 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought October 17, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins I wonder at times how many of the radical left-wingers these days can even look in the mirror. I suspect it’s easier for many of them due to the lack of a reflection. Most of them got into the movement of which they are now a part because they had no use for fascism. What many of them don’t seem to realize is that they have not only gotten in touch with their inner woman, but have also gotten in touch with their inner Stalin and Hitler. There have been break-ins and bullets flying into Bush Cheney campaign headquarters lately. There was even a flyer being handed out in Tennessee that said, “Voting for Bush is like running in the special Olympics…. Even if you win you’re still retarded.” They have become what they hate. I’m not ashamed to say I never really hated anyone, but I’m starting to learn (when I’m not laughing at them). They have become a modern day Sword of Damocles. They are the biggest threat to this nation right now, and are far more dangerous than the terrorists ever could think of being. They are hanging over the nation and its people, threatening to remove all defenses and to loot the pockets of those who actually have the unmitigated audacity to be productive. Driven on by an ideology of hate and theft, they have decided to claim voter fraud and disenfranchisement before the election has even occurred. One might ask what they really intend to gain from this, so here is the answer: They will be able to further build their base of angry voters who feel they’ve been wronged. They have taken Darth Vader's fast path to power by feeding negativity. It is through that technique that they are able to bind such a disparate collection of people. It is no accident that many of the voter registration forms have been filled out with errors. Their true purpose is more than likely to create a larger group for the next election. Sun Tzu once said that victory belongs to the side that feels the most slighted. All of the liberals' actions are directed to this end: "You have been robbed of your right to vote. Anything we do now is justifiable." I really enjoyed Kerry’s answer to how he would reunite the nation. Michael Moore and his merry band of liars have done a lot to divide the country. Kerry has also done his best to help them. He wasn’t anti-war until he realized that was the only way to get ahead in the DNC. Now he is back to playing out the same role he played when he returned from Vietnam and caused the beatings to increase for the POWs in Vietnam when he lied in his Senate testimony. John Kerry is clearly at war with himself and that is why he is all over the map regarding the Iraq conflict. His performance in the last debate showed that much. He is currently being buoyed by waves of rabble that have swallowed the twin tower lies of Michael Moore and his fellow travelers. There is another reason Kerry is now anti-war, though. One of his big benefactors is Oscar Wyatt. When the CIA report was released and it became common knowledge that France had been bribed by Iraq, the French did what they always do: they mentioned the people in this country who had been bribed with oil for food money. One of them just happens to be Oscar Wyatt. In case you’re unaware, he is one of the big DNC contributors. Couldn’t it be that Wyatt was the one the Taliban visited in Texas since Bush wasn’t in the oil business at the time because he was the Governor of Texas? Moore wouldn’t have wanted to mention that possibility, now would he? By the way, Kerry is right: Mary Cheney is gay. But Mary Cheney won’t be voting for Kerry. Neither will another I wish Kerry would have mentioned. Tammy Bruce is a "gay ex-feminist radical" as she describes herself, and she won’t be voting for Kerry, either. She discovered one of the strangest things about the radical left: They reject conformity, but demand you conform to their way or else. She discovered that Conservatives don’t worry about your sexuality in any way unless you decide to make it a big deal. The great divide in this country has come from the leftists, so it is silly for Kerry to even talk about fixing it. For a brief period we were united, but he and his lockstep lemmings have tried to kill it. I can almost hear them singing as they march and celebrate their fraudulent Navy war hero. “Chancres away way, my boy, chancres away...” R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
According to the New International Webster's Dictionary ,the definition of integrity is: "n. strict compliance to an ethical standard; the state of being whole or sound." Now let's define ethical: "adj. morally right." Putting these definitions together, one could say that integrity enforces rules and is absolute in conforming to a moral standard, that it is standing firm on truth and not "windsurfing." John Kerry's mother couldn't have spoken the words "integrity, integrity, integrity" any more prophetically to her son as she lay dying in her hospital bed a couple of years ago. Was John Kerry's mother telling her son something he doesn't hold true to his heart and soul? John Kerry's mother felt the need to repeat a message of adherence to a higher calling of moral standards, and then standing strong and true to them in an unwavering march forward with a banner of "integrity, integrity, integrity." As a senator of twenty years, John Kerry's flip-flopping and windsurfing has, I am sure, left the meaning of integrity deeply saddened. Kerry is in lockstep with one of the most liberal officials in our government, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, voting with Senator Kennedy 93% of the time. The nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry's Votes "Most Liberal In Senate" for 2003. Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Senators Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, "How They Measured Up," 2/27/04) John Kerry, as our presidential hopeful, claims he's for the middle class, yet his record on raising taxes shows him to be otherwise. As Senator, John Kerry has voted at least 350 times for higher taxes. Under former President Clinton, John Kerry voted for the biggest tax increase in American history. Presidential nominee John Kerry voted against President Bush's historic 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. John Kerry has voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment at least five times, and John "Integrity" Kerry has voted against major tax relief at least 29 times. John Kerry calls for fiscal responsibility, but his record shows in 1993 he voted for the largest tax hike in history. Kerry's windsurfing on our taxes is not what the middle class needs. In September 2001, Kerry stated on (NBC's Meet The Press) that we shouldn't raise taxes in an economic downturn. Kerry is quoted as saying, "The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn't do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy... No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today...you don't want to raise taxes." Then in April 2002, Senator Kerry stated he wanted a larger tax cut and was "not in favor of" a repeal. CNN's Tucker Carlson of Crossfire asked Kerry on April 16, 2004, "Senator Kerry,...[many Democrats] get a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush's tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?" John Kerry replied, "It's not a question of courage... And it's not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year...The next tax cut doesn't take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be? So it's simply not a ripe issue right now. And I'm not in favor of turning around today and repealing it." Then in December 2002, Kerry flip-flopped on NBC's Meet The Press . Tim Russert asked Kerry on December 1, 2002, "Senator... should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?" Kerry stated, "Well, I wouldn't take away from people who've already been given their tax cut...What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts." Russert asked, "So the tax cut that's scheduled to be implemented in the coming years..." Kerry replied, "No new tax cut under the Bush plan... It doesn't make economic sense." Russert then holds Kerry's flip-flops to the fire, "Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question." How can any of us trust a man who now wants to take our money back and spend it the way he sees fit in his socialistic governmental plan? How is this right for the middle class? Where is the integrity? How does John Kerry's integrity hold up for the married middle class? John Kerry first stated that he would fight to keep tax relief for married couples. Kerry said, "Howard Dean and [Dick] Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we're going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that." (Fox News Special Report, 10/23/03). Then on MSNBC's News Live on July 31, 2003, Kerry is quoted as saying, "We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty." But in 1998, Kerry voted against eliminating marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with combined incomes less than $50,000 per year, saving taxpayers $46 Billion over 10 years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry voted yea) Where is the integrity, we ask again, John Kerry? Many middle class Americans are small business owners. Where is John Kerry's integrity to support the American entrepreneurial spirit and create more jobs? Sen. Kerry voted against exempting small businesses and family farms from a Clinton income tax increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry voted yea), but three months later Senator Kerry voted in favor of proposal to exclude small businesses from the increased income tax (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry voted yea). John Kerry claimed he fought to exempt small businesses from income tax increases. Kerry stated, "I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would 'exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.'" (Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268) John Kerry, do you understand what effect your stance on raising the taxes on those who make more than $200,000 a year is going to have on the small business owner? Perhaps you don't need the integrity to stand for those who own small businesses and their desire to grow their industry to create more jobs for the American people. You don't have to. You married up. Integrity when it comes to health care is something not only small businesses owners need to be concerned about, but is an issue for all American's who don't want government sanctioned health care, ever. In 2001, Sen. Kerry voted against the amendment that would provide seventy billion for tax credits for small business to purchase health insurance (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry voted nay). Now presidential nominee John Kerry promises refundable tax credits to the small business owner for health coverage. Kerry is quoted, "Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable." (John Kerry's Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American, John Kerry For President Website, accessed 1/21/04). Well, when Senator Kerry wasn't running for the office that demands integrity, he was against the small business owner. Has he now seen the light or is this just another piecrust promise—easily made and easily broken? Can the small business owner really rely on Kerry to keep his word, or will it blow another direction again? As John Kerry touts health care for all under his governmental program, let's examine how his integrity has held up over the years on health care for the masses: In 1993, Kerry expressed doubts that the federal employees health benefits system worked well. "Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well." (Adam Clymer, Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar, The New York Times, 12/8/93). In the Boston Globe (12/19/93), Ana Puga reported in the Lawmakers Talk Health Care article stated that Senator Kerry expressed his personal dissatisfaction with his coverage through the Federal program. "Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. Because it was done in the dentist's office, rather than the hospital, they didn't cover it. 