Posted 6:01 PM by Steve
WHY ARE DEMOCRATS RACISTS?

Since the overhaul of the welfare system — which Republicans pushed over the opposition of many Democrats and two vetoes by President Bill Clinton — 1.2 million black children have been lifted out of poverty.
As a result of the 1996 reform, black child poverty is at its lowest level in American history. Between 1971 and 1995, black child poverty persisted at about 40 percent. Why did Democrats oppose something that actually helped African-Americans help themselves?

During the tumultuous 1964 legislative battle for a landmark Civil Rights Act, the Republicans gave President Lyndon Johnson his majority when a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the House and Senate voted for the Act; the staunchest of opponents included Democratic stalwarts like Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., and Sam Ervin. And this southern Democratic opposition was hardly the principled libertarian opposition such Republicans as Barry Goldwater staked out; theirs was based on something far less noble. Why did so many Democrats vote against Civil Rights for African-Americans?

The state of public schools. Democrats persist in telling us that we must keep poor children trapped in the worst public-schools rather than allow them educational freedom. In our nation's capital, black students comprise 85 percent of the public-school population, is especially abysmal. In spite of per-pupil spending at close to $11,000, the dropout rate is about 40 percent, and, according to one recent study, it costs the District of Columbia school system $181,851 to produce a high school graduate — more than any of the 50 states. In 2001, private-school students in D.C. averaged 1200 on their SATs while their public school counterparts averaged a score of 798, more than 200 points below the national average.

Why do Democrats want to keep African Americans uneducated and poor? The detestable, abhorrent truth is because they get between 90 and 100 percent of the African American vote. In the the Democratic Party you're either an utter racist or a willing dupe.

Posted 2:56 PM by Steve
Washington State Senator Patty Murray made these comments to high schoolers during a speech in Washington State. "We’ve got to ask, why is this man (bin Laden) so
popular around the world?"

Actually, we don't. It's not the job of the federal government to psychoanalyze the cultures that support a violent, divisive demagogue. We didn't pause for a second and consider "Gee, I wonder why the Germans support a guy like Hitler?" during WWII. The idea is absurd, or more accurately, simple. The reason a group of people supports a demagogue is quite simple. A demagogue uses social discontent to gain political power.

It is of no relevance or important how a millionaire terrorist buys friends in foreign lands. The job of the United States government is not to get into bidding wars with radical Islamic terrorists in order to appease poor disgruntled third world nations. It is
most disingenuous and disgusting to use the deaths of so many in New York and Washington D.C. to try and boost aid to foreign countries particularly while the economy isn't doing so well. America is the most generous country on Earth and the most generous country in history. Lest you forget Islamic terrorism is not some form of "protest" of the wealth of the United States. It is violent, sexist and racist murder of civilians. It is the specific TARGETING of non-combatants for the purpose of creating terror.

In Senator Murray's statements, she regurgitates the typical condemnation of Bin Laden but then calls for appeasment with this: "should we also consider the longer-term issue of what else can be done to improve relations with all nations including the Arab world?"

That is a quite different issue. It's idiotic because it assumes that Bin Laden and his supporters speak or represent all the people
in the Arab world. Bin Laden represents a small, wealthy cadre of radical Islamic fundamentalists who justify their acts of terror with radical, fundamentalist Islam, no matter how horribly unethical or immoral their acts are.

You said "How else can we bring America's values to those who do not understand us? And while there are some whose hearts and minds may never be won, should we try to reach those we can?"

Not neccesarily. Earning the respect of the general population is one thing, many middle-class Iranian citizens have embraced the west. The problem is that the people whose hearts and minds cannot be won RUN THE SHOW. In the case of Iraq you have a totalitarian leader who is cruel and ruthless in the pursuit of power as clearly shown by his use of chemical weapons on his enemies and his own people, his assaults on his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and assassinations of competitors in his coup of 1979

Senator Murray responded with :"The White House believes that we can do more, and has
devoted an entire department to improving America's
image in the Arab world. Having a challenging and thoughtful discussion about
America's future reflects the best values of a free
democracy; to sensationalize and distort in an attempt
to divide does not."



