 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought October 24, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins When the Clintons began to show support for John F. Kerry, I was wondering what they knew about him that would help them remove him from their path to power. They don’t intend to run against an incumbent Democrat in 2008. I wrote a little on that in "Wesley to the Wescue." He was their first knight in tarnished armor, designed to help clear their path to power. He was needed as an answer to Howard Dean. Howard Dean was a serious threat to the Clintons and their buddy Terry McAuliffe. Howard Dean and his collection of friends were bound and determined to take over the Democratic Party and turn it into the full-fledged Wilt Chamberlain socialist party. Had he won the nomination, it would have been over for the Clintons and McAuliffe. There is still a huge rift in the Democratic Party right now and it is about to open even wider. Help is on the way, however. There is a movie called Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal. It is about seventeen Vietnam Vets that were in the Hanoi Hilton and suffered even more as a result of Kerry’s testimony before the Senate. This movie so terrified Kerry’s people that they threatened to sue the pants off of the producer if he showed it. They even said that Sinclair Broadcasting would regret it if they showed the film and Kerry won the Presidency. That alone is an excellent example of the type of President Kerry would be. It also shows a stark contrast between Bush and Kerry. There have been no arrests of "Mooreons" or Soros-like malcontents. But you can tell from what Kerry’s people say that free speech will only be allowed if it is their free speech. That is the primary reason I laugh at those who decry the end of free speech under Bush. If free speech has come to an end under the Bush "regime" as many dimwits like to say, why do we have all of these 527’s out there trashing Bush? Why do we have movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 with all of the lies in them decrying the death of free speech? Obviously free speech is still allowed. People like Moore and Soros are safe making claims like that. They know they are in no danger, even if they claim they are. Under Kerry, by the words of his own people, free speech is in danger. Now back to the "Oktobre surprise" I was talking about above. There are actually two of them in the works. One of them involves Kerry’s honorable discharge. In ‘72 while still an officer, he met with and shook hands with the leaders of North Vietnam. He was released from service in ‘72 also. He wasn’t given his honorable discharge until ‘79, and Carter was involved in helping move that along. This is one Oktobre surprise. Hanoi Jane apologized for what she did, but Kerry never will because he can’t afford to talk about it. I believe it is this first surprise that convinced Hill and Bill they could prevent themselves from having to run against an incumbent Democrat. It is Kerry’s Achilles heel, and they knew about it before they started helping him. Now for the second Oktobre surprise. After all of the threats from Kerry and his people against the producer of Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, the strangest thing has come from the left field: The New York Times has said that Sinclair should not show the film. What they go on to say is that not just Sinclair Broadcasting should show it…. everyone should show it. They say that it won’t do anything to hurt Kerry at all, and it would help to shed some light on the controversy that would better help the electorate make up their minds. Since at this point the principled electorate has made up their minds, be they on the left or right side of the aisle, the only people left are the undecided voters. You know who they are, right? They are the ones that decide on whether they like the hairstyle or the stuff they can get. They are also easily shifted from one side to the other of the aisle by emotions. Kerry knows this quite well. The last thing he needs is for these people to see the many Vietnam Vets whose lives he turned from absolute misery into a living hell stating their case against Kerry. There is a lot of rage to be had in those people. The New York Times knows exactly what they’re doing, too. Wait…what state are they in? Who could be gaining from this? Who is one of the Senators there? Hillary…is that you? Nice Oktobre surprise. You’re forgetting something, though, you vicious witch. Evil always eats its own. Chow down, baby. I can hardly wait until all your turkeys come home to roost. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
I give up. I've decided that empty-headed surface glancing is the only way to really determine who should run our country. I've decided who I want to run the leading world power: Pretty boys who are in touch with their feminine side, receive manicures, use tanning products, and pay $150 for a haircut. The world's terrorists certainly would much rather see metrosexual political officials, and I couldn't agree with them more. Look at John Kerry's record. No, don't. Let's just look at the debates. Kerry's style as a supreme debater outshines Bush by far. Those pearly whites flash under freshly plucked eyebrows, and made the world stop and notice that Kerry has style. Kerry's style and savoir-faire leaves rough staunch rednecked Texan men like President George W. Bush in a bottle of Coors Light. When it comes to an intellectual tongue, table manners and money, baby... Johnny's