 |
"Their View" Archives:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
What They Thought August 8, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Kerry doesn’t talk too much about what a hero he is because that’s Edwards’ job. The Democrats don’t want Kerry appearing to be a braggart, now do they? If they get Edwards to do it, well, that’s a bit different. I saw the advertisement created by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that has the left-wingers absolutely apoplectic, and I must say that I enjoyed it. It starts with a sound bite taken from one of Edwards’ speeches declaring that if people could just spend three minutes with the people Kerry served with, they would support him fully in his bid for running the ship of state onto the rocks again like Clinton did. Of course Edwards didn’t say it like that, but that’s the truth of it. Out of all of the people that knew Kerry for the entire four and a half months he was in Vietnam, the left can only find thirteen that think he is the best thing since the advent of toilet paper. The advertisement then treats you to close enough to that three minutes with the people Edwards said he wanted you to spend time with. Of course he meant the ones that the left dug up, not the sixteen or so SWIFT boat veterans that were used in this advertisement who freely came forth in response to what the left is trying to put over on us. These men are representative of the more than 250 SWIFT boat officers and crewmembers - which include every single officer that Kerry served under in Vietnam - who have gone on the record as belonging to the group that the left doesn’t want you to spend those three minutes with. One might ask why the left would attempt to use this image and suggest talking to the people he served with so openly. They do this because they know that most Americans won’t bother to even look into it. Instead they will see this as clear evidence that he has nothing to hide and that those who served with him actually love him. The media, in the interest of their version of free speech, are staying away from this advertisement because they want Kerry to win. They will tout the virtues of free speech and suppress free speech at the same time. For exact the same (t)reason (where did that ‘t’ come from?), Edwards suggests spending time with the people who served with Kerry: They know most people won’t look into it. Let’s take a quick look at Kerry ‘the defender of the free world’. In 1996, he took a privately funded trip to China and dealt with a company that has close ties to the Chinese military. You do remember all of the fun things that happened in ’96, right? Colby decided to go canoeing in some rather nasty weather and died. During his stroke/heart attack he took his shoes off and then drowned? Ron Brown died in the same month under equally weird circumstances. ‘Chinagate’ came to life in a major way during this particular year. One thing we won’t be hearing much about from the left is the China Syndrome Kerry suffers from. We will hear some downplay by the leftist media of his return from Vietnam where he backed China by throwing someone’s medals over a fence and then went on record with lies to Congress and the American people about atrocities that he claimed to have personally witnessed. When the Democrats talk about turning the direction of the country back around again, they are actually talking about convergence with their Communist brethren over seas. To vote for the Democrats in any way now is to vote in favor of tyranny for not only us, but for Taiwan as well. The Chinese military was told to be prepared to attack Taiwan by 2006. I don’t know how many of you remember the lofty and loving words of China during the Clinton years. They said they doubted America would be willing to “trade a few west coast cities for Taiwan”. Read ‘glass parking lots’. They threatened to nuke us and the media, again, didn’t really want to touch that. Do not mistake the weak-kneed limp-wristed words of the left for cowardice. They are on the other side, and have obviously been co-opted. If they can get Kerry into office, they can be assured of mutually assured reconstruction... in Taiwan. This does in some sense beg the question: Have they capitulated to the other side because they’re traitors or because they’re stupid? The answer is simple. Who cares? The effect is the same. It reminds me of a joke that I guess sums it all up. During the Clinton Administration I heard this joke quite a bit. The names need to be changed to update it but it still works. If two liberal politicians (insert names as you choose) both fell off of a twenty story building at the exact same time, which would hit first? Who cares as long as they hit? The effect is the same. Once again, who cares why they seem to be on China's side? Now back to the Chinese threats during the Clinton Administration. Because of the Wall Street profit-driven sale of technology to the Chinese, they are no longer a threat to only the west coast. They can accurately hit many of our cities. To vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket is to vote for another four years of China Syndrome. China is a rather strange country. When it is weak, it gets picked on. When it is strong, it tries to expand. Thanks to the Clintons, it is all over this side of the globe and we voted it in twice. Stupid people shouldn’t vote! 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 |