'So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,' said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees." Now on the crusade trail, Kerry is passionate about the health care he receives as Senator. Kerry stated, "As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren't so lucky, and we need to change that. That's why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves... Because your family's health care is just as important as any politicians' in Washington." (Sen. John Kerry, Affordable Health Care For All Americans, Remarks at Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03) John Kerry claimed in 1994 that the Democrats push health care too much (Boston Herald 11/30/94). In his final moments towards the election homestretch, Kerry has now turned his empty campaign promises of healthcare into "my passion." (USA Today 6/2/03) Gee, just a few weeks ago I thought John Kerry's passion was just about "I served in Vietnam." What happened? These windsurfing flip-flops are but a glimpse into a man who hasn't an ounce of integrity. The public at large will never know of John Kerry's unstable stances on double taxation dividends, 50-cent tax gas increase, litmus tests for judicial nominees, welfare reform, stock option expensing, flip-flopping on $10,000 donations limits to his PAC, ballistic missile defense, strategic petroleum reserves, funding for our troops in Iraq and his latest view on the war on terror. Kerry's lack of integrity wants us to turn back the clock to the days prior to 9/11 where terror was "nothing more than a nuisance." Comparing this war against evil murderers who kill innocents in the name of "Allah" to a nuisance like prostitution is a slap in the face to all who've been murdered or died for the cause of liberty. The mainstream media isn‚' going to divulge the true character of those who belong to the far-left group of John Kerry. They haven't any integrity, either. It's up to us as individual Americans to search for truth, study the candidates, and compare their integrity side by side. We can be blind and believe the lies, or we can take a stand as a nation and demand "integrity, integrity, integrity." John Kerry, by definition, never listened to the wise words of his dear dying mother. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Last Wednesday, my wife and I watched ABC’s new reality series, “Wife Swap.” I suppose there’s some irony in this. But anyway, I’m sort of agnostic when it comes to reality television. I’m not a true believer; for me, a new season of “The Bachelorette” isn’t like falling in love all over again. But I’m not a reality TV atheist, either. I don’t believe it’s the death knell of Western civilization. Nor do I find the need to call it “so-called reality TV.” I understand it only rarely reflects reality, but I’m over it. I’m willing to watch a new show before condemning it. I’ll give it a shot. It’s just that I won’t give it the benefit of the doubt. So if you’d told me a week ago I’d not only like “Wife Swap” but like it enough to write about it, I don’t think I would’ve believed you. And even if I did, I still would’ve thought today’s column would start off like this: “You know, I hate to admit it, but ABC’s ‘Wife Swap’ is actually pretty good.” But now that I’ve watched it, I have to admit I don’t hate to admit it at all. “Wife Swap” is pretty good. And there’s even some value in watching it. Let me explain. Each week, “Wife Swap” introduces two completely different, completely imperfect families, who trade moms—“but not bedrooms,” as ABC points out—for two weeks’ time. The families in last Wednesday’s episode were the Smoaks and the Beavers, who live a few hundred miles—but really whole worlds—apart. Both are neurotic in their own special ways. The Smoaks, for example, are your stereotypical Southern family. And when I say “stereotypical,” I mean stereotypical. The only thing they’re missing is teeth. Everything about them screams Blue Collar Comedy Tour. The man of the house is named Glenn, who drinks domestic beer, belches, and owns a bunch of rifles. Inside the house, he displays dead animals; outside, a Confederate flag. Then there’s his wife, Aletha, who hasn’t let him sleep in her bed for more than ten years. We’re told it’s because of Glenn’s snoring. One suspects, though, that it’s really because he’s a poor, repulsive excuse for a teddy bear. But whatever the reason, Aletha needs her sleep—she works hard, keeps clean, and apparently entertains 30 cousins every Sunday for lunch. In her mind, she’s a real mother (take that as you will). Kids in her house are seen but not heard. If she were any more conservative, she’d have to put oil on her moving parts just to keep herself from squeaking. But then we meet the Beavers, who, if I didn’t know better, I’d think were only aboard the Good Earth awaiting their Mothership Connection. To put it bluntly, they’re a bunch of tree-hugging, animal-loving suburbanite hippies, who in all likelihood sprung forth organically from big bowls of dirt (I mean that in the nicest possible way). Husband Jeff wears his hair in matted brown dreadlocks; I have to