 |
"Their View" Archives:
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
What They Thought July 18, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
R.A.
Hawkins Listening to many of the liberals these days regarding global warming is quite amusing in a way. They tend to run to the ‘Kyoto Protocols’ as though it were a Bible, or at least something brought down on high by Hermes or Gaia. The ‘Kyoto Protocols’ are simply designed to do the same thing that Stock Market Globalism is doing: shift industry elsewhere, which is what the Third World countries want. That alone shows it to be a fraud. They want our technology and industrial prowess because they don’t have anything like it. At least they didn’t until Globalism came along. Our technology is being sent to second-rate Third World countries, and we aren’t even developing anything to replace it. That is exactly what the ‘Kyoto Protocols’ are all about - breaking our industrial back. There are a lot of people who don’t believe in global warming. I have some good news and some bad news for them. I’ll give you the bad news first. Global warming is real. Now for the good news: Even the Pentagon is planning for it. It is simply a natural cycle that can be tracked through the millennia. There are numerous things that contribute to the cycle, one of which is called Precession. You can see the natural cycle as it has played out through nature’s map of the cycles at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html. The solution to the problem is one we all need to be working on. The real solution doesn’t have anything to do with giving our technological lead to somebody else, either. I do realize that I have provided a few facts here which will cause the liberals to scurry back to their dogma since science has failed them again. The effects of this natural cycle will more than likely be a decrease of ten degrees in the north, and a five degree decrease in the south. Drought and a lot of other things will accompany this. Europe will need a lot more oil because of this, just like us. Right now is a good time to begin planning for this. Look at our housing for example. We use stick frame houses that require large amounts of energy when it gets either hot or cold, which it does most everywhere in the world at some point during the year. Look at our gas guzzling vehicles: The moment the oil prices stabilized we went off like a bunch of students from an all girls school that were suddenly in a coed environment. Now we have hummers on the highway? Hey, if you can afford it go ahead, but the price is going to continue to go up. Me? I went for a cheaper-to-operate vehicle, and if it weren’t for the laws the liberals managed to create while they ran Congress for forty years, I would be driving a moped or an enclosed go-cart to work. Don’t laugh. Some of those things can clip along at a pretty good pace. The only problem is that they are more than likely going to get run over by a liberal in an SUV. There will be changes to come because of global warming and it is up to individuals to correct them. Don’t leave it to the government to fix it. I am quite happy that I live in a place where the laws are such that if I should make a house out of mud and it collapses on me, well, tough luck. I should have planned it better; and at least I saved money on the burial fee. I’m currently looking at the concept of the EarthShip, which can be found at http://www.earthship.org/. Even though I think liberals are idiots for the most part, there are some who have come up with some interesting ideas, and this is one of them. There are those that talk and those that walk. It is a good way to battle inflation and rising energy costs. I know a few people who have been disconnected from the grid for quite a while and love it. I intend to join that group soon. The interesting part about the EarthShip is that you not only operate on solar power, you are also raising food in those windows. It is a concept that should interest the John Galts of the world. The general concept is pretty neat. It is a way of attacking the cost of living. Yes, it is a concept that was created by a liberal, or greenie as they are often called. We have all been watching the liberals for a long time and most of us should recognize by now that even a stopped clock is right once in a while. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater unless its last name is Edward$ R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Want more opinions? Don't forget the Lady Liberty "Our View" and "Your View" pages!
Lady Liberty's "Their View" Contributors: R.A.
