think he/she is doing when they take an oath without any intent to keep it? Here we have doctors who are sworn to protect life, killing off their patients. I guess who could ask of someone a high degree of moral/ethical behavior when just being honest was too difficult.
My point is, that the Dutch have been doing this for a while now, and they would be a model for anyone else who would like to try it. So let’s look at the Dutch and see how successful killing off their weak and infirm has been. Apparently it appears that it is going well, as there has not been one complaint from their patients, unlike those that are living who complain about their medical care constantly. Basically though, the new twist that concerns me in additional to my previous concern, is that the Dutch have now come to the conclusion that having doctor-assisted suicides are not enough only for the infirm. Now they would like to kill off those who aren’t even sick. In a recent article from The British Medical Journal it says, "Doctors can help patients who ask for help to die even though they may not be ill but 'suffering through living,' concludes a three year inquiry commissioned by the Royal Dutch Medical Association."
So now the bar has fallen considerably hasn’t it? Give them an inch and they take a mile, give them a foot….well, you get the idea. In less than five years they have taken an already morally unacceptable act and decided that not enough deaths are taking place and would like to kill off some of the “well” patients in addition. This past November a Dutch hospital even revealed that they have been euthanizing (killing) infants!? According to their own belief system, the person who wants to die has to request it. But these are infants! Some have called this progress. I call it regress and infanticide. This behavior has been found only find in the most bizarre, primitive and barbaric societies.
To close I would just like to offer you some comical absurdities.
Dan Rather, was interviewed and talked about the feeling that CBS for him is like a Camelot. Then he added, "Ed Murrow's ghost is here. I've seen him and talked to him on the third floor of this building many times late at night. And I can tell you that he's watching over us." Maybe Dan should have asked Ed about those Bush papers that were typed on a computer in Microsoft Word but looked to him after an exhaustive investigation to be 1970’s vintage Reserve Documents.
A random thought. Islamic fundamentalists believe that they will be given 72 virgins should they give their life for jihad. My thought was….who said the virgins were going to be female??? SURPRISE!!
And now it’s time for that spectacular game show, “Let’s Ask Mr. Nuance!” John Kerry finally revealed why he believes that he “lost” the election. And the answer Mr. Nuance gave is…, “We didn’t lose the election, we just didn’t win it.”
Well alrighty then, now I get it!!! Thank you, Senator for making the obvious available to us who are nuanced challenged. I guess it really depends on what “win” means. Pass the ketchup.

God Bless America

After the Election and Fairy Tale Democrats

I had thought that after the election, I would have some difficulty finding topics to talk about. The opposite has proven to be true. As long as there are liberals “out there” (I mean that literally as well as figuratively) there will be ample things to mull over. If you listen to far-left media like Air America and your run-of-the-mill liberal media (CNN, CBS etc.), you will notice that the Democrats really are like Chicken Little, with their “the sky is falling” attitude. Listen to them on TV, in the papers, on the internet. “Everything is bad. Bush not only has done nothing, but he’s dangerous. We’re losing the war, the world hates us, the ozone layer is depleting, caribou are dying….Lions and Tigers and Bears…. Oh My….!!” In the meantime, these same liberals are eating out often, buying new cars and new homes, going on lengthy vacations and purchasing lovely little items for themselves to prove that…well gee…things are not going so well.
Getting back to fairy tales, there is another more telling story that Liberals espouse in their basic attitude. The name of this fairy tale is, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” You know the story. Liberals have been saying how bad things are under our President, and how he is like a wolf, ready to destroy America. Yet, most people look around and don’t see all this negativity (unless you’re predisposed to negativity). Liberals would still prefer the happy go lucky Clinton years with scandal after scandal, lie after lie and smirk after smirk. Now we have a President with moral clarity and who actually does what he says and it paints an historical picture that shows the stark difference between decadence and integrity. Many people believe these fabrications (at first) about Bush because the Liberals have one definite core belief. If you tell a lie long enough, someone is bound to believe it. Well, that’s true to a point. But as in the story, after you cry wolf too many times, and there is no wolf, the boy eventually becomes a nuisance and will be ignored (Democrats….where?).

