As Dick Morris put it so brilliantly prior to the election on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor,
"Bush is playing chess and Kerry is playing checkers."
That statement was referring to the election, of course, but may be applicable to the Iran nuclear situaion as well. Despite all the rhetoric from the left about what an idiot George W. Bush is, he keeps beating them at every turn. If he is such an idiot, why is it he keeps winning?
In retrospect, the Iraq war looks like a brilliant chess move, the second such move after taking out al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obviously, there were clear, immediate, and justified reasons for those actions separately, but when the security and future stability of the region are also taken into account, the overarching strategy reveals itself.
Does anyone doubt that Iran would have pursued a nuclear weapons program regardless of the coalition invasion of Iraq? Of course they would have, no matter what happened in Iraq. Was anyone even talking seriously about Iran and the potential for their development of nuclear weapons BEFORE the invasion of Iraq? The coalition certainly did Iraq a favor in removing Saddam, and has freed them to build weapons for potential use on Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and even parts of southeastern Europe. Given the Iranian nuclear situation, we feel better having American armed forces, particularly American air power, now in position on both sides of Iran, along with carrier-based air power in the Persian Gulf.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Democrats and the Election
We are all growing weary of the endless election analysis, but an article in The Weekly Standard caught our eye. It is a very succinct dissection of the poor efforts of the Democrats to woo voters in middle-class America, but it illustrates an even deeper and more insurmountable problem for the Democrats in the future.
The problem Democrats face, and is well described in the article, is that the party that once represented working class America is now the party of the rich, limosine liberals from the coasts, and the far left-leaning progressives who look back fondly on the glory days of socialism in the first part of the last century. It is these two groups, along with the elitists of higher education and their accomplices in the Old Media who now control the party. They hate corporate America, a significant source of jobs and income for millions of average Americans. They want to stop all logging, oil exploration, and new housing construction to 'save the environment', but at the cost of the jobs of many of the working class Americans they claim to want to help!
While these bi-coastal elites jet across "flyover county" in their fuel-guzzeling private jets, and are chauffered around Manhattan and Beverly Hills in their equally gas-guzzleing super stretch limosines, they can't understand why "the red neck masses" below them or waiting at the bus stops as they streak by don't support their brand of politics.
Given how these groups have taken control of the party, we don't see how the Democratic party can ever regain their lost political power. Only when the true Democrats in the tradition of Democrats in the past rise up and wrest control of their party from these elites will the Democratic party be a force for positive good.
Here is the link to the article.
The problem Democrats face, and is well described in the article, is that the party that once represented working class America is now the party of the rich, limosine liberals from the coasts, and the far left-leaning progressives who look back fondly on the glory days of socialism in the first part of the last century. It is these two groups, along with the elitists of higher education and their accomplices in the Old Media who now control the party. They hate corporate America, a significant source of jobs and income for millions of average Americans. They want to stop all logging, oil exploration, and new housing construction to 'save the environment', but at the cost of the jobs of many of the working class Americans they claim to want to help!
While these bi-coastal elites jet across "flyover county" in their fuel-guzzeling private jets, and are chauffered around Manhattan and Beverly Hills in their equally gas-guzzleing super stretch limosines, they can't understand why "the red neck masses" below them or waiting at the bus stops as they streak by don't support their brand of politics.
Given how these groups have taken control of the party, we don't see how the Democratic party can ever regain their lost political power. Only when the true Democrats in the tradition of Democrats in the past rise up and wrest control of their party from these elites will the Democratic party be a force for positive good.
Here is the link to the article.
((Kofi Annan+the UN) x (most of Europe+Sadam Hussein))/Oil for Food = Corruption
With the election now past, and the future of Iraq riding on the upcoming elections in January, the long-simmering Oil-for-Food (OFF) scandal is beginning to heat up. The pot may soon boil over, spilling out corruption of the highest order, along with several deposed world leaders.
Senator Norm Coleman, chaiman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, wrote in today's Wall Street Journal Online that he believes Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, should resign. Senator Coleman's committee has been investigating the OFF scandal for seven months now, and as many of us have suspected, and as the Duelfer Report (discussed here) suggested, the OFF program turned into the biggest get-rich-quick scheme in history. Even Kofi Annan's son has been implicated, as well as many companies and leaders throughout the world, mostly in France, Russia, and Germany, though the investigation is not yet complete and will likely expose other countries, companies, and individuals. No wonder so much of Europe was opposed to the Iraq war; they never wanted the 'gravy train' to stop!
Here is an excerpt from Senator Coleman's column:
Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.
Here is a link to the whole article.
Senator Norm Coleman, chaiman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, wrote in today's Wall Street Journal Online that he believes Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, should resign. Senator Coleman's committee has been investigating the OFF scandal for seven months now, and as many of us have suspected, and as the Duelfer Report (discussed here) suggested, the OFF program turned into the biggest get-rich-quick scheme in history. Even Kofi Annan's son has been implicated, as well as many companies and leaders throughout the world, mostly in France, Russia, and Germany, though the investigation is not yet complete and will likely expose other countries, companies, and individuals. No wonder so much of Europe was opposed to the Iraq war; they never wanted the 'gravy train' to stop!
Here is an excerpt from Senator Coleman's column:
Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.
Here is a link to the whole article.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Letter to Europe
The American Thinker published this Open Letter to Europe on November 11th of this year. It is well worth a read.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
The Left Exposed
Dan Rather, long time news anchor of CBS News, announced this last week that he would be stepping down this spring. Rather, who did everything he could to help defeat George Bush's re-election efforts, including run a poorly researched story based on forged documents, put the final nail in the coffin of the traditional news media. Our colleagues in the Blogosphere that exposed this latest blatant effort by the Old Media (OM) to influence the elections to the left, shows that the internet and Bloggers specifically are the hammer that drove that nail. Were it not for Bloggers, the sham story run by Rather and CBS would likely never have been challenged, and could have influenced the outcome of the election.
In the days before blogging, no one really understood how far leftward the OM actually was, and now we know that they have always been so. We all foolishly assumed that we were being told the truth about the world, when in fact the truth was so often lost in the partisan efforts of the OM political goals. Because of this episode, we can never again trust the OM, or any single media source as a source of "truth".
How would the Vietnam war been percieved by the American people and the world if the internet and Bloggers had existed during that conflict? How many millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian people died because America lost her stomach for finishing the war we were winning militarily? If the daily television reports by the OM had actually shown balance, instead of bias, perhaps we could have seen what was sure to happen to those innocent people in the killing fields of Cambodia.
The OM portrayed the Tet Offensive of 1968 as a big victory for the North Vietnamese, when in fact it was a decisive win for our side. How many of our service men and women died because of emboldened Viet Cong and NVA regulars that knew they had allies in the news rooms in New York and Washington? Because of the OM and their anti-war bias tainted every single report from Vietnam to show that we were losing when we were actually winning, they are directly responsible for the catastrophic results of our early withdrawl from the Vietnan war.
Even "the most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite, has admitted that most of the OM is biased toward the left. The left now complains about Fox News, and mocks their tag line of "fair and balanced" as being anything but. What Fox News and the Blogosphere have taught us is that all media sources have a point of view. The OM tried for decades to portray themselves as unbiased and a reliable source of truth. We know now, and Dan Rather put a fine point on the fact that the OM is very biased to the left, politically, and we at the Lost Tooth Society, as well as the world in general need to review history with a cold new dose of skepticism.
But the situation is even more grave than a simple review of history. While we conservatives were going about our lives, the partisans of the left have spent at least the last six decades infiltrating and taking control of our school systems and universities, our courts, the film industry, and as we have been discussing here, the news media. While we weren't looking, the left has been working quietly, but doggedly to gain control of 'thought'.
They seek to further their agenda first through controlling perception of our daily lives and the goings on of life. Second, they seek to control and mold the thought processes of our children through control of how history is written, and through control of what is taught in primary, secondary, and higher education. Third, they seek control of the democratic process by controlling the legal system and the courts, which in turn control how votes are cast and counted. And fourth, they have worked steadily to, at a minimum severely reduce, and ultimately eliminate religion and religious observances from society. (Note how we no longer have "Easter Break", or "Christmas Break", it's Spring and Winter Break, and Thanksgiving is now a secular holiday.)
By controlling these four aspects of our world, information, knowledge, the courts, and religion, they hope to influence the will of the people as excercised through the democratic process.
It is very clear now that conservatives have lots and lots of catching up to do. We need to take back these institutions, despite the obvious and very large head start on the part of the left. Fortunately, We the People are smarter than the left have always believed we are and counted on. By the democratic vote of the people, conservatives control two of the three branches of government, and actually extended that control in the last election, and this fact is especially troublesome for the left.
The left's reaction to their electoral defeat has exposed their now obvious elitism and condescension to the average working-class American, and their hatred of traditional values. They are in such a fit over the elections that they have, just like Dan Rather in "Memogate", tipped their hand and revealed how much they truely despise the masses and how desparately they want to "Lord" over the very people they purport to want to help the most: average Americans. Why any union or ordinary working man or woman, or anyone with any religious faith at all would support the Democrats is beyond our ability to understand.
In the days before blogging, no one really understood how far leftward the OM actually was, and now we know that they have always been so. We all foolishly assumed that we were being told the truth about the world, when in fact the truth was so often lost in the partisan efforts of the OM political goals. Because of this episode, we can never again trust the OM, or any single media source as a source of "truth".
How would the Vietnam war been percieved by the American people and the world if the internet and Bloggers had existed during that conflict? How many millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian people died because America lost her stomach for finishing the war we were winning militarily? If the daily television reports by the OM had actually shown balance, instead of bias, perhaps we could have seen what was sure to happen to those innocent people in the killing fields of Cambodia.
The OM portrayed the Tet Offensive of 1968 as a big victory for the North Vietnamese, when in fact it was a decisive win for our side. How many of our service men and women died because of emboldened Viet Cong and NVA regulars that knew they had allies in the news rooms in New York and Washington? Because of the OM and their anti-war bias tainted every single report from Vietnam to show that we were losing when we were actually winning, they are directly responsible for the catastrophic results of our early withdrawl from the Vietnan war.
