 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought October 3, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins There is no way in this world that I could have written a more damning article about John Kerry than John Kerry has. So here he is in his own words answering questions and making statements. One can easily see where he decided he was going to run for President. SENATOR JOHN KERRY: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News "The O’Reilly Factor" 12/11/01) KERRY: "It is something that we know—for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS "Face The Nation" 9/23/01) KERRY: "I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11..." (Fox News "The O’Reilly Factor" 12/11/01) KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN "Larry King Live" 12/14/01) Q, MSNBC’s CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can—can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get past a possible war with him?" A, KERRY: "Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We’re precisely doing that. And I think that’s what Colin Powell did today." (MSNBC "Hardball" 2/5/02) KERRY: "September 11th. I mean, that’s changed the dynamic of this country and - and, I think, people’s perceptions of what people are willing to do." (MSNBC "Hardball" 2/5/02) KERRY: "And I think we’ve all reached a judgment that obviously the United States has to protect our national security interests. And we have to do what we think is right." (Fox News "The O’Reilly Factor" 5/22/02) KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that—that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS "Face The Nation" 9/15/02) KERRY: "But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC "Hardball" 9/17/02) It sure looks like he wants to be President from here on out now doesn’t it? He is also showing in the following comments that he voted for making hollow threats with no intention of ever backing them up. I can assure you that our enemies are making note of this serious character flaw. All I can say is "unfit for command." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03) Kerry now begins to steer his boat to safer liberal waters. KERRY: "And the fact is, in the resolution that we passed, we did not empower the President to do regime change." (NBC "Meet The Press" 8/31/03) KERRY: "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Candidacy, Patriot’s Point, SC, 9/2/03) Kerry has now made it to the safety of the collectivist waters where he can rant about what he really meant and be believed, or at least count on the leftist media to support his version of reality. KERRY: "But the president and his advisors did not do almost anything correctly in the walk-up to the war. They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war. They did not give legitimacy to the inspections. We could have still been doing inspections even today, George." (ABC "This Week" 10/12/03) KERRY: "I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they’re on the right track. There’s a way to do this properly. But I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job." (CBS "Face The Nation" 9/14/03) John Kerry attempted to abandon the troops by voting NAY on S. 1689 10/17/03, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security & Reconstruction (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted NAY) Q, MSNBC’s CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" (MSNBC "Hardball" 1/6/04) A, KERRY: "I am - Yeah." (MSNBC "Hardball" 1/6/04) KERRY: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it..." (Glen Johnson, "Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/17/04) KERRY: "I’m proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion..." (John Kerry, Remarks At "Women’s Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04) Q, CBS’ LESLIE STAHL: "You voted for this war. Was that vote, given what you know now, a mistake?" A, KERRY: "What, what, what I voted for—Leslie, you, you, you see, you’re playing here. What, what I voted for was a—an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war." Q, STAHL: "But I’m trying to find out if you today, now that you know about that report, think the war was a mistake? And I..." A, KERRY: "I think I answered your question. I think the way he went to war was a mistake." (CBS "60 Minutes" 7/11/04) Q, CBS’ DAN RATHER: "Voted for the war, but now didn’t vote for the money to finance the war." A, KERRY: "That’s not a flip-flop. That’s not a flip-flop." (CBS "Evening News" 7/21/04) KERRY: "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04) KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have." (CNN "Inside Politics" 8/9/04) And he ends in favor of the whole thing…sort of. That is until someone challenges his position. He has no idea what his position is. He is indecisive and therefore unfit for command! R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