got it! Besides, John Kerry knows how to windsurf, and that's pretty cool. As for John Edwards, his bedside lawyer southernese talk at his debate stole the show as to which political party carries the weight of style. I am sure many women swooned as Edwards pulled a Clintonesque style of lovable politician. I surrender. There's no use in fighting it anymore. There are more voters who love to view the front cover of America's politicians than there are those who want to know if there is any meat on the bones of political structure and ideals. The far-left liberal American intellectual "Eurostyle" elitists are so right, and we living among the regular hard working American people are just plain wrong. Being a middle class citizen, with a family, President Bush's several hundred dollar tax break for me hasn't helped much. As a matter of fact, I'd just soon Kerry/Edwards take it back. We don't need it. As far as the mantra of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" goes, the far left is right. Let's just put Saddam back in power and let him continue to give money to al-Zarqawi and his terrorist training camps. Saddam really didn't have any solid connections to terrorists and their training of bloodthirsty haters of American ideals. I mean, he couldn't have! Otherwise, in the wisdom of liberal elite, John Kerry he wouldn't have voted for it before he voted against it (or is that the other way around?). I am sure the people of Iraq, such as the Kurds, won't mind Saddam being restored as tyrant and murderer. In fact, they'd probably think it to be a gas. The Iraqi military and police that we've trained can probably handle it all now anyway. After all, Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is just Bush's puppet on a string. I am sure the money hungry Bush/Cheney team have trained him to create Haliburton-type money making pyramids. Another thing: Screw our coalition who've helped us fight this war on terror. They've only had a few of their people die for this cause, and they haven't given us nearly enough money. Why should we care anymore about anyone, you know? Besides there aren't even any WMD's, so it had to be all about the oil anyway. According to John Kerry, when his new administration takes office he's going to do away with our dependence on oil. We're all going to find alternative ways to go from here to there. Sure, John Kerry hasn't made in progress in alternative fuels in the approximately twenty years he's been serving our country, but he's been busy in between searching for rich wives. Can't you see how Kerry's stylish ways and approach to this world's global test is going to make us all feel better about ourselves as Americans? Kofi, Hillary, Theresa, Kerry, and Kennedy can all run the world from the U.N. headquarters, and we will all be equal and have everything in common. That's including those who are in power, too. I'm sure they mean themselves to be included in this socialistic dream. I can't wait to fill in my line for Kerry/Edwards and to feel the sense of Euro-elitism come January 5. Kerry and Edwards: two pretty boys who have style and grace—it just makes me tingle all over! French champagne all around, guys, and don't forget to have Chirac bring the food. To hell with Iraq and her people, and to hell with the rest of the world. America is joining the philosophy of the global test. She's become too intelligent for standing on morals and principles. She's got style over substance! Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Believe
it or not, I don’t know if I’m going to vote this year.
It’s true. Election Day is November 2nd and I still have no idea
what I’m going to do. You would think someone such as myself,
who happens to write a column on politics, would have it all figured
out by now. But if you thought that, you would be wrong. I’m an
undecided voter in a battleground state; I’m everything the candidates
like, except for the fact that I don’t like the candidates. With
the big day coming up strong now, I’m thinking I might stay home.
I tend to find this election annoying. For starters, I’m sick of all the media-types and celebrities trying to guilt me into going to the polls. Part of me wants to skip the election this year just to spite them. It’s getting to be ridiculous already. Every time I turn on the TV, I’m bombarded with messages about how voting is my civic duty. Jason Alexander, Tony Hawk—all of them seem to be saying the same exact thing: It doesn’t matter who I vote for, as long as I vote. I don’t understand this. If it doesn’t matter who I vote for, then why am I voting to begin with? What is this, a practice run for when it starts to count a few years down the road? Voting for the sake of voting seems like a pretty lousy reason to vote, if you ask me. If I’m going to vote, I’d at least like to vote for someone I believe in. Like Jesus. I’m also sick and tired of brand name get-out-the-vote campaigns. MTV, for instance, tells me to “Choose or Lose.” Well, what will I be losing, exactly? My marbles? My lunch money? Do I get to choose what I lose? It makes a difference, you know. A little clarity would go a long way towards helping me decide here. I could probably live without my marbles, but definitely not my lunch money. I’d also prefer not to lose my friends and family members in a military draft—FYI. Then there’s the artist formerly known as Puff Daddy. He goes by P. Diddy now. The “P” stands for “Pushy.” This guy goes around telling kids to “Vote or Die.” That’s right, “Vote or Die.” Let me ask you