Even "the most trusted man in America", Walter Cronkite, has admitted that most of the OM is biased toward the left. The left now complains about Fox News, and mocks their tag line of "fair and balanced" as being anything but. What Fox News and the Blogosphere have taught us is that all media sources have a point of view. The OM tried for decades to portray themselves as unbiased and a reliable source of truth. We know now, and Dan Rather put a fine point on the fact that the OM is very biased to the left, politically, and we at the Lost Tooth Society, as well as the world in general need to review history with a cold new dose of skepticism.
But the situation is even more grave than a simple review of history. While we conservatives were going about our lives, the partisans of the left have spent at least the last six decades infiltrating and taking control of our school systems and universities, our courts, the film industry, and as we have been discussing here, the news media. While we weren't looking, the left has been working quietly, but doggedly to gain control of 'thought'.
They seek to further their agenda first through controlling perception of our daily lives and the goings on of life. Second, they seek to control and mold the thought processes of our children through control of how history is written, and through control of what is taught in primary, secondary, and higher education. Third, they seek control of the democratic process by controlling the legal system and the courts, which in turn control how votes are cast and counted. And fourth, they have worked steadily to, at a minimum severely reduce, and ultimately eliminate religion and religious observances from society. (Note how we no longer have "Easter Break", or "Christmas Break", it's Spring and Winter Break, and Thanksgiving is now a secular holiday.)
By controlling these four aspects of our world, information, knowledge, the courts, and religion, they hope to influence the will of the people as excercised through the democratic process.
It is very clear now that conservatives have lots and lots of catching up to do. We need to take back these institutions, despite the obvious and very large head start on the part of the left. Fortunately, We the People are smarter than the left have always believed we are and counted on. By the democratic vote of the people, conservatives control two of the three branches of government, and actually extended that control in the last election, and this fact is especially troublesome for the left.
The left's reaction to their electoral defeat has exposed their now obvious elitism and condescension to the average working-class American, and their hatred of traditional values. They are in such a fit over the elections that they have, just like Dan Rather in "Memogate", tipped their hand and revealed how much they truely despise the masses and how desparately they want to "Lord" over the very people they purport to want to help the most: average Americans. Why any union or ordinary working man or woman, or anyone with any religious faith at all would support the Democrats is beyond our ability to understand.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Bush Won
***Election Analysis***
We have taken a week's break from Blogging at this site, first as a rest from the fury of the days and weeks leading up to the recent election, but also as a way of reviewing the post-election positions of the MSM (mainstream media), the Democrats, Republicans, and all those in between and on the fringes to either side of the major parties.
We are obviously delighted at the re-election of George W. Bush, and at the gains by the Republican party in the House and Senate, as we believe that the overall direction of the country under Republican control will be the right direction. That is not to say that we agree completely with all of the positions of the Bush administration or of those in Congress, but the general goals of less government, less regulation, lower taxes, and more local control are worthy and noble goals that should be vigorously pursued. Conversely, we believe that the general goals of John Kerry and the Democrats—more government, higher taxes, more regulation, less local control— are not desirable goals, and should be resisted with equal vigor.
We are struck by the post-election analysis that has been generally discussed in the MSM that the people who voted for GWB did so for reasons of "morality", and that a 'bunch of redneck hicks from 'flyover country'' could have been so stupid as to have voted for the 'idiot' Bush.
According to exit polling conducted by a consortium of MSM organizations, the most important factor in deciding which candidate to vote for for president was "moral values" (22%), followed closely by "economy/jobs" (20%), "terrorism" (19%), "Iraq" (15%), then a big drop to "healthcare" (8%), "taxes" (5%), and finally "education" (4%). As near as we can tell, respondents to this survey were only given these choices, and could choose only one from the list.
Based on these results, 83% of those polled felt that moral values, economics, and the war on terrorism (we're lumping together those who ranked "terrorism" and "Iraq" together) are the most important issues facing the country, whereas only 17% feel that healthcare, education, and taxes are the most pressing issues. If that is true, then why didn't pre-election polls indicate such a low rating for healthcare? We thought, based on listening to the barrage of MSM converage prior to the election, that healthcare would be at least 2nd in the minds of voters to terrorism.
By examining how those polled voted based on their answers to the above categories we may find a possible answer. Those who replied that they thought 'moral values' was the most important reason to choose a candidate, 80% voted for Bush, while just 18% voted for Kerry. For those who thought 'economy/jobs' was the most important, 80% voted for Kerry, and 18% for the president. For people who thought 'terrorism' was the key to choosing their candidate, 86% chose the president, while just 14% voted for Kerry. For those voters for whom 'Iraq' was the key issue, 73% voted for Kerry, while 26% voted Bush. For those who thought that 'healthcare' and 'education' were the most important considerations in choosing a president, about 75% voted for Kerry, and about 25% for Bush.
Could it be that the MSM, so closely aligned with the Democrats and John Kerry, don't accurately reflect the true "will of the people"? Apparently not.
The most interesting part about the post-election analysis, particularly by the MSM and those ont the Left, is the absence in their analyses that any of their policies could be wrong. That's, of course, impossible. To listen to them, they believe that the reason people in "those red states" voted for Bush are because: a) "They're stupid"; and b) "We didn't get our message across".
These two messages are related, of course, but in ways the Democrats and the Left don't want to admit. First, they really do think that anyone who doesn't agree with their view of the world is stupid. Some of these idiots can be brought around, according to the Leftist way of thinking, especially if they (the Left) haven't spoken slowly enough or used simple wording to educate those common, simple people in the Red States.
If they have gotten their message across well, in their view, and they still lose elections, then it's obvious that the people who continue to disagree with their brilliant point of view are not smart enough to vote or to govern themselves. It is for that reason that they believe in government action: they are convinced that they know better, and if you idiots can't see it then goverment needs to re-educate you. It sounds eerily similar to the socialist revolutionaries of the last century. In the words of Karl Marx, the father of modern socialism, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
We don't believe those on the Left have the ability to move even closer to Marx's position on religion than they already have, but we do believe that the Democratic party has been taken over by anti-religious zealots who have been slowly, methodically, and relatively quietly working to eliminate all references to religion from society, and to try to marginalize religion and religious people to such an extent that religion is considered a crude artifact of a society that no longer exists.
We have taken a week's break from Blogging at this site, first as a rest from the fury of the days and weeks leading up to the recent election, but also as a way of reviewing the post-election positions of the MSM (mainstream media), the Democrats, Republicans, and all those in between and on the fringes to either side of the major parties.
We are obviously delighted at the re-election of George W. Bush, and at the gains by the Republican party in the House and Senate, as we believe that the overall direction of the country under Republican control will be the right direction. That is not to say that we agree completely with all of the positions of the Bush administration or of those in Congress, but the general goals of less government, less regulation, lower taxes, and more local control are worthy and noble goals that should be vigorously pursued. Conversely, we believe that the general goals of John Kerry and the Democrats—more government, higher taxes, more regulation, less local control— are not desirable goals, and should be resisted with equal vigor.
We are struck by the post-election analysis that has been generally discussed in the MSM that the people who voted for GWB did so for reasons of "morality", and that a 'bunch of redneck hicks from 'flyover country'' could have been so stupid as to have voted for the 'idiot' Bush.
According to exit polling conducted by a consortium of MSM organizations, the most important factor in deciding which candidate to vote for for president was "moral values" (22%), followed closely by "economy/jobs" (20%), "terrorism" (19%), "Iraq" (15%), then a big drop to "healthcare" (8%), "taxes" (5%), and finally "education" (4%). As near as we can tell, respondents to this survey were only given these choices, and could choose only one from the list.
Based on these results, 83% of those polled felt that moral values, economics, and the war on terrorism (we're lumping together those who ranked "terrorism" and "Iraq" together) are the most important issues facing the country, whereas only 17% feel that healthcare, education, and taxes are the most pressing issues. If that is true, then why didn't pre-election polls indicate such a low rating for healthcare? We thought, based on listening to the barrage of MSM converage prior to the election, that healthcare would be at least 2nd in the minds of voters to terrorism.
By examining how those polled voted based on their answers to the above categories we may find a possible answer. Those who replied that they thought 'moral values' was the most important reason to choose a candidate, 80% voted for Bush, while just 18% voted for Kerry. For those who thought 'economy/jobs' was the most important, 80% voted for Kerry, and 18% for the president. For people who thought 'terrorism' was the key to choosing their candidate, 86% chose the president, while just 14% voted for Kerry. For those voters for whom 'Iraq' was the key issue, 73% voted for Kerry, while 26% voted Bush. For those who thought that 'healthcare' and 'education' were the most important considerations in choosing a president, about 75% voted for Kerry, and about 25% for Bush.
Could it be that the MSM, so closely aligned with the Democrats and John Kerry, don't accurately reflect the true "will of the people"? Apparently not.
The most interesting part about the post-election analysis, particularly by the MSM and those ont the Left, is the absence in their analyses that any of their policies could be wrong. That's, of course, impossible. To listen to them, they believe that the reason people in "those red states" voted for Bush are because: a) "They're stupid"; and b) "We didn't get our message across".
These two messages are related, of course, but in ways the Democrats and the Left don't want to admit. First, they really do think that anyone who doesn't agree with their view of the world is stupid. Some of these idiots can be brought around, according to the Leftist way of thinking, especially if they (the Left) haven't spoken slowly enough or used simple wording to educate those common, simple people in the Red States.
If they have gotten their message across well, in their view, and they still lose elections, then it's obvious that the people who continue to disagree with their brilliant point of view are not smart enough to vote or to govern themselves. It is for that reason that they believe in government action: they are convinced that they know better, and if you idiots can't see it then goverment needs to re-educate you. It sounds eerily similar to the socialist revolutionaries of the last century. In the words of Karl Marx, the father of modern socialism, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
We don't believe those on the Left have the ability to move even closer to Marx's position on religion than they already have, but we do believe that the Democratic party has been taken over by anti-religious zealots who have been slowly, methodically, and relatively quietly working to eliminate all references to religion from society, and to try to marginalize religion and religious people to such an extent that religion is considered a crude artifact of a society that no longer exists.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Stolen Honor
Stolen Honor, the documentary recently broadcast by the Sinclair Broadcast Group is available for viewing online FREE.
See it here.