Where are the parents? Where is the outrage from society? And why are we all letting the entertainment industry overthrow our children? Many studies have been conducted on the influence of certain rap/hip-hop music, music videos, and video games on our youth. With soft porn, drugs and violence being peddled faster than the Wicked Witch of the West, the Pandora's Box of encouraging our youth to have sex, use drugs, and violently act out is flooding its contents quickly upon our society's youth. Why do those who control our "pop" culture continue to defend this peddling of smut, all under the guise of free speech rights? Money, honey. That's right, "It's All About the Benjamins" (Puff Daddy). The industry moguls may sit there in their three thousand dollar suits and multiple gold rings and say it's all about my artists' right to say, play, perform, and create whatever they want 'cause it's their First Amendment right. Well, I must ask them: If it's all about the freedom of expression, then why are you dripping with the jewels, and the cars, and the mansions, and the bread, baby? Seems to me that old devil called greed at any cost has bitten and hooked you in the soul—line and sinker. Available to every kid , 24/7/365 and packaged under the Freedom of Speech for your kiddies, come song lyrics that express having sex with whom, what, and wherever makes you feel good, along with "cappin'" someone 'cause they looked at you funny (this includes both artists' genders). But wait, we have more for you: music videos that have orgies performed for you (the Black Entertainment Television runs many horribly lewd videos on Saturday daytime). That's not all folks! Act quickly to change that dial on the radio. Shows that are touted as entertainment will be blaring from your car speakers epithets of unknown body parts. Lastly for all the little tykes comes a multiple helping of various video games to plug into your idiot box that may contain excessive violent acts, cursing, witchcraft, Satanic references, and nudity. One might ask what law is being broken under the umbrella of freedom of speech. There isn't a law specifically when it comes to filth or putrescence, whether its form is in print, verbal, or visual. But might I ask you to think what law is being abused to the point of oppression and subversion? Do we really have to think on this one? When we tout in song or celluloid the praise of raping, killing, and abusing women, are we not creating a generation that will be desensitized to the respect of womankind, perhaps all kind? When the acts of murder, disrespect for authority, policemen, and government in a way that is full of subversion and hate, what are we creating within the cranium of an easily influenced child? Ah, but you say, it's the parents responsibility to keep their children from these harmful forms of entertainment. Yes, it's true. Parents are the first to be responsible, and should be a held accountable for such disregard and lack of guidance of their young. We as parents have the right of remote, purchasing power, and the off/on switch. But do you know, as a parent speaking here, how hard it is to keep my kids out of this filth all the time? You can't even walk into a video store without a movie filled with sex scenes and language blaring around the store as you quickly try to find a family film to watch. For that matter, you can't even walk down the video aisle with your child and not have to shield their eyes from breasts, butts and other body items. Ever try taking you kid with you to a music store? The music is pumpin', the beat is thumpin' to Tool's song Jerk-off: "Consequences dictate our course of action, and it doesn't matter what's right/ It's only wrong if you get caught/ If consequences dictate my course of action, I should play God and shoot you myself." Or perhaps another store might be showing the video to the heart warming tune of "We All Die Someday" performed by DJ Muggs, 50-Cent, Eminem, G-Unit and Lloyd Banks, with lyrical stanzas sung by Eminem like this one; "I'm an OG, your (expletive) with GI Joe." I am not kidding here, either. Yes, I can cover my kids' ears/eyes and run from the store, but why am I a hard working taxpayer being denied the right not to have my kids' eyes and ears assaulted? Why are the rights only given to those who have the agents, managers, and labels? In May of 2003, a study appeared in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Anything that increases the extent to which a person is thinking in aggressive terms will tend to increase aggressive behavior," says study author Craig Anderson, a professor and chairman of the department of psychology at Iowa State University. "Lyrics are just one piece of the social environment that will have some impact." Some impact, huh? Do we really buy into the lie fed to us by the entertainment industry, that the use of profanity, nudity, and violence really doesn't impact our society? Watch the evening news, read a newspaper, pick up a news magazine, go to your local playground, walk around the shopping mall, head into a fast food joint and listen, watch, and become aware of the attitude change breeding under the skin of our fair youth. It is the parent's responsibility to raise, discipline and monitor their children, but what is society made up of? Parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, godparents and the like. These are the ones perpetuating this filth and indoctrinating the minds of our next generation. They all have a responsibility not only to there own kin, but to yours and mine as well. This is why all aforementioned forms of relatives need to help individuals raise their children in a safe and proper environment that promotes the well being of all mankind. These make up the village that help us raise our children, individually and together, co-responsible for one another. If we continue down the path we are heading, are we intended to preserve? I think not. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
I
wrote last
week that it isn’t enough to complain about taxation without
representation—that we’ve got to insist on no taxation whatsoever
instead. Why did I say this? Because: “Taxation is how politicians
exploit our hard work and labor.”