The only one who is dividing or distorting is YOU, Senator Murray.I, for one, call for you to resign. Step down and let someone who isn't part of the "Blame America First" crowd take your place in this time of trial for America.
What is particularly vile is the way you have tried to influence young impressionable minds in an attempt to foist your agenda on others.

Then Senator Murray said this: "While there are some on the extreme fringes of
society who try to exploit fear and uncertainty for
political gain, there are many more who understand
that the best value of our democracy is the freedom to
think and to secure a better future."



I would say it's the extreme fringe of our society that is the "Blame America first" crowd. But they are quite vocal. Robert Altman, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Richard Gere, Johnny Depp, Sean Pean, Alec Baldwin, Phil Donahue, Bill Maher and Barbra Streisand are all disgustingly liberal swine who trying and exploit the young people and use their celebrity as a soapbox. Appeasing terror for political gain is at least as awful as exploiting fear and uncertainty.


Senator Murray made these comments: "He’s been out in these countries for decades,
building schools, building roads, building
infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building
health-care facilities, and the people are extremely
grateful. We haven’t done that,"



First of all why would Afghanistan need "daycare centers"? Women would be watching their own children since under the Taliban they weren't allowed to work. The roads Bin Laden built were to transport young men to his terror camps where they were to be indoctrinated and taught techniques of terrorism. The healthcare facilities weren't open to the public but for mujahadeen fighters injured in their battles against the Soviets. The "people" aren't the problem. Was Bin Laden truly a friend of the people of Afghanistan or did he simply use them as pawns, a means to an end? By launching an attack and then hiding within their borders the might of the U.S. military was turned against Al-Queda and the Taliban (the ruthless religious ruling class of Afghanistan) and by all acounts BOTH were destroyed. Bin Laden is as dead as disco in case you haven't figured that out. He would have been on Al-Jazeera 24/7 if was alive.

Let's also understand that Senator Murray wants us to be in the aid business with the Taliban who routinely threw homosexuals off the roof of buildings and stoned women to death for having premarital sex. Are we really that interested in what THESE people think of us? Is it worth one dime in aid to try and buy the favor of people who would harbor terrorists like Bin laden? Most likely it would be money flushed down the toilet not unlike the aid we have given to North Korea of late.

Senator Murray couldn't be stopped: "How would they look at us today if we had been there
helping them with some of that rather than just being
the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to
Afghanistan?"

Which they? If she means Bin Laden and Al-Queda read his treatise on terror (available on the net). Bin Laden considers America an immoral wasteland which allows (gasp!) homosexuality and bikinis. He looks at America through the eyes of religious fanatic. How did Mohammed look at the Crusaders? We are infidels and transgressors by our support of Israel. We are to be wiped from the planet. Anti-Semites like Bin Laden believe that until Israel is destroyed paradise cannot be attained.

Your blind attempts to appease terrorists like Bin Laden would do nothing but waste tax dollars to improve our "image" to those that hate us based NOT on "infrastructure", "schools" or "roads" but on Islamic fundamentalist ideals. Please resign so that someone who actually supports America can represent the state named after our first President (who fought many battles against the enemies for America.)

Posted 1:33 AM by Steve
This is my first weblog and I felt it appropriate to list a few books that I have found invaluable to my education:

1. "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A Hayek
2. "The Greek Way" by Edith Hamilton
3. "Moby Dick" Herman Melville
4. "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
5. "The Inferno" by Dante
6. "Man's Search for Meaning" Victor Frankl
7. "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by T.E. Lawrence
8. "The Source" by James Michener
9. "Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien
10. "The Odyssey" by Homer
11. "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco

I also enjoy the contemporary fiction of Micheal Crichton and the fiction and non-fiction of Tom Clancy.

Posted 6:47 PM by Steve
WAR WITH IRAQ: a reasoned response to the liberal appeasers

With the connections between Saddam Hussein and radical Islamic terrorism being well known and publicized, it is an absolute LIE for liberals to say that the United States faces no threat on it's shores from Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Have they forgotten so quickly the flaming bodies dropping from 80+ stories? Have they forgotten the falling rubble and choking dust from the terrorist attacks of September 11th?