See it here.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Too Close to Call
The presidential race is too close to call at this writing, as almost all the polling data we have seen shows a slim lead for GW Bush, but within the margin of error. Zogby shows a slight lead for Kerry, and John Zogby himself is calling the race for Kerry. He was right in 1996 and again in 2000, so many on the left will be comforted by this news. However, this race is so polarized and so close compared to 2000 and 1996 that we don't think any of the polling is really very accurate. Based on RealClearPolitics' nationally averaged polls, however, Bush is UP by 2.5% over Kerry (at this writing).
Zogby, we wouldn't be surprised, is calling this race to try to cement his reputation among pollsters as the One Who Got it Right, but the race is so tight that a flip of the coin would be as accurate.
If more polling comes out prior to election day that shows a clear trend to one or the other candidate, then it may be prudent to make a prediction. But there are so few truely "undecided" voters out there that it may come down to one word: turnout.
If John Kerry should end up winning this presidential election, this is one Blogging Group who will not stoop to the hate-mongering of those opposed to Bush for the last 4 years have done, nor as those opposed to Clinton for his term did. We are disgusted with the level of partisanship that has gripped the nation in these last twelve years. The LTS has been on one side of the debate, as the blogging world and some of the electronic media and talk radio are the only voice of the conservative point of view, but everyone who is active in the political debate needs to tone down the rhetoric and turn UP the civility.
We hope that we will know for sure the result of the election on Tuesday night, but don't count on it. The Democrats have plans in place for challenging almost any close race with charges of "voter intimidation" and "voter disinfranchisement", and have teams of lawyers across the country waiting to file their lawsuits.
Zogby, we wouldn't be surprised, is calling this race to try to cement his reputation among pollsters as the One Who Got it Right, but the race is so tight that a flip of the coin would be as accurate.
If more polling comes out prior to election day that shows a clear trend to one or the other candidate, then it may be prudent to make a prediction. But there are so few truely "undecided" voters out there that it may come down to one word: turnout.
If John Kerry should end up winning this presidential election, this is one Blogging Group who will not stoop to the hate-mongering of those opposed to Bush for the last 4 years have done, nor as those opposed to Clinton for his term did. We are disgusted with the level of partisanship that has gripped the nation in these last twelve years. The LTS has been on one side of the debate, as the blogging world and some of the electronic media and talk radio are the only voice of the conservative point of view, but everyone who is active in the political debate needs to tone down the rhetoric and turn UP the civility.
We hope that we will know for sure the result of the election on Tuesday night, but don't count on it. The Democrats have plans in place for challenging almost any close race with charges of "voter intimidation" and "voter disinfranchisement", and have teams of lawyers across the country waiting to file their lawsuits.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Liberal Observations
Why are liberals so concerned about what the Europeans think of America? One of the more common themes to emerge when a liberal is talking or writing about why they don't like GW Bush is their strong desire to for the world, especially Europeans (and even more so the French), to "like us". Their feelings seem to get hurt if they think the Europeans don't like us, as they tend to go on and on about how much "the world has grown to hate America under George Bush."
What they don't seem to understand, apparently, is that much of Europe, and ESPECIALLY the French have NEVER liked Americans, and nothing we can do will ever change that! At best the French and many of the European elites have considered Americans to be loud, obnoxious, crude oafs, useful only for swatting back the occasional genocidal maniac.
Another common feature of liberal argument today is the liberal's penchant for labeling anyone who disagrees with them politically as "brainwashed", or "robots", or sometimes "clueless". It is frankly quite odd to us that so many liberals cannot understand nor accept any point of view other than their own. If someone does dare to disagree, and is not convinced by the liberal's 'obviously brilliant argument', then the only conclusion the liberal can arrive at is that this person is clearly brainwashed or simply to stupid to understand. How classically leftist is this line of thinking?
Dr. John Ray, MA, PhD, a psychometrician from Australia has an excellent site (here and in Interesting Links, right) with links to many of his acedemic publications on the psychology of the Left.
What they don't seem to understand, apparently, is that much of Europe, and ESPECIALLY the French have NEVER liked Americans, and nothing we can do will ever change that! At best the French and many of the European elites have considered Americans to be loud, obnoxious, crude oafs, useful only for swatting back the occasional genocidal maniac.
Another common feature of liberal argument today is the liberal's penchant for labeling anyone who disagrees with them politically as "brainwashed", or "robots", or sometimes "clueless". It is frankly quite odd to us that so many liberals cannot understand nor accept any point of view other than their own. If someone does dare to disagree, and is not convinced by the liberal's 'obviously brilliant argument', then the only conclusion the liberal can arrive at is that this person is clearly brainwashed or simply to stupid to understand. How classically leftist is this line of thinking?
Dr. John Ray, MA, PhD, a psychometrician from Australia has an excellent site (here and in Interesting Links, right) with links to many of his acedemic publications on the psychology of the Left.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Reader Comment
We at the LTS love to hear from readers. An anonymous reader commented recently about our recent post (below) regarding a report from Fox News discussing how the media portrayed the economy in 1994 versus 2004. Here are his comments:
[T]his first problem with such ridiculous analysis is that '96 and '04 are not even close economically. The second is that republicans need to get over Clinton.
Apparently, our reader misunderstood the article's objective, which was to show how differently the "mainstream media" has portrayed economic conditions in this economy today versus those in the fall of 1996. No doubt there are differences between the underlying economic forces at work on the economy today compared to 1996, but the resulting key indicators are virtually the same, yet these nearly identical numbers were reported in a positive light in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, and negatively today. The authors of the Fox article cite Business Week's chief economist Michael J. Mandel's article in the September 6th issue about how strikingly similar the economic situations are today and in 1996. We don't know the credentials of our anonymous commenter, and since no supporting data or references were cited in his comments, we have no facts on which to place value on the commenter's point of view.
We thought it also worth noting that the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.6%, but is only 5.4% today.
As far as our commenter's point about Clinton, we believe that almost all Republicans are "over" Clinton. The economy, thanks in part to Clinton, was good in the 1990's. In fact, we believe that presidents get too much blame and too much credit for good or bad economies. We believe that government has very little effect on the economy, except when it is an excessive burden by way of high taxes and excessive regulation. The only role we would like to see government take in the economy is one to help foster a positive, commerce-friendly environment where individuals by themselves or collectively in businesses and corporations are free to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Americans. Regulation should be used to protect the health and safety of all Americans, but not as a tool for social engineering. The government should get out of the way of the Free Market and let market forces come to bear on the problems of our society.
Healthcare is an area where much more market forces can and should be brought to bear. For most people with health insurance, and that is by far the large majority of Americans, going to the doctor costs $10. Yup, a $10 or $20 copay is all most Americans pay, and as a result, we have no idea how much these things actually cost, and have no incentive to shop around or to let the market determine what these costs should be. We haven't yet done the research, but we suspect that if a graph was drawn showing the average annual cost per person for healthcare, that that line would spike up and remain on a high trend line immediately after the start of Medicare and Medicaid. These programs, while well intentioned, quickly removed any market forces from the costs associated with healthcare. No one actually had to pay for things from their own pocket, so they didn't care how much it cost. The only cost containment structure in place are bureaucrats in Washington.
For those of us not yet on Medicare, most of us have a similar health insurance plan, which still has no real ability to apply market forces on the cost of healthcare, not with the behemoth of Medicare/Medicaid sucking up the lion's share of our national healthcare dollars.
We agree that healthcare is broken in this country. We strongly DISAGREE that more government intervention is the answer. On the contrary, more government intervention, as espoused by the Democrats, would only bring rationing and even poorer healthcare for all but the most privileged.
[T]his first problem with such ridiculous analysis is that '96 and '04 are not even close economically. The second is that republicans need to get over Clinton.
Apparently, our reader misunderstood the article's objective, which was to show how differently the "mainstream media" has portrayed economic conditions in this economy today versus those in the fall of 1996. No doubt there are differences between the underlying economic forces at work on the economy today compared to 1996, but the resulting key indicators are virtually the same, yet these nearly identical numbers were reported in a positive light in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election, and negatively today. The authors of the Fox article cite Business Week's chief economist Michael J. Mandel's article in the September 6th issue about how strikingly similar the economic situations are today and in 1996. We don't know the credentials of our anonymous commenter, and since no supporting data or references were cited in his comments, we have no facts on which to place value on the commenter's point of view.
We thought it also worth noting that the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.6%, but is only 5.4% today.
As far as our commenter's point about Clinton, we believe that almost all Republicans are "over" Clinton. The economy, thanks in part to Clinton, was good in the 1990's. In fact, we believe that presidents get too much blame and too much credit for good or bad economies. We believe that government has very little effect on the economy, except when it is an excessive burden by way of high taxes and excessive regulation. The only role we would like to see government take in the economy is one to help foster a positive, commerce-friendly environment where individuals by themselves or collectively in businesses and corporations are free to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Americans. Regulation should be used to protect the health and safety of all Americans, but not as a tool for social engineering. The government should get out of the way of the Free Market and let market forces come to bear on the problems of our society.
Healthcare is an area where much more market forces can and should be brought to bear. For most people with health insurance, and that is by far the large majority of Americans, going to the doctor costs $10. Yup, a $10 or $20 copay is all most Americans pay, and as a result, we have no idea how much these things actually cost, and have no incentive to shop around or to let the market determine what these costs should be. We haven't yet done the research, but we suspect that if a graph was drawn showing the average annual cost per person for healthcare, that that line would spike up and remain on a high trend line immediately after the start of Medicare and Medicaid. These programs, while well intentioned, quickly removed any market forces from the costs associated with healthcare. No one actually had to pay for things from their own pocket, so they didn't care how much it cost. The only cost containment structure in place are bureaucrats in Washington.
For those of us not yet on Medicare, most of us have a similar health insurance plan, which still has no real ability to apply market forces on the cost of healthcare, not with the behemoth of Medicare/Medicaid sucking up the lion's share of our national healthcare dollars.
We agree that healthcare is broken in this country. We strongly DISAGREE that more government intervention is the answer. On the contrary, more government intervention, as espoused by the Democrats, would only bring rationing and even poorer healthcare for all but the most privileged.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
So, Senator Kerry, was Iraq a Threat or Not?
We can't figure out John Kerry. For several weeks now, he has been saying that Iraq was a "diversion" from the War on Terror, and was not an imminent threat, but now with the FALSE report (as outlined on this site previously) of missing high explosives he has been saying that Bush was guilty of gross incompetence for not securing these explosives, and they may have fallen into the hands of—terrorists! So which is it today, Mr. Flip-Flopping Kerry, was Iraq a threat, or not?