I want to expand on this. My main complaint here is that our elected representatives don’t represent us, but rather themselves. It couldn’t be any more obvious, the way our entire political culture is driven by constant opinion polls. Think about it. How many polling organizations are there nowadays? There’s Zogby. There’s Gallup. There’s Marist. And then there’s Rasmussen. Oh, and AP/Ipsos. And NBC, CBS, and Fox News. And that’s just to name a few. As far as I can tell, there are more polling groups than sanctioning bodies in boxing—and that’s really saying something. And, of course, political polling isn’t an evil, in and of itself. There’s no harm in simply asking folks questions and reporting their answers. To that end, I don’t see a problem with it. But where we run into trouble is when we take a step back and look at the larger political picture—there, we will see these polls informing every decision every candidate for every office makes. And that’s a problem. What the public wants, politicians will promise (which is why we’re actually lucky politicians break promises). After all, saying you’ll “fight for” free healthcare, etc., is how you win an election. It’s no secret. Politics is a contest for power. Men of principle have a place in politics like bad spellers have a place in Scrabble—there’s room for them at the table, but that doesn’t mean they’ll win. And as for men who’d uphold the U.S. Constitution? Forget it. There’s no room for them at all. As Joe Sobran put it, “the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our [modern] form of government.” Now, obviously, you can make the case that politicians are just listening to the people, and giving them what they want. That would seem to be the basic idea behind democracy. But maybe therein lies the problem. We’ve been taught to believe democracy is synonymous with liberty; the truth is they aren’t always compatible. Democracy is based on majority-rule, which, ultimately, amounts to mob-rule. I can’t hope to explain this any better than Jonah Goldberg, who wrote that, “in its purest form,” democracy means “51 percent of the people can pee in the cornflakes of 49 percent of the people.” In other words, majority-rule means the rights and opinions of those in the minority can be tossed in the garbage like so many hanging chads before them—all in the name of the greater whole. And when I refer to “those in the minority,” I don’t necessarily mean ethnic minorities, though that’s certainly one example. But I am also talking about economic minorities here—rich and poor alike. And I am talking about any other types of minorities you can think of. It doesn’t really matter which group you choose. When I say “those in the minority,” it even includes those in the majority who are forced to cater to those in the minority—which is where political correctness often comes in. The point is, in our current system, politicians make whichever promises polls show will get them elected, and fulfill whichever promises polls show will keep them in office. But no matter the promise, and no matter who asks for it, it always comes at someone else’s expense. Somebody somewhere is always being forced to do something they don’t want to do—whether it’s putting out a joint, or paying a stranger’s college tuition. And meanwhile, amazingly, whoever gives away the most of your money wins. How is this “representative” government? Our current system is not a series of checks and balances. It is a series of offices and agencies working in tandem on local, state, and national levels. It doesn’t exist just for patching up potholes. It exists for its own sake. This is why politicians redistribute wealth. Sometimes they take from the rich and give to the poor; other times they take from the poor and give to the rich. What counts is that they’re taking. What counts is their whatever-it-takes-to-win attitude. Which brings me back to taxation. Taxation makes it all possible. Taxation lets us vote for “free” gifts from other people’s pockets. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as a Federal Reserve Note. Oh, there were forms of currency, of course, but back then folks were known to trade real things of value, too. Gold was a hot item—hard as it was to fit in one’s wallet. But they could also trade services as modern in concept as medical benefits. A little less than a hundred years ago, this system was swapped for a system of credit, and a 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution—thus creating an income tax and providing our leaders with virtually unlimited funds. Everyone’s owed something to someone ever since. Not that I’m damning the idea of credit altogether. Lord knows it’s keeping a roof over my head. But look at the big picture here. People no longer need to work for what they get in America. This doesn’t mean there aren’t any hard workers left; there are millions. But work is no longer the be-all, end-all collector of wealth. When someone wants something that someone else won’t give them, they say it’s “unfair” and appeal to government judges and legislators. And in exchange for votes, the government “arbitrates”—i.e., “takes”—on their behalf. Free lunch is served, in other words. Get it while it’s hot! We talk about democracy as if it’s a safeguard for individual rights. And who knows, maybe it can be. But it isn’t automatic. And that certainly isn’t how it’s being used. Instead, it’s become our way of intruding on rights, allegedly in the name of that most collectivist of concepts: The Common Good. What it really amounts to, though, is our leaders buying our votes with our own money… or our kids’ money… or our kids’ kids’ money. But, hey, who cares if we’re running up deficits? Our money isn’t worth more than the material it’s printed on anyway. It’s amazing how we applaud ourselves from time to time for outlasting the Soviet Union, even as we, too, write checks we don’t know if we can cash. The things we’ve come to depend on are artificial. Social Security won’t be around forever. What happens when they pull the plug? My guess is there’s going to be a lot of people with nothing better to do than to prove just how pissed off they are. Make sure you lock your doors that afternoon. Democracy won’t protect you. Look, I believe in Americans. I believe in the American Dream. This nation’s provided us with some of the most brilliant minds of the last several centuries. But at the same time, I’m reminded of a story I used to hear when I was a kid. It was about a puppy who had a bone, who was very content, until one day he went walking over a bridge and saw another dog underwater. This other dog had a bone, too, you see. And the puppy decided to jump in and steal it, believing two bones were better than one. He then found it was just his reflection—just an illusion—but by then it was too late. He ended up all wet. And his own bone sank to the bottom, forever and ever, amen. Franklin Roosevelt was wrong. We have more to fear than fear itself. We have also to fear the fate of that puppy. I’d like to believe it’s not too late to change our ways, but it’s time to throw ourselves a bone here. Our current arrangement doesn’t represent the rights of the people. It represents itself. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