It's an absolute INSULT to the victims and the families of the victims, as well as every American, to say that Saddam Hussein poses no threat! A child can connect the dots and see how Iraq has harbored, supplied and financed fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups. The threat isn't invasion from Iraq. No one ever said it was! Liberals act as if the United States hasn't gone to great lengths to PEACEFULLY remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq's arsenal. They act as if this is a rash decision. Saddam Hussein has been thumbing it's nose at the United Nations for a decade. Liberals apparently have low standards in deciding who they ally themselves with when it comes to bashing and denouncing America. Would the "Anti-War" crowd would prefer to wait to respond to terror until New York or Washington is a radioactive wasteland at the hands of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist supplied with a nuclear weapon by Iraq.

For anyone on the fence of this issue I have a suggestion read the British dossier on Iraq. It's widely available on the Web. You can read of the beatings, rape and torture of Iraqi citizens. Look at the history: Hussein has attacked his nieghbors, Iran and Kuwait. Look at the way he gained power. He called a meeting of major political leaders including his colleagues and then, during a nationally televised broadcast accused any who threatened his power a "traitor" and had them executed. How proud Josef Stalin would have been! Inaction and appeasment are inexcusable while Kurds are dying from exposure to Saddam's chemical weapons. Even from a liberal "human-rights" persepective this is a just war. And yet, rather than deal with the facts they posture and chant "give peace a chance". I wonder if Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's had a cheering section like modern-day liberals in the United States in the 1940's? I tend to doubt it because in those days Americans were too busy working. The idle, elitist academics were too few in number to have a noticable effect.

But wait! That's not all. The all-time stupidest argument for NOT attacking Iraq is the fact that we are NOT attacking North Korea. Ironically, this is usually the argument from those who oppose all war in general. Liberals act as if you can't apply different standards to different situations. In North Korea the situation, the culture and the history are quite different from Iraq. Meanwhile, the liberals are running around shouting "Double standard! Double standard!" at the top of their lungs.

Jonah Goldberg of Townhall.com and National Review Online had this to
say about double standards:

"...when did we decide that double standards are
always wrong? Obviously, double standards are
sometimes wrong. So, if by "double standard" you mean
unfairly expecting one level of behavior from one
person or institution and another level from another,
I agree that double standards are wrong. But the key
word here isn't "double" or "standard," it's "unfair."

Convicted criminals are held to a different standard
from ordinary citizens. We tell people on parole or
probation who they can hang out with, where they can
live and what they can do for a living every day.
Children of different ages are held to different
standards all the time. Johnny can go to the
demolition derby because he's 17, but little Timmy has
to stay home because he's only 10. Some employers
entrust longtime employees with great responsibilities
and watch new workers like a hawk. We take dogs to the
park, but we leave cats at home. None of these things
are unfair, but they are all examples of double
standards. And that's just fine.

Of course, all this may seem unfair to the convicted criminals,
little Timmy, new employees and, of course,
the cats. But that's their problem. The same goes for
North Korea and Iraq."

Saying "Iraq isn't a threat" dishonors the people who have died at the hands of Saddam and the terrorists he supports and those who will risk their lives protecting America. While I admire their opposition to warfare (in this they show compassion and wisdom) it is disastrous to shake hands with the devil at the cost of future security and liberty. Looking back at the disasterous deal brokered by former Presidents Carter and Clinton, appeasement of evil dictators does not create peace, it merely delays and heightens the danger of war.

Posted 6:10 PM by Steve
As the attacks on SUV's grow more and more virulent I find myself more drawn to acquiring one. The problem is I don't really like SUV's they aren't very fun to drive and tend to gulp fuel at a rate I don't like. Of course I could get a Ferrari 550 Maranello and get 8 MPG but it just wouldn't annoy the environmentalists enough. I'm a sports car man, having owned a Mazda RX-7, and I currently drive a BMW 6 series coupe. The rabid environmentalist crowd, failing to dent the ever increasing sales of SUV's turned to (of all things) Judeo-Christian ethics as a reason NOT to drive an SUV with the "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign. My response to that nonsense is as follows:

Jesus: Boxers or Briefs?



After stumbling upon the Evangelical Environmental Network website whatwouldJesusdrive.org I was intrigued by the normally secular environmental movement trying a foray into the Christian religion. I decided to look into the issue and do some research. In order for “What would Jesus Drive?” to be a valid question it would have to pass various tests.