Here is another article showing the true gross incompetence: John Kerry.
Here is another article showing the true gross incompetence: John Kerry.
A Vietnam Veteran for Bush (and he's a life-long Democrat)
We received an email from a reader with a link to a site run by a Vietnam veteran who pulled three tours of duty so that his two brothers would not have to go themselves. The rules in those days wouldn't allow brothers to be deployed to Vietnam at the same time, so this brave man went for them all. He was badly injured during his third tour. He is a life-long Democrat but is stronly supporting George W. Bush. His site is excellent, and we especially urge you read "Ashley's Story".
The link.
The link.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Economic SPIN
Fox News has a great article about the bias of the news media.
We can't do it justice, so read it here.
We can't do it justice, so read it here.
Attempted UN Intervention in the US Elections
The recent October Surprise from the left, the "missing" 380 tons of high-explosives MDX and RDX from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility in Iraq, is a clear attempt by the UN to interfere and influence next week's US presidential elections.
The story first broke yesterday in the NY Times, citing a letter from the Iraqi interim government to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressing concern about the missing high explosives. However, NBC News reported today that they had embedded reporters with the 101st Airborne Division when US forces first arrived at the Al-Qaqaa facility, three weeks into the war, and that while they found larger stockpiles of bombs, there was no sign of any of MDX or RDX.
The now clear fact that these highly explosive weapons had already disappeared from huge Al-Qaqaa complex, a site described by CNN in January of 2003 as belonging "to the Iraqi Military Industrialization Commission and was listed on a dossier of weapons of mass destruction facilities released by the British government last year.", is apparently lost on John Kerry, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, with the notable exception of NBC. Kerry was quick to jump on this now false story and continues today to deny the facts.
Even more disturbing than the left's continous disregard for the truth, is the fact that the UN, though the IAEA, have deliberately involved themselves in the US election is trying to discredit the Bush administration and boost the flagging Kerry campaign. Any American even considering voting for Kerry should think long and hard about a candidate who so strongly supports the UN, an agency who has proven over an over its utter uselessness.
One last comment on this subject: while the missing 380 tons of highly explosive material, that was intended, by the way, be used on Iraq's NUCLEAR weapons program (WMD's), is scary, to suggest as some on the left have, that the US has failed at securing WMD's (we thought Iraq didn't have any?), remember that those 380 tons pales in comparison to the over 400,000 tons of ordinance already destroyed or about to be destroyed.
The story first broke yesterday in the NY Times, citing a letter from the Iraqi interim government to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressing concern about the missing high explosives. However, NBC News reported today that they had embedded reporters with the 101st Airborne Division when US forces first arrived at the Al-Qaqaa facility, three weeks into the war, and that while they found larger stockpiles of bombs, there was no sign of any of MDX or RDX.
The now clear fact that these highly explosive weapons had already disappeared from huge Al-Qaqaa complex, a site described by CNN in January of 2003 as belonging "to the Iraqi Military Industrialization Commission and was listed on a dossier of weapons of mass destruction facilities released by the British government last year.", is apparently lost on John Kerry, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, with the notable exception of NBC. Kerry was quick to jump on this now false story and continues today to deny the facts.
Even more disturbing than the left's continous disregard for the truth, is the fact that the UN, though the IAEA, have deliberately involved themselves in the US election is trying to discredit the Bush administration and boost the flagging Kerry campaign. Any American even considering voting for Kerry should think long and hard about a candidate who so strongly supports the UN, an agency who has proven over an over its utter uselessness.
One last comment on this subject: while the missing 380 tons of highly explosive material, that was intended, by the way, be used on Iraq's NUCLEAR weapons program (WMD's), is scary, to suggest as some on the left have, that the US has failed at securing WMD's (we thought Iraq didn't have any?), remember that those 380 tons pales in comparison to the over 400,000 tons of ordinance already destroyed or about to be destroyed.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A Soldier's Blog from Iraq
Little Green Footballs has a link to a US soldier's blog who is stationed in Iraq. It is very interesting reading. An excerpt:
A quick touch on the headlines for today. As I sit and write this, explosions rock the area and we are unsure if it is outgoing or incoming. We have gotten used to it and we usually don't think twice about it.
I had a reader inform me of something I already knew about. Ramadan. I know that this month is supposed to be a month of charity, fasting and cleanliness, however, I see no charity in all of this. Five churches bombed this morning, one of them near us. Where is the charity in this? Car bomb kills troops in Iraq. Nope, not there either. Explosions rock central Baghdad. Still searching. Bombing, killing and violence seem to be the order of the day.
Also I wished to touch on the item regarding the soldiers who refused their mission because of their equipment. This is an extremely isolated incident, however black the mark on the military it may leave. The United States military is some of the best equipped and supplied forces in the world and there is absolutely no excuse for cowardace or using this excuse because of fear. Our platoon consists of at least 18 well equipped soldiers, 2 heavily armored HMMWVs, (I hate mine because I cannot see or hear) and 2 lighter armored HMMWVs. I prefer to ride in the lighter ones for they are faster, more mobile and I can see and hear anything that may be coming. The excuse given by at least one of the soldiers that refused the mission, is that some of their vehicles were deadlined (not mission capable). Well, genius, whose fault is that?? The operator, that is who.
Here is the link.
A quick touch on the headlines for today. As I sit and write this, explosions rock the area and we are unsure if it is outgoing or incoming. We have gotten used to it and we usually don't think twice about it.
I had a reader inform me of something I already knew about. Ramadan. I know that this month is supposed to be a month of charity, fasting and cleanliness, however, I see no charity in all of this. Five churches bombed this morning, one of them near us. Where is the charity in this? Car bomb kills troops in Iraq. Nope, not there either. Explosions rock central Baghdad. Still searching. Bombing, killing and violence seem to be the order of the day.
Also I wished to touch on the item regarding the soldiers who refused their mission because of their equipment. This is an extremely isolated incident, however black the mark on the military it may leave. The United States military is some of the best equipped and supplied forces in the world and there is absolutely no excuse for cowardace or using this excuse because of fear. Our platoon consists of at least 18 well equipped soldiers, 2 heavily armored HMMWVs, (I hate mine because I cannot see or hear) and 2 lighter armored HMMWVs. I prefer to ride in the lighter ones for they are faster, more mobile and I can see and hear anything that may be coming. The excuse given by at least one of the soldiers that refused the mission, is that some of their vehicles were deadlined (not mission capable). Well, genius, whose fault is that?? The operator, that is who.
Here is the link.
The George Soros Email Exchange
Dissecting Leftism today posts a link to an email exchange between George Soros and RayD of Davids Medienkritik. It is a long exchange, but well worth it. Mysteriously, the link to this exchange on Soros' website disappeared after it was posted. Apparently Mr. Soros doesn't like to be 'bested' on such matters.
Here is the link.
Here is the link.
Monday, October 18, 2004
An Insider's View of Iraq
We came across this excellent site regarding Iraq and Iraqis, whose principle contributor was a senior advisor to Ambassador Bremmer in Iraq when the Provisional Coalition was in control. Mr. Moore was a pollster for the ambassador, and has keen insight into how the Iraqi people think about many subjects, as well as the Iraq situation in general.
The Truth About Iraq
The Truth About Iraq
The FY04 Federal Budget Numbers Are In
The financial health of the country is much better off than the mainstream media and the Democrats (not that there is any difference between the two) would have us believe.
Larry Kudlow writes in today's NRO that the picture is getting brighter, and tax cuts are the reason. Here is an excerpt:
And the Budget Says . . .
. . . the supply-siders were right all along.
Is there more sanity in the federal budget than people think?
The latest budget numbers closing out fiscal year 2004 show slower spending growth, stronger tax receipts, and a $413 billion deficit that came in about $100 billion less than the Office of Management and Budget predicted at the start of the year and $64 billion lower than the Congressional Budget Office estimate.
Overall, according the Treasury Department, tax receipts increased 5.5 percent in fiscal year 2004 compared to a 3.8 percent decline in fiscal year 2003. Income-tax withholdings gained 2.5 percent versus a loss of 2.2 percent in the prior year. Corporate tax collections exploded 43.7 percent on the shoulders of near-record corporate profits.
What’s going on? It’s clear: At lower marginal tax rates, the rising economy is throwing off a lot more tax revenues. Score one for the supply-siders.
Here is the article.
Larry Kudlow writes in today's NRO that the picture is getting brighter, and tax cuts are the reason. Here is an excerpt:
And the Budget Says . . .
. . . the supply-siders were right all along.
Is there more sanity in the federal budget than people think?
The latest budget numbers closing out fiscal year 2004 show slower spending growth, stronger tax receipts, and a $413 billion deficit that came in about $100 billion less than the Office of Management and Budget predicted at the start of the year and $64 billion lower than the Congressional Budget Office estimate.
Overall, according the Treasury Department, tax receipts increased 5.5 percent in fiscal year 2004 compared to a 3.8 percent decline in fiscal year 2003. Income-tax withholdings gained 2.5 percent versus a loss of 2.2 percent in the prior year. Corporate tax collections exploded 43.7 percent on the shoulders of near-record corporate profits.
What’s going on? It’s clear: At lower marginal tax rates, the rising economy is throwing off a lot more tax revenues. Score one for the supply-siders.
Here is the article.
Some Unfiltered News from Iraq
A reader's email today regarding what is really happening on the ground in Iraq:
"Our 40 year old son, who is a 20 year retired Marine, is still over there in Baghdad. He was to be done with his contract the end of Sept but they couldn't get a replacement for him and was asked to stay until the end of this year which he has agreed to do. He has been there for over a year on a government contact that he took. He was able to be with us this summer for our family reunion in July at which time we helped him celebrate his big 40 birthday. He brought back pictures to show us where he is and what he does. Its all security so don't know much but he did have some great pictures to show us on his lap top that he brought back and I feel much better about him being there since I seen them. He is in the green zone and fairly safe (I think and Hope). We will be glad when he is back in the states. He too was telling us some of the good things that we are doing there and many we never hear about. It’s so much better than before so keep those military and non military that are there trying to do their jobs in your prayers. I think you'll get a good view of what's going on when you read this.
"Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games
This is one of the postings from a real Marine CI network (NMCI); reviewed within DoD, screened for classified info before allowed on the discussion board by the board moderators (also DoD). They’re legitimate postings from real people stationed over there.
Interesting reading.
Subject: [MCCIA] Report from a Marine Officer on duty in Iraq - - -A thought from Iraq - "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future. I don't see it from where I'm sitting."[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets, you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith. His experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]
The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's web site says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.
From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.
The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.
So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week."
"Our 40 year old son, who is a 20 year retired Marine, is still over there in Baghdad. He was to be done with his contract the end of Sept but they couldn't get a replacement for him and was asked to stay until the end of this year which he has agreed to do. He has been there for over a year on a government contact that he took. He was able to be with us this summer for our family reunion in July at which time we helped him celebrate his big 40 birthday. He brought back pictures to show us where he is and what he does. Its all security so don't know much but he did have some great pictures to show us on his lap top that he brought back and I feel much better about him being there since I seen them. He is in the green zone and fairly safe (I think and Hope). We will be glad when he is back in the states. He too was telling us some of the good things that we are doing there and many we never hear about. It’s so much better than before so keep those military and non military that are there trying to do their jobs in your prayers. I think you'll get a good view of what's going on when you read this.
"Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games
This is one of the postings from a real Marine CI network (NMCI); reviewed within DoD, screened for classified info before allowed on the discussion board by the board moderators (also DoD). They’re legitimate postings from real people stationed over there.
Interesting reading.
Subject: [MCCIA] Report from a Marine Officer on duty in Iraq - - -A thought from Iraq - "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future. I don't see it from where I'm sitting."[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets, you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith. His experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]
The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's web site says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.
From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.
The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.
So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week."
Kerry's Discharge from the Navy
Since John Kerry has made his Vietnam service such an important part of his
campaign for president, and his supporters have gone so hard after president
Bush for his service in the National Guard, we thought this article in the NY
Sun regarding his discharge very interesting.
Here is an excerpt:
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
Read the article here.
campaign for president, and his supporters have gone so hard after president
Bush for his service in the National Guard, we thought this article in the NY
Sun regarding his discharge very interesting.
Here is an excerpt:
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
Read the article here.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Kerry-Edwards Quotes on Iraq
Little Green Footballs has a fabulous link to many quotes from Kerry-Edwards on Iraq. It is clear again that Kerry-Edwards has flip-flopped on the war many times, but in the days and weeks leading up to the war they were supporters. Only after Howard Dean found success as an anti-war candidate did the Kerry Team change.
Here are the quotes.
Here are the quotes.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
45 Million Uninsured?
Norm Weatherby posted yesterday on his site Quantum Thought-A Palette for Thinking about John Kerry and the Democratic spin machine's recent statements regarding the US Census Bureau's reporting that there are 45 million American's without health insurance.
Here is what he wrote:
45 Million Uninsured? In A Pig's Eye. Notice how Kerry/Edwards and the liberal media are flashing on the Census Bureau figures of "45 million uninsured Americans"?
There's only one little problem: It's a bold faced lie!
Consider that the Census Bureau admits that their figures include people who were between jobs and had no insurance for as little as one day! The average time was less than a week...and the Census Bureau counts them as not having insurance for the whole year! This figure of "transient unemployed" is 20 million. Counting them is an insult to our intelligence...something the government has practiced to perfection.
OK...45-20 million is 25 million.
Next consider that included in these Census figures is a figure that allows for "undocumented residents" (That's illegal immigrants folks, criminals.) Get that? Twelve million illegals don't have health insurance and that's supposed to be Bush's fault right? What kind of funny tobacco these people smoking? I biggest they return to their legal countries to obtain health care. Don't clog our statistics tables with their illegal presence.
25 million minus 12 million leaves 13 million US citizens without "Health Insurance".
Guess what folks? It's estimated that 6 million of these people actually qualify for Medicaid, various State medical programs and free county hospital plans like Dallas Parkland Hospital. The federal government has been trying to find ways to let these people know of this care availability and sign them up. So who's to blame because these people who are too lazy or stupid to sign up? This is like blaming me because some otherwise able bodied dolt is too stupid to put food in his mouth and starves to death.
13 minus 6 leaves....7 million.
7 million that have no " Health Insurance"...but guess what again? It's estimated that 60% of these people are in the upper income brackets and choose to be self -insuring or just don't want health insurance even though they can afford it. (Talk to a health insurance agent about this one. He sees it every day.)
That leaves 2.8 million people, too poor to afford health insurance and need ... what? Health insurance? Why health insurance? These people can just walk into any Emergency room in any hospital in the nation and all the care is free. That fact is posted conspicuously on the wall of every ER by Federal law! Or didn't you know that?
So when you hear Kerry /Edwards or other liberal cycloids quoting the 45 million figure understand that they figure you are to stupid or uncaring to search out and learn the real situation. That's someone you want for President?
Here is what he wrote:
45 Million Uninsured? In A Pig's Eye. Notice how Kerry/Edwards and the liberal media are flashing on the Census Bureau figures of "45 million uninsured Americans"?
There's only one little problem: It's a bold faced lie!
Consider that the Census Bureau admits that their figures include people who were between jobs and had no insurance for as little as one day! The average time was less than a week...and the Census Bureau counts them as not having insurance for the whole year! This figure of "transient unemployed" is 20 million. Counting them is an insult to our intelligence...something the government has practiced to perfection.
OK...45-20 million is 25 million.
Next consider that included in these Census figures is a figure that allows for "undocumented residents" (That's illegal immigrants folks, criminals.) Get that? Twelve million illegals don't have health insurance and that's supposed to be Bush's fault right? What kind of funny tobacco these people smoking? I biggest they return to their legal countries to obtain health care. Don't clog our statistics tables with their illegal presence.
25 million minus 12 million leaves 13 million US citizens without "Health Insurance".
Guess what folks? It's estimated that 6 million of these people actually qualify for Medicaid, various State medical programs and free county hospital plans like Dallas Parkland Hospital. The federal government has been trying to find ways to let these people know of this care availability and sign them up. So who's to blame because these people who are too lazy or stupid to sign up? This is like blaming me because some otherwise able bodied dolt is too stupid to put food in his mouth and starves to death.
13 minus 6 leaves....7 million.
7 million that have no " Health Insurance"...but guess what again? It's estimated that 60% of these people are in the upper income brackets and choose to be self -insuring or just don't want health insurance even though they can afford it. (Talk to a health insurance agent about this one. He sees it every day.)
That leaves 2.8 million people, too poor to afford health insurance and need ... what? Health insurance? Why health insurance? These people can just walk into any Emergency room in any hospital in the nation and all the care is free. That fact is posted conspicuously on the wall of every ER by Federal law! Or didn't you know that?
So when you hear Kerry /Edwards or other liberal cycloids quoting the 45 million figure understand that they figure you are to stupid or uncaring to search out and learn the real situation. That's someone you want for President?
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Economics, Jobs, and Politics
Donald Luskin, of Trend Macrolytics, writes in today's National Review Online a decisively complete dissection of Paul Krugman's recent column in the New York Times. He includes lots of footnoted detail that clearly shows how wrong the partisan Mr. Krugman is again regarding Kerry and Bush's policies and proposals on the taxes, the economy, and jobs.
Read Mr. Luskin's column here.
Economists J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda also write in today's NRO an article titled, "368 Economists Against Kerrynomics".
Here is an excerpt:
Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
You can read the article here.
William Saffire's column today discusses in detail the French-damning Duelfer Report, as we discussed at length in several posts this and last week. We are constantly amazed at the difference between what the actual report says, and what is written about the report by the "fair and balanced" mainstream media.
Read Mr. Luskin's column here.
Economists J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda also write in today's NRO an article titled, "368 Economists Against Kerrynomics".
Here is an excerpt:
Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”
That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”
You can read the article here.
William Saffire's column today discusses in detail the French-damning Duelfer Report, as we discussed at length in several posts this and last week. We are constantly amazed at the difference between what the actual report says, and what is written about the report by the "fair and balanced" mainstream media.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
John Kerry's Family History
HundredPercenter has an interesting post today regarding John Kerry's family history.
(Link via Dissecting Leftism.)
(Link via Dissecting Leftism.)
Monday, October 11, 2004
Iraq's WMD Program
Claudia Rosette, of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute, writes in today's National Review Online a scathing review of Saddam Hussein's WMD program and how Saddam was positioning Iraq for a post-sanctions build-up of WMD's. As reported here last week, the Duelfer Report outlines a chilling and outrageous corruption scandal involving the UN, and many of the countries most opposed to the war in Iraq.
Here is an excerpt:
"CIA chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer may not have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he sure found information enough to blow the lid off the simmering scandal of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. As it turns out, Oil-for-Food pretty much was Saddam Hussein's weapons program.
As Duelfer documents, Oil-for-Food allowed Saddam to replenish his empty coffers, firm up his networks for hiding money and buying arms, corrupt the U.N.'s own debates over Iraq, greatly erode sanctions and deliberately prep the ground for further rearming, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As set up and run by the U.N., Oil-for-Food devolved into a depraved and increasingly dangerous mockery of what was advertised by the U.N. as a relief program for sick and starving Iraqis.
The report notes that the start of Oil-for-Food, in 1996, marked the revival of Saddam's post-Gulf War fortunes. His regime amassed some $11 billion in illicit funds between the end of the Gulf War in 1991, and his overthrow by the U.S.-led Coalition in 2003. Most of that money flowed in from 1996-2003, during the era of Oil-for-Food. One might add that what allowed this dirty money to stack up was U.N. policy — urged along and overseen by Annan, in the name of aid — that allowed Saddam to import the equipment to revive Iraq's oil production, all of it accruing to Saddam. Saddam's regime had virtually no other source of income; there was no tax base. It was out of these oil flows, condoned (but not well metered) by the U.N., that Saddam derived virtually all income for the astounding roster of political bribery and illicit arms transactions detailed in this report."
Here is the whole article.
Here is an excerpt:
"CIA chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer may not have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but he sure found information enough to blow the lid off the simmering scandal of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. As it turns out, Oil-for-Food pretty much was Saddam Hussein's weapons program.