Republicanism is not equivalent with the GOP political party. Genuine conservatism has had fleeting representation within that party. Examine the history and the principles of each. A real conservative stands for the principles of individual civil liberty and personal responsibility, limited government, states rights, separation of powers - federalism, minimal taxes, honest money, bona fide free enterprise, defense of borders, an American First foreign policy, lawful statues and traditional values. A true conservative believes in the righteousness of the 1776 Revolution. Republicans that are authentic conservatives have a serious dilemma: How do you justify the record of the GOP? The grand master of despotism, Abraham Lincoln, was their first president. Their party forced the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Note from the thirteenth - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted - gives the federal state the cover to impose the tyranny of the central government. From the fourteenth - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States - imposes (that is what the war of northern aggression was all about) the supremacy of the FEDERAL STATE over individual sovereign states. Now from the fifteenth - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude - strips the right of individual states to define citizenship. Now examine the record of most Republicans, listed in this account. “Republicans are spineless champions of the status quo and are unable to rule as a majority Party. Their message is substantially correct, but their performance is wholly inadequate. Guts to confront the forces of collectivism are lacking. Willingness to expose the socialists, as the true enemy of America, is absent. And integrity to live by the Ideology that is spoken, is non existent. Personal comfort and longevity in power and continued DC influence after leaving office, is more important than restoration of the Republic.” It is temperate to denounce any party that places power above principle. But in the case of the GOP, we have witnessed a hijacking of the party that preached limited government by counterfeit deceivers who claim the name NeoConservative. NeoCons can be identified by their hatred for uncorrupted traditional consevatives. They have as much in common with indisputable conservatism as Abe Lincoln had with Thomas Jefferson! But for the GOP, the holy grail of retaining power, now resides within the camp of the serpent. This life and death dispute is about policy. Playing nice with ‘PC’ constraints, when infiltrators steal the republican organization, as regular GOP party members kiss their ring; is pure madness. No wonder that the Buchanan wing voted with their feet and left a fraudulent party . . . The party scandals of Grant or Harding look mild, when compared to the treachery of Nixon and both Bush presidencies. If you think that a pilgrimage to China by an egomaniac benefited America with the trade policy that emptied our wealth, you qualify as a sick Republican. If you think that papa Bush just made a slip when he announced the NWO was his constitution, you must be waving a plastic (Lincoln union) flag. And if you believe that number one son, his majesty George II, is an American hero, you pass the real acid test! You see, that undeniable reason why Republicans have surrendered the GOP to a gang of traitors is very simple - you are STUPID . . . Now don’t be confused, the Kissingers and Perles, don’t believe for one second that those selective 14th and 15th amendments apply to Colin Powell and his kind. No, they only read the portion of those subversive amendments that elevates the STATE to the pinnacle of earthy lust - as long as they control and have a veto over policy. The hegemony that drives them is wholly contradictory to CONSERVATISM. Their allegiance places an international rule above American sovereignty. That extreme empire requires the destruction of our unique Republic. Ronald Reagan was the only exception to the buffoons like Gerald Ford. But even the Gipper was forced to accept the Trilateralist, CIA approved, Bush as heir to the throne. The GOP has sold out sincere Republicans and has abandoned any rational reason for earnest conservatives to work within, or vote for the party. George Wallace was correct, that dime has two sides with the same face. The only difference is who is running the scam of the party out of office . . . DemocRATS are pure collectivists eager to accept the communist model for their government. The RepubliCANTS have deviated so far away from conservatism, with their approbation of socialism as their official policy. Now that they hold the majority, the GOP clearly demonstrates why they are no better than the asses of a phony opposition. Both parties are Statists and make Lincoln proud.
Stupid
is as stupid does, so the public bears the shame for supporting and
voting for continued non choices. None of the above is the only prudent
ballot to vote. As long as the GOP capitulates to the NeoCons, they
deserve our disgust. As long as Republicans acquiesce to the intimidation
from zealots for Zionism, America will be betrayed. Our mutual duty
is to stand with the likes of Sam Adams and Patrick Henry. They are
the correct examples to follow. The GOP has become a sick joke. You
won’t find a legacy for profiles in courage from this group of
lap dogs. The GOP are now proponents of the ‘TC’ culture
- totalitarian collectivism; that’s not Republicanism. Their big
tent has a closed flap towards deep conservative values and principles.
It now requires a test to enter. That clown Bill
Kristol will greet you with that standard smirk as the all seeing
eye of orthodox illuminati watches so you won’t go “over
the line”. Well, honest conservatives know that lines can’t
be drawn around the truth. If you can’t handle the it, move to
the back of the bus.
If that’s the GOP of your dreams, masturbate with your master. If that is the Republican Party of your empire, worship your baal emperor. But if you retain an ounce of Americanism in your blood, cast off the vipers and send the demons to hell. That’s why I left the Republican Party. Involuntary servitude in the name of a false patriotism is now known as necessary service to the State. The GOP doesn’t stand for ‘God’s Ordained Policy’. What else can we call those who still support their dishonesty? They earned the epithet of stupid . . .
|
||||||||
©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, October 10, 2004 4:34 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||||