imagine his first words ever were, “Mama, dada, I come in peace.” Wife Amy, meanwhile, is professionally unemployed (no doubt as a statement against the ruling class). She wakes up at 10 am and tries to balance her time between writing poems and working to ban the NRA. In short, the Beavers lean so far left they might as well walk sideways. They love the planet, fly no flags, and treat their 10-year-old, Emily, like their peer. Whatever they drive, I’m sure it’s a hybrid. These people would pull over and hold a funeral if, God forbid, a bee ever hit their windshield. About the only thing the Smoaks and Beavers share is the fact that they’re human. But after a while, you start to question even that similarity. The contrast is clear from the moment Aletha and Amy switch roles. For the first few days, each mom must adapt to the existing rules of her new home. Aletha skips dinner her first night, skeeved by how filthy the house is; she struggles the next day to fill Amy’s unproductive shoes. Amy, on the other hand, breaks down and cries while doing dishes; she compares motherly chores to chattel slavery, and you can tell it’s a heartfelt comparison. But all of this is just a prelude. It’s merely Act I. The real fun begins halfway through the show, when the moms get to ditch their new homes’ old rules and write a few of their own. This is when worlds collide. Aletha Smoak takes her cue and starts assigning chores. She demands that precocious young Emily Beaver end every sentence with “ma’am.” Then she makes Jeff Beaver buy an American flag, which he displays, as instructed, in his yard. He isn’t happy about it (if I remember correctly, the words “holier than thou” were tossed around), but he feels so bad about arguing that he brings home fresh flowers as a “peace offering.” Aletha yells at him for using a dirty vase, and she remains unimpressed when Jeff starts to cry. Back at the Smoak homestead, Amy Beaver gets rid of Glenn’s guns and animal trophies, and makes him take down his Confederate flag. It’s a symbol of “mass murder,” she says. He insists it’s a symbol of heritage, but she buys into it about as much as he buys into her line about loving one another in spite of their beliefs—which is to say she doesn’t buy into it at all. So Glenn follows Amy’s marching orders, but fittingly rebels against her: He moves his Confederate flag, all right, but only as far as a nearby field. Amy wins the argument; Glenn wins the war. In the end, the wives are reunited with their husbands. Both couples sit down for a little face time and proceed to lace into each other. The Beavers accuse Aletha of not being nice to their dogs and daughter. Likewise, the Smoaks accuse Amy of being too loosey-goosey. There’s also a precious moment when Glenn accuses Jeff of looking like an aborigine. Jeff’s response is something along the lines of, “Good.” Throughout the show, my wife and I had a running discussion on which family we’d least like to be a part of. My wife said she’d take the Smoaks over the Beavers because the Beavers had no discipline. I see her point and sort of agree. As people, the Beavers lacked focus. As parents, they lacked leadership skills. I don’t have kids and can’t speak from experience, but if there’s a line between letting your kids flourish and letting them walk all over you, the Beavers have stepped so far over it that they would need to go all the way around the world just to get back to the other side. But that said, I’d take the Beavers over the Smoaks. The Smoaks had good old fashioned family values, and I admire them for that, but it all seemed so cold to me. It seemed like they cared more about family values than their actual family. And if that’s the case, why care at all? Really, though, I believe both families are irrevocably screwed. But, to me, that’s the beauty of the show. I would never sign up to star in an episode; I think you’d have to hate yourself, your family, or quite possibly both to invite ABC’s cameras into your home. Like Fox’s “Temptation Island,” the show, itself, is the temptation. If you’re on it, you’ve already given in. But on the flipside, if you’re on “Wife Swap,” you’ve also given other Americans a window into a lifestyle that may not be their own. What an invaluable service. Nowadays, we hear an awful lot about there being “two Americas” at war with one another. But the mediums through which this message is spread—TV, radio, newspapers, the Web—exist, without prejudice, in most American homes. It’s as if we’re being homogenized and made one by this “two Americas” theme. We’re leading ourselves to believe our country isn’t big enough for multiple cultures. Yet America consists of nearly 300 million people spread out across 50 states stretching many thousands of miles. How many towns are there? How many families? Why must they move to the beat of just one drum? Can’t they have their own drums? America’s big. There’s plenty of room for drums. It would be so easy to watch “Wife Swap” and come away thinking the Smoaks and the Beavers epitomized the great Red State/Blue State divide. After all, the experience only reminded them how much they loved their own lifestyles; it didn’t make them appreciate each other’s. But as happy as each woman was to return to her home, her husband, and her kids, the point is she got to return. She got to resume the life she wanted, without interference from those who want otherwise. That’s the moral of the story. It’s a lesson in coexistence. Each family has its neuroses, sure. But they have their neuroses. And what family’s complete without ‘em? It’s just a shame a presidential debate will preempt this week’s “Wipe Swap.” I think it’s pretty clear which one can teach us more. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Dick the Butcher: “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers”.