As Duelfer documents, Oil-for-Food allowed Saddam to replenish his empty coffers, firm up his networks for hiding money and buying arms, corrupt the U.N.'s own debates over Iraq, greatly erode sanctions and deliberately prep the ground for further rearming, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As set up and run by the U.N., Oil-for-Food devolved into a depraved and increasingly dangerous mockery of what was advertised by the U.N. as a relief program for sick and starving Iraqis.
The report notes that the start of Oil-for-Food, in 1996, marked the revival of Saddam's post-Gulf War fortunes. His regime amassed some $11 billion in illicit funds between the end of the Gulf War in 1991, and his overthrow by the U.S.-led Coalition in 2003. Most of that money flowed in from 1996-2003, during the era of Oil-for-Food. One might add that what allowed this dirty money to stack up was U.N. policy — urged along and overseen by Annan, in the name of aid — that allowed Saddam to import the equipment to revive Iraq's oil production, all of it accruing to Saddam. Saddam's regime had virtually no other source of income; there was no tax base. It was out of these oil flows, condoned (but not well metered) by the U.N., that Saddam derived virtually all income for the astounding roster of political bribery and illicit arms transactions detailed in this report."
Here is the whole article.
Friday, October 08, 2004
We Were Right to Go into Iraq
We have been studying the Duelfer Report on Iraq in more depth, and are now more convinced than ever that the United States and our allies were absolutely correct in going into Iraq. The decision to go in was based, in part, on what we now know to be faulty intelligence that Iraq had WMD's. At the time, of course, there was universal acceptance that Iraq HAD WMD's. The only disagreement was how to effectively deal with them.
On the one side were those who felt that "containment" was the correct approach, and on the other was the argument that only the use of armed forces could remove the threat. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both felt that in the context of the post-9/11 world that the potential for state-sponsored terrorism, especially given a regime like Saddam's and his record on supporting terrorism, was too great a threat to leave to inspectors and diplomats. That no weapons have been found, and none are likely to be found, had been troublesome to us at the Lost-Tooth Society and to many others.
The Duelfer Report, however, makes clear (as outlined briefly in our post below) that Saddam had a very clear strategy:
On the one side were those who felt that "containment" was the correct approach, and on the other was the argument that only the use of armed forces could remove the threat. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both felt that in the context of the post-9/11 world that the potential for state-sponsored terrorism, especially given a regime like Saddam's and his record on supporting terrorism, was too great a threat to leave to inspectors and diplomats. That no weapons have been found, and none are likely to be found, had been troublesome to us at the Lost-Tooth Society and to many others.
The Duelfer Report, however, makes clear (as outlined briefly in our post below) that Saddam had a very clear strategy:
- Use the Oil for Food (OFF) program to line the pockets of politicians and diplomats from countries sympathetic to Iraq and thereby gain additional support, especially from countries with veto power in the UN Security Council.
- By 'sort of' cooperating—albeit reluctantly—with the UN, he would work to have all the sanctions removed, while at the same time he was working to have in place all the pieces and people to quickly restart work on the WMD's, once the international scrutiny was removed.
- To avoid appearing weak, Saddam also chose to put forth the illusion that he may very well have WMD's during this process.
The fatal flaw in his strategy was trying to avoid the appearance of weakness, mostly to feed his own ego, but probably also out of a concern that unfriendly neighbors might see weakness as an opportunity to strike. Had he instead chosen to open wide the doors of his country to all who wanted to see that he no longer possessed WMD's, his plan may have succeeded. Certainly the invasion undertaken by coalition forces would not have taken place.
Despite the loss of life on both sides of the conflict, removing Saddam from power, and stopping his plan to re-acquire WMD's was the right thing the do.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Iraq WMD Strategy
Little Green Footballs (see Interesting Links) posts today a link to the Duelfer Report, a report to the Director of the CIA by the Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, regarding Iraq's WMD's and Sadam Hussein's WMD strategy since the first Gulf War. The report is long, and LGF has an excellent summary of the allegations of the $60 billion Oil For Food (OFF) program and how it related to the possible resumption of Iraq's WMD program.
The Key Findings section is particularly interesting, as this excerpt from the report shows:
"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
As reported by LGF, "How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times [Sept 26, 2004] saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months."
Read the Key Findings (PDF) here.
James Tarantino's Best of the Web Today, appearing in the OpinionJournal.com, has another excellent article regarding Iraq's WMD program and the Duelfer Report.
The Key Findings section is particularly interesting, as this excerpt from the report shows:
"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
As reported by LGF, "How quickly could he have done this? We have an answer to this question too, because last month Saddam’s former nuclear chief, Mahdi Obeidi, wrote a piece for the New York Times [Sept 26, 2004] saying that the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs could have been reconstituted within months."
Read the Key Findings (PDF) here.
*****
Iraq WMD Strategy (part 2)
James Tarantino's Best of the Web Today, appearing in the OpinionJournal.com, has another excellent article regarding Iraq's WMD program and the Duelfer Report.
Read it here.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Federal Spending Analysis
The Economics division of the Lost-Tooth Society has been studying historical spending rates of the federal government, and wanted to post some of the preliminary findings. We have noticed many unsubstantiated complaints from the left regarding spending by the Bush administration, so we thought a review of the facts was warranted.
We began by looking at the Tax Foundation's website (see "Interesting Links"), and found an analysis of the president's FY'04 budget. It compares the 2004 budget with the historical averages of Post WW2 budgets, Bill Clinton's budget averages, George HW Bush's budget averages, and the averages of Ronald Reagan's budgets, all as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. (GDP, for those of you who don't already know, is the measure of the whole of the national economy.)
Some of the key findings:
We began by looking at the Tax Foundation's website (see "Interesting Links"), and found an analysis of the president's FY'04 budget. It compares the 2004 budget with the historical averages of Post WW2 budgets, Bill Clinton's budget averages, George HW Bush's budget averages, and the averages of Ronald Reagan's budgets, all as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. (GDP, for those of you who don't already know, is the measure of the whole of the national economy.)
Some of the key findings:
- Total receipts (% of GDP) 17% (versus 17.9 post WW2)
- Total outlays 19.7% vs 19.5 (post WW2)
- Deficit 2.7% vs. 1.6%
- Annual growth in receipts 2.7% vs. 2.9%
- Annual growth in outlays 2.2% vs. 2.3%
- Debt held by public 36.9% vs. 44%
- Gross public debt 64.8% vs. 56%
It's even more interesting when GWB's 2004 budget is compared with Bill Clinton's. You can read the entire article and review the table here.
****
We also looked further into the details of federal spending between the Bush (43) and Clinton budgets to see how their spending patterns differed.
We compared Clinton's first four years to Bush (estimated 04), using Office of Management and Budget spreadsheets(Budget Authority by Agency) (constant $), and discovered that:
- Clinton's spending on veteran's affairs increased by an average of 8%, Bush increased by 27%.
- EPA under Clinton up 1%, under Bush the EPA saw an increase of 10%.
- Education spending under Clinton increased 25%, but increased 58% by Bush.
- Labor department budget authority under Clinton decreased 16%. Under Bush Labor Dept. spending increased 35%.
- Small Business Administration spending under Clinton's watch decreased a whopping 59%, and increased under Bush by an equally eye-popping 6,125%!
****
We at the LTS are not very happy with GWB's large spending increases, but the data above clearly debunks the liberal view that he has gutted education and environmental spending. On the contrary, he is spending far more that Clinton did on the very programs they cry the loudest over.
You can find all the OMB spreadsheets here.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
George Bush's National Guard Service
While GWB's service in the National Guard is a big deal to many on the left, the majority of the people are smart enough to know that while his NG service 30+ years ago was probably relevant to the election in 2000, it is not relevant at all now. He has a nearly four-year record as president and commander-in-chief, including the prosecution of two wars. The electorate need look no further to decide if he has been effective.
Along with their attempts to portray John Kerry as a "war hero", the left just doesn't 'get it'.
Along with their attempts to portray John Kerry as a "war hero", the left just doesn't 'get it'.
al-Qaeda/Iraq Connection Revisited
A very detailed report outlining a secret memo from Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senate Intelligence Committee members Jay Rockefeller and and Pat Roberts published in November of 2003 in the Weekly Standard shows a clear relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq between 1990 and 2003.
Read it yourself and make up your own mind: Weekly Standard
Read it yourself and make up your own mind: Weekly Standard
Friday, September 24, 2004
Things are getting worse in Iraq?
Listening to the so-called mainstream media recently, it seems as if things are getting worse rather than better in Iraq. To be sure, there is more violence occuring recently, including the barbaric beheadings of two American hostages this week alone. But there is always more to the story than meets the eye, and the Conspiracies Group of the Lost-Tooth Society has suggested that it is a bit too convenient for the Kerry Campaign that the situation in Iraq is being portrayed by the mainstream media as rapidly deteriorating.
To counter-balance the perspective of the mainstream media, the Conspiracies Group has brought to our attention an article by James S. Robbins in the National Review Online wherein he describes the results of several large, scientifically conducted polling of Iraqi citizens.
There is too much detail to recite here, but suffice it to say that the majority of people of Iraq believe that they are in much better shape in almost all matters now than during Saddam's dictatorship.
Read the whole article here.
To counter-balance the perspective of the mainstream media, the Conspiracies Group has brought to our attention an article by James S. Robbins in the National Review Online wherein he describes the results of several large, scientifically conducted polling of Iraqi citizens.
There is too much detail to recite here, but suffice it to say that the majority of people of Iraq believe that they are in much better shape in almost all matters now than during Saddam's dictatorship.
Read the whole article here.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Haiti UPDATE
With still no complaints from the political left, the death toll from now Hurricane Jeanne has gone over 1,000, and it is expected to rise to over 2,000.
Read more here.
Read more here.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Where is the Outcry about Haiti?
Reports from Haiti today lists the death toll from tropical storm Jeanne at over 660 people, and at least 1,000 missing. Where, we wonder, is the outcry from the left over this horrendous loss of life? Why are they silent over this trajedy? To be honest, there has been no outcry from the right, either, but we would have thought that the left would have been much more concerned over this calamity, these 660 deaths, and probably many more to come, in just these few days.