Hawkins Kerry
L. Marsala Jonathan
David Morris SARTRE |
|||||
Are two lawyers, disguising themselves as politicians, really what Americans need to have unleashed on them? America surely needs for her survival two important seats such as the President's and the Vice President's to be run by those who love to 'interpret' their version of our Constitution - or who at least give the power of interpretation over to judges. We all know Americans have been slowly hypnotized into believing they are too dumb to understand politics or our law. We need the "Double-Mint" guys, Kerry and Edwards, so we can experience "double the pleasure" of watching our country being gummed to death by powerful socialistic Democrats. Kerry first was hired as a prosecutor, landing the job due to his connections with the Kennedy family. After all, he had dated First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy's half-sister during high school and college. Kerry evidently was the whirlwind that John Droney of the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office needed. Droney (who was a political veteran and had worked in John F. Kennedy's campaigns) evidently saw the hunger for political ambitions in Kerry's eyes, and every liberal politician it would seem must at one time or another have been a lawyer. After Kerry's brief stint at the Middlesex County District Office, he went into private practice for a short time.You'll never guess what one of his most notable cases was: it was representing patients who had signed up for hair transplants only to be given implants of carpet fibers. So this explains the two nice full heads of hair on Kerry and Edwards. The hair gods must have smiled and blessed them both with ample heads full of hair, not brains. Not long after Kerry's "hairy case," the court appointed Kerry to a criminal case. Kerry, it is stated, realized he didn't want the guy out on the street. Lawyer John Kerry believed that it took a"certain kind of makeup" (or maybe a hairstyle) as a lawyer to dedicate yourself to having someone like that out on the street. Kerry said he knew that our system states someone has to represent everyone, but he "just couldn't do it." So Kerry stepped aside from this one. Maybe it just was't going to propel him enough into politics. (Courtesy Mike Williams Cox News 7/28/04) What if John Kerry as our President decided one day that he just couldn't represent we the people on the street? Could Kerry just say, "He couldn't do it?" I am sure it's become quite evident to most of us that Kerry's only real interest is making goody-goody with the Presidents of the UN, France, and Germany, and the need for a good hairstylist. Next in the "double our lawyer" fun we have Kerry picking John Edwards as his running mate. Both practiced law, both have great hair, both can't make up their minds on where they stand on issues. and both have a long history of voting extremely to the left. Edwards though didn't grow up with a silver brush for his hair like Kerry. Edwards' father was only the supervisor of a textile factory and his mother, Bobbie, was just a post office worker who also ran an antique store. Like most of us in this country, Edwards' parents worked hard, had a family, lived in a house, and raised children. Doesn't sound so bad; it's what most of us Americans do every day, and we love it. It sure beats what the families in Iraq were having to do before the Bush Administration freed them, but I digress. Edwards, like many, was the first in his family to go to college. Edwards earned his law degree, then he began to see the money in being a trial lawyer. The list hyped for Edwards' successes as a trial lawyer is great. He knows how to move a jury into suing doctors. Even his lawsuit against a doctor in 1985 - whose patient's baby was born breech and was believed to have caused cerebral palsy - has holes in it. No one yet has ever proven a correlation between a baby born breech instead of C-Section to decrease the number of birth defects (courtesy Mark Steyn Opinion Telegraph 11/04). No matter. Edwards' paychecks just kept getting fatter.In Edwards' 20 years as a lawyer, he has a number of trophies he can boast and mount on his living room wall. In at least 63 big cases, he won more than $152 million. That, my friends, is trial lawyer savvy. Do you now understand why we have such high insurance rates? It's called ambulance chasing. There isn't a balance between holding deplorable health care treatment and the disgusting sue-happy trial lawyers in check. It is lopsided at best, and it is costing Americans more money every year. Does our country really need the "Double-Mint" Twins? Do we really need lawyers telling us we know what's best for you and interpreting the logic out of our constitution? This country doesn't need any more lawyers let alone two in one of the most influential offices in the world. Send Kerry back to one of his many homes his wife, Theresa Heinz, owns. From there he can bemoan how awful he feels about President Bush finally telling the UN to step off over Iraq. Kerry needs to get over it. America and her allies had waited patiently and let too many failed resolutions pass before we went to war on terror. Or maybe Kerry could join the ICC Global Court as a prosecutor against American Soldiers fighting for his rights to have great hair. Send Edwards back home to North Carolina, if they'll have him - he couldn't even carry the state. Maybe instead of making millions off of other people's pain, he could give some of that money to what he calls"the other America." Edwards loves to speak of this fictitious little girl: "Tonight a 10-year-old little girl will go to bed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm." (courtesy Mark Steyn opinion telegraph 11/04). Edwards, if there are two Americas, then you and those who think like you and who carry a balance in their accounts of a million plus, just go ahead and share your riches with those less fortunate. Don't make more laws that raise my taxes. You pay it. Most people I know didn't take in $152 million in the last twenty years. But you did and many of your supporters (entertainers, Hollywood elites, George Soros, etc.) took in this much and more. Go home and get out your big wad of hundred dollar bills, and start putting your money where your mouth is. Leave ours alone. Kerry and Edwards-