Consider the undeniable systemic problem with the law. Attorneys police themselves and are not accountable to the public. That’s exactly how lawyers want it. The concept of a Bar Association, comprised of members from the genuine oldest profession, having the dubious distinction of being “officers of the court,” is the height of arrogance. In its most bare and simplistic constitution, to become part of the pretender class one must swear ultimate allegiance to the State and the Brotherhood. In order to sit at the table, the solicitor agrees to protect his own kind for the privilege of compromising the holy of holies: The Law. If you think this is a harsh assessment, just read the Bill of Rights and explain and defend why the predominance of current case law and court decisions so evidently violates the clear meaning of the U.S. Constitution? Surely, only those who derive a vested interest or suffer from acute brainless functionality, would conclude and argue that ninety-nine percent of statutes are consistent with our fundamental and supreme declaration of principles. The reason for this tragedy is obvious. Legislation is enacted predominately by lawyers, and laws are adjudicated by judges, most of who are attorneys-at-law. Now add to this prim and bogus scheme, the function of the Bar Association—a nice and neat way to deflect and ignore any complaints or changes against brethren members. How sweet! Only lawyers have the franchise for judge, jury and arbitrator - with immunity from accountability for the shyster fraternity. Imagine how often you can expect that accountability for the barrister will be dispensed by a league of fellow conspirators. Ah, only in the world of the legal eagle will such absurdity soar to the heights of justice! But wait, there is an answer to this scam that never sees a real trial by jury...In a rare moment of populous equity, let’s ponder a real solution. Attorneys are assigned their license to practice law after passing the bar exam. Their permit for misrepresentation is granted on the state level. Normally complaints against a particular counsel would be filed with the Bar Association in the county where the lawyer has his primary office. Since the present arrangement is a closed shop run by the esquire class, why not break the monopoly of this presumptuous cartel and let the public administer the process? Here is how a true disciplinary formula would work in the real world.
Before you critique such an outline as quixotic, unsound or lacking pragmatism, ask who controls the legislation process that would enact such elements of reform and accountability. Yes, the lawyers would fight like hell to keep their special exemptions and protect their nefarious syndicate. However, that only validates how extreme the abuses have become, how entrenched the actual organized criminals have succeeded in becoming, and how institutionalized our society is to accepting this fraud. You don’t need to harness a bull to drag the plow when all the asses are ready to do the pulling. Does the herd nurture leaders, or is the pack but a swarm of worker bees, serving queens? Drones to a sealed system of privileged gatekeepers who create, administer and decide the law is certainly not due process let alone a society of free citizens. Transforming the Bar Association from a select "boys' club" safekeeping habitual and serial abusers would require even more profound legal reforms. The latest perversion of our Constitution—the DemocRAT’s Senate filibuster to obstruct an up or down vote on federal judgeship appointments—demonstrates why internal regeneration is impossible. Lawyers becoming legislators is akin to opening the hen house to the fox. Attorneys serving as judges is like giving the keys of the prison cell to the chronic lawbreakers. Who are more culpable to charges of criminal conduct than the culprits of the BAR? Their outlaw club is immune from conviction. RICO will never apply to these gangsters! What a dream system for the tyrant. Just look for the esquire, and you will find the despot, all tied in legal terms and certified by rigged courts.
|
||||||||||
©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 24, 2004 10:44 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||||||