Maybe they are only concerned over war deaths, as they see them as preventable. But couldn't many of these been prevented? Much worse storms hit nearby islands and even the USA without this terrible death toll. Perhaps it was the fact the that country was ill-prepared aftern having been run for so long by a socialist dictator that should have been toppled long ago. But that would have meant war, and we know how the left feels about the USA going to war to topple left-wing, socialist dictators.
Read about the disaster here.
Maybe they are only concerned over war deaths, as they see them as preventable. But couldn't many of these been prevented? Much worse storms hit nearby islands and even the USA without this terrible death toll. Perhaps it was the fact the that country was ill-prepared aftern having been run for so long by a socialist dictator that should have been toppled long ago. But that would have meant war, and we know how the left feels about the USA going to war to topple left-wing, socialist dictators.
Read about the disaster here.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Remembering 9/11
We note with sadness today the 3rd anniversary of the attacks of September 11th. It was a day that forever changed America and the world. A sad and tragic day that we all witnessed the very worst of human behavior and the very best. Widows, widowers, and heros were made that day, as well as cowards and thugs. Thousands of children lost their parents, and thousands of parents lost their children. Husbands lost their wives, and wives lost their husbands. Girlfriends lost their boyfriends, and boyfriends lost their girlfriends. America lost her innocence, and those behind the attacks would soon lose their safe havens.
But amidst the rubble and ruins of human beings and buildings, the human spirit rose to new heights. People who just hours before did not know each other were hugging and crying together in their grief. Fire and police officers, as well as other emergency workers, set aside their own personal safety to help others. Ordinary citizens helped in any way their could. Despite the enormity of the situation, and despite the way Hollywood has traditionally portrayed how people react to disasters, people didn't panic, at least for the most part.
September 11th also saw the first real counter-attack in the War on Terror. Those brave citizens aboard Flight 93 fought back. They knew the fate of the first three planes from using their cell phones, and were not about to let their plane hit the Capitol, or the Whitehouse, or whatever their target. So they fought back they way Americans have always done; they volunteered to take on the terrorists. They were the first American militia of the 21st century.
The American flag has flown continuously over the LTS Building since September 11th, and will continue to fly overhead until this war is finally over. It may be years, or even decades, but for the sake of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on September 11th and since, we cannot—we will not—give up until we have rooted out all those who hate freedom.
In the words of Golda Meir, "When they love their children more than they hate us we will have peace."
But amidst the rubble and ruins of human beings and buildings, the human spirit rose to new heights. People who just hours before did not know each other were hugging and crying together in their grief. Fire and police officers, as well as other emergency workers, set aside their own personal safety to help others. Ordinary citizens helped in any way their could. Despite the enormity of the situation, and despite the way Hollywood has traditionally portrayed how people react to disasters, people didn't panic, at least for the most part.
September 11th also saw the first real counter-attack in the War on Terror. Those brave citizens aboard Flight 93 fought back. They knew the fate of the first three planes from using their cell phones, and were not about to let their plane hit the Capitol, or the Whitehouse, or whatever their target. So they fought back they way Americans have always done; they volunteered to take on the terrorists. They were the first American militia of the 21st century.
The American flag has flown continuously over the LTS Building since September 11th, and will continue to fly overhead until this war is finally over. It may be years, or even decades, but for the sake of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on September 11th and since, we cannot—we will not—give up until we have rooted out all those who hate freedom.
In the words of Golda Meir, "When they love their children more than they hate us we will have peace."
Friday, September 10, 2004
Left-Wing Bias of the Associated Press
Almost all of the recent polls have shown George Bush pulling ahead of John Kerry, some by as much as 11%. I would expect to see the polls shift back and forth several times in the remaining weeks of the campaign, but the leftward bias of the Associated Press (AP) is showing ever clearer each day.
Their September 10th article describing the results of their own AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll begins by showing that GWB has gained on almost all issues, including the War in Iraq and job creation:
"Seven weeks before Election Day, the Republican is considered significantly more decisive, strong and likable than Kerry, and he has strengthened his position on virtually every issue important to voters, from the war in Iraq and creating jobs - two sources of criticism - to matters of national security and values.
Since the Democratic National Convention ended in late July, the president has erased any gains Kerry had achieved while reshaping the political landscape in his favor: Nearly two-thirds of voters think protecting the country is more important than creating jobs, and Bush is favored over Kerry by a whopping 23 percentage points on who would keep the United States safe."
So far, so good. But then they describe the demographics of support for Kerry and Bush:
"The AP-Ipsos-Public Affairs poll showed minorities, urban residents and other Democratic voters unified behind Kerry, as would be expected in the fall. But he lost ground in virtually every other demographic group: lower educated voters, suburbanites, rural voters, the middle class, married couples and baby boomers."
The clear implication from that paragraph is that only red-neck idiots would vote for Bush.
You can read the entire article here, but we believe this is just the latest example of bias in the media.
Their September 10th article describing the results of their own AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll begins by showing that GWB has gained on almost all issues, including the War in Iraq and job creation:
"Seven weeks before Election Day, the Republican is considered significantly more decisive, strong and likable than Kerry, and he has strengthened his position on virtually every issue important to voters, from the war in Iraq and creating jobs - two sources of criticism - to matters of national security and values.
Since the Democratic National Convention ended in late July, the president has erased any gains Kerry had achieved while reshaping the political landscape in his favor: Nearly two-thirds of voters think protecting the country is more important than creating jobs, and Bush is favored over Kerry by a whopping 23 percentage points on who would keep the United States safe."
So far, so good. But then they describe the demographics of support for Kerry and Bush:
"The AP-Ipsos-Public Affairs poll showed minorities, urban residents and other Democratic voters unified behind Kerry, as would be expected in the fall. But he lost ground in virtually every other demographic group: lower educated voters, suburbanites, rural voters, the middle class, married couples and baby boomers."
The clear implication from that paragraph is that only red-neck idiots would vote for Bush.
You can read the entire article here, but we believe this is just the latest example of bias in the media.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Another Perspective on Barry Goldwater
George Will's column from last Thursday discusses Barry Goldwater's brand of conservatism, "Goldwaterism", which Mr. Will sees as on the rise in the Republican party. Here is an excerpt:
"The re-emergence into Republican respectability of conservatism with a socially libertarian cast — Goldwaterism — is a development with a large potential to discomfort the Democratic Party. The re-emergence can make the Republican Party more appealing to many young and suburban voters, two cohorts in which Democrats have recently made substantial gains."
You can read for yourself his entire column.
"The re-emergence into Republican respectability of conservatism with a socially libertarian cast — Goldwaterism — is a development with a large potential to discomfort the Democratic Party. The re-emergence can make the Republican Party more appealing to many young and suburban voters, two cohorts in which Democrats have recently made substantial gains."
You can read for yourself his entire column.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
"If they say it's not about the money, it's about the money"
Curious about an activist group? Want to find out where they get their funding? How about who they fund? You can find out all about them on a facinating website called ActivistCash.com.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Barry Goldwater's Acceptance Speech at the 1964 Republican Convention
We at the LTS are too young to remember much about Barry Goldwater and his run for the presidency versus LBJ in 1964, but have long felt that he was a far right-wing conservative, mainly because that was how the so-called mainstream media portrayed him. But after reading the excerpt below from his acceptance speech, he seems to me to be rather mainstream. Read for yourself and form your own opinion: (Link to full text below)
"In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for deliberation of the energy and talent of the individual - otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.
We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.
I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.
This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, as individual citizens, can and should do. During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations - a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.
We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.
We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.
We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creativity within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels, preferably through the one closest to the people involved."
Here is the whole speech. (brought to our attention by a colleague on the Left)
"In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for deliberation of the energy and talent of the individual - otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.
We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.
I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.
This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, as individual citizens, can and should do. During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations - a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.
We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.
We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.
We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creativity within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels, preferably through the one closest to the people involved."
Here is the whole speech. (brought to our attention by a colleague on the Left)
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
The Republican Party & Race Issues
As layed out in my previous post, many people wrongly believe that the Republican party has not been a friend of minorities. Once again, the facts do not support that argument. The Republican party, in fact, was founded on a strong anti-slavery position in early 1854 in Michigan.
The Grolier Mulitmedia Encyclopedia has a very good write up on the history of the Republican party from its founding in 1854 to GHWB's presidency. Here is an excerpt on the party's origins:
"Scholars agree that the origins of the party grew out of the sectional conflicts regarding the expansion of slavery into the new western territories. The stimulus for political realignment was provided by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law repealed earlier compromises that had excluded slavery from the territories. The passage of this act served as the unifying agent for abolitionists and split the Democrats and the Whig party. "Anti-Nebraska" protest meetings spread rapidly through the country. Two such meetings were held in Ripon, Wis., on Feb. 28 and Mar. 20, 1854, and were attended by a group of abolitionist Free Soilers, Democrats, and Whigs. They decided to call themselves Republicans because they professed to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party. The name was formally adopted by a state convention held in Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854.
The new party was a success from the beginning. In the 1854 congressional elections 44 Republicans were elected as a part of the anti-Nebraskan majority in the House of Representatives, and several Republicans were elected to the Senate and to various state houses. In June 1856, at the first Republican national convention, Sen. John C. Frémont was nominated for the presidency but was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan. During the campaign the northern wing of the Know-Nothing party split off and endorsed the Republican ticket, making the Republicans the principal antislavery party.
Two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which increased sectional dissension and was denounced by the Republicans."
You can read the entire article here.
The Grolier Mulitmedia Encyclopedia has a very good write up on the history of the Republican party from its founding in 1854 to GHWB's presidency. Here is an excerpt on the party's origins:
"Scholars agree that the origins of the party grew out of the sectional conflicts regarding the expansion of slavery into the new western territories. The stimulus for political realignment was provided by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law repealed earlier compromises that had excluded slavery from the territories. The passage of this act served as the unifying agent for abolitionists and split the Democrats and the Whig party. "Anti-Nebraska" protest meetings spread rapidly through the country. Two such meetings were held in Ripon, Wis., on Feb. 28 and Mar. 20, 1854, and were attended by a group of abolitionist Free Soilers, Democrats, and Whigs. They decided to call themselves Republicans because they professed to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party. The name was formally adopted by a state convention held in Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854.