The Difference Between Clinton and Bush

Reading American history makes one remember that our freedom did not come cheaply, freedom never does. Remember the Revolutionary War? Are we willing to fight to become a new nation, or do we belong forever to the King of England? We chose freedom and fought for it. Our fledgling country cost dearly in lives, 11,000 dead and wounded. How about the Civil War? Even though we said we were the “land of the free,” not everyone was. That cost dearly also, over 550,000 dead and wounded. So many in this country gave up their lives to make us free, as well as spreading freedom and stopping atrocities in Europe, as in World War I and II for instance. From my readings it would seem to me that most of Europe would be speaking German and goose-stepping right now if it weren’t for Uncle Sam and the Allied Forces. I am not of the political opinion that the United States is wrong in many of the cases where it is accused, and I am frankly disturbed at those that do feel that way. There is so much anti-American sentiment and cynicism, much of it coming from Americans. Yet we are the ones who stepped in time after time around the world and have accomplished what no other country had the guts to do. We have been generous with some that didn’t even deserve it, giving them food, medicine, money and troops. Why? Because we’re the good guys. Now as you know, good guys make mistakes too, and heaven knows our country is not perfect, but what we stand for is!
My belief in God and what I can gather about Him (God is genderless, I am simply using the pronoun used in the Old and New Testaments) tells me in no uncertain terms that He meant all people to be free. Not just some, but all. When someone comes along like a Hitler, Stalin or Hussein they have to be stopped. While Sadaam only killed 1.3 million as compared to Hitler’s six million, and only tried to invade one country compared to Hitler, do you not see a pattern here? In terms of our country, we perhaps would not have had the where-with-all to battle the Brits if we had been suppressed for thousands of years beforehand. We may have needed someone’s help with that. Yet, this is what Iraq faced. Of course there are people who don’t want a free Iraq, and they are fighting to keep it. If you are a terrorist and have had your way killing and raping wantonly, you would want to protect your little empire. Remember, there were those who did not want to see an America born. We however, dug in our heels and did it anyway, becoming as far as I am concerned the greatest country on earth.
Some of us feel “lucky” that we live in a free country. I don’t have much use for the word “lucky” especially when you are referring to the comparison of living in a dictatorship or being free. I wonder if the Iraqi’s feel “luckier” now, or do you think they preferred the “luck” they felt under Sadaam’s rule? Do you think, if we could somehow talk to a soldier from the Civil War or World War I, that he would be happy if we thanked him for making us feel “lucky?” I think the WW I veteran would be speechless at the thought that he and his comrades left their families behind, went off fighting in some foreign country, got shot at and many died so that we would feel, “lucky.”

Let’s answer the tricky question that appears to mind boggle Liberal Democrats. Let’s go back to what President Bush said in his speech after 9/11. You might remember that night when Democrats and Republicans stood side by side and applauded the strong words of our President. That lasted a few weeks until Democrats realized that Bush was about to do things that Clinton couldn’t even dream of. I will refresh your memory, in case you have forgotten. President Bush realized what President Clinton refused to acknowledge. The acts of terrorism by Muslim fanatics were an act of war, not a law enforcement issue.
President Bush said, “Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. 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. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
It has been well documented that Iraq funded and had training camps for terrorists. Sadaam, himself a terrorist, killed, tortured and imprisoned many. The death toll for the Iraqi people numbers over 1.3 million, and for many of these deaths Sadaam used weapons of mass destruction. Iraq then qualifies as a hostile regime. Now, why did President Bush feel that he had to take a more forceful approach and why have Islamic fundamentalists called the U.S. soldier a “paper tiger?” Let’s look at President Clinton’s way of handling terrorism and find out why Bush reacted differently.

Remember these events perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists? Here are a few.
1993, October-18 Soldiers killed in Somalia. Many cheered as the body of an American was dragged through the streets.
*Response by President Clinton-Ordered our troops home.
1995, November-Five Americans killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia,
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1996, June-U.S. Air Force complex bombed in Saudi Arabia. 19 dead, 224 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1998, November-President Clinton wanted to bomb Iraq but folded when the UN said no. (I guess they didn’t want to jeopardize their take for the oil for food program).
1998, August 7th -U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. 224 dead, 5,000 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
1998, August 20th -Monica Lewinsky testifies.
*Response by President Clinton-Bombed Afganistan and Sudan. (Don’t worry, there was no damage, except that poor camel)
1998, December 16th -House of Representatives to impeach President Clinton
*Response by President Clinton-Major air strikes against Iraq
1999, April-Impeachment
*Response by President Clinton-End Military Action
1999, October-U.S.S. Cole bombed. 17 dead, 39 wounded.
*Response by President Clinton-Nothing
2001, September 11-Attack on the World Trade Center, Attack on the Pentagon, Flight 93, 3,030 dead.
*Response by President Bush-won the freedom and liberation of 2 countries, captured Sadaam Hussein, killed many leaders of Al-Qaida including Sadaam’s two sons. Hospitals and schools now being built. Elections held in Afganistan and a successful election in Iraq. Women are free to work or attend school. No more mass graves or children in prisons. Iraq once again on the stock market.

We all know by now about the Sudanese offering President Clinton Osama Bin Laden on three separate occasions. The President turned them down all three times.

Some try and fault President Bush for not being more proactive and prepared for 9/11 though he had been in office a mere eight months. The above however chronicles President Clinton’s watch of eight years. It’s time to be intellectually honest about a few things. President Clinton had eight years, knowing full well what people like Bin Laden could do and decided not to act. Yet, if President Clinton knew all this, why did he consistently choose to cut the military and recommend an abolishment of the CIA? There is a ton of evidence out there that strongly suggests that President Clinton made some incredibly wrong decisions regarding our military and our ability to have adequate military intelligence. Let’s face it. Clinton was never pro-military.
To those who are unhappy that there are free people in Iraq and Afganistan must believe that these people were better off before, and that a dictatorship is preferable to a democracy. If you really believe that, there are still a few nations that have dictatorships. I’ll help you pack.

God Bless America