The first test of validity would be the scientific test. The basic gist is that driving an SUV is more harmful to the environment than driving a smaller car or taking public transportation and thus immoral and opposed to the values Jesus would have held to.

If the argument passes this first hurdle, the second test of validity is scriptural. Are there scriptural references that specifically address the issue or passages that could be interpreted to address the issue?

Before we get ahead of ourselves let’s address the science. It has not yet been proven that the Earth is experiencing Global warming. While scientists point to increased temperature readings which corroborate their theory, other scientists say the readings are inaccurate and misleading due to a phenomenon called “urban heat pockets”, sensors close to dense urban areas that may read higher temperatures artificially. Some scientists agree that warming is occurring but argue that it is part of larger climatic cycle and that the cool and warm periods of our past and future are linked to variations in solar output. Other scientists question the validity of the “Greenhouse Effect” in it’s entirety citing the ridiculous doomsday scenarios propagated by those who claimed the oil fires from the Gulf War would plunge mankind into darkness for decades.

Even more pressing than the theories are the numbers. Does man’s output have an effect on the climate? If not the “What would Jesus Drive?” crowd is without a leg to stand on. It is true that SUV and vehicles with larger engines and lower fuel efficiency produce more Carbon dioxide than other vehicles. But the tale of the tape is whether this higher output is of a great effect on the environment.

Nature produces about 29 times the output of man each year (decay). And when it comes to global warming, carbon dioxide, as gasses go, is one of the good guys. Methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone are far worse (between 20 and 2000 times the warming influence of carbon dioxide). Water vapor is responsible for between 60 and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. So, looking at the numbers, man’s contribution to the Global Warming is less than 2% of the problem if, in fact, there is a problem.

Let’s assume that you believe there is a problem anyway. Did Jesus chime in on man’s responsibility to nature in the Bible? Jesus himself cursed a fig tree so that it withered and dried up. Jesus took advantage of nature’s bountiful goodness when he blessed his disciples with full nets teeming with fish. Jesus’ two great commandments were “Thou shall love the Lord God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” And “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He does not mention the environment in these commandments. We read that Jesus traveled on foot, on boats and on donkeys in the scriptures. In other words, he made use of all the means of transport of the day that were available to him. One can only assume from his actions that he would do the same in this day and age.

It would be disingenuous to make claims of morality based on something Jesus never addressed, thus the flippant tone of the title of my essay. Jesus didn’t wear boxers or briefs so to try and fabricate some moral value to the hypothetical question using Christian philosophy is ridiculous. What would Jesus Drive? is using the life and death of Christ to serve quasi-scientific, political ends.
So as long as were fantasizing, I think Jesus would have driven a Lotus Seven or maybe a Porsche 550 Spyder. My guess is as good as yours.


The lastest attacks on SUV's is the campaign that attempts to link SUV's and terrorism. "Aha!", the environmentalists say, "Terrorism isn't popular, let's use THAT as our way to attack SUV's!" Their logic falls short of reality. This is another blatant "Blame America First" tactic of socialists, who finding no other way to attack freedom and capitalism, have turned to a cultish environmentalism. Like an incubator, the hallowed halls of academia and the shallow, trendy urban set serve to protect an old, tired idea like Socialism and without the benefit of historical perspective keep it alive and well until it can rear it's ugly totalitarian head. Consumers around the world and in the United States acquire oil from many sources. The Middle-East is no longer the major provider of oil to the U.S. Besides, even IF the United States suddenly decided to not purchase one drop of oil from the Middle-East, would that change our dedication to the preservation of peace, stability and containment in the region? Israel has ever been our ally and will remain so. The economics of the situation have little to do with the zealous Anti-Americanism professed by the fundamentalist Islamic terror groups. The racist and sexist beliefs of these fundamentalist Islamic terror groups is the main obstacle to peace and the main source of terror. In no way, shape or form is blaming America for terror acceptable or right.

Posted 1:20 PM by Steve
"Nonsense draws evil after it." --C.S. Lewis

Perhaps had the colossal imbecile Simon Norfolk lived in the 1940's he would have also taken pictures of the destroyed buildings in Berlin and Tokyo to "express his feelings" about the war against Nazi Germany and it's axis allies.