The new party was a success from the beginning. In the 1854 congressional elections 44 Republicans were elected as a part of the anti-Nebraskan majority in the House of Representatives, and several Republicans were elected to the Senate and to various state houses. In June 1856, at the first Republican national convention, Sen. John C. Frémont was nominated for the presidency but was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan. During the campaign the northern wing of the Know-Nothing party split off and endorsed the Republican ticket, making the Republicans the principal antislavery party.
Two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which increased sectional dissension and was denounced by the Republicans."
You can read the entire article here.
Republicans and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
It has been brought to our attention that many otherwise intelligent people—based on decades of propaganda from the left—think that it was Democrats who fought for and brought into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the facts, pesky as they may be, simply do not support that argument.
Here is how the final votes were cast:
House of Representatives:
Here is how the final votes were cast:
House of Representatives:
- Democrats: Y=152; N=96 (63% against passage)
- Republicans: Y=138; N=42 (25% against)
Senate:
- Democrats: Y=37; N=27 (73% against)
- Republicans: Y=27; N=6 (22% against)
To be sure, most of the opposition in the Democratic ranks came from southerners, but the voting record clearly debunks claims by the Left that Republicans have a "race problem".
If either party needs to address its historical position on race, these facts suggest it should be the Democrats.
Details on how the 1964 CRA legislation made its way through the halls of Congress can be found here.
Friday, August 27, 2004
"Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand"
Hillsdale College's April 2004 Imprimis has a fabulous article by Maurice McTigue, a former New Zealand MP and government official on how New Zealand was able reform government and make it more efficient, smaller, and build a much better national economy through the application of free-market capitalism.
It's a great read, and you can find it here.
(Brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (see Links))
It's a great read, and you can find it here.
(Brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (see Links))
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Max Cleland is a Bush Political Appointee
Sounds crazy, I know. Yes, the same man who went to GWB's Crawford, Texas ranch to very publicly demand that GWB order the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to stop running their advertisments critical of John Kerry.
Rich Lowry of the National Review Online lays out all the details.
Rich Lowry of the National Review Online lays out all the details.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Anti-Kerry Ads and the Mainstream Media
Isn't it pathetic how the mainstream media takes a GWB comment and trumpets it totally out of context? Especially in their headlines. Today GWB expressed disappointment with ALL negative ads by the so-called 527 groups, including anti-Kerry AND anti Bush. But all the headlines said was, "Bush condemns anti-Kerry Ads".
It's interesting to note that Kerry has not yet condemned such ads, despite the fact that the anti-Bush 527 groups have outspend the SwiftBoat vets ads $60 million to $800,000.
It's interesting to note that Kerry has not yet condemned such ads, despite the fact that the anti-Bush 527 groups have outspend the SwiftBoat vets ads $60 million to $800,000.
Move-on.org Coordinating with the Kerry Campaign?
This weekend saw the Kerry campaign, obviously panicked by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth advertisements, claiming that this veteran’s group was illegally coordinating with the Bush campaign. They went so far today as to file a complaint with the FEC over the matter, despite having produced ‘zero’ evidence of such collaboration. They have also called for the president to denounce the Swiftboat ads, despite the fact that the Swiftboat group has spent only $800,000 compared to the nearly $20 million spend by George Soros funded Move-on.org. I guess the Swiftboat ads have hit a raw nerve in the Kerry camp.
In addition, the Kerry campaign tried to say, “Gotcha” over reports this weekend that the White House had dismissed an advisor on veterans affairs when they learned he was associated with the Swiftboat group. However, there is more to this story:
One of the Kerry advisors has been, and apparently still is involved with Move-on.org. Read more about it here: American Spectator
In addition, the Kerry campaign tried to say, “Gotcha” over reports this weekend that the White House had dismissed an advisor on veterans affairs when they learned he was associated with the Swiftboat group. However, there is more to this story:
One of the Kerry advisors has been, and apparently still is involved with Move-on.org. Read more about it here: American Spectator
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Classic Liberalism & Conservatives
Classical Liberalism of the 18th century was a political philosophy that espoused individual liberty and economic freedom through the idea of limited government, private property rights, and free market capitalism. Those ideals cannot be ascribed to today’s liberals, but applied well to conservatives. The founders of our Constitution would have been Classic Liberals, a label shared in name only with modern Liberals. In fact, modern-day liberalism represents the complete opposite of these ideals.
Liberalism as known today is merely watered-down Socialism, wherein the ‘rights’ of society are promoted over the rights of the individual. Socialism (including its 1st cousins Communism and Fascism) places above all else the State. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is socialism’s creed, but this ‘workers paradise’ is paid for by abrogation of individual freedom and rights. This is clearly in direct opposition to the founding principles established in the Constitution.
Indeed, when examined as a whole, the Constitution repeatedly and forcefully establishes the supremacy of the individual over the government. The founders did not fear too little government, they feared too much government. They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about limiting the role of government, and promoting the liberty and rights of individuals over the state. The Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the government from the people; it protects the people from the government. The founders believed that individuals should be free to succeed or fail without interference from the government. They established liberty as the very foundation of our Republic. For socialism to be “successful”, on the other hand, it must restrict and ultimately eliminate individual liberty, since only through conformity and uniformity can socialism succeed.
Modern liberals believe that all of society’s problems stem from inequalities in relative socio-economic power. They perceive the “rich” to have an unfair advantage over the poor and middle classes, and this perceived class inequality is what motivates liberals to pursue their socialist goals. Every policy and position liberals assume is based on their need to address their perceptions of socio-economic inequality. Until there are no more rich and no more poor, the liberals and socialists of the world will not be happy. They believe that the reason some are poor is because some are rich, and that the way to raise-up the poor is by bringing down the rich. They forget the words of one of their favorite presidents, (JFK) who, when justifying a very large tax cut said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Conservatives, however, (like their Classic Liberal forefathers) seek to address socio-economic inequalities by bringing those on the lower rungs up through individual liberty and economic freedom and opportunity.
Penalizing the successful for simply being successful enslaves the poor and middle class to the State in that it is teaches that success is inherently evil. Not everyone will be successful, but instead of celebrating that success and finding ways to emulate it, liberals choose to despise it.
We are therefore presented with two philosophies on how our society should be governed: On the left we have the view that the rights of the State shall supercede those of the individual. On the right is the concept of individual liberty and the rights of the individual over those of the state. The left not only believes that you are not capable of succeeding on your own, they believe that if you do succeed without the help and “guidance” of the State then your success came at the cost of another’s failure, and for that you should be penalized.
Liberalism as known today is merely watered-down Socialism, wherein the ‘rights’ of society are promoted over the rights of the individual. Socialism (including its 1st cousins Communism and Fascism) places above all else the State. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is socialism’s creed, but this ‘workers paradise’ is paid for by abrogation of individual freedom and rights. This is clearly in direct opposition to the founding principles established in the Constitution.
Indeed, when examined as a whole, the Constitution repeatedly and forcefully establishes the supremacy of the individual over the government. The founders did not fear too little government, they feared too much government. They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about limiting the role of government, and promoting the liberty and rights of individuals over the state. The Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the government from the people; it protects the people from the government. The founders believed that individuals should be free to succeed or fail without interference from the government. They established liberty as the very foundation of our Republic. For socialism to be “successful”, on the other hand, it must restrict and ultimately eliminate individual liberty, since only through conformity and uniformity can socialism succeed.
Modern liberals believe that all of society’s problems stem from inequalities in relative socio-economic power. They perceive the “rich” to have an unfair advantage over the poor and middle classes, and this perceived class inequality is what motivates liberals to pursue their socialist goals. Every policy and position liberals assume is based on their need to address their perceptions of socio-economic inequality. Until there are no more rich and no more poor, the liberals and socialists of the world will not be happy. They believe that the reason some are poor is because some are rich, and that the way to raise-up the poor is by bringing down the rich. They forget the words of one of their favorite presidents, (JFK) who, when justifying a very large tax cut said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Conservatives, however, (like their Classic Liberal forefathers) seek to address socio-economic inequalities by bringing those on the lower rungs up through individual liberty and economic freedom and opportunity.
Penalizing the successful for simply being successful enslaves the poor and middle class to the State in that it is teaches that success is inherently evil. Not everyone will be successful, but instead of celebrating that success and finding ways to emulate it, liberals choose to despise it.
We are therefore presented with two philosophies on how our society should be governed: On the left we have the view that the rights of the State shall supercede those of the individual. On the right is the concept of individual liberty and the rights of the individual over those of the state. The left not only believes that you are not capable of succeeding on your own, they believe that if you do succeed without the help and “guidance” of the State then your success came at the cost of another’s failure, and for that you should be penalized.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Truth about the Bush Tax Cuts
There has been lots of discussion recently regarding how the Bush administration cut taxes “only for the wealthy”. A quick look at the facts shows how utterly fallacious these claims about “unfairness” really are:
According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $40,000 saw a reduction in taxes under George Bush's plan of 96%, from $1,178 to $45, or $1,133 back in their pockets. Similarly, a family of four with and AGI of $50,000 realized a tax reduction of 42%, from $2,678 to $1,545, or $1,133.
Conversely, families of four with an AGI of $150,000 saw only a 10% reduction in taxes, from $22,878 to $20,632, or $2,247. For the record, the “richest” 5% of Americans had an AGI of over $127,000, and the “richest 1%” had AGI’s over $292,000.
So that family earning $150,000 did get a tax reduction in dollars almost double that of the family earning $40,000, but still paid over $19,000 MORE in taxes after the cut, or twelve times MORE than that $40,000 family!
One last thing, the Bush tax cuts effectively eliminated the income tax burden on a family of four earning less than $35,000.
You see for yourself here.
According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $40,000 saw a reduction in taxes under George Bush's plan of 96%, from $1,178 to $45, or $1,133 back in their pockets. Similarly, a family of four with and AGI of $50,000 realized a tax reduction of 42%, from $2,678 to $1,545, or $1,133.
Conversely, families of four with an AGI of $150,000 saw only a 10% reduction in taxes, from $22,878 to $20,632, or $2,247. For the record, the “richest” 5% of Americans had an AGI of over $127,000, and the “richest 1%” had AGI’s over $292,000.
So that family earning $150,000 did get a tax reduction in dollars almost double that of the family earning $40,000, but still paid over $19,000 MORE in taxes after the cut, or twelve times MORE than that $40,000 family!
One last thing, the Bush tax cuts effectively eliminated the income tax burden on a family of four earning less than $35,000.
You see for yourself here.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