something: Why the hell is he threatening us like that? What did we ever do to him? I don’t know about you, but if I get to choose what I lose this year, I’m going to choose to lose his attitude. Oh, and then there are the commercials. They’re worse than ever. And not just the presidential commercials, either, but the ones for local races straight down the line. They’re so full of crap. Why can’t they just call each other “unfit” and “sleazy,” like back in the good old days? Why do they have to ruin it by ending each commercial with, “I’m Such N. Such, and I approved this message,” as if it makes things dignified? I’m Jonathan David Morris, and I wish they’d knock it off with that already. Name-calling is probably the last honest political art form. Let it thrive. And then there are the candidates. If there’s a reason not to vote this year, the candidates are it. These guys are a joke. And not even a funny joke, but the kind of joke that bombs so badly that the guy who tells it has to pretend he already knew it wasn’t funny before he said it out loud. Trust me. I’m an expert when it comes to these jokes. I’ve told a lot of them. I don’t see how I could justify voting for George Bush. The Second Gulf War was an awful mistake, and he refuses to fire anyone in his administration over it. That means we pretty much have to fire him. People are dying over there in Iraq right now. Lots of people. Daily. Car bombs are going off like clock radios. Americans are getting their heads severed. Stuff like this wasn’t happening a year and a half ago, before we invaded. People are starting to talk about Saddam Hussein having been good for that country. Some of them even mean it. That’s sick. This war needs to stop. I don’t see how I could justify voting for John Kerry, either. One of the key pieces of his campaign is the promise that he’ll only raise taxes on the rich. To me, that’s like saying, “I’ll only raise taxes on Jews and Negroes.” John Kerry needs to be soundly defeated. The “Anybody But Bush” argument doesn’t cut it anymore. If you really mean that, then write in “Anybody But Bush.” Otherwise, it’s a cop-out. If there’s someone worth voting for this year, it’s probably the Libertarian Party’s Michael Badnarik. I had a chance to speak with him a couple of weeks ago for an interview for “The Aquarian" (on newsstands October 27, 2004). I asked him why, if he thought government was a problem, he was willing to be a part of it. He told me, “If Americans do not wake up and take charge of the government that they are responsible for, then, ultimately, the government will become so tyrannical that the only way to correct it will be through violent revolution.” This makes sense to me. I’ve heard it said that voting is an act of violence—the idea being that it perpetuates an abusive government—but I would suppose breaking out the Jiffy Pop and watching our infrastructure crumble is an act of violence, too. Revolution sounds romantic until you realize you might lose your brother in it. Then all of you sudden you start to realize you’re pro-change but anti-losing-your-family-in-an-unnecessary-war. After meeting with Mr. Badnarik that night, a woman came up to my car and motioned for me to roll down the window. “Can I share some news you won’t find in any major newspaper?” she said. “Sure,” I answered. She handed me a packet of papers. “It’s news that can change your life. God bless us all.” And with that she disappeared into the darkness of a church graveyard parking lot. According to the packet she gave me, on April 25, 2004, Pat Buchanan appeared on 1210 AM in Philadelphia. Only it wasn’t Pat Buchanan, it said. It was “an imposter, a person whose body was cloned to be like him.” It went on to discuss space invaders, the Third Reich, and World War IV, as well as the mysterious disappearances of the “real” George Bush, Jay Leno, and David Letterman. Maybe I’m jaded, but this seems to sum up world affairs for me. I suppose I could live with voting for Badnarik. Not because I met him, or because he can win, but because the fact that I met him means he can’t win. I kind of like that in a president. Armored cars and secret services are for kings and emperors. People tell me sometimes, “If you don’t vote, don’t complain,” but it would seem to me the people who don’t vote are precisely the ones who should be complaining; after all, they’re the ones who never gave anyone permission to exploit them. But then again, I suppose Bart Simpson said it best when he said, “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” That’s sort of how I feel right now. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Bill Clinton was dubbed the first black president, so what should George W Bush be called? The first rabbi chief executive? As the campaign to justify the war on terror continues, who has benefited from this insane journey down a road that can only end in a wreck at the bottom of a political cliff? If the world is being assaulted by a committed band of extremists and fundamentalists, why is there so much apprehension about asking exactly who are these zealots? We all should know the answer to that question! To get along, one needs to go along. What goes unsaid will not come back to haunt anyone, so just keep quiet. Understanding domestic U.S. politics is akin to a perpetual money watch and policy favoritism. The simplicity of comprehending events is befuddled by the propaganda of diversion, illusion and political correctness. A young child will ask, "Mommy, who are the good guys?" but the mother scarcely