||||||
It's time for men to stand up and take back their rights as men. Men have been pushed around, put down, made fun of, and ridiculed far too long. Men are portrayed in sitcoms, movies, and commercials as being nothing but stupid most of the time. Where are the men's rights groups? Where is their version of NOW? Where are their advocates? We women have them, why can't the men? In the beginning, God created male and female. The male was to be the decisive and logically thinking side and the female was created to be the emotional and nurturing side. Both are perfect counter balances to each other, and both sides are representative of the Creator. There are crossovers of strength and character between the sexes. Men by nature are physically stronger and able to endure impossible tasks of strenuous proportions. Men can lift and carry more weight than women; their percentage of muscle mass is higher. Women are naturally strong as well. We can carry a growing child within our bodies for nine months and still drive, work and live our daily lives. Men at times are extremely emotional. Watch what happens when their favorite team looses the play-offs. Women at times can be extremely logical. Did you ever hear a mother act as judge and jury between two fighting children? She uses great logic in settling major battles on the home front. Each sex has remarkable gifts and abilities unique to their own, and when they are used properly, they work beautifully. For some time now, women have been contributing to a slow degeneration of what needs to find balance if we are to survive as men and women. Due to an over-zealous pendulum swing, men have been under constant attack and it needs to stop. Watch the comedy show Everybody Loves Raymond for a few episodes, and you will witness how Raymond's TV wife and mother treat him. Sure, it's comedy, but it seems to be the reflection of an overall prevailing attitude from American women in general personified in a half-hour sitcom. Men are looked at as being louses who are insensitive, dumb, clueless, cavemen. Just because men think differently and buy tickets to the Superbowl instead of the ballet for our anniversary present doesn’t make them bad guys. Just because men don't have female hormonal fluctuations every fifteen seconds doesn’t mean they can't be helped to understand how PMS and menopause affects womankind. But even after full explanation is given, they will need reminders constantly because they don’t live in our bodies. Give them a break! We as women have hurt men tremendously by the way we treat them as mere sperm donors and don't expect them to be real dads. Yes, there are lousy guys who go around impregnating women and leave. Does this give women the right to use men for their sperm and then walk away? Why is it okay for women not to allow men any contact - or perhaps desired responsibility - for a child? And yes, I even question why men don’t have any say on aborting their babies. I know you're screaming, "IT'S MY BODY, HANDS OFF!" But what about the men who don’t desire doing away with their child? What if they wanted to take their child and raise it after birth? Why do men have absolutely no rights in pregnancy? Is it all based on because we women carry the child in our wombs, so we have full say? Too often, the Hollywood types have bought into just wanting the sperm donation to fulfill their need to have a kid. How selfish we women have become! We leave the most important part out of the miracle of creation. It's called love between a man and a woman. Love so powerful that it protects and nurtures each other from all outside forces; it shelters those whom they have created from all elements that may want to harm it. Men have a choice to be more than just sperm donors. They can actually be real dads, just as women have a choice as to whether they want to be more than just a depository for the other half of the chromosomal make up of a human being. Men are wonderful. They're unique, they're our counter-balances. Men are worth more than the treatment and abuse they've been receiving. Men are not all crummy; most desire an equal relationship with a woman they love. Men, you need to decide for yourselves, because it's only the individuals who can change how others are treating them. Do you continue to let women treat you like you haven't an IQ higher than a six pack of Bud, a bowl full of nachos and Monday Night Football with the guys? Do you continue to let women poke fun at you over the fact that you process information differently? No, you don’t need to tolerate it any longer. And women we need to treat our men with the same R-E-S-P-E-C-T we demand of them. Can you imagine if a sitcom was created to make fun of women who suffer from hot flashes? We could portray men ridiculing women for their irrational behavior, their inability to cool down, their propensity not to remember things (like where she put the checkbook), their burning of the food, their zero sex drive, their constant crying and in general their acting and looking like something the cat dragged in. I don't think women in general would allow that style of sitcom, movie or commercial to play more than once, and they shouldn’t either. And men, neither should you. So the real question is: Are you a man, or just a male sperm with fecundating fluid that enjoys being kicked in the groin? Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
All
right, picture this: Killer telephone numbers.