His comments that Afghanistan was a "country in the
Stone Age" perfectly reflect his ignorance. The Stone Age was a pastoral dream compared to Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Afghanistan was a country where people lived under threat of death, torture and mutilation from the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban regime. This regime, whom apparently Norfolk thinks was just minding it's own business, was actively supporting, aiding and
fighting on behalf of Al-Queda. Yes, THAT Al-Queda: The same fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group that murdered, crippled and burned alive 3000 innocent civilians, non-combatants of every race, religion and ethnicity, in New York on September 11th 2001.



"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." --Winston Churchill

Posted 12:07 PM by Steve
The first post on this weblog will address the tyranny of the intellect. In many fields, Science has become the pawn of politics. Environmentalism is one major field where this problem has become rampant. As you read this, bi-partisan legislation is being written to "curb global warming" by Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman. Sounds good right? Wrong. The problem with creating legislation on this controversial issue is threefold:

1. Legitimate science has not proven the Earth is actually warming. Climate scientists have failed to account for the effects of Urban Heat Islands which distort the temperature record.

2. Environmentalists all but ignore the real source of temperature change: variations in Solar Output.

3. Man’s contribution to greenhouse gas is less than 1-1.5% of the overall greenhouse gas made in natural processes.

Having researched this issue and found that it, like many issues of our day, has become less science-based and more political. In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence on global climate". What is most curious about the I.P.C.C. is that a majority of its members are not Climatologists, but Sociologists. These single-minded academics have infiltrated a panel, which should be comprised of serious experts on Climate.
That should be enough for anyone to question the motives of the panel. The manipulation of data is easily accomplished to support the anti-Capitalist, Pro-Socialist agenda of the environmental extremists. What the I.P.C.C. has never admitted or even addressed is the affect of solar output on climate temperature variations. Our planet has experienced extreme temperature variations from the beginning with or without the presence of human beings. Long after we have left this planet, the climate will experience change. The I.P.C.C. simply ignores the Medieval Warm Period because the increase in temperature does not conveniently coincide with the Industrial Revolution, which is the period in which they say the damage was done. It also happened to be the period of the greatest growth in wealth of our planet. Coincidence? Additionally, the climate experienced a significant drop in temperature between 1500 A.D. and 1900 A.D., sometimes called a mini-“Ice Age”. The steady increase from the low temperature at about 1625AD corresponds to the same time period the I.P.C.C. claims human behavior started affecting the climate. I submit that the upslope is simply a natural cycle and eventually the Global temperature will start to level off until the next cyclical climatic event. Also ignored by the I.P.C.C. is the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period during which the sun had virtually no sunspot activity at all. Looking at a timeline we can see that the Maunder Minimum occurred precisely at the time of our last “Ice Age”. The inference is clear, it was the variation in solar output that caused the little Ice Age and in all probability caused the Medieval Warm Period too. Carbon 14 isotopes are used as a proxy for solar activity prior to 1600 AD and this indicates a high level of solar activity during the medieval period, resulting in climatic warmth. and also a reduced level of solar activity during a cold period known as the “Sporer Minimum” centered around 1350 A.D.
This account of climatic history contains two serious difficulties for the present Global Warming theory:
1. If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?
2. If the variable solar output of our sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar output of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warming?
Both propositions pose a serious threat to continued public acceptance of the Global Warming theory as advanced by the I.P.C.C.. This is because the new findings in solar science suggested that the sun, not greenhouse gasses, were the primary driver of 20th century climate trends.
The power of the sun to modulate our climate has been reinforced by a large body of recent research that shows it is not only the cyclical warming and cooling of the sun (manifested by the 11 year sunspot cycle) causing our climate to change but also changes in the solar spectrum towards the greater ultra-violet radiation compared with visible or infra-red light.

The problem with the “Global Warming” crowd is that they are premising their conclusions on questionable data on two levels:

1. Are global temperatures actually increasing if one accounts for the effect of urban heat pockets?
2. If in fact the global temperature is increasing is it due to increased greenhouse gas or increased solar output?
3. If in fact it is greenhouse gas that is responsible for the increase in temperature, is reasonable to conclude that it is man’s meager 1 to 1.5 % contribution that is causing the increase?