answers with the truth. All that is said is “WE” have enemies and must protect ourselves. Reducing all the ills of the world down to a singular bogeyman is inaccurate, no matter which one is picked. However, avoiding an examination of the many suspects who have a record that profiles hostile intent would be plainly foolish. Seasoned observers and students of history realize that a nation is formed around common interests. Alien elements—whether foreign countries, clashing cultures or conflicting ethnic groups—are seldom true friends. Our society can only survive by preserving our purpose and protecting our own interests. So what positive security does America get out of supporting a policy that fosters only rage and hate? The eternal strife in the Middle East is inevitable because all parties drink from a well of sheer madness. Now the rabbinical perversion of a Lukid political mindset has emerged as the official policy of a wacky Bush administration. Before additional confusion is drawn from this statement (that hate mail never gets the point), this quagmire doesn’t have any reasonable peacemakers. Reconciliation is a dream in the hearts of fools. Freedom of choice is a concept unknown in a region of distorted and genetically flawed feuding cousins. The essential question for Americans, who place our country above that of any other commune, government or identity, is one that "polite society" refuses to tolerate: WHO CARES if they all kill each other? Now that may seem harsh to the touchy and feely flock; however, does the reality of the circumstance make it any less relevant? Do you really think that any approved candidate running for a nomination from a party that worships a president that pardons Marc Rich can be trusted? Even a NeoCon like Richard Poe admits the absurdity of the charade: “Even when Hillary won an unheard-of 99 percent of the vote in the Hasidic Jewish town of New Square, N.Y.—where Bill Clinton had pardoned some local bigwigs convicted of felony fraud—no one tried very hard to discover whether Hillary had traded those pardons for votes.” If this is news to the max readers, when will the Front Page loyalists get around to answer the obvious? It’s about U.S. policy supporting the Zionists, STUPID! How much of America are you willing to lose to protect the Sharon and Bebe crowd? For those who accept that in order to be public-spirited you have to love the PATRIOT Act, borders on certifiable insanity. A couple of candidates applying for admission are Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz. When a loony left collectivist journal like The Nation, noted for prancing around Katrina vanden Heuvel as a gilded mare, you know the world is going through withdrawal. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a stalwart defender of civil rights and civil liberties, has condoned the use of military tribunals and the detention of more than 1,200 people, even though not a single detainee has been charged in connection with the attacks. His colleague Alan Dershowitz has suggested that torture may sometimes be justified, as long as it is authorized by a warrant. And George Washington law professor Jeff Rosen has argued that "the real story after September 11 is that America hasn't yet come close to abandoning any immutable principles of its national identity." Now ask yourself: is Rosen really speaking about the national identity of the Tribe that the Harvard legal twins, Alan and Larry are so eager to defend? Don’t be ashamed to face the cold hard facts of modern political life. Hey, Howard Dean is smeared for what! Saying we "ought not to take sides" . . . and this coming from a doctor, married to a tribal homeopath physician. Dean wrote in a letter to that great champion for a tolerant America—Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman—dated September 1, 2003:"The U.S. and Israel are partners in the war on terror. As long as that war continues, members of Hamas, who are enemies in that war, are going to be casualties if they continue to target innocent civilians with terrorist acts. Ending violence and stopping the terrorists is the first step toward a lasting peace in the Middle East." So can any reasonable and realistic voter really believe that there is a choice to vote into office a president who will cut loose all the crazies that are obsessed with non-American interests? The crew of gangsters that extort billions from our pockets to pursue a greater Israel never ending war for expansion and dominance are not our friends. The threat of nuclear blackmail or its use is far more likely developed from the Dimona nuclear reactor, separated at Machon and launched with a Jericho missile, than from an emasculated cave dwelling cripple. Just remember who created Osama bin Laden as the perfect villain and who benefits from the state of managed confusion that is sold to the public as the chaos of terrorism. Bush is a lap dog, as will be any DemocRAT who gets the nod. Allowing our national security to be designed by Zionists and subject to Knesset approval is suicidal. Breaking off special treatment with an antagonist, more foe than ally, is not only prudent but necessary if America is to survive as a country worthy of our heritage. The next election is nothing more than a test for those who will pay homage to the red calf in Israel. Almost makes one go vegetarian; we’ll keep eating those french fries...
|
||||||||||
©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 31, 2004 10:13 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||||||