two lawyers in one - go home! America doesn't want your "lawyering",
your lies, your flip-flopping on votes, your alliances with the UN,
your greed, and most of all, we don't want you picking our back pockets. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004, 8:03 AM: John Kerry: Hello? John Edwards: John Kerry please. Kerry: This is John Kerry. Edwards: Oh, hi John Kerry. This is John Edwards. Kerry: John Edwards? Edwards: The gum-chewing senator with the Southern charm? Kerry: Oh, that John Edwards. Hi John. How are you? How did they fit you inside my phone? Edwards: You're such a kidder. But seriously, I'm doing just fine. Yourself? Kerry: Can't complain. Can't complain. Edwards: Well, great, John. Listen: I talked with my people this morning, and my people informed me I'm going to be your running mate. Kerry: They did, huh? Did your people call my people? Edwards: Yes, John, from what I understand. Kerry: Because I care about people. I fought in Vietnam. Edwards: And I think that's tops, John, but listen: While I've got you for a moment, I just want to thank you. Kerry: For what, now? Edwards: For picking me as your vice president. Kerry: I picked you as my vice president? Edwards: You sure did, and I want to say thanks. Kerry: Who may I ask is calling? Edwards: It's still me, John. Kerry: Is this my conscience? Edwards: No, it's -- Kerry: If this is my conscience, I told you: I don't have the money. Edwards: No, it's me, John. John Edwards. Are you getting bad reception or something? Kerry: No thanks, John-John. We're happy with MCI. Click. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004, 8:09 AM: Kerry: Hello? Edwards: Hello, John, it's John Edwards again. I think we got disconnected. Look, I just want to thank you for picking me as your running mate. It really means a lot. I -- Kerry: Stop. You had me at hello. Click. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004, 12:13 PM: Edwards: Hi, John Kerry please. Kerry: This is John Kerry. Edwards: Hi John. This is John Edwards. Again. I thought I'd wait till after lunch to call you. Kerry: Oh, hey, John Edwards. Haven't heard from you in ages. How are you? Edwards: I'm all right. I'm hanging in there. But listen, John, it's all over the wires now: "Kerry picks Edwards as running mate." I just want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. You didn't have to do that. I won't let you down. Kerry: I'm sorry. You'll have to speak up. I'm a bit aloof in my left ear. Edwards: Thank you, I said. I won't let you down. Kerry: Much better. Go ahead now. What were you saying? Edwards: Oh, good Christ. I said thank you. Thank you for picking me as your running mate. You've really got your finger on the pulse of this country. You're going to make a fantastic president. Kerry: Now, wait a minute. You're talking crazy talk here. Am I to understand that I'm running for president? And I picked you as my running mate? Edwards: Yes, John. That's correct. Kerry: Why wasn't I made aware of this? As president, don't you think the fact that I'm running for president is something I should know? Edwards: Traditionally, John. Sure. But I -- Kerry: Where have I been? Have I been living in a cave? I was in 'Nam, you know. Also Antietam. Most of that's true. So what happened to Dean, or whatever his name was? I thought he was running for president? Edwards: He was. He dropped out. Kerry: He did, now, did he? That's a shame. He really had his finger on the pulse of this country. How about me, then? When did I drop out? Edwards: You didn't drop out, John. You've got the nomination. You're in it to win it. You and me both. Kerry: We both are? Then what makes me so sure I've got the nomination? How can I beat George Bush if I can't get past John Edwards? Edwards: But you did get past me. You wiped the floor with me in the primaries. Kerry: Then why the hell did I pick you as my running mate? Shouldn't I go with a winner? You're not making sense. Get me on the phone with Michael Dukakis. We're going to beat this George Bush fellow whether we like it or not. What? Edwards: I didn't say anything. Kerry: All right. I have to go. Click. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004, 6:09 PM: Edwards: Hello? Kerry: John Edwards please. Edwards: Speaking. Kerry: Hi John. Did I wake you? Edwards: No. Who is this? Kerry: This is John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president. Edwards: Finally! I've been waiting all day for this call. So what's up? Is there something you have to tell me? Kerry: You bet. I'm calling to remind you to head to the polls November 2nd and vote Column B for Democrats. Let's take back America. Thanks for your support. Click. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004, 6:11 PM: Kerry: Hello? Edwards: Hi John, this is John Edwards again. Are you deaf or just out of your goddam mind? Kerry: That's a good question. I'll have to ask my staff. Edwards: Great. While you're at it, ask them if they think it's weird how you're the only guy in America who doesn't know I'm your running mate yet. Kerry: Say, thanks for bringing that up. I've been meaning to call you. Research shows that I'd like to make you my running mate. So what do you say, John? Will you run with me? Take a minute to think it over. I won't take no for an answer. Edwards: The answer is no. Kerry: Fantastic. We're going to do a bang-up job. Edwards: I said no, John. And no means no. Forget it. Kerry: "No"? What do you mean, "No"? Edwards: I mean no. You're clearly out of touch. I mean, yeah, I have better hair than Dick Cheney, but what are the chances I'll have any left after spending four years in the White House with you? By the end of the first year, I'll have pulled it all out. And granted, I could probably just sue somebody -- like whoever makes Rogaine -- but that's beside the point. Kerry: I hear what you're saying, John. It makes sense. I feel your pain. But read my lips: It's morning again in America. I'm a uniter, not a divider. I like Ike. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. In your heart, you know I'm right. Edwards: See, John? Now you're just spouting off campaign slogans. And they're not even your campaign slogans. What's with you? You're hardly human. You can't communicate. How can we lead together if we can't even have a conversation? No wonder nobody knows you're running for president. The only way you can win is to make sure even you don't know who you are, or what you stand for, until after Election Day. I can honestly say that I hate you, John Kerry. Whoever you are, I hate you with my soul. Kerry: Look, do you want to be my vice president or what? Edwards: Fine. Kerry: Okay. I love you. Bye. Click. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Taft is most famous for his opposition to Franklin Roosvelt's New Deal Legislation and policies. He has been called the last "Old Right" political. While some may conclude that this description points out that we have 'moved on', the essential question remains. Were the policies of Taft the real essence of Republicanism? Principles never die, changing circumstances only seek out appropriate applications. Liberty of the individual was the hallmark of Taft that earned him the name, Mr Republican. The New Deal's expansion of federal power at the expense of state and local government is incompatible with the core bedrock of Republican philosophy. Taft vigorously urged economy in government and restoration of balanced budgets, while supporting a very limited role in foreign affairs. He voted against NATO, supported strong tariffs, opposed the draft and sponsored legislation that bears his name, the Taft-Hartley Law. If Republicanism isn't about opposing the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System, just what did the party ever stand for to begin with? When it comes to foreign policy, the last century is one of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace". Taft speaks directly to this point:
In his book, Principles Without Program: Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy - he conveys his views as core Republican principles that are as valid today as they were when originally written. So why does the Republican Party work overtime to run in lock step with the Socialism of the New Frontier, Great Society and New World Order? The answer is obvious, the Republicanism has been removed from the party and has been replaced with a neo-conservatism sham that is a betrayal of America's tradition. How many remember the names of these brave leaders that fought so hard to retain the promise of the American way of life? Just what was their cause and why do most Republicans ignore their heritage? Taft sums up nicely the purpose of their task:
Robert Taft believed in the "Federalism" model of the American Republic. His faith was in basic American values and the abilities of the people to seek Liberty. Achieving this goal requires that such liberty is founded upon an economic system based on free enterprise, a political system based on citizen participation, and national independence and sovereignty for our country. Internationalist Republicans have become mutants, with the abdication of purpose for their party. Just what is the point of having two shades of the same color when that hue is one and the same in Socialism. If you say the debate is over and the future belongs to the most popular collectivist, then America is already deceased. Even under the great Ronald Reagan, the Departments of Education and Energy continued. Just look at the record! When was the last time a 'so called' conservative remained ardent in the fight against social democracy? Taft's principles are timeless because they represent the best chance for the freedom of a free people. Or does that idea scare so many, that Liberty is no longer our mutual objective? With the dawn of this new century, it is time to remember the common sense of past generations and devote ourselves to the reinvention of practical policies that apply those principles to our current condition. Anything short of this reformation, will confirm that the GOP has lost it's way. Rediscover what a Republican really means . . . SARTRE Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:10 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
|||||