I’m not talking about easy-to-memorize digits here. Like, “Hey, man, that’s a killer number.” I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about numbers that instantly kill you the moment you answer their calls. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, of course it sounds ridiculous. That’s because it is. But believe it or not, there are people who believe it. They live in Nigeria, where the BCC reports: “A rumour has spread rapidly in the commercial capital, Lagos, that if one answers calls from certain ‘killer numbers’ then one will die immediately.” V-mobile spokesman Emeka Oparah has assured Nigerians, “This is an absolute hoax… ignore it,” but who knows how well his advice will sink in? Maybe it won’t sink in at all. Myths die hard. After all, isn’t it possible Oparah answered a call from a killer number, and now there’s a bug in his brain telling him to call it a hoax? You just never know. That’s the point of urban legends. True or false, they put a face on our fear of the unknown. They give us better-safe-than-sorry solutions to the things that confuse us from day to day. America has a pretty rich tradition when it comes to technological innovation. I think it’s fair to say that Nigeria does not. This might explain why they reacted so strangely to something as simple as phone numbers—it’s a natural reaction, because technology is somewhat unnatural for them. But Americans aren’t exactly immune to strange reactions, either. Not even when it comes to phones. For example, just a few weeks ago, I heard a commercial on AM radio that began by listing stupid laws from various states across the country. I have to admit I liked it, for the most part. I’m no fan of laws. But then something happened about halfway through. It went into a spiel about one law that does make sense: A new rule that makes it illegal to drive in New Jersey while using a cell phone, unless with a hands-free headset. And who was this message brought to you by? Plantronics, of course. “The World Leader in Communication Headsets.” Now, obviously, this is a company that believes in its product line. That’s good. I support that. And I can’t say I fault them for saying, hey, if headsets are needed, why not buy ours? But imagine a new law requiring Ritalin for all kids under the age of 18, without exception. And imagine the makers of Ritalin applauding that law. I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but it all sounds pretty un-American. Same goes for the recent drive towards mandatory headsets. Good products don’t need to be forced down people’s throats. They sell themselves. Me? I’m not sold on headsets yet. In fact, in spite of the new rules, I don’t even own one. My mom and dad think I’m nuts. They went out and bought headsets months ago. They jumped for joy when they heard about the law. My fiancée isn’t on my side, either. She says I’m crazy for refusing to buy one. Well, I may be crazy, but that’s not why I haven’t got a headset. I’ve got my reasons. And I think I’m entitled to them. First, there’s the issue of comfort. One of the main reasons I don’t own a hands-free headset is because, in my experience, hands-free is a nice way of saying uncomfortable-piece-of-crap. Take the headset my mom uses. I tried it on once and hated it. The damn thing didn’t fit in my ear, on my ear, or around my ear, and after exhausting all three options I finally gave up and slammed it against the dashboard. And this was when I was riding shotgun. I can only imagine how hard it must be to answer a call with that thing while driving. You run the risk of stabbing yourself in the brain with a dull piece of plastic every time somebody calls. (Perhaps that’s my family’s real agenda? After all, they’re the ones who usually call me.) And another thing: What are you supposed to do with your phone once you’ve got your headset on? Are you just supposed to hold it? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of keeping both hands on the wheel? I don’t get it. Maybe you’re supposed to keep the phone on your lap instead. But I don’t know if I want to do that. We don’t know the long-term effects of cell phones yet. I shouldn’t have to choose between getting a ticket and getting cancer of the groin. Look, there’s a difference between Nigeria’s fear of killer numbers and America’s fear of cell phones. Numbers aren’t dangerous. Driving can be. And when you’re too busy talking to pay attention to driving, it’s true you’re a possible threat. But it’s also unsafe to eat, change the station, and put on a headset. The common thread here isn’t your cell phone. It’s driver distraction. And no law—short of mandatory Ritalin—will cure us of our short attention spans. Mandatory headsets are a source of false confidence. I’m not saying they’re altogether useless. Some people will buy them because of the law and end up wishing they had them all along. That’s a good thing, if it improves their driving ability. But wearing a headset because it’s the law won’t improve your concentration. Only concentrating harder will. That’s why I’ve got to hand it to the folks at V-mobile. They could’ve created a feature called Killer Number Block and tossed it in with Caller ID and Three-Way Calling. They could’ve made a fortune off Nigerian fears. Instead, they came out and dispelled a popular myth. It’s interesting how Plantronics did the exact opposite. Maybe they don’t believe in their product line after all. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Is our identity our own or is it assigned? Well, if you ask the government, you will get an answer that is unsettling. At the core of all civic connections is the central issue of the sovereignty. Does it reside in the person of the individual, or is it some obscure collective composite? If you ask the STATE, it will tell you it is theirs, and you belong to them . . . For any of us to live in a world of forced compliance, we all make compromises on practical circumstances. One such restriction the vast plurality readily accepts is the issuance of a passport. The stated purpose of this document is to provide a trusted verification for the person bearing its likeness and name. But the government’s real motive is to monitor, track and control movement of its holdings. For that is the way the apparatus of the overseer operates, and logs his bound vassals. Did you read the Acts or Conditions section on the DS-82 application form for U.S. passport? If you haven’t here it is for all to read:
So at the outset, the government says a passport is not a right, for conditions are assigned per their dictates. Therefore, it follows - using government logic - that a citizen does not have a free and unencumbered right to travel outside the geographic borders of the U.S.; without the approval of the STATE. That point should be apparent, but the more interesting aspect in the Acts or Conditions is the section that refers to citizens who have made an affirmation of allegiance to a foreign state. Then add in those who act as covert operatives or retainers in the service of foreign nations. The significance in these segments should immediately disqualify those holders of dual citizenship and are treated as ‘special circumstance’ with their secondary passports. As a practical matter, all individuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Why is it accepted policy to ignore this section in the U.S. passport application for any person or group? Anyone believe that such applicants provide a supplementary statement with their completed forms? We strongly support the strict protection of our national borders from unlimited and dangerous foreign entries. But U.S. passport procedure has relevance, as it is applied for our own citizens. If the nation has a legitimate right to defend against foreign intruders who mean us harm, why are we not protecting ourselves against those pretenders who maintain a primary loyalty to another country? It is long overdue to allow equal status to quisling citizens. Revoking ALL dual citizenship status should be a national issue. The reason it will not receive its rightful focus and immediate action lies in the final part of the Acts or Conditions. “ . . . or conspiring to overthrow, put down, . . . , the Government of the United States.” For that scheming has already been accomplished, and that government is no longer accountable to the real citizens of the United States. Note how the STATE reserves its options, while ignoring the fidelity of suspect loyalists and targeting those Americans who resist the co-opting of the principles for the Republic. Force against the system is not a justifiable fear. Real Patriots only seek restored rights. But the servants of the corrupt regime dread enlightened citizens more than any other fright. They panic when we challenge their arbitrary selection of application and preferred favoritism of the approved. We promote the value of international travel. Therefore, our recent application for passport renewal has been submitted. No doubt it should be approved in the normal course of processing. While we are not part of the preferred, our expectations for passport approval conforms to the Acts or Conditions, since our advocacy is solely to restore the Government of the United States. Certainly, one need not be one of the chosen in order to travel! I’m an AMERICAN with all the retained individual sovereignty that comes directly from GOD. I’ll defer to HIS wisdom and means to hold accountable those who defile our nation. Surely, that can’t be construed as allegiance to a foreign state ??? "Published originially in EtherZone.com; republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact." 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, August 15, 2004 9:23 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||
